2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

[brimstoneSalad]

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.

If you have time, please do that. I'm not sure how useful it would be to convincing him, but it would demonstrate the point and be entertaining for the many people who will ultimately read this thread. They want to appeal to their objective standards and deny them too.

[BrianBlackwell]

...you just prefer to chose solipsism because it's easier to live in denial and pay for others do the dirty deed for you.

...unnecessary suffering for your taste pallet.

I don't hold my views out of convenience or to make my life more comfortable; I hold them because they appear to be most true out of all the other options. It is not convenient or comfortable to hold views that almost no one understands or agrees with, and to feel like the world is bat-shit crazy on the most fundamental level.

As for my diet, taste pleasure isn't the dominant factor. I stopped eating meat last time because I don't love the taste all that much, I don't care for the mouth feel, and I usually think it's gross; ethical considerations were just a bonus. I like fruit more than anything else.

I don't guide my thought by convenience, but I do guide my actions that way quite often. I dress like everyone else, because that's what's convenient to buy. I also chose to eat meat again because that's what's convenient to eat. As a vegetarian I was constantly stuck with one or two nigh-unto-inedible options everywhere I went, as vegetatian cuisine is not as ubiquitously advanced in our culture. I also have a wife and kids, and needing to have meals that don't conform with our culture was a constant hassle.

I can't count how many times I had to refuse meals that friends and family worked hard to prepare, making myself an ungracious guest. If they knew I was veggie, I would have to suffer some disgusting half-raw eggplant, or cheap cardboard veggie burger because they bought it specifically on my account. Without the moral imperative that you have adopted, there's no reason to make myself and everyone else uncomfortable.

I buy free range, etc., and if the world went vegan tomorrow, I would be in support of the move, but I'm not making my life a crusade. The misguided attempt to change the world until everyone's nest is neatly feathered isn't promising or important enough to ruin my experience over it.

My suggestion would be to fight for better, more natural conditions for animals, before pushing veganism. A pig who has a happy, healthy life and then gets killed for food does not differ, in all liklihood, from what he would naturally experience in the wild. You can get a lot people who feel half-guilty to get on board with that.

[BrianBlackwell]

.

[brimstoneSalad]

Why are we making intelligence or sentience a more significant factor than anything else?

Because without those a being can not have values to respect; it is like a rock in that regard.

Why are we not using color, height, habitat, pitch of voice, etc., as the discriminating factor?

Because these are arbitrary, they have no innate relationship to value. A being having values presents something that can be considered in terms of values.
Again, morality is a system measured in terms of value.

I explained this, and I already quoted my explanation.
I will quote it again, because it seems you have ignored it because you have not responded to the substance of the argument and you continue to make assertions contrary to it:

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3168&start=10#p31123

When you build a brick house, do you build it out of bricks, or out of abstract values?

Morality is a value system, the key word being value. You can't construct a value system using physical bricks any more than you can build a brick house from values.

Not only must it be logically consistent and non-arbitrary, but it also must be framed in terms of values. That should be obvious, but most people don't get it.

A "moral system" which measures value in terms of bricks and demands we manufacture as many bricks as possible as the root of all good, maximizing the number of bricks in the universe, is incoherent. It's also arbitrary, so it fails on two levels (Why bricks and not pickles?).

Moral systems for use in guiding your behavior as a moral person are built by considering the values of others. An objective one is built not from consideration of one other person's values, not from one species' values, but the sum of all other values that exist. That means looking at what each other sentient being values -- pleasure, avoidance of pain, life, love, art, whatever (depending on the species values may be more or less abstract) -- and regarding those values with some measure of moral consideration.

The conversation is going in circles because you have refused to address the arguments made, not because no arguments have been made against what you assert.

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.

As demonstrated above, no, not by arbitrary preference: by way of deductive reasoning.

A tree lives, and by its actions of survival it is clear that it is endeavoring to live.

By a rock's actions of falling, is it clear that's it's endeavoring to fall?
That's an asinine claim. Just because something happens to do something doesn't mean it is sentient and wants to do that thing.

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.

Not arbitrary at all, because thought is required for intention.

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.

You don't have to care, you can be a nihilist are not care about anything in this world beyond your immediate whim.

But if you care about being rational or logical, you will be compelled to accept that objective morality is a coherent concept, and one that is compelling to most people -- because most people do care.

And there's a good reason to care: hedonism doesn't pay off. We are meaning-driven beings.
See my post here for an argument for why you should care:

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=1932#p19543

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.

Not everybody will agree, but everybody who values reason and wants to be a good person can agree on these principles. This can end the majority of ideological conflict, and it can help bring at least some people back from the harm of hedonism.

Sure, it's an "attack upon man's inherent individuality", a thing which HAS NO VALUE.
We're attacking human choice to be evil. We are not valuing letting people do evil to others.
We are possibly even compelling people to NOT engage in evil acts by locking them up (being the lesser of evils compared to unleashing them on others). We already do this with many laws, as society as a whole hones in on what it is to be good. Our laws are not limited to a bare-bones social contract.

Man grants meaning,

He does, but so do chickens, and so do cows. Every thinking being grants meaning.

so if you want to grant significance to the death of a chicken -- or anyone, for that matter -- then go ahead.

And go ahead and kill you if you disagree? Or is that wrong?
Because you either have an argument against that, or you don't.

I demonstrated earlier how you are contradicting yourself.

My only point is that, unfortunately, you have no objective grounds for suggesting anyone else should accept this perspective.

We do if they want to be moral.
If they want to be evil, as perhaps 1% of 1% of the population does, then we can compel them to stay locked up in a prison cell so the rest of society can live without being in fear of sadistic psychopaths.

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.

If you could grasp how this makes you a bad person, maybe you would be compelled to stop ignoring the issue and live values that you already understand to be true (but deny due to your nihilistic sophistry).

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.

No, there are plenty of vegans who do not care at all about animals, but are vegan for purposes of ethical consistency.
Morality has power to compel beyond personal sentiment.

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,

False, science can give us objective knowledge of others' preferences.
I explained how this can be done earlier.

If this were your objection, this would be an easy discussion to have. I think this is just a red herring.

and their feelings do not directly inspire your actions and decisions -- your own thoughts and emotions do.

What is a direct link?
There is a direct link by any reasonable measure.

If you want to be a moral person (core preference), you consider the values of others.
Science tells us that these animals have preferences, and based on the above we must consider them to be good.

Take away their feelings, and there is no action.

It's not complicated. If you consider links like that "indirect" then there's no direct link between my pointing a loaded gun with the safety off at your head and pulling the trigger and your death as an indirect result of that (finger causes gun to cause bullet to cause brain damage and bleeding to cause your death).

If that's the case, there are no "direct links" between anything, and if you think that's a compelling argument for anything then you're just denying reality again.

[BrianBlackwell]

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...

You may be able to quote me using language that seems to imply objective "good" standards, but all I say carries the qualification that this relates to my own subjective experience of interactions, and my preferences in regard to them. Nothing I've said is intended to suggest an objective definition of good. If viewed from this perspective, it will clear up most confusion on this point, but I would be willing to clarify any items where you find this distinction unclear.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't hold my views out of convenience or to make my life more comfortable; I hold them because they appear to be most true out of all the other options.

Many Christians hold their views for the same way. They don't want to be terrified of hell.
If you can acknowledge that you may be mistaken in your metaphysical beliefs, then let us help you understand how you are wrong.

Instead of trying to make arguments FOR your metaphysics, listen and try to understand mine. I haven't been able to finish because you went on this tangent about the idea of objective morality being harmful to the world. I demonstrated your contradiction there, so maybe shelve that argument and try to understand what objective morality is?

You've been continually making assertions in denial of my arguments, but you have done little to address my points.

It is not convenient or comfortable to hold views that almost no one understands or agrees with, and to feel like the world is bat-shit crazy on the most fundamental level.

Fundamentalist Christians feel the same way about the world. Maybe you're the one who is bat-shit crazy.
You've been brainwashed by these subjectivists. I can demonstrate why you are wrong if you give me the time to do it and work harder to stay on point and address my arguments.

As a vegetarian I was constantly stuck with one or two nigh-unto-inedible options everywhere I went, as vegetatian cuisine is not as ubiquitously advanced in our culture. I also have a wife and kids, and needing to have meals that don't conform with our culture was a constant hassle.

It gets better every year, but it's not either-or. Being a good person means working at being a better one. There's not some magical line in the sand we pass that makes us good.
Reduce your animal product consumption. Stop it where it's easiest first, at home. When you go out or when friends make something for you, make exceptions and work on those over time.

Without the moral imperative that you have adopted, there's no reason to make myself and everyone else uncomfortable.

Nor is there any reason, without a moral imperative, for a would-be rapist to remain horny when he can just go to a bar and grab a drunk girl and rape her to satisfy himself.
And incidentally, this is actually quite common in our society.

I buy free range, etc., and if the world went vegan tomorrow, I would be in support of the move, but I'm not making my life a crusade.

You don't have to turn your life into a crusade to just be a better person. Do it where it's convenient first, and just continue making the most minimal of efforts to improve things where you can easily do so.

There's a big difference between:
1. Saving a life by jumping into a rushing river and pulling a drowning man to shore -- a monumental effort that I wouldn't expect of everybody.
2. Saving a life by throwing a readily available life preserver into the water -- something only an asshole can't be bothered to do.

The misguided attempt to change the world until everyone's nest is neatly feathered isn't promising or important enough to ruin my experience over it.

You don't have to save the world, just do your part. Your nest doesn't even have to be perfectly feathered, just make the most trivial effort to knock some of the shit off of it.

My suggestion would be to fight for better, more natural conditions for animals, before pushing veganism. A pig who has a happy, healthy life and then gets killed for food does not differ, in all liklihood, from what he would naturally experience in the wild. You can get a lot people who feel half-guilty to get on board with that.

That does not address the environmental harm, inefficiency, or health aspects -- all of which harm human beings.

[NonZeroSum]

My suggestion would be to fight for better, more natural conditions for animals, before pushing veganism. . .You can get a lot people who feel half-guilty to get on board with that.

Depends whether the company would be able to make more money by appealing to such a market and being able to stick a high price tag on their animal products. If that were the case it would be more profits for the almost the same suffering which is no good. Vegans do fight for universal increased animal welfare regulations, as well to decrease the profit motive, and promote reducitarian diets like no chicken, or goal setting like meatless Mondays/January.

A pig who has a happy, healthy life and then gets killed for food does not differ, in all likelihood, from what he would naturally experience in the wild.

To mimic the lifespan in the wild would be commercially untenable, given many naturally long lifespans and small percentage of deaths by predation, also you have to consider all the artificially selected abnormalities which would potentially cause domestic animals a lot of suffering over a longer life, making neither being cut short or a 'natural' lenght lifespan good options. Reduction and re-wilding a new hardier gene pool is what's needed.

Pigs: Slaughtered at 6 months young; Natural life span: 6 to 10 years
Chickens: Slaughtered at 6 weeks young; Natural life span: 5 to 8 years for those birds bred as "egg layers" such as Rhode Island Reds; 1 to 4 years for factory layer breeds such as leghorns; and 1 to 3 years for "meat" breeds.
Turkeys: Slaughtered at 5 to 6 months young; Natural life span: 2 to 6 years
Ducks/Geese: Slaughtered at 7 to 8 weeks young; Natural life span: domestic ducks: 6 to 8 years; geese from 8 to 15 years.
Cattle: “Beef” cattle slaughtered at 18 months young; dairy cows slaughtered at 4 to 5 years young; Natural life span: 18 to 25+ years
Veal Calves: Slaughtered at 16 weeks young; Natural life span: 18 to 25+ years
Goats: Slaughtered at 3 to 5 months young; Natural life span: 12 to 14 years
Rabbits: Slaughtered at 10 to 12 weeks young; Natural life span: 8 to 12+ years
Lambs: Slaughtered at 6 to 8 weeks young for “young lamb” and under 1 year for all other; Natural life span: 12 to 14 years
Horses/Donkeys: Slaughter age varies; Natural life span: 30 to 40 years

https://www.facebook.com/notes/colleen-patrick-goudreau-vegan-author-and-speaker/slaughter-age-vs-natural-life-span/10150737529419057

What you’re proposing is a universal utilitarian standard of humane killing which I've explained I don't think is commercially viable, but it has been discussed in the thread below - also only works if you only value hedonistic experience:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2583

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...

You may be able to quote me using language that seems to imply objective "good" standards, but all I say carries the qualification that this relates to my own subjective experience of interactions, and my preferences in regard to them. . .

You repeatedly appeal to a universal standard that would be good if more people subscribe to, then retreat, it's inconsistent and dishonest, I'd like to see you respond to the Mott and Bailey doctrine as explained by brimstone.

[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.

If you have time, please do that. I'm not sure how useful it would be to convincing him, but it would demonstrate the point and be entertaining for the many people who will ultimately read this thread. They want to appeal to their objective standards and deny them too.

Will have a go Ctrl+F searching for a few I remember at some point, I don't relish the idea of reading it all again seperating all the sidealleys we had to go down, but can see how seperating the wheat from the chaff would be a good exercise. I also think we need to make a list of your brutal metaphorical rebuttals aha, this is pure quality to the martyr strawman:

The misguided attempt to change the world until everyone's nest is neatly feathered isn't promising or important enough to ruin my experience over it.

You don't have to save the world, just do your part. Your nest doesn't even have to be perfectly feathered, just make the most trivial effort to knock some of the shit off of it.

[AMP3083]

There are people who have spent all their life researching and finding information about the universe and, yes, they know their shit. Would you tell your doctor that ' he/she is as clueless as the next guy' if he/she prescribed you something?

...And the scientific method is simply the most effective way we have to avoid being biased...and every time you say something like ' the world will end in 2012 because the Mayan Long Count calendar says so' you are making a statement that can be proven false.

I don't think the quote was meant to be taken literal, Darl. It's not that serious, just something that teases people out of thought, perhaps something like a Zen koan. The "2012 End of the World" thing wasn't supposed to be taken literally either. It's not a literal end of the world as some people assumed. McKenna called it "...an unpredictable event ... some enormously reality-rearranging thing …I don’t know if it’s built into the laws of spacetime, or it’s generated out of human inventiveness, or whether it’s a mile and a half wide and arrives unexpectedly in the center of North America." Idk if he truly believed in all that stuff, but he did say that if nothing happened in 2012 that he would abandon the project and move on to other things.

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." - Socrates

[DarlBundren]

The "2012 End of the World" thing wasn't supposed to be taken literally either.

Oh, I'm sure that if he were alive he would say that he didn't mean it literally.

some enormously reality-rearranging thing

Did any enormously reality-rearranging thing take place in 2012?

I don’t know if it’s built into the laws of spacetime, or it’s generated out of human inventiveness, or whether it’s a mile and a half wide and arrives unexpectedly in the center of North America.

So, it's vague and general enough that it can be literally anything.

Edit: In this video, he says:

Between now and 2012, in the next 14 years, I look for the invention of artificial life, the cloning of human beings, possible contact with extraterrestrials, possible human immortality and, at the same time, appalling acts of brutality, genocide, race-baiting, homophobia, famine, starvation...

...this is what it's like when a species prepares to depart for the stars, you don't depart for the stars under calm, orderly conditions, it's a fire in a mad house and that's what we have at the end of time. This is what it's like when a species prepares to move on into the next dimension.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wnDpIceaHdo