Why isn't Psycho vegan?

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.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:51 am If we could get rid of car collisions too (which will happen eventually with self-driving cars with better night vision and no distraction) they'd live even longer.
Have you ever hit a deer?

Just because of their behavior, I'm convinced that many are just suicidal. (It sounds like I'm kidding, but I've really wondered..) The last deer I hit ran alongside my vehicle for at least a quarter of a mile, then suddenly veered directly in front of me.

If they come up with an algorithm to anticipate deer movements, then chances are the computers themselves are sentient, and I for one welcome our new robot overlords.. ;)
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:51 am The torturing is wrong, but the saving of lives is right. It's a question of which weighs more heavily.

Ends can justify the means, but due to human bias in order to do that the ends should be MUCH higher stakes than the means, otherwise we might convince ourselves that something is OK when in reality we misjudged the situation.

A sure thing of saving a hundred lives by torturing a terrorists for two minutes?

Maybe... or maybe torture is ineffective, and maybe it's the wrong guy, and maybe the bomb wouldn't have gone off anyway since a lot of these home made explosives are duds, or maybe...
:twisted:

In reference to the bolded point, I agree 100%. (By which I mean I think it is the best path; I understand you are positing it as a questionable endeavor)

(and this may be a topic for a different thread)

If you entertain the notion that it may be the appropriate moral action to torture such a terrorist to save lives,.....
Are you willing to torture them yourself?

Or would you proposition a mostly morally upright PsYcHo willing to do the dirty work? :twisted:


Thanks for the input Brim and Jebus (others can join in too, We like to hear from many different perspectives).

I concede I'm not as moral as I could be, but I posit that I am much, much more moral (as it pertains to treating animals in a dietary sense) than I was/could be.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:31 am The last deer I hit ran alongside my vehicle for at least a quarter of a mile, then suddenly veered directly in front of me.
The deer was in flight mode, thought it was being chased. Moose do this too. There was probably an opening to escape into the woods on the other side of the road, which is why the deer veered; or your speed changed, or some other predictable trigger which made the deer feel like that was the chance to finally escape.

It's weird behavior, but it's predictable within certain parameters.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:31 amIf they come up with an algorithm to anticipate deer movements, then chances are the computers themselves are sentient, and I for one welcome our new robot overlords.. ;)
Keep in mind a human has slow reflexes and can't see far in the dark: the opposite it true for even a non-AI computer program. Reflexes are instantaneous, and it can make near perfect decisions about swerving or not based on statistical data for the exact circumstances present. Doesn't take any intelligence to feed the variables through a decision table.

Anyway, the point is animal collisions will be basically unheard of compared to today. Which will be good, since a lot of people die in these accidents too.

I can't wait for self driving cars to be the norm, overlords or not.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:02 am In reference to the bolded point, I agree 100%. (By which I mean I think it is the best path; I understand you are positing it as a questionable endeavor)
Well, the question is about our knowledge. Maybe we think it's a sure thing, but it's actually a one in a million chance. In which case, we're gambling on torturing a million people to save 200... not quite as good a deal.

But I agree; if it's actually a sure thing, then that's what we should do.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:02 amAre you willing to torture them yourself?

Or would you proposition a mostly morally upright PsYcHo willing to do the dirty work? :twisted:
I'd entrust a professional. I might not be very good at it.

PsYcHo wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:02 amI concede I'm not as moral as I could be, but I posit that I am much, much more moral (as it pertains to treating animals in a dietary sense) than I was/could be.
I think we can all agree on that. I hope you'll keep working on it.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:04 am I can't wait for self driving cars to be the norm, overlords or not.
I'll put in a good word for you to the overlords. I mean, if at some point they exist. (They're definitely not in charge now.... I mean, they'd likely install a reality star in the White House to sow confusion and opposition among the humans, or something like that.)
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Ends can justify the means, but due to human bias in order to do that the ends should be MUCH higher stakes than the means, otherwise we might convince ourselves that something is OK when in reality we misjudged the situation.
Because of rounding errors?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why isn't Psycho vegan?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:24 am
brimstoneSalad wrote:Ends can justify the means, but due to human bias in order to do that the ends should be MUCH higher stakes than the means, otherwise we might convince ourselves that something is OK when in reality we misjudged the situation.
Because of rounding errors?
More rationalizing and self-deception due to bias.

E.g. people who want to eat meat are more likely to see animal agriculture as benign.
People who want to travel the world like to see air transportation as benign. etc.

Opposing those things is more likely to be rational, since not doing those things doesn't create hedonistic bias.

We need to be particularly skeptical of the analysis we make that favors things we want/enjoy.
Same with analysis made for cute animals vs. ugly ones.
Post Reply