2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by BrianBlackwell »

NonZeroSum wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:43 pm You made an appeal to a harmonious peacefulness that exists when two people acknowledge that they're operating on the level of ideology and shouldn't kill one another over it. It is not a twisting of your words to explain how that isn't satisfactory when one party is still engaged in killing. I would add it's killing for taste not food, as food is plentiful, and drawing an arbitrary distinction between species when both have the capacity to suffer, and both are unnecessary.
I took exception to the reply because the concept being expressed was about how people will kill each other over differing ideologies which they both believe to have objective justification; the comment about killing animals was a blatant, agenda-inspired misdirection. Outside of that context, however... sure, what's being says has an air of logical merit about it.
NonZeroSum wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:43 pm You could get yourself to start relating to pigs or chickens the same way you do to dogs just by spending enough time around them, there is bad faith involved when you block that out of your mind, and refuse to care about it on the level you would treat another dog or human of the same intelligence or sentience.
Oh definitely. These distinctions are rather arbitrary, but so what? In the absence of an objective standard, we may discriminate on any basis whatever, and we do -- in a million and one ways. Why are we making intelligence or sentience a more significant factor than anything else? Why are we not using color, height, habitat, pitch of voice, etc., as the discriminating factor? The argument is that thinking and/or feeling things do not prefer to be killed, and so we should not kill them. But why are we making this particular concern a factor over any other? Arbitrary preference. A tree lives, and by its actions of survival it is clear that it is endeavoring to live. Why are we drawing the line in so tight as to exclude them from the discussion? Because they don't think or feel? An arbitrary distinction.

NonZeroSum wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:43 pm So unfalsifiable... That's a problem. We should at the very least be able to determine whether the actions it affected in it's subscribers to take were good effective ones.

...universal ethics are simply universal standards people collectively agree to sign up to bring about good consequences. I hope you'll get your head out your solipsist ass (no offense!) and start participating. To the degree that it's not practical to act as if the world is always going to end tomorrow, and we're interacting with objective facts, we can come to an objective consensus about what is mathematically the best means of achieving good ends for everyone.
McKenna found his way into this discussion rather haphazardly, as he doesn't generally concern himself with this particular topic, and did not inspire the perspectives being offered. It just so happens that many things he said lend themselves to being used in this context. He really doesn't assert anything, and his suggestions are a call for exploration and an unbiased look at things generally ignored or dismissed. I doubt he would wholly agree with what I've been saying, as he's far more interested in making the world a better place than I am.

Whether materialist or spiritualist, I see no compelling reason to accept the idea that the fate of this world is important, or that shaping it is a worthy (or even appropriate) expenditure of time. I also see no justification to suggest an obligation of any one member to "participate" in anything. Our lives are our own, to do as we see fit. I never agreed to be part of the grand endeavor to shape the world, and the notion that everyone is going to agree on what the achievement of that grand goal should look like is at best premature, and at worst a denial of -- even an attack upon -- man's inherent individuality.

Man grants meaning, so if you want to grant significance to the death of a chicken -- or anyone, for that matter -- then go ahead. My only point is that, unfortunately, you have no objective grounds for suggesting anyone else should accept this perspective. Even a practical argument is invalidated by the fact that practicality is not objectively established to be a worthwhile or inherently desirable goal.

This is my philosophical position. Personally, though, I largely agree with you. I was lacto-ovo for about 3 years; it would hardly have been an inconvenience for me to go vegan. If you approach success in making the world vegan, I won't try to stop it; I could live that way very easily. I also find the slaughter of animals, or anyone, highly revolting. I find many things about this world revolting, but I'm satisfied with the solution of ignoring them as best I can, as this is a far more expedient means by which to relieve the core issue -- my personal experience of revulsion.

This personal revulsion, even if elevated to broad ethical grounds, is the core issue for you as well; you just choose to address it differently. All the talk about the experience of others is simply about your personal feelings about the experiences of others, as you do not experience the feelings of others directly, and their feelings do not directly inspire your actions and decisions -- your own thoughts and emotions do. You are trying to affect outside circumstances in order to feel better (the same misguided approach responsible for most human problems, from Islamic terrorism to nagging girlfriends), whereas I am simply dealing with the problem at its root. I do not feel compelled to be personally invested in world change on that scale, as I think this is quite obviously outside the natural scope of any individual, and I see the fate of this planet as rather meaningless and inconsequential. My values do not include seeing a particular outcome for this world, and there has been no argument demonstrating why I should feel compelled to alter that perspective.
Last edited by BrianBlackwell on Wed May 24, 2017 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by NonZeroSum »

Okay I give up, can't argue with someone who doesn't care about how their decisions affect the world.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by BrianBlackwell »

NonZeroSum wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 4:13 am
McKenna wrote:It's not that I want you to join me in believing in this. It's that this is so outlandish that join me as a scientist would join a research team and lets cut it to pieces, and lets show that it was a misunderstanding of misinformation theory, coupled with bad mathematics, spliced onto a weak ontology or something like that."
AMP3083 wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 2:48 am All his stories about psychedelic experiences are fun to listen to, but to me they're just stories, nothing more. They would be more fun to listen to if I could relate to them. I'd like to see if psychedelics can verify this funny notion that everything is/might be bullshit. If not, regardless, at least I'd have a story to tell and might even relate it with McKenna's stories and other people who had similar experiences.
These two assertions are problems, because they are a call to ignorance and you both just keep repeating it's unfalsifiable in different ways, which also means unprovable.
It is exactly the opposite of a call to ignorance! It is a call to recognizing the true scope of our knowledge. We know our own experience with absolute certitude, so to what does this "ignorance" refer? To objective reality only. Your comment is only meaningful if you assume objective reality, without the slightest bit of evidence to even suggest its existence. What relevance does the notion of unfalsifiability have here? We are stating that subjective experience is certain, and is the only knowledge we are sure have access to; that is all. You then arrive with this notion of "objective reality" crafted out of whole cloth, and we're obliged to address it. Any absurdities that arise out of that discussion can hardly be blamed on us! Hahahaha See how I pass the buck there? Hahahaha But seriously, how can this be denied?

The problem with Name That Trait is this idea of justification. Even if we choose the option of justification being necessary, there is still a debate to be had over how that justification is to be established. By what measure can we establish valid justification? Logic? What logical argument based on objectively provable premises establishes a justification for using sentience as a significant factor over any other?
BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by BrianBlackwell »

NonZeroSum wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 9:27 am Okay I give up, can't argue with someone who doesn't care about how their decisions affect the world.
I know, this is the problem. This is why the long way around doesn't work. You can't convince me, and I actually feel the revulsion. What chance do you have with people who don't give a damn at all? Seeking to change circumstances is always misguided. All problems are within us, and within us is the only place where we have the power to affect change with certainty.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by NonZeroSum »

BrianBlackwell wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 9:37 am
NonZeroSum wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 9:27 am Okay I give up, can't argue with someone who doesn't care about how their decisions affect the world.
I know, this is the problem. This is why the long way around doesn't work. You can't convince me, and I actually feel the revulsion. . .
No you do care, your just prefer to chose solipsism because it's easier to live in denial and pay for others do the dirty deed for you. Despite all your talk of change coming from within and highlighting grand political conspiracies, you prefer not to break with social conformity one iota, even when it is the most basic unnecessary suffering for your taste pallet.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by Jebus »

NonZeroSum wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 9:50 amNo you do care, your just prefer to chose solipsism because it's easier to live in denial and pay for others do the dirty deed for you. Despite all your talk of change coming from within and highlighting grand political conspiracies, you prefer not to break with social conformity one iota, even when it is the most basic unnecessary suffering for your taste pallet.
I started thinking exactly this many pages ago. This discussion would have been more productive had it avoided definitions of morality and instead focused on a few simple questions:

Do you eat meat because

1. you don't know that it causes suffering
2. you know that it causes suffering but you do it anyway because

a. you think your health requires it
b. you don't think you can be happy without that great taste
c. you never really gave it any thought
d. you don't care if others suffer
e. God intended you to eat meat
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by NonZeroSum »

I could go through everything you've written and find at least 50 appeals to a universal objective 'good' standard that you'd like the world to accept from everyone being able to come up with their own ethical maxim and it not have to come to violence where the social contract is respected. I could also bet you participate in a thousand and one actions that you hope will make the world a better place and the environment you live in, from voting for the lesser of two evils in an imperfect democracy, if you can do that and you agree with animal agriculture holding our society back you should also vote with your dollar over very simple alternatives.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
Jaywalker
Full Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:58 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by Jaywalker »

BrianBlackwell wrote:Oh definitely. These distinctions are rather arbitrary, but so what? In the absence of an objective standard, we may discriminate on any basis whatever, and we do -- in a million and one ways. Why are we making intelligence or sentience a more significant factor than anything else? Why are we not using color, height, habitat, pitch of voice, etc., as the discriminating factor? The argument is that thinking and/or feeling things do not prefer to be killed, and so we should not kill them. But why are we making this particular concern a factor over any other? Arbitrary preference. A tree lives, and by its actions of survival it is clear that it is endeavoring to live. Why are we drawing the line in so tight as to exclude them from the discussion? Because they don't think or feel? An arbitrary distinction.
Concepts are independent of consensus, it doesn't matter whether you think you can know anything about the physical world outside your own mind or not, you should be able to understand them and acknowledge their truth.

Do you think science loses its objectivity when someone disagrees with the scientific method and claims trusting your intuition is the best way for gaining knowledge? Does logic become subjective if someone claims contradictions are not that big of a deal? What about math, can we do subjective math, ignoring its rules? Why not?

Do you think conceptual truth doesn't exist?

If in the future, humans or advanced alien species largely dismiss morality and happen to develop a system that aims to maximize the number of watermelons and call it watermelonity, which one would have conceptual priority on deciding what actions are good (or bad)?
The answer is morality. They could name the systems something else, call watermelonity morality, and morality grgbl instead, but that wouldn't change the concepts themselves. If they did that, the answer would be grgbl.

That is because morality is married to the concepts good and bad, and as a system it prescribes proper behaviour in relation to them; and good and bad have real meaning only in relation to minds - sentience. This is what it has been about since people first discovered it. To claim morality can be any other arbitrary system is misusing language, or misunderstanding the concept, or misunderstanding how concepts and language work in general.

You don't just get to redefine good and bad according to your whim, and if you do, you're no longer engaging the actual concepts. You're in a different conversation altogether. What you should do is eliminate inconsistent, incoherent definitions, and examine what remains to construct a proper system, or abandon the concept if there is nothing to be found. Luckily, your work has been done for you. Despite many attempts to hijack definitions or muddle concepts throughout history, we have a proper system. You just have to understand it.

Several people in this thread tried explaining it to you, but instead of trying to understand them, you're going in circles appealing to things you previously denounced. Your whole framework is faulty. I'd suggest rereading the answers given to you.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by NonZeroSum »

The argument is that thinking and/or feeling things do not prefer to be killed, and so we should not kill them. But why are we making this particular concern a factor over any other? Arbitrary preference. A tree lives, and by its actions of survival it is clear that it is endeavoring to live. Why are we drawing the line in so tight as to exclude them from the discussion? Because they don't think or feel? An arbitrary distinction.
I would add to what Jaywalker said in that I do value the interests of all lives, in the definition of veganism is 'as far is practicable'. Meaning when you know it's flesh, don't put it in your mouth, in part because of the ecological catastrophe that went into such a luxury food, all the wasted land that went into growing grain to feed to animals that we could rewild and allow habitats like old-growth forests to come back that supports the most lives so we can support their interest to exist as long as possible. There are supposedly fruitarians who only eat windfall fruits that the tree cast off on it's own, but we have to look at what is practicable and healthy, I think they allow themselves to eat tubers too, but still likely lacking in certain minerals and vitamins.

Don't care about animals? 5 reasons you should still go vegan (UV video)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3181
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:43 pm
BrianBlackwell wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 8:17 pm

You kill over them every day when you put meat on your plate and justify that with your subjective beliefs.
This also applies to twisting my statement about "not killing another" over my subjective beliefs. This implies murder, not killing for food, and it implies people, not animals. Within the context of the statement, you know this, and you're just breaking balls by pivoting to a cheap shot.
You made an appeal to a harmonious peacefulness that exists when two people acknowledge that they're operating on the level of ideology and shouldn't kill one another over it. It is not a twisting of your words to explain how that isn't satisfactory when one party is still engaged in killing. I would add it's killing for taste not food, as food is plentiful, and drawing an arbitrary distinction between species when both have the capacity to suffer, and both are unnecessary.
This.
Brian, I addressed this because you seemed to be trying to make an argument from consequences, and you still seem to be attempting to appeal to an objective metric to judge metaethical ideas. You're violating all of your own claims.
If you are attempting to appeal to an objective metric, you're suggesting that it applies to all of us. That makes you subject to #NameThatTrait.

So you're saying killing when you're going to eat somebody is fine? How about killing and eating humans for fun, as long as you eat them?
Or what's the difference between human animals and non-human animals that justifies killing one for pleasure (taste) and not the other?

Nobody in the developed world is killing animals by necessity anymore. You are killing them for enjoyment. There are people who DO kill for necessity, and they can not be judged for it. This is not you.
The animals you are killing are sentient beings that experience suffering, joy, love, fear; all of the subjective feelings you claim to prioritize. They just aren't as intelligent as you are.

Are you fine with killing humans with mental retardation for taste pleasure? Are you fine with breeding them, confining them, and killing them for pleasure?

Even if you would prefer not to do it based on your arbitrary emotional whims, are you fine with others doing this? Or are YOU going to engage in violence against others (despite your claimed lack of certainty) to stop them?

Emotions can and does compel violence without any kind of metaphysical certainty; what can sometimes stop them (at least when present) is metaphysical certainty that those acts are wrong. Appealing to uncertainty as a weapon against emotional outbursts of violence is futile.

AMP indicated that he might use violence against others when they do something he considers abnormal like killing humans for enjoyment. So much for the "non-violence" of uncertainty hypothesis. If that were true, you'd never react violently against others' actions, no matter what they did to each other or even to your loved ones, because you're not sure about the world around you or the rightness of a response.

In response to challenges, you retreat into your motte of, (paraphrasing) "I'm not claiming anything, I just don't know, it's all subjective"
But that's inherently dishonest, because you ARE making claims.

You're just following the Motte and Bailey doctrine to hide those claims when confronted about them.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/

Your basic argument here is (paraphrasing, as far as I can gather):
"In my opinion peace and not killing each other is good, but in others subjective opinions it may be bad and it's better to have war; each are equally valid. [This is your Motte] Furthermore, [it is my faith that] rejecting objective knowledge results in peace and not killing each other. [This is your Bailey]"

The Motte is not an argument. So if that's really all you're saying, why do you insult us by even bringing up a meaningless tangent like this?
Make a claim or don't. Make an argument or don't.

As to the Bailey, however you tried to couch it in claims of faith, that very subjective claim in combination with the first is self-contradictory:

1. You think others can have different subjective opinions that are equally valid (not based on false knowledge) and do prefer killing or harming.
2. You think [faith] others can not in practice have different valid subjective opinions on the topic, because you believe your knowledge that there can be no knowledge precludes such opinions that favor violence.

If you accept #2 in preference to #1, you ARE talking about an objective basis for compelling assent to what you have represented as a moral standard.

You are being deceptive, perhaps intentionally or perhaps out of ignorance and lack of introspection. But regardless of your knowledge of it, you are promoting contradictions as argument.

I have little doubt that you'll try to wave this away by accusing me of twisting your words, and then go on to play more word games and try to hide your sins with semantics and special pleading. True to form for Motte and Bailey.

I'm making a simple and bold argument, and I am unwavering in promoting it rather than hiding from its implications. If you won't recognize your error and address your contradictory claims so we can discuss them honestly, then we need to stick to discussing my argument and you need to refrain from making your Bailey argument for the metaethical position you're promoting.
Post Reply