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 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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.