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.
My name is Thomas, I'm new here. I've started this thread to get some book recommendations about the topic adressed here (morality, conquentialism vs deontology) https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=7&t=785. What about a Singer's book?
Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer, 1975, is a good introduction to his work.
However, it's hard to recommend books on philosophy: debates are much better, since books are monologues and aren't as useful in exploring the differences between philosophers (which is where we can learn the most).
In regards to singers books. "Animal Liberation" is the only one that relates to animal rights. You may want to check out some of his other works like "The Life You Can Save" and "One World: The Ethics of Globalization"
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
However, it's hard to recommend books on philosophy: debates are much better
I agree. But I still think it's useful to learn about the evolution of ethics in order to make some relevant points. I've already read some philosophy books, but I didn't know about deontology vs conquentialism until a couple of weeks ago. I liked your posts on the thread Brimstonesalad even though I still have some doubts. Are you interested in philosophy? Do you think that those ideas are covered in Singer's book? Thanks.
Deontologist is discussed in this chapter#83. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RJrHR4FevdIC&lpg=PA248&ots=C_gR7gGkL9&dq=pig+that+wants+to+be+eaten+golden+rule&pg=PA247#v=onepage&q=Deontology&f=false
If you want a basic book on ethics I was recommended ethics by Julia driver as a good resource. Some negative reviews are by theists who don't appreciate criticism of authoritarian nature of divine command morality
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Fundamentals-Julia-Driver/dp/1405111542/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444132871&sr=8-1&ppl=fresh&keywords=Ethics+julia+driver#customerReviews
Deontology is basically a rigid adherence to rules irrespective of the context. Example: do not kill in the ten commandments. So it wouldnt be OK to kill even a terrorist who has taken children hostage . consequentialism is more rational and less dogmatic.
“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”
I'll take a look at Driver's book, thanks. So if I asked: is it right to kill one person to find the cure for cancer? A deontologist would say no because killing is always bad (without telling me why) but what a consequentialist would say?
DarlBundren wrote:I'll take a look at Driver's book, thanks. So if I asked: is it right to kill one person to find the cure for cancer? A deontologist would say no because killing is always bad (without telling me why) but what a consequentialist would say?
A consequentialist would say yes, but only if there is no way to cure cancer without killing that person.
8.2 million people die of cancer each year. [http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx]
By killing one person, you're effectively saving 8.2 million people a year from then on (assuming everybody gets the cure).
Assuming not everybody would get the cure, but only a hundred people would, it would still be unjustifiable not to kill that one person.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
This is another great non-book on the topic, but the whole lecture series is like 18 lectures long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
I binge watched it a while back xD, I don't think they say all that can be said about any of the philosophy, but they do cover a vast range of opinions.
If you want to know the history of the ethical theory's in question you may as well go for a primary source. "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mills, "a Principle of Legislation and Mortality" by Jeremy Bentham. If your brave you can read the works of Immanuel Kant (deontology). Not sure if these reads have been suggested. But they are mostly available at Loyal Books for free as audio books.
Enjoy your reading!
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
So, in a more practical situation, if by killing a (innocent?) person we could save many people, would that actually mean that murder is justifiable (in this situation)? It's a bit hard to understand because in our society we think that it's right to kill someone only if that person is a serious threat to other people's lives ( or if you are a soldier/policeman/doctor). Could you offer me some insight into how things work for a consequentialist?
A consequentialist is someone who relies heavily on the outcomes of an action to make moral decisions. The most influential theory therein is utilitarianism. By utilitarianism an action is right if it maximises utility. Utility is defined differently according to the school of utilitarianism you are following, but for ease we can generalise to happiness. Utilitarianism also takes into account negative values of utility, in this case we can say suffering. This is known as classical utilitarianism, and it has major floors.
Given this frame work we can say that overall utility is equal to the amount of happiness by the amount of people experiencing happiness minus the amount of suffering times the amount of people suffering.
This type of thinking is often comparing different potential outcomes. So killing an innocent (A) to save more innocents (B) is justified only if the happiness experienced by the innocents (B) saved is greater than the suffering of the innocent (A) killed. But it is wrong to kill the innocent (A) to save the other innocents (B), if it is possible to save the other innocents (B) without killing the original innocent (A).
But this is ignoring other potential factors that effect far more people than just the person you push off the bridge (If this refers to the trolley problem). A big one being that people would suffer by feeling un-safe if they though they could be sacrificed for the greater good at ant time. I don't think this an ignorable objection to pushing the fat guy.
I am a Utilitarian, but I would not push the fat guy, if the innocents (B) was insignificant to be able to justify such an action.
vegan: to exclude—as far as is practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for any purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
