Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

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.
Darken
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:35 pm
Diet: Vegan

Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by Darken »

Hi,

But brimstone misses something

AY states another premis, that you believe in universal human rights.

You can not justify killing humans based on I dont care about him or her.

And let's say that "my opinion" isn't a trait, ok. So I'm inconsistent even before I name a trait then. Why?
Because it is inconsistent to justify killing animals "because I don't care for them", while at the same time not acknowledging the same justification for killing humans.

And holding the opinion that I would accept killing humans if "I don't care" is pure nonsense. Believing that morality is subjective doesn't mean you can't objectively look at (and judge) other people's moral beliefs. And I judge a belief like that wrong, as do the rest of western society.

So we're back at the start, the trait. Brimstone claims he can differentiate humans from other animals without using a trait. But deeming humans of moral value because he cares? That is like saying humans have moral value because they have moral value..
That's no way to prove that you can differentiate humans from other animals without using a trait.
I'm sorry, but wanting AYs argument to be wrong doesn't make it wrong.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pm AY states another premis, that you believe in universal human rights.

You can not justify killing humans based on I dont care about him or her.
P1 just states that humans have moral value (in the present tense), not anything permanent.
If you wanted to, you could also hold that once you give something moral value by fiat, it is permanent thereafter, and you just haven't granted it to animals.
Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pmAnd let's say that "my opinion" isn't a trait, ok. So I'm inconsistent even before I name a trait then. Why?

Because it is inconsistent to justify killing animals "because I don't care for them", while at the same time not acknowledging the same justification for killing humans.
Humans could spontaneously stop having moral value the moment you stop caring.
Or, as I said, it could be permanent once decreed by fiat.
That's the beauty of arbitrary rules; they can bend around anything except a direct denial of arbitrary rules.
Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pmAnd holding the opinion that I would accept killing humans if "I don't care" is pure nonsense.
If you did not care about killing humans then you would have no basis to not accept that. Not accepting them being killed is caring about them being killed.
This is tautologically true:
If you did not care about humans you wouldn't care about humans.
Do you disagree? And if so, why?
Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pmBelieving that morality is subjective doesn't mean you can't objectively look at (and judge) other people's moral beliefs.
It means you can't judge them on an objective moral basis.

You can judge them relative to other arbitrary objective metrics, like as being more or less profitable, or more or less easily spread.
That says nothing about what is prescriptively desirable, though, and the choice of metric (if not necessitated) would not be objective.
Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pmAnd I judge a belief like that wrong, as do the rest of western society.
Are you saying "In my opinion, the opinions of people I don't agree with are not good according to my opinion"?
Because that seems like a pretty useless thing to say.

Is it only your opinion that Nazism or Jihadism is not good? And is your opinion exactly equal, no better or worse, than the opinion of a Nazi or Jihadist who says YOUR moral system is not good?

Or are there moral facts that let you objectively say that these are bad and immoral systems?
Are you saying it's FACT that their moral beliefs are worse?

In the latter case you are literally a moral objectivist (that's a good thing). You are judging subjective moral systems on the basis of some higher metric of morality. This is a reasonable thing to do, because it's pretty useless if we define morality as arbitrary opinion.

Every subjective system is necessarily equal; none can be higher or stand in meaningful judgement of another. If you are judging systems against each other on moral terms in any meaningful way, you can only use an objective system to do that.
Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pm So we're back at the start, the trait. Brimstone claims he can differentiate humans from other animals without using a trait.
You don't have to differentiate them, you can just declare by fiat that one has moral value and another doesn't as a premise of a "moral system".

Nothing in Ask Yourself's argument demands justification for that value. It is simply not structured correctly.

Ask Yourself used to say (if you go back into his older videos and debates) something like "either you think actions need to be justified or you don't".

And THAT was a 'non-arbitrary' premise. His informal argument was actually better than this botched formal one, because once you claim something has to be justified as a premise you take away the ability of people to just assert it as unjustified fiat.

Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pm But deeming humans of moral value because he cares? That is like saying humans have moral value because they have moral value..
No, although you could do that if you wanted because nothing in the argument says it has to be justified at all.
But defining moral value as coming from you personally caring is defining yourself as the arbiter of morality, like a god, and saying you can declare morality as divine command based on your whim.
It's not circular; the moral value is stemming from your subjective feelings, it is grounded in something real.

This is why it's so important to have a premise that denies people the use of arbitrary justifications, and that denies them the option to not justify it at all.
Ask Yourself used to do this, and at some point he stopped doing it when he made his formal argument. He made a mistake by throwing out that premise.
Darken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:11 pm I'm sorry, but wanting AYs argument to be wrong doesn't make it wrong.
I don't want his argument to be wrong. It would be great if it were right.
We all want to help more people go vegan, and the best way to do that is with strong arguments that people can't wriggle out of.
It's just a fact that it is not currently logically valid (in the form it takes now). A few small changes help with that. I would like the argument to be corrected, of course that doesn't mean he has to correct it in the way I corrected it (that was just an example).

I would like to ask: How sure are you that Ask Yourself's argument is logically flawless? 100%? 90%? Something else?
Darken
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:35 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by Darken »

Hi, thanks for the response ☺️
Before I answer your post (it's a little long and it would take more time that I have right this moment)
Do you see my points? And are just trying to get me to word my arguments better?
An answer to your last question. I'm always questioning, but I currently can't find a flaw in the logic of ntt, assuming we put in the premis about universal human rights (he doesn't word the premis like that, but always starts out with asking if you believe in universal human rights and how that would logically lead to veganism)
Gregor Samsa
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by Gregor Samsa »

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:12 am Hi, thanks for the response ☺️
Before I answer your post (it's a little long and it would take more time that I have right this moment)
Do you see my points? And are just trying to get me to word my arguments better?
An answer to your last question. I'm always questioning, but I currently can't find a flaw in the logic of ntt, assuming we put in the premis about universal human rights (he doesn't word the premis like that, but always starts out with asking if you believe in universal human rights and how that would logically lead to veganism)
Universal human rights wouldn't help. A person can accept universal human rights on an arbitrary basis or for no reason at all. The previous commentators have already explained far better than I could so I will only add this: the moment you hear ask yourself go "but you wouldn't accept being stabbed/killed/raped/[insert gruesome scenario]" is the moment you should realize he has now imported/about to import moral objectivism into the conversation.
Darken
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:35 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by Darken »

Ok, I admit that I haven't delved into the different definitions of moral belief systems, so there may be some philosophical definitions about subjectivism and objectivism that I've missed so please bare with me.

Lets say, I believe that morality exist only because I, and others like me, experience the world around us in this (or that) manner.
That would make me a subjectivist of some kind.

Then we add; I also believe that in societies, people acknowledges (approves of) other people suggestions of what is right or wrong and thereby creates moral rules which we can call laws for the sake of this argument.
That is still within the moral subjectivism as these laws can change over time as peoples views of right and wrong changes.

Then we add; I can subjectively judge other societies "laws" as right (in agreement with my own personal or with my society's laws) or wrong
This judgment is also subject to change like all other opinions I hold.
I my mind, I'm still in alignment with the subjectivist belief.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to state that the morality of a society, at a given time, is moral objectivism seem to work against my common sense.

Know, lets say that the statement: "we believe in some kind of universal human rights" (like we don't kill people for no reason)
is a statement made by a society that currently holds this position because the haven't come upon a reason to change their view yet.
(Like Foucaults notion, that you think in a box of your current time until something happens that make you think out of the box)
Then this statement is also in alignment with the subjectivist belief.

This is a matter of common sense for me and not a philosophical question that needs an answer.
The way FriendEd tries to dodge the argument is by saying "I have no business judging other peoples moral beliefs because they are not mine (or my ingroups), which is pure nonsense in my ears.
Saying you can't have an opinion of other peoples actions and justifications thereof.. well I have opinions like that which should be proof enough that its at least doable. which logically leads to my assumption that he for some reason chooses not to articulate his thoughts on the subject (or choose not to think about it, which should ring some alarm bells)

I could continue with some of the other point in the same way, but choose to stop here for now.
I think we need to determine if I can call my self a moral subjectivist or if another definition covers it better.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:12 am Do you see my points? And are just trying to get me to word my arguments better?
Basically. I just want all vegans to use good arguments so we're bullet proof against carnists.

Remember, vegan recidivism is very high. Most people quit vegan, and I think a big part of that is that the reasons aren't very consistent. They just have to meet a few smart carnists who poke holes in their logic, and then the whole thing falls apart. I don't want that to happen; I want those confrontations to end up with the carnists going vegan, and not the vegan quitting.

A bullet proof argument means more vegans, more carnists being switched when they argue against it and fail, and more people staying vegan.

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:12 amI currently can't find a flaw in the logic of ntt, assuming we put in the premis about universal human rights (he doesn't word the premis like that, but always starts out with asking if you believe in universal human rights and how that would logically lead to veganism)
Gregor Samsa covered this. Universal human rights doesn't fix it, because universal rights can have arbitrary reasons too.

You need a premise that says something like "Moral value must be justified by non-arbitrary reasons"
Which is a pretty simple premise. I can't imagine many people disagreeing with it.

You can also argue for that premise if somebody says they don't agree:
If morality is justified arbitrarily, then it has no persuasive power and loses its meaning. There's no way to say ISIS or Nazis are wrong objectively, because they all have their own arbitrary justifications.
Then you can argue that the way to justify it non-arbitrarily is to name a trait that, if true of you instead of animals, would mean you had no moral value. If there is no such trait, then animals must have some moral value too.

That's how you make a bullet-proof argument.

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm That is still within the moral subjectivism as these laws can change over time as peoples views of right and wrong changes.
Do you believe that slavery was morally right because people considered it morally right at the time?
And if so, then clearly eating meat is morally right today because most people agree it's OK.

I don't think you agree with those point, so I don't think you're a moral subjectivist.
Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm Then we add; I can subjectively judge other societies "laws" as right (in agreement with my own personal or with my society's laws) or wrong
This judgment is also subject to change like all other opinions I hold.
And they can judge you right or wrong based on their opinions. That's useless.
Everybody thinks people who disagree with them are wrong. That makes morality meaningless.
Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to state that the morality of a society, at a given time, is moral objectivism seem to work against my common sense.
I'm not talking about the morality of society at a particular time. I'm talking about a logical concept of morality that is independent of society or people's opinions. I'm talking about a morality based on harm, which is an objective thing, not based on people's feelings about what morality is.

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm Know, lets say that the statement: "we believe in some kind of universal human rights" (like we don't kill people for no reason)
is a statement made by a society that currently holds this position because the haven't come upon a reason to change their view yet.
(Like Foucaults notion, that you think in a box of your current time until something happens that make you think out of the box)
Then this statement is also in alignment with the subjectivist belief.
That statement IS in line with moral subjectivism. However, this premise is not:

"Moral value must be justified by non-arbitrary reasons"

And you NEED that premise to make the argument work. That is a moral objectivist premise. If you agree with that statement, then you're a moral objectivist of some kind, not a subjectivist.

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm This is a matter of common sense for me and not a philosophical question that needs an answer.
The trouble is that "common sense" is often logically wrong.
Either you do or you do not want to be logically consistent in your beliefs. And if you do, you need philosophy to help you sort out those contradictions. You can't rely on common sense.

Please read this:
https://hubpages.com/education/Counterintuitive-Statistics

The most important thing you could possibly learn here today is that you can not trust your intuition/common sense when it comes to logic.

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm The way FriendEd tries to dodge the argument is by saying "I have no business judging other peoples moral beliefs because they are not mine (or my ingroups), which is pure nonsense in my ears.
He judges other people's moral beliefs based on his own, AND based on objective morality.
Remember when I challenged him about his and Nazi morality? He wanted to talk about his vs. French morality instead, but he wouldn't jump into the boat of claiming his and Nazi morality were objectively equal and only wrong according to each other.

FriendEd is a moral objectivist too, he just doesn't realize it and he's contradicting himself. He wants to use subjectivism as an excuse in some cases, but then use objectivism on others.

Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm Saying you can't have an opinion of other peoples actions and justifications thereof.. well I have opinions like that which should be proof enough that its at least doable.
Yeah, he doesn't say that. I think you misunderstood FriendEd. I've talked to him at some length. He IS inconsistent, but not on that point.
Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm which logically leads to my assumption that he for some reason chooses not to articulate his thoughts on the subject (or choose not to think about it, which should ring some alarm bells)
FriendEd wants to call himself a subjectivist. He's actually a moral objectivist but doesn't know it. He doesn't like thinking about/talking about that subject because he contradicts himself.
You're right, it should ring some alarm bells.

The same is the case with Ask Yourself; another objectivist who doesn't understand the definitions correctly.

Almost everybody is a moral Objectivist.
Darken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:13 pm I think we need to determine if I can call my self a moral subjectivist or if another definition covers it better.
Probably moral objectivist fits better. Plenty of people think they're subjectivists, but it's almost never true.
If you believe it's important for morality to be justified non-arbitrarily, then you're a moral objectivist.
Darken
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:35 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by Darken »

Hi again,

Sorry I haven't answered in a while, been super busy 😉

Well.. I've delved a little into subjective and objective morality.. That doesn't come across as "oh, this makes soo much sense" seen in the light of the normal meanings of being subjective or objective..
But reading a little about it I can see where the confusion arises and you are off course right in your definitions of both.
The afværgee person, which I think we all can agree on, is no philosopher, which would make an argument like the one you propose, meaningless for 80-90% of the population. (that is off course my estimate which you can challenge anyway you want)

That said, I still don't agree with your viewpoints (or maybe in the definition of objective morality, choose whatever suits you best).
There is only one way for a person to perceive reality and thereby morality and that is from a subjective point of view.
From this, the mind (some would challenge that, but I think you know what I mean) can draw certain observations and conclusions.
To believe that a person is born with an inherent sense of good is something that is of yet unproven though many hold this belief.
Wether or not that is true, anyone can, at a given time, hold the belief that good equals no harm or, least amount of harm or any other belief for that matter.
The perceived reality and the mind's interpretation and conclusions are changeable. And therefore a belief that something can be objectively perceived and concluded upon because it is "real" as a table is the same table for all who perceive it.. That is an illusion.
It might be the biggest table one person has seen an the highest another has seen. Remember when you are a child? Reality changes as you change and so does moral (piaget, kohlbergs)
And as you said earlier.
"Do you believe that slavery was morally right because people considered it morally right at the time?
And if so, then clearly eating meat is morally right today because most people agree it's OK
."

Try to see morality as an journey, because I passed the point where it was made clear slavery is wrong - I now see it as wrong (and will see it as that when I look from here [now] to the past and to the future)
When (speculation for the future) the world comes to the conclusion that veganism was wrong and abolishing slavery was too - then I will look back with my new truths (which might be slavery in old times was wrong, but in these new times it's fine [ex. Working poor is akin to slavery and we might find it the only way to make human societies work] ) ..
Read Foucault and the part where he talks about seeing beyond the box, only because a new disaster (disease) makes us look at things differently.


I now choose to address all people that; at this given time (and as long as they choose to) holds the opinion, that harming another human being for no reason, is morally wrong.
These people can now "take" the NTT logical consistency test. And because the test only are a momentary test taken in this instance in time, the claim that you can just change your mind is irrelevant. It is a test for [now]
If the subjects/people wish to name an arbitrary reason for killing etc. I see no problem in asking them if they would wish that treatment upon themselves. Be it objectivism or not.
If they say no, then it might be because they are 'objectivists' themselves (with or without knowing).
If they say yes or claim some arbitrary reason, they might be real subjectivists (and thereby probably a lost cause) or inconsistent in their morality (which may or may not trigger a change when they become aware of it).
Whatever you or anyone thinks of arbitrary reasons like "I don't believe humans shorter than 1 meter are of moral value"
That arbitrary reasoning can be turned around like AY does it.
And you don't have to be an objectivist to see the inconsistency.
Its math,
which may be the only thing that is near to objective but still has axioms and rules that can be changed. But if you change the rules for math, it still has to be consistent or else if loses its meaning.
The same applies to logic. Anyone can claim they don't believe in logic - and that's the end of that discussion.
You can find meaning without a common consensus. Fortunately humans are flok animals that tend to seek a common consensus with its peers.

Now this may not follow the rules of Philosophers and the difinitions might be wrong, but if you lose half the "audience" (or maybe closer to 80-90%) because they don't understand you, you either reword your speech or change the rules.

-Im totally on board with having a solid argument.
-I'm totally on board with your scepticism about AYs rather impolite way of addressing other people.
-I'm not on board with criticising his definition in front of carnists,
I would rather have you backing up the claim and when someone comes along with a philosophical point about the argument having flaws, just tell him you already know and the reasons why we don't complicate the matter for the average person.
-I'm totally on board with having this discussion in a vegan forum which is why "we/you" should have talked to AY in private.

And why oh why haven't one of you guys told FriendEd why he's inconsistent. Oh well, he might not be ready for the red pill yet..
It's probably just wishful thinking that you guys could've made a difference 😉

I'm sorry this text isn't as structured as I wanted it to be.
Tumbling thoughs and writing on a phone is not the best circumstances. Hope my meaning comes across right ☺️
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm Well.. I've delved a little into subjective and objective morality.. That doesn't come across as "oh, this makes soo much sense" seen in the light of the normal meanings of being subjective or objective..
The "normal" meanings are not consistent and do not represent complete ideas, the same with the normal meanings of "power" and "energy", and even "force". Try to have a conversation about physics using the colloquial definitions of those terms (do you know anything about physics? because it's a good analogy).

When we're talking physics, we do not use Deepak Chopra's definitions of words or the vague, overlapping, and logically incoherent definitions of a layman, we use the rigorous definitions in physics which exist to communicate clearly and precisely about these ideas on a logical and mathematical level.

Likewise, when speaking about philosophy we do NOT use colloquial definitions. It's not productive, and beyond that trying to justify arguments with colloquial definitions (which are inconsistent) is to make a fallacy of ambiguity and open gaping holes in your argument based on those vague definitions.

Trying to substitute in colloquial definitions for rigorous technical definitions in the context of technical conversations (be that in physics or philosophy) ranges from profoundly ignorant to intellectually dishonest. Where the interlocutor stands depends on whether the substitution was done due to ignorance or ego/agenda. Neither is good.

In Deepak Chopra's case, he has been corrected on the physics and the correct definitions of these terms and properties many times, but he persists. Why? Seems like his public reputation and career is based on being wrong about these things.
Only time will tell how Ask Yourself responds to these criticisms on his incorrect word usage.
He can maintain intellectual honesty by either retreating from philosophical arguments and sticking to informal argument, or changing how he is using these words to be consistent with the more rigorous philosophical terms. I personally doubt that he will do either, but I'm not going to jump to assumptions just yet.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm The afværgee person, which I think we all can agree on, is no philosopher, which would make an argument like the one you propose, meaningless for 80-90% of the population. (that is off course my estimate which you can challenge anyway you want)
For 80-90% of the population, the solution is NOT to use an intellectually dishonest pseudo-philosophical argument to trick them with fallacious word usage. That's down there with telling people veganism will 100% cure their cancer in terms of dishonesty.

If people are not capable of handling such a philosophical argument, then use a different argument. There are many simpler arguments to use.
A philosophical argument is for relatively well educated audiences. Either that, or you have to spend a little more time defining your terms and explaining the logic.

Here are a few arguments I recommend for less educated arguments:
  • Why do we eat pigs/cows/chickens and love dogs/cats?
  • Less unnecessary suffering (people usually already agree with this)
  • Environmental arguments
If somebody isn't smart enough to understand a good philosophical argument, and doesn't care about pets, and doesn't care about unnecessary animal suffering, and doesn't care about the environment, your best bet is to write that person off as a lost cause and move on (save your effort for others who are more open). With those informal arguments you should manage to find something to talk about with most of that 90%.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm That said, I still don't agree with your viewpoints (or maybe in the definition of objective morality, choose whatever suits you best).
The definition of moral objectivism (or moral realism) is not for you to agree with or disagree with... It's for you to understand and use if you want to participate honestly in philosophical discussions.

Just like the definition of the number 5 is not for you to disagree with. You can't just say "I prefer to define 5 as the sum of 2 and 2, therefore 2+2=5".
If you want to do that in your art class or something, go for it, but if you show up to algebra with that mindset you will fail, and rightly so.

Context of discussions matters a lot in how lenient you can be with definitions. The context of #ntt is a philosophical one; it's even formatted as a formal argument, with P1, P1, C, etc.
Either the definitions being used are accidentally incorrect and need to be revised, or whoever formulated the argument is being dishonest.

I don't have a high tolerance for such overt dishonesty, particularly when it's being associated with veganism.

If it were true that 99.9% of the population didn't understand these terms and couldn't understand the arguments, I might agree that it didn't matter. But I think you're probably right that it's closer to 90%, and when 10% of the population (the most intelligent and educated) call bullshit on arguments like these it harms the credibility of veganism. I can see right through these arguments as a vegan, and you can bet that intelligent carnists will too.

This is much like What the Health did with its low-fat propaganda and "sugar doesn't cause diabetes" claim. What the Health of course got a lot right too, but a glaring error like that discredits the whole thing and makes vegans look either very ignorant about basic physiology or dishonest. Neither good. Of course you can become obese AND diabetic from sugar consumption; it's probably even easier to do with sugar than with dietary fat.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm There is only one way for a person to perceive reality and thereby morality and that is from a subjective point of view.
You are using these terms incorrectly.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm From this, the mind (some would challenge that, but I think you know what I mean) can draw certain observations and conclusions.
To believe that a person is born with an inherent sense of good is something that is of yet unproven though many hold this belief.
I'm not saying people are born with an inherent sense. People aren't born with an inherent sense of mathematics either, but neither is mathematics an empirical OR emotional concept; it's a logical one.

Does that make mathematics subjective? No. Obviously people are objectively wrong if they claim 2+2=5, and objectively right if they understand 2+2=4.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm Wether or not that is true, anyone can, at a given time, hold the belief that good equals no harm or, least amount of harm or any other belief for that matter.
You can believe a dog is a table, or that 2+2=5, or that the Earth is flat too. Doesn't make your beliefs true.
Moral objectivism doesn't claim that people can not be mistaken about morality, it claims that there is an inherent truth to moral claims and that claims can be true or false relative to that objective reality.
Of course plenty of people are mistaken about morality, just like they're mistaken about other non-moral facts.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmThe perceived reality and the mind's interpretation and conclusions are changeable. And therefore a belief that something can be objectively perceived and concluded upon because it is "real" as a table is the same table for all who perceive it.. That is an illusion.
Are you in the camp of metaphysical subjectivism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
Wikipedia wrote:Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that reality is what we perceive to be real, and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. One can also hold that it is consciousness rather than perception that is reality (subjective idealism). This is in contrast to metaphysical objectivism and philosophical realism, which assert that there is an underlying 'objective' reality which is perceived in different ways.
The weakness and bias of human perception is what science is for. We control for observational bias. That doesn't mean these things are not real, only that our perception is imperfect.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmTry to see morality as an journey, because I passed the point where it was made clear slavery is wrong - I now see it as wrong (and will see it as that when I look from here [now] to the past and to the future)
When (speculation for the future) the world comes to the conclusion that veganism was wrong and abolishing slavery was too - then I will look back with my new truths (which might be slavery in old times was wrong, but in these new times it's fine [ex. Working poor is akin to slavery and we might find it the only way to make human societies work] ) ..
You're talking descriptivism, this is a conversation about normative ethics, not about what you believed at different times.

Are you saying that if somebody thinks slavery is OK, then it's OK for that person to keep slaves?
If somebody thinks it's OK to murder people, then it's OK for them?
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmI now choose to address all people that; at this given time (and as long as they choose to) holds the opinion, that harming another human being for no reason, is morally wrong.
And are you saying that if a person considers it morally OK to murder another human for no reason, and that person then tries to murder you, that you will not resist and you'll just let that person murder you?

Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmThese people can now "take" the NTT logical consistency test.
It's not a logical consistency test, it's an informal colloquial double standard test. Logically the argument is not valid.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmAnd because the test only are a momentary test taken in this instance in time, the claim that you can just change your mind is irrelevant. It is a test for [now]
That's not something anybody is arguing.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmIf the subjects/people wish to name an arbitrary reason for killing etc. I see no problem in asking them if they would wish that treatment upon themselves. Be it objectivism or not.
You can ask them that if you want, but it has no relevance to the argument and the conclusion doesn't follow in any way from that. If you imply that it does in the asking, you're being dishonest with them.
If you want to make an informal argument not based on philosophy or pretending to be logical, that's fine, but it's not fine for a formal argument.

The problem is that it's an intellectually dishonest argument and it makes vegans look either ignorant of logic or dishonest to use it despite that.

Do you see any problem going into a cancer ward and telling people that if they go vegan it will 100% cure their cancer?

If they say OK, great, new vegan? If they doubt you, oh well they're just lost causes?
Because that's not all that goes down. Such behavior would be a PR nightmare. Might as well join PETA and start protesting at people's houses in front of their children.

If you care about the future veganism at all, rather than just converts you win for a day who go back to eating meat tomorrow when somebody tells them your argument was bullshit, these things are problems.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmAnd you don't have to be an objectivist to see the inconsistency.
If you think that's logically inconsistent, then you have to be ignorant of the definition of logical inconsistency.
A double standard is not logically inconsistent.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmIts math,
which may be the only thing that is near to objective but still has axioms and rules that can be changed. But if you change the rules for math, it still has to be consistent or else if loses its meaning.
The same with using the proper terms in philosophical arguments. You're generating inconsistency and ambiguity with incorrect usage of language. You can't just substitute in any definition. Not in mathematics, not in physics, not in philosophy. If you want to get serious about these philosophical discussions, you need to use definitions correctly. Objectivism, Subjectivism, Logical consistency/contradiction -- all important, all things you're using incorrectly.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmThe same applies to logic. Anyone can claim they don't believe in logic - and that's the end of that discussion.
You don't have logic on your side, you misunderstand how logic works.
People aren't rejecting math when they disagree with your claim that 2+2=5, they are rejecting your misunderstanding of or corruption of mathematics.
Likewise, rejecting #ntt doesn't require rejecting logic, it only requires using logic properly. Accepting #ntt as formulated requires rejecting logic.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pmNow this may not follow the rules of Philosophers and the difinitions might be wrong, but if you lose half the "audience" (or maybe closer to 80-90%) because they don't understand you, you either reword your speech or change the rules.
Again, that's called being intellectually dishonest. A win based on dishonesty is not reliable.
If you can't keep an audience with one argument, the answer is not to dishonestly twist the definitions and use an intellectually dishonest pseudo-philosophical argument to trick them with fallacious word usage.

Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm-Im totally on board with having a solid argument.
What do you mean by "solid"? Do you define "solid" as "liquid"?
Because I don't think you are on board with having an actual solid argument. That would mean an argument that is rigorous, using correct philosophical definitions of terms, and using valid logic not insane troll logic. It would mean an honest argument, and an argument that not all people will understand; and when they don't, it means using other arguments, not converting it into something dishonest so you can trick people who don't understand logic into agreeing.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm-I'm totally on board with your scepticism about AYs rather impolite way of addressing other people.
I'm less worried about that than the fact that the content of his argument is bad in combination with that delivery.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm-I'm not on board with criticising his definition in front of carnists,
I would rather have you backing up the claim and when someone comes along with a philosophical point about the argument having flaws, just tell him you already know and the reasons why we don't complicate the matter for the average person.
1. I left a comment on his video; not that public. I only took it more public when he dismissed it.

2. I do not AT ALL agree with using a dishonest argument because average people supposedly won't understand an honest one.
So, no, I'm not just going to "back up" a dishonest argument and try to do damage control when the originator is refusing correction.
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm-I'm totally on board with having this discussion in a vegan forum which is why "we/you" should have talked to AY in private.
I tried that before.
I agree private conversation is better, but I'm skeptical that it will get anywhere useful.

When carnists see vegans making ignorant and dishonest arguments (which those vegans refuse to stop making) I think it's more useful that other vegans come in and say "These arguments are bad because X and Y and Z, and by the way here are some good ones instead".
Honesty does a lot to inspire good will. Many anti-vegans are anti-vegan because they have been lied to, and they don't like the dishonesty. The answer is not MORE dishonesty and double talk, the answer is some candid honesty which has to be as public as the ignorant and dishonest arguments being made, and hopefully enough of it to drown out the bad arguments and show carnists that not all vegans are like that and that there ARE good arguments for going vegan after all once you sort out all of the bullshit.

Dissent against #NTT by vegans must be public to serve its purpose. Like Deepak Chopra, I don't think Ask Yourself is ever going to change his mind about the bad arguments he's using; he thinks his career on youtube is based on them and if he changed he probably fears ridicule. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe he'll change his arguments and start using words correctly, or stick with the informal arguments and stop playing at philosophy. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it would be one of the biggest surprises of my life if he moved an inch in that direction from all of this.
Darken
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:35 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by Darken »

Ok, this is tough, hope your can bear with me on this.

browsing a little on wiki, I can see, that I'm in over my head with different philosophical terms of views on life, universe and everything.
I do however have a view of my own, that I believe, do explain how it all fits together.
It might be something to do with metaphysical subjectivism or metaphysical objectivism or it might be something like realism, I'm not sure.
I appreciate the links you send me, I would be nice to know if somebody has the exact same view of this as I do :)

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am You're talking descriptivism, this is a conversation about normative ethics, not about what you believed at different times.

Are you saying that if somebody thinks slavery is OK, then it's OK for that person to keep slaves?
If somebody thinks it's OK to murder people, then it's OK for them?
Not quite. I'm describing the way the mind works, which is descriptive I believe. But this is, at the same time normative because normative ethics are perceived by the mind. let me elaborate.

person A lives in 1852 and believes slavery to be normal and right
At that point in time HE would think it OK to keep slaves.

Person B lives in 1854, has read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and has begun to challenge the 'normal' view that slavery is right.
At that point in time HE would think slavery is wrong.

Person A and B is the same person with different views at different times.

And you're question: "If somebody thinks it's OK to murder people, then it's OK for them?"
This shouldn't be a surprise to you. If person A thinks slavery is right, then off course it would be OK for him to keep slaves (in his opinion).
If you ask for my opinion (or person B's) then no, they would still hold the belief, that keeping slaves is wrong.

And this is the normative part. Person B would think that person A ought to stop keeping slaves.
Person A will of course only stop keeping slaves when his mind perceives the 'logic' behind person B's claim, that he should read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and expand his horizon.

The thing is.. the only way for you to perceive anything, is in your mind. all the conversations, all the books, the movies etc. that have changed your mind over time is still 'only' perceived by you.


On to the Table:

I do believe that there is a world around me with things I can bump into and hurt myself. the thing about that "reality" is, that no matter how real it is, I can only perceive it through my senses and in my mind. Some people thinks of a given table as a thing of regret, as he has stumped his toes one too many times on it. Another person perceives it with awe, as it is the most beautiful table she has ever seen.
everybody's view of that table, can be, and most likely is, different.
We humans are not dumb however, so we have design a way to categorize the table so we can think we see the same thing. We can agree that its made of wood, is a certain measurement of height high, a certain shade of brown etc. etc.
these definitions serve our communication. we "objectively" state the things we agree upon and see them as right. but it is still 'only' our perception of the table. The thing is, that the table might be built of atoms with nothingness in-between and if we were small enough, or had eyes fine enough we would perceive it differently. the smoothness would be a bubbles surface instead the colour is florescent for the fine eyes etc.

I'm not of the opinion that the way we categorize things is wrong, just imperfect.
Morality is harder to categorize than a table and we certainly have more difficulties agreeing of what is "right". This is why I see morality as an evolution, a journey, a ladder if you will.
Kohlberg (I don't know his philosophical position) has made a ladder for moral development which might be a steppingstone, a thing we can agree upon. https://www.education.com/reference/article/kohlbergs-moral-reasoning/

If we agree upon that as a framework for understanding humans moral journey, then people at a certain stage will (off course) have difficulties grasping the logic of some moral concepts.
the stages that we are addressing are level 5 and in particular level 6.
This is regrettably not something Kohlberg has put a lot of effort into, but we can still use the concept, that we have to evolve to reach those stages.

I believe, the "universal ethics" he is talking about is (though perceived as universal and thereby almost godlike in time and space) is still subject to change. All I have to do is read a certain book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (perhaps a future book) and the fundament of reality changes (for me)

Like in the movie "the Matrix".

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am The definition of moral objectivism (or moral realism) is not for you to agree with or disagree with... It's for you to understand and use if you want to participate honestly in philosophical discussions.
I don't agree with that either ;)
Isn't philosophy the art of discussing definitions of different things in life we would like to agree upon? (loosely put)
it comes down to the fact that I can't bring my thoughts into your head, therefore I need to convey my thought in a different way, with words.
When I say to you, the definition of objectivism (here seen in the context, that you thought I held those beliefs) is not something I agree with, It simply means that I don't share that view of the world.
Right this moment I try to convey my view of the world to you (sadly without the terms and definitions other people have spent centuries developing).
You on the other hand try to put me in one of the categories of one of the existing definitions of worldviews. That is off course understandable, but you have to keep the option open, that this particular view might not fit in the existing definitions (yet [off course I most certainly does, but it might not ;)]).



brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am If people are not capable of handling such a philosophical argument, then use a different argument. There are many simpler arguments to use.
A philosophical argument is for relatively well educated audiences. Either that, or you have to spend a little more time defining your terms and explaining the logic.

Here are a few arguments I recommend for less educated arguments:
  • Why do we eat pigs/cows/chickens and love dogs/cats?
  • Less unnecessary suffering (people usually already agree with this)
  • Environmental arguments
I went vegan because I saw Cowspiracy. I stumbled across AY's version of NTT 6 moths or so later, and it 'hit' me becase of the logic. It might not be correctly worded, but I understood the meaning of it anyway. I see myself as a person relying heavily on logic and would very much like one that you would have to spend 3 years of studies to comprehend. So from my point of view, your list is 1 short (without presuming I have the answer or anything like that)
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am
Darken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm There is only one way for a person to perceive reality and thereby morality and that is from a subjective point of view.
You are using these terms incorrectly.
Would you be so kind as to rewrite it so the terms are correct? (presuming you can decipher what I mean)

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am Does that make mathematics subjective? No. Obviously people are objectively wrong if they claim 2+2=5, and objectively right if they understand 2+2=4.
Actually it does.. bear with me, please. It depends on the axioms, the rules we agree upon. when you say 2+2=4 you presume I know, we are talking in decimal numbers which off course is a good presumption. but that is only "right" because we both agree upon it.
A 2 year old wouldn't agree or disagree, for him its just words. (I presume, as this is my perception of you talking with the 2 year old)
I know I'm just sophist (in danish it means hacling on the precise meanings of words, Im not sure of this translation)
The thing is, we could, as human beings, decide to rewrite the axioms in the future, because the decimal numbers don't go well with describing the universe around us - which could mean that 2+2 wouldn't equal 4 anymore. Do you see my point?

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am What do you mean by "solid"? Do you define "solid" as "liquid"?
Because I don't think you are on board with having an actual solid argument. That would mean an argument that is rigorous, using correct philosophical definitions of terms, and using valid logic not insane troll logic. It would mean an honest argument, and an argument that not all people will understand; and when they don't, it means using other arguments, not converting it into something dishonest so you can trick people who don't understand logic into agreeing.
I mean, I want a Solid argument, that is logical consistent in a philosophical way, just like you do.

I would simultaneously like a simplified argument also. It could be stated that its simplified and that the "real" one can be found at philosophicalvegan.com/NTT or something like that.

but hey, sometimes life doesn't work that way, and you can't always get what you want.

I do btw, enjoy this conversation and I have changes my view on AY's argument on acount of my perception of this thread.
Darken
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:35 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

Post by Darken »

hmm..
I try to be open minded and here still no response..
Post Reply