Argument From Relevance

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
tlscott
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am
Diet: Vegan

Argument From Relevance

Post by tlscott »

I stumbled upon this argument by listening to a fellow vegan YouTuber. It's called "The Argument from Relevance" which basically asserts that the only morally relevant "distinction" or trait for moral consideration is sentience. It's pretty similar in style to NTT, but this is a stand alone argument, not just a consistency test. The argument has two parts.

(1) We should make our decisions on the basis of what is relevant to the effects they will have.

(2) When we respect someone, we take into account how our decisions can harm or benefit them, and try to benefit and not harm.

(3) What is relevant to someone being benefited or harmed is their capacity to be benefited or harmed.

(4) We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.


(4) We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.

(5) Sentient beings are the ones that can be benefited or harmed.

(6) We should respect sentient beings.


What does everyone think?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Argument From Relevance

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Is 6 the only conclusion? If so, it's a long list of premises. (I assume 4 is repeated by accident, and not to establish a two part argument).

It seems OK, I don't see any gaping logical flaws (doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't see them right now).

The form is a little complicated though, so it may be a little confusing.

Where did you find this presented?
tlscott
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Argument From Relevance

Post by tlscott »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:36 pm Is 6 the only conclusion? If so, it's a long list of premises. (I assume 4 is repeated by accident, and not to establish a two part argument).

It seems OK, I don't see any gaping logical flaws (doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't see them right now).


The form is a little complicated though, so it may be a little confusing.
From what I understand, the argument is declaring 2 main things;

1: One should gage the morality of his action off of the result it yields. Basically a consequential argument.

2: Sentience is the only relevant trait on the ability to be harmed or benefited.

From my understanding, the premises do not lead to two separate arguments, rather, they're just two parts of the same argument. Respect means taking one's ability to suffer into account, and that sentience is the only relevant trait in one's ability to suffer. I hope I'm not misinterpreting this.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:36 pm Where did you find this presented?
Should've linked! It's on Animal Ethics.org. http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/relevance-of-sentience/argument-relevance/
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Argument From Relevance

Post by brimstoneSalad »

I would just say something like:
P1. It's impossible to respect the interests of a being that has no interests.
P2. All and Only sentient beings have interests.
C. It's only possible to respect sentient beings/it's possible to respect any sentient being.

This is a little more obvious.

The statement number 4 is placed in a way (and following other premises) that makes it look like it's supposed to be a conclusion.
(4) We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
If that's only a premise and not meant to be a conclusion from the former premises, all of those other premises (1-3) seem unnecessary.
If it's meant to be a conclusion from those premises, I don't think it follows.
tlscott
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Argument From Relevance

Post by tlscott »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:59 pm I would just say something like:
P1. It's impossible to respect the interests of a being that has no interests.
P2. All and Only sentient beings have interests.
C. It's only possible to respect sentient beings/it's possible to respect any sentient being.
This is probably the simplest and most comprehensive way to write the argument. I'm not sure why it's written the other way in two-part "steps" on the website. I guess the person/people who created the argument wanted to establish that we should morally consider those who have morally relevant traits, and that sentience is the only relevant trait.

Of course, as you stated, "Part 2" of the argument stands alone just fine:

p1: We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.

p2: Sentient beings are the ones that can be benefited or harmed.

c: We should respect sentient beings.


I'm not sure if "part 1" of this argument makes sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

(1) We should make our decisions on the basis of what is relevant to the effects they will have.

(2) When we respect someone, we take into account how our decisions can harm or benefit them, and try to benefit and not harm.

(3) What is relevant to someone being benefited or harmed is their capacity to be benefited or harmed.

C: We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.

Premises 1-3 seem like they're saying the same thing in different ways. And I don't see how they lead to the conclusion.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Argument From Relevance

Post by brimstoneSalad »

tlscott wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:05 pm I'm not sure if "part 1" of this argument makes sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're not wrong. If 4 is actually meant to be a conclusion and not a premise, then it doesn't make any sense.

(1) We should make our decisions on the basis of what is relevant to the effects they will have.

(2) When we respect someone, we take into account how our decisions can harm or benefit them, and try to benefit and not harm.

(3) What is relevant to someone being benefited or harmed is their capacity to be benefited or harmed.

C: We should respect those who can be benefited or harmed.
If that's a conclusion, they're trying to get the first should to lead to it. The problem is nothing suggests that we should respect anything. It only says when we respect someone... etc.

If it said something like "We should respect someone if it's possible to do so", then it might follow.
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Argument From Relevance

Post by DrSinger »

The link doesnt work anymore

http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/relevance-of-sentience/argument-relevance

Also I agree that the first part of the argument is unnecessary, and probably invalid. If they want something simple and straightforward like proposed in this vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfI4kHYhYm8&feature=youtu.be

I'd suggest.

Part 1

(P1) If a being can experience well-being or harm then they deserve moral consideration
(P2) sentient animals can experience well-being or harm
(C) sentient animals deserve moral consideration

Part 2

(P1) If a being deserves moral consideration then it is wrong to treat them the way we treat sentient animals
(P2) sentient animals deserve moral consideration
(C) It is wrong to treat sentient animals the way we do
Post Reply