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.
Post Reply
User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by AMP3083 »

It's a breather knowing we can agree that NameTheTrait doesn't apply to me. I'm actually impressed that you noticed this.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 4:00 amWe have been having two arguments in tandem.
More than just that. We're both coming from two different worlds.

I don't believe morality is objective, but you do, and have been attempting to narrate that it can be proven to be objective via mathematics and science. Yet, so far you have not shown me any kind of workable formula to prove your case. Your narrations about win-lose scenarios don't count because that's not evidence to me. The Trolley problem doesn't work for me either because it's saying nothing about my situation as a non-ethical vegan.

If it's true that objective morality can be proven via mathematics, then show me some kind of formula or equation that, as we go through it, we will eventually end up with an irrefutable answer that shows why I should be an ethical vegan.

The more we break down each other's words, the longer the discussion goes, and the longer the discussion goes, the more it goes off on a curve. Never mind defining words and what's arbitrary or what's not arbitrary, etc. All this silly arguing only prolongs the dialogue. Let's set it all aside for now and get to the meat of the issue.

Look at this way. I'm a student coming to this forum asking questions. Since you seem to know math, then do math!

2+3 = 5

Simple enough. We agree. Moving on...

AMP3083 = Morality is subjective and is merely preference.
brimstoneSalad = Morality is objective and is NOT preference.

Where are the mathematical equations/formula that show how you came to your conclusion? Don't point me to the Trolley problem. Just show me.
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 »

AMP3083 wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 5:22 pm It's a breather knowing we can agree that NameTheTrait doesn't apply to me. I'm actually impressed that you noticed this.
Ask yourself understands the same thing. To paraphrase him:
Either you think actions need to be justified, or you don't. If you don't, you can't criticize mass murder of humans, or any atrocity historical or present, even committed against you. If you do, then you need to justify your own actions and those justifications need to be consistent.

It's a pretty simple argument, but you may have missed the first half of it.

If you don't claim anything needs to be justified, and it's all just preference and everything is the same or morally meaningless, then there's no need for you to justify your own actions in accordance with your claims. Although this prohibits you from criticizing the actions of others for being wrong, because they don't need to justify their actions either.

AMP3083 wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 5:22 pmI don't believe morality is objective, but you do, and have been attempting to narrate that it can be proven to be objective via mathematics and science.
You don't understand. It's proved by logic, but we arrive at the correct moral actions by applying science and using mathematics to weigh harm against benefit.
AMP3083 wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 5:22 pmYet, so far you have not shown me any kind of workable formula to prove your case. Your narrations about win-lose scenarios don't count because that's not evidence to me. The Trolley problem doesn't work for me either because it's saying nothing about my situation as a non-ethical vegan.
I presented a logical argument. That shows that morality is objective and based on consideration for the preferences of others (rather than your own, which is selfishness).

Logic isn't just evidence, it's proof, unless you dismiss the validity of logic; in which case I'd ask again why you're trying to have a rational conversation about anything at all.

Science provides provisional evidence. If you don't understand how science works, I can explain that a little more.
Ignoring the conclusions of science is immoral, because science provides the most reliable form of knowledge, and knowledge of the world around us is required to reliably act morally within it.

These are thought experiments. You might want to look into what that means.

If you want to talk about your situation, you'll have to give me more details about your life. I don't presume to know every detail of your situation, and as it's not relevant to the conversation of whether morality is objective (which was the topic of discussion) I haven't really made any attempt at talking about your life in particular.

If you are a poor nomadic tribesman and you have no resources but your goats, then of course you need to do that to sustain yourself, and it could be argued that you raising and eating those animals is the lesser of evils compared to your starvation.
Given that you're on a computer, though, I doubt that's the case.

AMP3083 wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 5:22 pmIf it's true that objective morality can be proven via mathematics, then show me some kind of formula or equation that, as we go through it, we will eventually end up with an irrefutable answer that shows why I should be an ethical vegan.
The fact of objective morality is proved via logic. I did that previously.

The precise moral prescription for your situation must be arrived at by examining the variables involved.

For any proposed action, take all of the quantified good outcomes to others (which realize their preferences or impede violation of them from other sources), and subtract all of the quantified bad outcomes (which violate their interests). You will arrive at a number.
Now, compare that number to the number arrived at for all other known (bearing in mind that elective ignorance is immoral) possible actions.
That with the highest number is the most moral action to take.

I already covered this, but does that more detailed explanation help?
User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by AMP3083 »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 6:54 pmFor any proposed action, take all of the quantified good outcomes to others (which realize their preferences or impede violation of them from other sources), and subtract all of the quantified bad outcomes (which violate their interests). You will arrive at a number. Now, compare that number to the number arrived at for all other known (bearing in mind that elective ignorance is immoral) possible actions. That with the highest number is the most moral action to take.
I make room for science and math when it's appropriate. I just don't see how it's 100% appropriate in this line of thinking despite what you have given me, and you're speaking Greek as far as I'm concerned. Can you try to explain this again, but simpler this time. When I said show me, I was hoping you can establish a foundation for the case of objective morality (example: 3+2=5). Can you show me using an example in a similar fashion?

In the meantime, the above quote appears that all you're saying is "You lose your rights when you violate the rights of others" but rehashed it using a complex mathematical language.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 6:54 pmYou don't understand. It's proved by logic, but we arrive at the correct moral actions by applying science and using mathematics to weigh harm against benefit.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 6:54 pmIgnoring the conclusions of science is immoral, because science provides the most reliable form of knowledge, and knowledge of the world around us is required to reliably act morally within it.
I say preference, you say logical result, and the logical result should be the determining factor of the individual's preference, but not all preferences are the same for all individuals. If the logical result somehow does not match my preference, then I simply deem this logical math "application" unreliable. Then, how does this work?

As for science, I don't hold science to a high degree. It's useful in many ways and does indeed give us some knowledge of the physical, but it ain't a replacement of the human mind. This is why I referenced Terence McKenna earlier about science being the "arbiter of all thought".

You guys certainly have an advantage in these discussions because you back up claims using the tools of science and math. I can only speak from the point of view of the individual, and so find myself in an awkward place where I agree with you but also stand on the opposite side of the discussion. In other words, I have a personal understanding of my own preference and I never had to use science or math.

If you can show me using an example how one must acquire this "reliable form of knowledge" via science or math, that'd be great.
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 »

AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm I make room for science and math when it's appropriate.
When "appropriate". When is that, exactly? Only when you like the outcome?
Or do you think it's only when you understand the outcome?
You sound like Ken Ham, with his claims about "historical science" (look it up).

This sounds very anti-science and anti-rational. A mentality of cherry picking, and taking the evidence when it suits your biases rather than as a matter of principle in maintaining intellectual honesty.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm Can you try to explain this again, but simpler this time. When I said show me, I was hoping you can establish a foundation for the case of objective morality (example: 3+2=5). Can you show me using an example in a similar fashion?
I did. It was filled with variables instead of actual numbers.

Here's an abstract example using numbers.

Option 1 = Good stuff (10 + 5 + 2 + 8 + 3) - Bad stuff (4 + 6 + 3 + 7 + 12) = -4
Option 2 = Good stuff (6 + 2 + 9 + 11 + 1) - Bad stuff (9 + 16 + 4 + 9 + 3) = -12

Both are bad, but one is less bad. Given only these two options, you should choose option 1, it's the lesser of two evils.

Option 1 = Good stuff (8 + 14 + 9 + 3 + 18) - Bad stuff (8 + 2 + 9 + 11 + 7) = 15
Option 2 = Good stuff (7 + 21 + 4 + 11 + 2) - Bad stuff (2 + 5 + 1 + 3 + 5) = 29

Both are good, but one is better. Given only these two options, you should choose option 2.

AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm In the meantime, the above quote appears that all you're saying is "You lose your rights when you violate the rights of others" but rehashed it using a complex mathematical language.
Not even remotely. The political and deontological concept of "rights" has nothing to do with it at all.

See this thread: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=785

AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm I say preference, you say logical result, and the logical result should be the determining factor of the individual's preference
If the individual wants to be rational and moral.

If you want to be irrational and amoral, you'll basically do whatever your whim and personal bias instructs you to do.
What kind of person do you want to be? That's an existential preference you have to decide on, and that will guide and reform your other preferences.
We can change our preferences.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm but not all preferences are the same for all individuals.
They are not. Some people just want to believe in fundamentalist religion, and have no interest in science and logic; they only care about having faith, not about being rational.

If you're that kind of person, only that you replace religion with your own emotional biases and just want to steadfastly adhere to those as a fervent dogma, then obviously you will have no interest in a rational argument.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm If the logical result somehow does not match my preference, then I simply deem this logical math "application" unreliable. Then, how does this work?
That makes you an irrational person, no different from any extremist religious fundamentalist in mentality, and not somebody capable of having a rational conversation. If that's the case, and you don't care about being rational or logical, then why are you even asking these questions?
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm As for science, I don't hold science to a high degree.
That's obvious. And that's a problem. This is probably due to ignorance; you don't know what science is, or how it works.
You'll find company in religious fundamentalists.

Your next quote could just as easily be read this way:
It's useful in many ways and does indeed give us some knowledge of the physical, but it ain't a replacement of faith. This is why I referenced the pope earlier about science being the "arbiter of all faith".
Just anti-science rhetoric; there's nothing like a philosophical argument here, it's a vague assertion.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm You guys certainly have an advantage in these discussions because you back up claims using the tools of science and math. I can only speak from the point of view of the individual, and so find myself in an awkward place where I agree with you but also stand on the opposite side of the discussion. In other words, I have a personal understanding of my own preference and I never had to use science or math.
Every entrenched theist has a personal understanding of his or her own faith, never having had to apply science or logic to it.

It sounds like you're torn between what you know to be more rational, and your personal emotional biases.
You can choose to change your preferences to align with rationality, or let your preference for rationality grow and overwhelm the smaller preferences that go against it.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 3:02 pm If you can show me using an example how one must acquire this "reliable form of knowledge" via science or math, that'd be great.[/color]
The scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

When it comes to determining the interests/preferences of others (to make those numbers which we add and subtract) we can ask (for most humans) by way of a survey, or we can observe behavior (even for humans, this is often at odds with reporting). For those we can't ask, we have to observe behavior. We can see, for example, that a monkey prefers a grape to lettuce. It's not hard to set up simple experiments which reveal preferences. That, at least, gets us started. You can go as deep as you want, brain scans, etc. But we don't need information that's that precise to come to basic moral understandings. We can deal with a range: e.g. the preference is between 5-10 "points". This is how most science works, which is why we work with statistics, error bars, confidence intervals, and significant figures.
User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by AMP3083 »

By appropriate I mean using the right tool intended for a specific job. I'm sure you will agree that a chainsaw is an inappropriate tool for use to dig a hole in the ground. Likewise, science/math is an inappropriate tool in figuring out what my own preferences "should be" or what "options" I "should choose". If you disagree with this, then you must reject what I said, otherwise you're lost adrift in a dimension of calculations that has no business sticking its nose in other people's preferences.

(and yes, I do know that calculations don't have noses, it was only a metaphor) #relax


The word "faith" often has a religious connotation, but not necessarily. Faith simply means Trust.

"I have faith that you will take care of my house while I'm away on vacation."

Nothing religious about that.

You trying to twist my words in an attempt to show me what you think I meant has absolutely zero bearing. Terence McKenna is nothing like the pope and his words "arbiter of all thought" can be applied even to religion. God and the Bible should not be the arbiter of our thought either and so too can be said about science. The 'atheist' title next to your profile says it all. Rigid acolytes of science like yourself and this hardcore "SCIENCE KNOWS ALL" attitude is all too common among the circle. You talk about "steadfastly adhere to those as a fervent dogma". I ask you to look closer -- because you're a dogmatic follower of science instead of religion, not sure what makes a more admirable position. It's like you're saying: "I'm an open-minded person... buuuut only within the rigid paradigm of science."

The 3 burning questions I asked in the start of this thread has been addressed but NOT cleared.

"I'm not sure why I prefer snickerdoodle cookies over raisin cookies. I think I'll apply math and science to figure this out."

... This is what I'm getting out of the discussion. I asked for a simple example, instead I get cryptic numbers and equations that don't mean a thing to me. Plus, the words bad, good, rational and irrational are all relative. You forgot to define these terms but that's ok, no worries.

Someone you might be familiar with once said "A preference does not require logical justification or consistency, it simply is what it is." I think you're just having trouble accepting the fact that these are but mere preferences. Interjecting math and science to try and "logically" explain my preference only complicates the matter. Did people have to look to science and math in order to be persuaded to veganism? No. Instead, they either looked into their heart for the compassion or watch a couple of documentaries and YouTube videos. Now their preferences point to fruits and veggies over meat and dairy, fake leather over real leather, forks over knives. No math and science required. Preferences changed like you said. Simple.

I am not anti-science nor am I a follower of any religious dogma. I left Christianity 5 years ago when I started to think for myself, thanks to the help of the internet. I'm no expert in the field of science but I respect it more than you do. I say 'more than you do' because I recognize its limits, as you also admitted this yourself. Science has granted you some measure of knowledge, and knowledge is power, but the power of science does not extend to this arena. Thus far you've been loyal to your position trying to persuade me to the contrary, but as of yet to no avail. You're hardly to blame for this. Not clear enough or maybe I'm just bad at math, I don't know. Whatever the case I will leave the discussion as is. We've reached a dead end. I'm sure it would make all of you happy if I transitioned to veganism tomorrow, but guess what... my questions would remain standing.

You sound like Ken Ham...
This sounds very anti-science and anti-rational.
If you want to be irrational and amoral...
If you're that kind of person..
That makes you an irrational person...
If that's the case...
...you don't know what science is...
Just anti-science rhetoric...
It sounds like you're...
So many "ifs", "sounds" and judgments. You've spent a majority of the discussion trying to put a label on me, desperately trying to figure me out. Am I a religious fundamentalist, nihilist, existentialist, anarchist/voluntaryist? Will it make easier for you to judge me when I give you a title? Why should it matter? It doesn't.

You asked what kind of person I want to be. My whole life I had teachers, relatives, ministers, and other adults telling me who I am or what I should be. I realized it's all bullshit. I'll just be myself. I can't allow science or religion to tell me who I am. I know myself better than these institutions.

I see no point in resuming a discussion that's barely moving. You can have the last word, if it suits your preference.
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 »

I gave you the example you asked for, and you've ignored it. I explained where the role of science is in that, and you completely misunderstood for the second time.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm By appropriate I mean using the right tool intended for a specific job. I'm sure you will agree that a chainsaw is an inappropriate tool for use to dig a hole in the ground. Likewise, science/math is an inappropriate tool in figuring out what my own preferences "should be" or what "options" I "should choose".
Science and mathematics are not a chainsaw; they aren't a narrow tool for a particular job. Science and math are at the root of reliable knowledge, so if reliable knowledge is useful to an endeavor, then they are the right tool. If you don't need knowledge for something, maybe you don't need them; they may have limited applications to some forms of expressive "art".

Something specific like Geology might be the wrong "tool" to apply to certain data needed for ethical considerations, much as a chainsaw could be to do some jobs, but science is not on that level of specificity; it adapts to solve the problem you need solving, it's just a way of looking at the world to eliminate bias and obtain more reliable knowledge.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm You trying to twist my words in an attempt to show me what you think I meant has absolutely zero bearing.
It's not an argument, it's an irrational platitude. I know what you meant, and it's ridiculous and scientifically ignorant. It's also ignoring completely my explanation.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm It's like you're saying: "I'm an open-minded person... buuuut only within the rigid paradigm of science."
Be open minded by all means, but not so open minded your brain falls out. That's what happens when you reject logic.
In attempt to be MORE open minded, you actually become LESS open minded, because you have by rejecting logic rejected the possibility of differentiating truth and falsity.

See the principle of explosion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

It's clear you don't understand these topics well enough to present an argument on them, which is why you rely on feel good bullshit platitudes instead of actual arguments.
You really need to address the arguments I'm making, not reply with a meaningless woo catch phrase.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm The 3 burning questions I asked in the start of this thread has been addressed but NOT cleared.
They actually have been, but I did so with logic, which you reject. You can not engage in a rational discussion without using logic. Your reach here, even by asking a question, exceeds your willingness to listen to the answer. This is fundamentally a form of intellectual dishonesty; I would challenge you to try again to understand the answers I have given and why they are valid instead of dismissing them because you don't like them.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm "I'm not sure why I prefer snickerdoodle cookies over raisin cookies. I think I'll apply math and science to figure this out."
This is not my claim. Not at all.
It doesn't matter why you prefer snickerdoodles. It matters that you prefer snickerdoodles.
Completely different issues. I don't care WHY you prefer them. That information is pretty immaterial to most considerations (unless we are trying to identify other cookies you might also like but have not yet tried; think an improved version of pandora or netflix recommendations but for cookies).
The fact THAT you prefer them is why I should give you those instead of raisin cookies, all other things being equal.

I have said this multiple times.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm ... This is what I'm getting out of the discussion.
Then you have not been paying attention to anything I said. It's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm I asked for a simple example, instead I get cryptic numbers and equations that don't mean a thing to me.
You asked for an equation. If you're too lazy or "bad at math" to understand a very simple example like the one I gave, that's hardly my fault.

Do you want a simpler one?

Option 1: I give you raisin cookies = 5 satisfaction points from you
Option 2: I give you snickerdoodles = 10 satisfaction points from you

Given these two options, all other things being equal, I should choose option 2 because it better satisfies YOUR interests. My preference for raisin or snickerdoodle has nothing to do with it, because it's YOU who will be eating the cookies.

Can you understand that?

Any modestly intelligent relativist can understand that concept and in fact usually come into the conversation already understanding it. It blows my mind that you don't get it.
Usually the contentious issue is how I know that one will give you 5 points of satisfaction and the other will give you 10. To that I answer: we ask. We give you a super scientific survey of some kind, and you fill in a point value to indicate your preference for each cookie.

Science only applies in the learning. Instead of me guessing that you like this or that cookie, or just giving you the cookie that I like more, I should use science to find out which cookie you like. A survey being the simplest means.

AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm Plus, the words bad, good, rational and irrational are all relative. You forgot to define these terms but that's ok, no worries.
I literally defined them. Look back one page.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 4:00 am ra·tion·al
ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

ir·ra·tion·al
i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/
adjective
1.
not logical or reasonable.
I also went into detail defining good and bad, both absolutely and contextually; it's what my entire argument is about.

I feel like you're just being intentionally obtuse to troll us at this point. There is no way you read my posts and did not see multiple instances of my defining these.

If you're not here to troll and are honestly trying to understand my argument, you have a serious reading comprehension problem and you need to go back to page 1 and read everything again more carefully.

AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm Someone you might be familiar with once said "A preference does not require logical justification or consistency, it simply is what it is."
Obviously it does not, and no part of my argument requires that it does.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm Interjecting math and science to try and "logically" explain my preference only complicates the matter.
As I said multiple times, I'm not trying to explain your preferences or why you hold them. I'm only trying to determine what they are. Completely different.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm Did people have to look to science and math in order to be persuaded to veganism? No. Instead, they either looked into their heart for the compassion or watch a couple of documentaries and YouTube videos. Now their preferences point to fruits and veggies over meat and dairy, fake leather over real leather, forks over knives. No math and science required. Preferences changed like you said. Simple.
Vegans do not necessarily prefer the taste of vegetables and fruits over meat and dairy; they may still enjoy meat and dairy, but they prefer to be moral people instead of indulge hedonistic preferences.
Preferences can be in conflict. When they are, the stronger one will win out in terms of behavior, but that doesn't mean the lesser goes away.

What convinced them that they needed to avoid these things in order to be moral people is often science and logic: basically, learning about the reality around them, and what morality actually means.
A major motivator for changing preferences is learning. And sometimes the core preferences don't need to change at all, we just get new information and change the way we act to better realize those preferences (like going vegan to better realize a preexisting preference to be moral, but that was realized poorly due to ignorance of the meat industry).
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm I am not anti-science
Of course you are; and it's probably because you do not understand science. You may not even realize that your rhetoric is in effect anti-science by misrepresenting science.
Science is a method of learning about the world around us; the most reliable one there is. There is no doubt in this unless you subscribe to magical thinking.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm I'm no expert in the field of science but I respect it more than you do. I say 'more than you do' because I recognize its limits, as you also admitted this yourself.
That's hilarious. No, you don't understand science or its limits, you instead impose imagined ad hoc ones like Gould's Non-overlapping magisteria.
You have consistently failed to understand my argument because you don't know how science works and what it does.

I have repeatedly explained this, and the place of science in understanding morality: it is to give us unbiased facts about reality which we then must use in a moral calculus (and I derived this too).

For my part, I may have erred in assuming you were more educated than you are on this topic. Intelligent relativists make a certain kind of argument and that's what I was expecting (I can explain that if you want). Like with your claim that you're doing animals a favor by letting them feed you and being thankful of them, your beliefs are so profoundly misguided that they threw me for a loop. You just don't understand what you're talking about, and you may not have the background to grasp what I'm trying to explain.

AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm Science has granted you some measure of knowledge, and knowledge is power, but the power of science does not extend to this arena.
Wow, really? It doesn't extend to having the power to make a survey that asks you what kind of cookie you like best? :roll:

That's basically all I'm saying it needs to do, at least in the simplified simplified example that I had to make just for you.
If you really don't think science is capable of learning what a person's preference of cookie probably is (not WHY, but WHAT), then you have functionally no regard for science at all.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm Thus far you've been loyal to your position trying to persuade me to the contrary, but as of yet to no avail. You're hardly to blame for this. Not clear enough or maybe I'm just bad at math, I don't know.
I was very clear. You should re-read our exchange, bearing in mind I am saying that the role of science in this is to tell us WHAT others prefer, not WHY they prefer it.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm but guess what... my questions would remain standing.
They've all been answered quite thoroughly. That you did not understand the answers I can only do so much about.
I can try to clarify more, but if you can't recognize that you're massively misrepresenting my argument when you say I want science to explain WHY you prefer one cookie over another, then there's no point. What would be more concerning is if you don't understand the difference between asking WHAT and WHY.
If you can admit your error, apologize for the misunderstanding (particularly as I explained it a couple times already), and re-read the thread, I'd be glad to clarify any outstanding concerns or questions.
AMP3083 wrote: Mon May 15, 2017 9:54 pm You've spent a majority of the discussion trying to put a label on me, desperately trying to figure me out.
The funny thing is that you're the one who wants personal examples you can relate to, but you won't tell me anything to go off of.
No, in most of that I'm contextualizing the moral relevance of the preference to be moral. Most of those "you"s are general, not specific to you personally.
Your anti-science platitudes do sound like Ken Ham, though.
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by DarlBundren »

I hope brimstone is OK with it, but I think that AMP would benefit from watching a good introductory video on consequentialism/veganism. Meta-ethics can be a difficult topic, especially if one is not well-versed in philosophy and it seems that AMP has genuinely failed to understand most of what has been said on this thread.

Try this. It's a crash course on non-human animals. It deals with a lot of the same stuff, but from a different, more superficial angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-BX-jN_Ac
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 »

DarlBundren wrote: Tue May 16, 2017 5:14 am I hope brimstone is OK with it, but I think that AMP would benefit from watching a good introductory video on consequentialism/veganism.
By all means, it can be helpful to approach this from another angle. Maybe you can take over for a bit and you'll be able to relate the information to him in a different way.
User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by AMP3083 »

Weird how recent posts were deleted in this thread. Anyway, thanks, Darl. I'll check that out the video. If you have anymore videos that can help me, post them here.
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 »

AMP3083 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 12:48 am Weird how recent posts were deleted in this thread.
Brim moved them to this thread - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3198

Here are my comments again:

I'll post the link to the discussion here again as I saw 3 more comments where you were agreeing over the moral realist position - https://plus.google.com/109962215079387517038/posts/JCviehxHryf?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US

Apologies if I jumped to conclusions about the philosophy you subscribed to before, as from my understanding moral realism is most closely linked to nihilism, and theological positions most closely linked to universalism. Could you explain whether you hold any faith based theology? And if so how convinced you are of that meta-physics on a scale of 0-100? Either to provide more clarity here or to explain your affiliation to Terence McKenna's philosophy here - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3191

Also I'd just be curious to know what policies you subscribe to on the political compass? As you upload a lot of social libertarian content on your channel. No pressure again to answer either.
Last edited by NonZeroSum on Fri May 19, 2017 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Post Reply