Liam tells Darren McStravick about the Argument From Relevance.
Did you see the new argument not new but did you see the argument from relevance are you familiar with that I've heard of it of throwing around quite a bit recently especially the argument from regional cases not regional marginal places yeah yeah could you give me a brief synopsis yeah so I this isn't my argument this isn't my argument this is uh I got it from animal - ethics org right awesome website I had one of the reps come in last week Cindy rook to talk about sentience and morality and stuff like that so make sure to check out that episode but anyways on the website there's the argument from relevance and essentially what it comes down to is in order to have moral consideration right the only thing the only question that matters is can you be harmed right when it comes to morality at the end of the day and it just comes out can you be harmed right and we have to I'm sorry obvious why too vague because I'm getting there I'm getting all so I can go to the website go to go to the website and read it because I'm still learning this so this I'm just I'm working with like literally this week is but the other thing is the only thing that's relevant for moral consideration is if you can be harmed right sure that's it that's that's the argument is moral consideration is taking into account somebody's experiences and that you should we like if you agree with the premise of that you should take into consideration the consequences of your actions essentially that you should if you respect somebody is to take into consideration how that's going to impact them the only thing that matters to that person is their capacity of being impacted positively or negatively and if you agree with this at the end of the day the only thing that's relevant is can they be and the only way that they can be harmed is if their sentience so we should go ahead and respect sentience lives because nothing else is relevant so if somebody says like well no moral agency is what grants you moral consideration well if the person doesn't have a moral agency yeah saying then it's not relevant it's not relevant right and what is relevant that that's exactly rubbing thing from the fucking start my goodness I'm very glad that someone's actually brought this up I think if you were to use the term harm it's a little bit too vague because you could reduce well you have you have to define harm right you'd have to define it and to me and a moral stance harm simply means experiencing negative experiences you know what I'm saying and you can get into new us you can get into the grunts no polarity well-being at home yeah you can get into nuanced it's like if somebody asked you out on a date and you denied them are they being immoral it's like you know we can talk about that but we're talking about killing things yeah I'm saying yeah so yeah that's actually really good it's relevant yeah yeah that's that's that's epic I do I do retract my statement that's not actually fake I was expecting I'm thinking I was thinking along the lines of using the term detriment because that that could be sure as fuck used in a plethora of different ways you'd have to define it as sentient detriment or something like that or like whatever the life um yeah me it's about making the language as clear as possible you know what I'm saying so we I'm thinking more so when you're just talking to people I like because I I'm gonna do a video on this but I'm still learning it you know what I'm saying learning the pitfalls of the argument but to me it's sound right and I'm starting to think that it might be more effective than name the traits right and now this isn't a criticism and I on the track this isn't a criticism of name the traits legitimacy of course that's not goodness yes and that's exactly the route I was planning on taking from the get-go as like as supplements to name the trade because I know you name the trait is along the lines of the marginal cases yeah but if you if you do this relevance thing then guess what you've not only just uh you you've not only like expressed exactly what morality is but you've also expressed that morality necessitates veganism yeah exactly bro you just you're you're picking up what I'm putting down you because that you said exactly what the point I'm trying to go I've been throwing out this this what was it called the relevance argument from relevance I've been I've been fuckin spewing out this argument from relevance for like fucking seven months now actual argument uh yeah if there would be a good supplement to the name the trait but I before but it is a opposite it's the it's flip its name the trait is the supplements to the argument of relevance and here's why my friend here's why name the trait phen phenomenal argumentation phenomenal right but when you're arguing name the trait what's what's the big blowback people have with it I don't understand what you're talking about this is too complicated and really what are you telling somebody with named a trait is that your behaviors logically inconsistent right you're just telling them that they're doing something wrong okay would you're not you're not explaining to them why their behavior is wrong right and the argument of relevance explains why their behavior is wrong and what not only why their behavior is wrong but why they value human life why why human life is worth moral consideration to begin with and to me my friend right thank you thank you much more powerful yes thank so I was actually planning on putting this this line of argumentation into my view on a thinking moral found here in Chisholm which is to basically take the epistemological route of Objectivism and tied in with like explaining exactly why morality is contingent of well-being but not just any type of well-being because you can say that well beings to think and it's too subjective I was saying I was going I was planning on tying in why it requires a specific measure of you to or functionality that actually qualifies what type of well-being can qualify something that is mold because without it you've not expressed that there is any doubt any differentiation between saying something that experiences well-being or preference and morality so therefore there's no difference between preference and morality and therefore there's no such thing as morality so yeah that's exactly what I'm trying to express the the deepest fundamental parts that people will constantly like oh I don't understand this or like oh that doesn't make any sense to me I'm trying to bring it to the surface and explain exactly why it is the way it is yeah and this is okay and this this is what does it because you're clearly explaining what what morality is right you're clearly stating what's relevant and what's not relevant right yeah and then you use marginal cases you use the strut like this because I haven't been able to field test it because I can't find people to debate us we were supposed to debate somebody tonight but he he bailed last minute and I wanted to go and practice this because I'm assuming this would look like the same structure his name betrayed or look like marginal case because name--it rates essentially marginal cases where it's like they bring up a reason you know what I'm saying and then it's like oh you know intelligence right well if you weren't intelligent you know what I'm saying would you still be worthy of moral consideration well yeah of course I would well then intelligence really isn't the relevant factor when it comes to moral consideration now is it right it's hard it's can you be harmed right can you have negative experiences and the only things that can have negative experiences are sentient creatures now that's not to say you can't use other argumentation for veganism like if name the traits more is better for the audience that you're talking to then go ahead and use name a trait you know what I'm saying the strength of the vegan argument is the amount of arguments that we can utilize I'm just I'm fascinated with like the ideal of not only explaining why their behavior is wrong but explaining what morality is to them and what's relevant and what's not and clearly just as day it's about relevance man excellent I think maybe we just witness the genesis of this this argument becoming something on YouTube I think this is probably going to be one of the the very first moments of this miss argument becoming relevant in other self that's fucking epic no it's insane dude it's insane the argument from relevance and it's not my argument I want to make sure I'm giving the website all the credit in the world animal fds data or animal - ethics org let me go ahead and I'm going to poke.
Discussion and support on vegan related issues and questions, philosophy, activism, food, and science based nutrition.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Master in Training
- Posts: 884
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
- Religion: None (Atheist)
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: North Wales, UK
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests