Ah, very well, Jebus. Thanks for joining. I understand how difficult it is to talk about these subject matters from both camps, so I don't blame you if you choose to leave for now. I've always thought these topics can never be resolved but instead should end with both camps meeting half way, as pointed out by the poet Rumi "Somewhere beyond right and wrong, there is a garden. I will meet you there."
If you can meet me half way, that's good enough for me.
2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
- AMP3083
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
- Diet: Meat-Eater
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
Then it is "OK", as you wouldn't condemn or judge others for doing it, you just don't prefer it. Like if you preferred vanilla to chocolate. Doesn't mean chocolate isn't OK as a preference, it just isn't your personal preference.
You can say it's OK for others, just not OK for you. Saying just that it's "not OK" implies it's not OK for anybody. That implies an arbitrary moral judgement.
You recognize that such anger is as irrational as somebody getting upset at another for preferring chocolate instead of vanilla, right?
If you think the anger is rationally justified, that's where you have a problem and are making an implicit claim ("it's justified because that's morally wrong"). If you admit it's irrational, and that you just get angry at things for no good reason because you don't personally like them and you don't like it when other people have different preferences, that's perhaps logically consistent, but it also implies you have some kind of emotional problem.
Anybody who gets angry at people for liking chocolate instead of vanilla, just because they personally prefer vanilla, needs professional psychiatric help.
In your case, if you recognize killing humans as the same kind of personal preference, then if you would get angry at people for that, likewise you need help.
A nihilist/moral relativist has no basis for such outrage. That's pretty much the only benefit of nihilists; they tend not to be bothered by other people's actions. Pure libertarians, in a way. It helps avoid ideological warfare. I don't regard this as a benefit overall, because there are drawbacks that outweigh that, but you've basically combined all of the bad parts of nihilism with all of the bad parts of angry fundamentalists.
If he holds something he regards as a moral system, then he is incorrect. That system would be arbitrary or inconsistent.
If he is simply uninterested in morality, then you could say he is amoral. As long as he made no claims to having a moral system, then he is not factually incorrect on that point.
As to why:
Do you have any actual arguments against my explanation?AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmThanks for the further explanation. Yes, this certainly clears things up. However, I do not look at the subject matter from a mathematical perspective, so I have to reject your mathematical claims as I do not perceive them to be reasonable enough to conclude an objective morality.
Or do you just not like it, so reject it for no reason other than whim?
If that's the case, then you are not a rational person.
A rational person is compelled to accept sound argumentation.
If you can present a logical argument against what I have explained, please do. If not, then you have to accept the argument. Or you can admit you have no interest in rational/logical discussion.
You need to study game theory to understand what these mean.
You could say it is a preference to be moral, instead of immoral or amoral.
You have provided no argument against mine with respect to objective morality.
If you prefer to be amoral or even immoral, that's up to you.
We can not be compelled to do the right thing, we can only reason what the right thing is and then make a choice.
My explanation to that end was to how it is non-arbitrary.
If you're taking a math test, and you come upon the question: 2+2=
You can, based on your preference, answer 4, 5, cucumber, or anything else, or leave it blank, or eat the test.
Only 4 is the mathematically correct answer, though. And in terms of morality, we can determine which courses of action are morally correct. You can disregard that and choose to do the wrong thing anyway. Morality is only compulsion for those who choose to be moral people.
There is no god, or heaven and hell, compelling you to obey.AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmI assure you that I'm not being cheeky and yes I understood your comment about values vs. bricks. It only sounded to me as if you were speaking about "moral objective system" in the same way Christians speak of their God; in other words, adhere to a moral code and obey at all times. And what of this "objective moral standard"? Is it written in the universe? Is it set in stone? Is it something we are required to obey?
You only need to abide by morality (or make a good effort at it) IF you want to be a moral person.
If you want to be a maximally evil person, then do the opposite of what morality recommends.
If you want to be amoral, you can ignore it entirely.
Do you want to be a good person? No? Then there's probably nothing I can say to convince you to value morality. I would be happy to try, if you can agree on the other points.
However, if you're like most people and you want to be a good person, I can explain what a consistent and objective standard of morality looks like, and show you what you should do in order to achieve that goal. If you are a rational person, you will agree with my arguments (or show where they are flawed).
A rational person who wants to be moral is the only kind of person who can be compelled to moral action by rational argument about morality.
I gave the mosquito example earlier, and also the trolley problem.
In consequentialism, we weigh the expected consequences of our actions. Imagine a scale, where we put all of the harm on one side, and all of the good stuff on the other. We also have to look at different possible solutions; just because something does more good than harm doesn't mean it's the right action.
With the mosquito, you can swat the mosquito killing it, you can let it bite you (possibly spreading disease), or spray yourself with insect repellent, or even perhaps you can go find where they're breeding and get rid of the stagnant puddle so you don't have to kill them or deal with the consequences of the diseases they're spreading.
There are frequently many options, and usually one that that helps head off future harm.
I have advocated eradicating mosquitoes through genetic modification (which doesn't require killing any, they're just made all male and they die off at the end of their natural lives).
Technology can also open up more options.
In the past, it was farm animals and eat animal products, or die. In that case, the former was a better option. It wasn't good, but it was the lesser evil.
Now we have another option since the discovery of B-12 and creation of supplements, as well as general advancement of nutritional science and agriculture that allows us to be healthy on vegan diets (actually, healthier, which is what makes it Win-win along with other consequences).
See above. You are failing to compare it to all options.
It used to benefit humanity, but now it is inferior to the other available options.
It may temporarily satisfy your hunger. Add that to the good side of the scale.
Now to the bad side add heart disease, early cognitive decline, higher risk of cancer and diabetes, accelerated climate change resulting in destabilization of world food supplies, I could go on.
The bad outweighs the good now.
When we had no other options, it was the lesser of two evils. Better that than starvation and extinction.
Now that we have more options, by comparison to the superior option which is available, eating meat is the more harmful.
That is not a benefit to the animals. It's something they neither want nor know about.
It's like a fundamentalist Muslim on violent Jihad killed you, and said it benefited you because it stopped you from sinning, and you have his appreciation for helping him to reach paradise by killing a heathen and gaining Allah's favor.
Do you think that's a benefit to you?
Or is that just adding insult to injury?
It's not about whether I like it or not. It's not logically sound argumentation. I can't understand why you even thought that was an argument.
I mean, if you were some kind of weird Christian and thought that by eating animals you were taking their souls to heaven with you, sure, that argument would at least have some logical validity (although the premise would be false, so it wouldn't be sound). Yours just fails on every level. That's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen, and that's saying something.
Could you at least say something like "It benefits them if they live on a happy farm and enjoy many years of a good life (free to roam and protected from predators) before they are killed for food, because they got several years of a good life they would not otherwise have gotten."
That's an argument.
Don't make me make your arguments for you. It's not fun talking to myself.
As to helping you survive: Again, they don't anymore. That would be true a hundred years ago. Not today. It's actually harming you now, because you would survive longer and with better health on a well planned vegan diet with supplementation. Get all of the good without the bad.
- 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
From my understanding of this post and the one on his blog - https://amp3083.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/commentary-on-veganism-from-a-mentor/%EF%BB%BF - AMP just enjoys poking vegans in YouTube comment sections because whether consequentialist or deontologist we are steadfast in our positions. They thought they saw a hole in AskYourself's universalist argument, but after everyone agreeing that legitimately 'not caring' about animals would be a consistent reason not to go vegan, I don't feel the conversation has progressed much.
The prying over arbitrariness that would subsume moral relativism under a universalist framework is all very interesting, but I think you're dealing with much harder fish to fry which are authenticity, will to power, is there such thing as selfless altruism (I know selfish altruism is just as good, but explore the nuances, explode the cliches)? At the moment it just reads as you talking past each other.
https://www.academia.edu/10663597/Do_Anarchists_Dream_of_Emancipated_Sheep_-_contemporary_anarchism_animal_liberation_and_the_implications_of_new_philosophy
One nihilist writing through a fog of existential crisis, but exploring subjects that might appeal to you more:
http://squee.anarchyplanet.org/vegetarianism/
The prying over arbitrariness that would subsume moral relativism under a universalist framework is all very interesting, but I think you're dealing with much harder fish to fry which are authenticity, will to power, is there such thing as selfless altruism (I know selfish altruism is just as good, but explore the nuances, explode the cliches)? At the moment it just reads as you talking past each other.
One article I can suggest on a vegan ethical nihilism:
https://www.academia.edu/10663597/Do_Anarchists_Dream_of_Emancipated_Sheep_-_contemporary_anarchism_animal_liberation_and_the_implications_of_new_philosophy
One nihilist writing through a fog of existential crisis, but exploring subjects that might appeal to you more:
http://squee.anarchyplanet.org/vegetarianism/
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
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
- AMP3083
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
- Diet: Meat-Eater
Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
When I said that I haven't made any arbitrary moral claims, I was responding to this comment you made:brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2017 12:32 amYou can say it's OK for others, just not OK for you. Saying just that it's "not OK" implies it's not OK for anybody. That implies an arbitrary moral judgement.
You want me to name a difference of trait (Isaac's NameTheTrait challenge) between animals and humans, but I haven't nor will I make any distinction between the two. The only claim I made is that killing humans for food is not my preference. Personal preference does not "imply" anybody else. Example: "X is not ok with me" means just that - a personal thing.I'm saying the same reasoning applies by default unless you can show how they are different. Arbitrarily claiming humans are infinitely valuable but non-humans have no value by default without a consistent reason is in violation of the basic requirements.
No, I do not recognize it to be irrational. I recognize that anger is a human emotion and that emotions are subjective. I might feel angry knowing there's a cannibal among us -- this anger is subjective. Me feeling angry about someone eating humans is a rational emotion because it goes against what I deem as "normal". I think it's normal to see people eat chicken, but not humans. If I was raised in a world where people ate people, I'd view that as normal. I never lay claim of objectivity about my morality or emotions.AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmI would rather eat chicken instead of a human being. If a person likes to eat humans, that's their preference too, although it would be strange to do so considering it's not part of the norm that I grew up seeing, and I might even feel anger.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2017 12:32 amYou recognize that such anger is as irrational as somebody getting upset at another for preferring chocolate instead of vanilla, right? If you think the anger is rationally justified, that's where you have a problem and are making an implicit claim ("it's justified because that's morally wrong"). If you admit it's irrational, and that you just get angry at things for no good reason because you don't personally like them and you don't like it when other people have different preferences, that's perhaps logically consistent, but it also implies you have some kind of emotional problem.
You want me to argue against your long-winded explanations that apparently proves [via mathematics] how morality is supposed to be objective? What's to argue against? I agree with most of it, but nothing of what you said can hardly be considered evidence to prove your case or prove that morality is not preference.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2017 12:32 amDo you have any actual arguments against my explanation?
Or do you just not like it, so reject it for no reason other than whim?
If that's the case, then you are not a rational person.
A rational person is compelled to accept sound argumentation.
If you can present a logical argument against what I have explained, please do. If not, then you have to accept the argument. Or you can admit you have no interest in rational/logical discussion.
So, what about this Trolley quiz? You said it's not an arbitrary process. Why is that? Why must we let "science of morality" eliminate our biases? Why are we allowing science to be the arbiter of our thought? You can take the scientific endeavor of trying to logically evaluate the situation, but I don't see how this is a basis for claiming that the trolley problem is not arbitrary.
All you're doing is laying down a scenario and narrating it from a scientific or mathematical perspective. You have adopted this perspective, but it is not necessarily an immutable truth written in some handbook of the cosmos. Plus, this says absolutely NOTHING about you or me as an individual.
I prefer snickerdoodle cookies over raisins. Why? Now, you can attempt to figure out why using science and mathematics, but what does this prove in the end? Absolutely nothing, except that it was merely my preference.
Do you know why you can open and close your hands? A neurologist may be able to explain it to you, but that doesn't mean he can do it any better than you can.
If you were to agree with me that morality is merely preference, then you must complete the second part of Question #2: Is it obligated to demonstrate logical consistency at all?
If you answer No, then that'll be that and we can conclude our discussion on that point.
Last edited by AMP3083 on Sun May 14, 2017 3:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
- AMP3083
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
- Diet: Meat-Eater
Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
Hi, NonZeroSum.NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2017 3:09 am From my understanding of this post and the one on his blog - https://amp3083.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/commentary-on-veganism-from-a-mentor/%EF%BB%BF - AMP just enjoys poking vegans in YouTube comment sections
The word "enjoy" here is being used rather arbitrarily. 'Enjoy' is a personal experience. You're using it from a place of presupposition to describe my own experience. If you want to know if I enjoy something, just ask me. The truth is I enjoy intellectual conversations like the one we're having here. I'm not poking at vegans, whatever that means. I'm at your company with sincerity. If you don't like what I'm saying and have nothing to contribute, just watch and move on. Some of us here actually like to have a legitimate discussion.
Thanks for posting the link to my blog. You're not obligated to respond to it, but since you're plugging it for me, it would be cool to get a feedback from you. Also, if you're having a little trouble trying to get through what my buddy was saying, I can invite him here and you can ask him yourself. Let me know.
I also have a YouTube channel. Can you plug that one for me too. haha, just kidding.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
That's fine. We have been having two arguments in tandem. One about #namethattrait, which I explained the weaknesses of.AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2017 3:21 amWhen I said that I haven't made any arbitrary moral claims, I was responding to this comment you made:brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2017 12:32 amYou can say it's OK for others, just not OK for you. Saying just that it's "not OK" implies it's not OK for anybody. That implies an arbitrary moral judgement.
You want me to name a difference of trait (Isaac's NameTheTrait challenge) between animals and humans, but I haven't nor will I make any distinction between the two. The only claim I made is that killing humans for food is not my preference. Personal preference does not "imply" anybody else. Example: "X is not ok with me" means just that - a personal thing.I'm saying the same reasoning applies by default unless you can show how they are different. Arbitrarily claiming humans are infinitely valuable but non-humans have no value by default without a consistent reason is in violation of the basic requirements.
If you make no moral claims, #namethattrait doesn't apply to you.
This is why, as I said, I find it more valuable to discuss what morality is. A major reason for refusing moral claims is believing morality is arbitrary or relative. I demonstrate how it is objective. Now whether you want to live by morality, that's a matter of choice and depends on what kind of person you want to be.
What do you think rational and irrational mean?
If you like, you can call it "non-rational", if you prefer to make that distinction.
Now you're making a claim. This is something you need to substantiate.
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.
Not being "normal" is not a logical basis for anger. And it's definitely not reasonable in the context of modern society. We don't go off on people just for doing something we don't regard as normal.
Emotions, whether they be love or anger, tend to be irrational or non-rational (if you have a problem with the term 'irrational').
It's normal for people to wear shoes on their feet, but not on their heads. Would it be reasonable to become angry at people on the street if you saw them wearing shoes on their heads? Or would you just be an asshole for going off on them, stuck in your ways, and with no rational argument against them doing what they prefer?
But you claim your emotions are rational.
Would you like to retract that claim?
Identify a flawed premise, or invalid logic in my argument.
Otherwise, if you are rational, you would agree with it.
Great, then tell me which part you do not agree with and why.
This is how logical discussion works. If you mainly comment on youtube, that may not seem normal to you. That's how it works here.
It's not just empirical evidence, it's better than that: it's a logical proof.
As I said, choosing to behave morally may be a preference, but which behaviors are moral and which are not is a matter of objective fact.
Because it's not based on personal whim with respect to the situation.
Morality indicates clearly what we should do. Personal whim may cause us to do otherwise. We may not always want to be moral. But like mathematics, the correct answer doesn't vary based on your mood.
I'm not sure you understand what arbitrary means.
Because biases are arbitrary.
If you want to be rational, you prefer your thought process to align with reality and logic as much as possible.
Not all people are interested in being rational. You asking that question implies that's not something you're interested in.
Are you anti-science?
Biases are arbitrary. The scientific method controls for bias. This is how you arrive at non-arbitrary answers, whether in morality, physics, or anything else.
It's basically the anti-thesis to faith, which is arbitrary bias codified into dogma.
You're making less and less sense.
The cosmos has no handbook, but it does operate on certain laws. Logic is one of them. I used a logical argument. So, yes, it is true unless there is a flaw in the argument. If you can not identify such a flaw, you should accept the argument if you endeavor to be rational.
Why would it need to?
You're missing the plot here.
It doesn't matter.
The fact that you do is what matters.
So, if somebody were to give you cookies, that person should probably give you snickerdoodle cookies instead of raisin cookies, all other things being equal, because you will like them more. That's what morality is. It's not asking WHY you like this or that, it's determining that you do and advising a third party to consider your interest accordingly.
This just sounds like anti-science talking points.
Morality is not preference. Choosing to act morally can be regarded as a preference.
Morality must be logically consistent. People don't have to be logically consistent in their actions or beliefs, but if they are not then they are not rational.
If you have no interest in being moral, and you have no interest in being rational, there's no point to this conversation.
If you are interested in being rational, then there are certain things you must believe when demonstrated to you.
For example, my demonstration of what morality means, unless you can show a flaw in the argument.
- 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
I don't doubt, I like to shoot straight how I see it, have bruised some egos on the site, but my hope is to inject some change into the discussion, as all parties were struggling to find common ground.AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2017 3:37 am The word "enjoy" here is being used rather arbitrarily. 'Enjoy' is a personal experience. You're using it from a place of presupposition to describe my own experience. If you want to know if I enjoy something, just ask me. The truth is I enjoy intellectual conversations like the one we're having here. I'm not poking at vegans, whatever that means. I'm at your company with sincerity. If you don't like what I'm saying and have nothing to contribute, just watch and move on. Some of us here actually like to have a legitimate discussion.
Sure thing, I went from the google plus link to your youtube to your blog post you commented.I also have a YouTube channel. Can you plug that one for me too. haha, just kidding.
James Corbett: Veganism
https://youtu.be/k5pOEpCCK2o
Corbett makes a really common misunderstanding over the definition of speciesism - for clarification watch Unnatural Vegan's video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fePeFVNohM%EF%BB%BF
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
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
- Jebus
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
This is starting to seem pointless. Theo was not the brightest guy either, but at least he responded to the arguments instead of dancing around them.
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.
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.
- AMP3083
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
- Diet: Meat-Eater
Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
Hey now, I came to this forum proposing 3 questions that are still unresolved. I'm glad we're having some discussion but it looks like we've all had our time on the dance floor.
I'll get to responding in a few hours. It's late and I need some rest.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality
I won't be able to respond until tomorrow anyway, so please take your time and think it over.
Have a good evening.