I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

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.
Deva
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by Deva »

I recently watched a debate between Banana Warrior Princess and Atheist Republic. Atheist Republic's position was that we owe sentient beings treatment in accordance with what they value, and nothing more. (I agree).

He stated that "appreciation for life" was a trait absent in many non-human animals, and a few humans, (for example someone with severe cognitive disabilities). He stated that it would be unacceptable to kill either the severely disabled human or the animal, but only because of the emotional distress and desensitization to violence caused to the killer or the friends/relatives of the victim. In other words, taking their life would be no violation of their well-being, provided it was done with no pain.

This is very similar to a thought I have had; humans can actually want their existence to continue, but many other animals can't consciously want the continuation of their existence. Even though the only moment we have is the present, the idea of our existence ending causes us emotional distress and resistance, but for many animals, it may cause none.

------------

Is this a thin line, or "grey area" for anyone else? Why or why not?

[several edits later]: I admit I am more on the side of letting animals live. I value an animal's subjective experience of reality. And I do think an animal values it too, even if they can't make as much sense of it, or consciously understand that it will continue. I'd still like to hear if anyone finds the above trait compelling, or if they think its stupid, any thoughts!
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Just to note, the formal version of NameTheTrait is broken logically (you probably know this) http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait
Basically, missing premises that require justification.

The informal version Banana Warrior Princess uses is better, so I'm assuming we're talking about that (the one that requires justification and forbids double-standards/arbitrary claims).

So I'll get into it:
First we establish consideration of preference or interests, and I think Atheist Republic agrees on that (interests basically = values).

Next we need to establish idealized interests. And this is more complicated.

Imagine you want to eat a candy, but you don't know that candy is poisoned. You really want to eat it, and you don't want us to stop you from eating it. But that is due to your lack of knowledge.

You probably would want us to stop you had you known... even if you didn't know what poison was, if you only knew it would interfere with your other interests.
As such, we can see most people and in principle sentient beings in general want to be treated according to their idealized interests on some level.

Thus: Even IF an animal has no future concept or notion of life and death, that animal does have interests, and in order to ideally serve those, the animal needs not to die even if the animal has no notion of what that is.

However, in practice most animals humans eat have future concepts (pigs, cows, chickens, likely most fish). It might be relevant to insects, but their sentience is so marginal anyway that it's hard to say they have much value by comparison.
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by DrSinger »

Atheist Republic's position was that we owe sentient beings treatment in accordance with what they value, and nothing more. (I agree).
This would lead me to veganism, for any reasonable definition of what it means to value something. Presumably since you are vegan, you don't think animals require a complex future concept to value their life?
He stated that it would be unacceptable to kill either the severely disabled human or the animal, but only because of the emotional distress and desensitization to violence caused to the killer or the friends/relatives of the victim. In other words, taking their life would be no violation of their well-being, provided it was done with no pain.
what is his take on killing infants?
Deva
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by Deva »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:01 pm The informal version Banana Warrior Princess uses is better, so I'm assuming we're talking about that (the one that requires justification and forbids double-standards/arbitrary claims).
Yes, that's the one I was talking about.
Thus: Even IF an animal has no future concept or notion of life and death, that animal does have interests, and in order to ideally serve those, the animal needs not to die even if the animal has no notion of what that is.

However, in practice most animals humans eat have future concepts (pigs, cows, chickens, likely most fish). It might be relevant to insects, but their sentience is so marginal anyway that it's hard to say they have much value by comparison.
That is a really great explanation.

I could say, "do they really care", but of course the answer is "no". Because they have no capacity to care. But at the same time, they care about other things, such as their awareness, their emotions, etc.

But I can still see how some non-vegans, (or even myself, currently vegan), could see that as a grey area, since it seems that its just not that important to them. Kind of like, "what they don't know doesn't hurt them". I know that can sound really exploitative from an animal rights perspective, but I'm just trying to be honest with myself and open to whatever I perceive the truth to be.
Deva
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by Deva »

DrSinger wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:02 am
Atheist Republic's position was that we owe sentient beings treatment in accordance with what they value, and nothing more. (I agree).
This would lead me to veganism, for any reasonable definition of what it means to value something. Presumably since you are vegan, you don't think animals require a complex future concept to value their life?
He stated that it would be unacceptable to kill either the severely disabled human or the animal, but only because of the emotional distress and desensitization to violence caused to the killer or the friends/relatives of the victim. In other words, taking their life would be no violation of their well-being, provided it was done with no pain.
what is his take on killing infants?
I do not think that an animal needs a complex future concept to value most things about their life; sensory experience, emotions, thoughts, anything they are aware of. However, "life" and existence are a concept that I imagine many animals are unaware of (I could be wrong about that). So to value their experience would possibly be different from valuing their life, then? Of course, to experience anything, they need life, so therein lies an argument for veganism.

I do not remember whether the topic of infants came up. I do not think it did.
Last edited by Deva on Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Deva wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:34 pm Kind of like, "what they don't know doesn't hurt them".
That's only valid within a purely hedonistic framework, if you throw out the value of idealized interests.

Of course, even in a hedonistic framework there is a loss of future pleasures, thus opportunity cost.
Deva
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by Deva »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:09 pm
Deva wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:34 pm Kind of like, "what they don't know doesn't hurt them".
That's only valid within a purely hedonistic framework, if you throw out the value of idealized interests.
I'm not understanding. How is that valid within a hedonistic framework?
Of course, even in a hedonistic framework there is a loss of future pleasures, thus opportunity cost.
Yes, I agree that (idealized interests) is a good argument.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Deva wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:18 pm I'm not understanding. How is that valid within a hedonistic framework?
In a hedonistic framework, literally the only thing that matters is experienced pleasure and pain. That is those areas of the brain lighting up.
There are a few thought experiments that can highlight the difference:

1. Assuming people experience roughly equal measures of pleasure and pain in life, killing people painlessly would be fine from a hedonist perspective as long as they don't know it's coming and don't have any time to fret about it, and as long as they didn't have loved ones to mourn their losses (or you kill all of them at the same time). Somebody who cares about preferences would say no.


2. For the hedonist, it would be good (assuming all else equal) to abduct people against their wills and drug them or plug electrodes into their brains to stimulate their pleasure centers, putting them into euphoria. For somebody who cares about preferences, that would be incredibly evil.
Again, all pleasure and pain bean counting; violating interests doesn't count for anything to a hedonist, even extreme ones. The only wrong would be if the person figured out what was going on (so just drug them before you kidnap them).

It that system, knowing about something and receiving the reward is the only thing that matters.

3. Another really clear example is that of the dead artist: he spent his life working on a painting, a life of suffering but also value to him, and he finishes his masterpiece. Before he dies he asks only that you don't destroy the painting; he wants it to live on, because his soul is basically in it.
Is it wrong to destroy the painting?
A hedonist would say no: the guy is dead now, and he won't know. It's impossible for something like that to be wrong unless a living person cares to experience pain from it (or perhaps if the painting were really good and caused others pleasure).
Somebody who cares about interests would say yes: it's something he cared about, and he sacrificed a lot to see it finished because this is what he wanted. It doesn't even matter if the painting was any good.
Deva
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by Deva »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:12 am
Deva wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:18 pm I'm not understanding. How is that valid within a hedonistic framework?
In a hedonistic framework, literally the only thing that matters is experienced pleasure and pain. That is those areas of the brain lighting up.
There are a few thought experiments that can highlight the difference:

1. Assuming people experience roughly equal measures of pleasure and pain in life, killing people painlessly would be fine from a hedonist perspective as long as they don't know it's coming and don't have any time to fret about it, and as long as they didn't have loved ones to mourn their losses (or you kill all of them at the same time). Somebody who cares about preferences would say no.


2. For the hedonist, it would be good (assuming all else equal) to abduct people against their wills and drug them or plug electrodes into their brains to stimulate their pleasure centers, putting them into euphoria. For somebody who cares about preferences, that would be incredibly evil.
Again, all pleasure and pain bean counting; violating interests doesn't count for anything to a hedonist, even extreme ones. The only wrong would be if the person figured out what was going on (so just drug them before you kidnap them).

It that system, knowing about something and receiving the reward is the only thing that matters.
Thank you for explaining. I see.

Would you agree with this line of thinking: In order for a hedonist approach not to apply, the animal would have to be capable of interests other than mere pleasure and the avoidance of pain?
3. Another really clear example is that of the dead artist: he spent his life working on a painting, a life of suffering but also value to him, and he finishes his masterpiece. Before he dies he asks only that you don't destroy the painting; he wants it to live on, because his soul is basically in it.
Is it wrong to destroy the painting?
A hedonist would say no: the guy is dead now, and he won't know. It's impossible for something like that to be wrong unless a living person cares to experience pain from it (or perhaps if the painting were really good and caused others pleasure).
Somebody who cares about interests would say yes: it's something he cared about, and he sacrificed a lot to see it finished because this is what he wanted. It doesn't even matter if the painting was any good.
Ah, I think I'm starting to get what you mean. You're differentiating interests from any type of pleasure, fulfillment, etc. Simply because they are interests?
Deva
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: I have a trait for "name the trait" to propose

Post by Deva »

And @Dr. Singer and @brimstone salad ,

Do the non-human animals killed for food value their experience, or just the pleasant experiences?

And kind of to answer the question about, "I'm vegan, so why am I asking these questions?", I'm trying to be really skeptical with my beliefs and just take a slightly more objective look at them. I wouldn't conclude its ok to kill them from any of these arguments, necessarily. I realize its hard to be objective when arguing either for or against something.

-----------------

This idea keeps coming to mind:

Humans can consider the options of existence or non-existence and prefer existence.
Just because animals cannot contemplate the two, is is possible that their experience would lead them to prefer existence, just as human experience of life is the factor which leads us to consciously prefer existence? Perhaps you agree with this line of reasoning?
Post Reply