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.
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: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:25 am 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?
If experiencing physical pleasure/pain is the only interest a being has, then preference based and hedonistic considerations are identical.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:25 amYou're differentiating interests from any type of pleasure, fulfillment, etc. Simply because they are interests?
Right. With interests you don't even need to experience them or know that they are fulfilled, it's only the fact that they are. Thus: after death it matters too.
We could understand that it's wrong to take somebody's body and parade it around to brothels for necrophiliacs if that's something they would have objected to. Some people wouldn't care, though, and in those cases it's fine (if gross).

Among atheists, hedonistic moral frameworks are VERY common, but they don't seem to realize the problems with those or their implications... or the weak philosophical support they have since they can't substantiate themselves.
Why is it better that this region of the brain light up than the other one? It's all so arbitrary.
Interests, however, are not.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:31 am And @Dr. Singer and @brimstone salad ,

Do the non-human animals killed for food value their experience, or just the pleasant experiences?
Of higher animals, it's very likely they have non-hedonistic interests. Particularly social ones, wherein they care for each other.
Not sure if that helps.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:31 am 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?
I suppose? Not so clear what you're asking.
In terms of idealized interests, we probably have to assume that.
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: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:19 pm
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:25 amYou're differentiating interests from any type of pleasure, fulfillment, etc. Simply because they are interests?
Right. With interests you don't even need to experience them or know that they are fulfilled, it's only the fact that they are. Thus: after death it matters too.
We could understand that it's wrong to take somebody's body and parade it around to brothels for necrophiliacs if that's something they would have objected to. Some people wouldn't care, though, and in those cases it's fine (if gross).
I see. It seems that both hedonistic ethics and preference-based ones have validity.
Among atheists, hedonistic moral frameworks are VERY common, but they don't seem to realize the problems with those or their implications... or the weak philosophical support they have since they can't substantiate themselves.
Why is it better that this region of the brain light up than the other one? It's all so arbitrary.
Interests, however, are not.
I see what you mean. I was going to disagree, but I've been dipping my toe into mindfulness, so to speak. There is an idea that "all emotions have a life span, but they need to be felt". And some people feel that you cannot know joy without pain (not sure I agree with that). So for me, as a human, it may be a bit arbitrary to value positive emotions and totally devalue the other "negative" emotions.

My assumption was that for animals, the only thing that would matter was the feeling positive ones, and not suffering. But perhaps that is not the case.
Of higher animals, it's very likely they have non-hedonistic interests. Particularly social ones, wherein they care for each other.
Not sure if that helps.
True. But that brings them pleasure. Or, I suppose, it could bring some sort of comfort, perhaps beyond pleasure.
Not sure.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:31 am 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?
I suppose? Not so clear what you're asking.
In terms of idealized interests, we probably have to assume that.
Humans value their lives, the fact that we exist sentiently. We contemplate it and derive fulfillment and some level of fascination with the idea of it.

But in addition to the pleasure we may derive from contemplation of it, sentient existence is probably inherently valuable, or else we probably would not value it to the extent we do. For what reason, I do not know.

So, it would follow that an animal's sentient existence is probably inherently valuable as well. Its who and what they are, I guess.

-------

My main point before this has been that animals value certain experiences (because they bring pleasure), but they cannot value their actual life, or sentient existence. Now I'm saying that perhaps their sentient existence is valuable in and of itself, for reasons other than the ability to contemplate it.
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: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pm I see. It seems that both hedonistic ethics and preference-based ones have validity.
Ah, not really.

Hedonistic interests are one kind of interest. So, hedonistic frameworks can be contained within preference based ones, but not the other way around.

To consider preferences IS to consider hedonistic preferences too.
But to have only a hedonistic framework is to invalidate all other preferences and say they don't exist or don't matter (even for people who say they do for them).
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmSo for me, as a human, it may be a bit arbitrary to value positive emotions and totally devalue the other "negative" emotions.
That's not what I mean. In physical terms, all we're talking about is nerves responding and sending signals.

The reasons pleasure is better than pain is because the mind prefers pleasure over pain.
The only way you substantiate the value of pleasure is by pointing to preferences.

IF and only if preferences don't matter, then it's all arbitrary.

Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmMy assumption was that for animals, the only thing that would matter was the feeling positive ones, and not suffering. But perhaps that is not the case.
What matters is preferences, and of course most of us don't prefer to be stuck in mindless euphoria. So in a sense negative experiences are valuable too, although only to an extent. You don't need to experience immense suffering to have a capacity for understanding the value of happiness.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmTrue. But that brings them pleasure. Or, I suppose, it could bring some sort of comfort, perhaps beyond pleasure.
Not sure.
In a physical sense, when they experience it it does, but lighting up those pleasure centers in itself isn't typically the goal. Of course we can ask humans that, but it's hard to ask non-humans.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmHumans value their lives, the fact that we exist sentiently. We contemplate it and derive fulfillment and some level of fascination with the idea of it.
Some people do, perhaps.
Most people are also completely misinformed about what they are, believing they are powered by magical souls that make choices based on influence from the holy spirit and demons. Do people lose moral value by incorrectly understanding their existential natures?
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmSo, it would follow that an animal's sentient existence is probably inherently valuable as well. Its who and what they are, I guess.
Yes, generally.
Most beings at least seem to enjoy living, as long as they aren't made miserable.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmNow I'm saying that perhaps their sentient existence is valuable in and of itself, for reasons other than the ability to contemplate it.
Yes, I think that's more credible.

Otherwise the billions of Christians and Muslims would have no moral value because they incorrectly identify their existential natures.
User avatar
Mr. Purple
Full Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:03 pm
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by Mr. Purple »

I'd still like to hear if anyone finds the above trait compelling, or if they think its stupid, any thoughts!
Name the trait is mostly trying to be a consistency check, so if this person agrees that severely mentally challenged humans also have no moral worth alongside animals, then he is consistent and will pass name the trait. There isn't really anything special about " appreciation for life" though. Using any number of traits like the much more common "Intelligence" trait would also have achieved the same result if he is willing to bite the bullet and say it's fine to kill mentally challenged humans and babies, but typically in a public debate, to admit something like that is to instantly lose the argument.

In other words, taking their life would be no violation of their well-being, provided it was done with no pain.
Well, depriving someone of future well being is usually considered morally wrong. I wonder if he would bite the bullet on this too when faced with examples of people having their future well-being taken away by someone else.
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: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:02 pm

Ah, not really.

Hedonistic interests are one kind of interest. So, hedonistic frameworks can be contained within preference based ones, but not the other way around.

To consider preferences IS to consider hedonistic preferences too.
But to have only a hedonistic framework is to invalidate all other preferences and say they don't exist or don't matter (even for people who say they do for them).
I get your logic. Still, they seem intertwined to me. Respecting interests is good because that contributes to maximum well being, which is inextricably related to pleasure, in any way I can imagine. But, I'm no psychologist. Interests and well being could almost be used interchangeably, in my opinion.

Just to clarify, though, that wouldn't prove that taking an animal's life is the ideal way to respect their well being. I can mostly agree that a hedonistic framework, where its acceptable to kill animals painlessly, is probably not respectful of their interests, or their well being.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmSo for me, as a human, it may be a bit arbitrary to value positive emotions and totally devalue the other "negative" emotions.
That's not what I mean. In physical terms, all we're talking about is nerves responding and sending signals.

The reasons pleasure is better than pain is because the mind prefers pleasure over pain.
The only way you substantiate the value of pleasure is by pointing to preferences.

IF and only if preferences don't matter, then it's all arbitrary.
The mind prefers it because it is conducive to the mind's well being. Everything humans and animals do is in some way, effectively or ineffectively, directly or indirectly, an attempt at being well, in my view.

I think we are now talking about the same thing (well being and preference), but we are using different words. The word "preference" just sounds kind of unconvincing to me is all.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmMy assumption was that for animals, the only thing that would matter was the feeling positive ones, and not suffering. But perhaps that is not the case.
What matters is preferences, and of course most of us don't prefer to be stuck in mindless euphoria. So in a sense negative experiences are valuable too, although only to an extent. You don't need to experience immense suffering to have a capacity for understanding the value of happiness.
I agree, you probably don't need any suffering for happiness to be valuable to you.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmHumans value their lives, the fact that we exist sentiently. We contemplate it and derive fulfillment and some level of fascination with the idea of it.
Some people do, perhaps.
Most people are also completely misinformed about what they are, believing they are powered by magical souls that make choices based on influence from the holy spirit and demons. Do people lose moral value by incorrectly understanding their existential natures?
No, it wouldn't.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmSo, it would follow that an animal's sentient existence is probably inherently valuable as well. Its who and what they are, I guess.
Yes, generally.
Most beings at least seem to enjoy living, as long as they aren't made miserable.
Deva wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 pmNow I'm saying that perhaps their sentient existence is valuable in and of itself, for reasons other than the ability to contemplate it.


Yes, I think that's more credible.

Otherwise the billions of Christians and Muslims would have no moral value because they incorrectly identify their existential natures.
I see your point.

But in a way its not really the same, because they still have an appreciation of their existential nature (if incorrect in its details), while an animal quite possibly does not, in many cases. Would that make an animal's existence valueless to them? Probably not quite.

Here's another way to put it:
Non-human animals have the same sentience as humans. The only difference is that humans understand our sentience.

That could in itself be an arguement for animals having the same moral value as humans, because if we value that sentience consciously, then an animal too must value it, unconsciously. Or, it could mean that an animal has less value than a human, because it does not value it, even unconsciously.

(Either way, of course), because of idealized interests, a chicken needs to live in order for its actual interests (happiness, love, etc.) to be fulfilled.
Last edited by Deva on Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:40 pm, edited 5 times in total.
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 »

Mr. Purple wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:07 am
In other words, taking their life would be no violation of their well-being, provided it was done with no pain.
Well, depriving someone of future well being is usually considered morally wrong. I wonder if he would bite the bullet on this too when faced with examples of people having their future well-being taken away by someone else.
Yes, and to me, this is the most compelling argument for veganism.
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: Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:37 pm The mind prefers it because it is conducive to the mind's well being. Everything humans and animals do is in some way, effectively or ineffectively, directly or indirectly, an attempt at being well, in my view.
What about a soldier going on a suicide mission and dying (willingly, knowingly) for his or her country?

Do you subscribe to psychological egoism?
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: Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:56 pm
Deva wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:37 pm The mind prefers it because it is conducive to the mind's well being. Everything humans and animals do is in some way, effectively or ineffectively, directly or indirectly, an attempt at being well, in my view.
What about a soldier going on a suicide mission and dying (willingly, knowingly) for his or her country?
I can't really know, because I have no personal experience with that type of situation. But I think that they've already been stationed wherever they have been stationed, and the best option is fight.

But, considering a soldier who knowingly enlisted in a very dangerous war, they have learned about the stakes and the threat to their country, their values, etc. And they are making a choice which goes in alignment with their nature (fulfilling some psychological need). Like the need to feel passion and live with purpose.

Even if that choice does not give them maximum well being of all the life circumstances they could have had, maybe its the only choice they felt they could make. Maybe they'd be too hard on themselves. Or maybe it was for their own feeling of love. So well being and interests are tied together.

There's a song lyric that kind of shows that people make decisions based on love. "if you never know truth then you never know love". Some people know the truth (or what they believe it to be) and feel cornered into making a decision at the detriment of themselves. Isn't love part of our nature, and would lead to well being?

However, if someone was under high pressure or unhealthy circumstances for a long time, their health would deteriorate such that they only thing they could care about would be preserving (regaining, actually) their well being. When I'm highly stressed or unhealthy, my altruism tends to fly out the window.

Why do you think soldiers knowingly die for their countries?
Do you subscribe to psychological egoism?
Had to look that one up. I've heard it before, and I agree with it. But I think people genuinely want the well being of others out of self interest. The two things overlap.
Self interest comes first. You can't help anyone unless you are healthy and thriving, have space to be your own person, etc. But once people have that, they often want to help others because it makes them feel good.

Empathy is when you see yourself in someone else, so to speak and you want them to feel well being because they are like you.
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: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:17 pm Why do you think soldiers knowingly die for their countries?
Because they care about something more than their own lives/well-being.

This is the simplest answer, rather than having to speculate on how they are either delusional or some engaging in ridiculous degree of meta-cognitive introspection like somehow the feeling of dying for their countries is so amazing that it surpasses all of the other pleasure they could have had for the rest of their lives, or they thought guilt would eat away at them if they did not and make the rest of their lives torture.

The psychological egoist position requires a bunch of ad hoc hypothesizing to explain these phenomena... or we can just say one interest is stronger than the other.
Deva wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:17 pmHad to look that one up. I've heard it before, and I agree with it.

Wikipedia does a pretty good job of covering criticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism#Criticisms
You should read that, it's short.
Deva wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:17 pmBut I think people genuinely want the well being of others out of self interest. The two things overlap.[...] But once people have that, they often want to help others because it makes them feel good.
So are you saying that you don't care about what happens after you die? E.g. as far as you're concerned, all of your loved ones could be tortured to death, as long as you would never know about it (because you're dead) you don't mind?

Because caring about what happens when you can't experience it goes against psychological egoism.
Deva wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:17 pmEmpathy is when you see yourself in someone else, so to speak and you want them to feel well being because they are like you.
Sure, but we can also want for things to happen that we do not or can not experience pleasure from the realization of.
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 19, 2017 1:22 am
Deva wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:17 pm Why do you think soldiers knowingly die for their countries?
Because they care about something more than their own lives/well-being.

This is the simplest answer, rather than having to speculate on how they are either delusional or some engaging in ridiculous degree of meta-cognitive introspection like somehow the feeling of dying for their countries is so amazing that it surpasses all of the other pleasure they could have had for the rest of their lives, or they thought guilt would eat away at them if they did not and make the rest of their lives torture.

The psychological egoist position requires a bunch of ad hoc hypothesizing to explain these phenomena... or we can just say one interest is stronger than the other.
It may be ad hoc when I try to explain other people's psyche's.

I think I personally understand things from a psychological egoist perspective because its the only thing that makes sense of why people act how they do, or why I act how I do. Saying that something is just an "interest" doesn't make as much sense to me. It doesn't describe why its an interest.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about psychological hedonism, necessarily.
Wikipedia does a pretty good job of covering criticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism#Criticisms
You should read that, it's short.
I read it. The one on circularity and the one on evolution aren't very convincing to me, personally.

The part that I think is a good argument:

"In this case, there is simply no time to experience positivity toward one's actions, although a psychological egoist may argue that the soldier experiences moral positivity in knowing that he is sacrificing his life to ensure the survival of his comrades, or that he is avoiding negativity associated with the thought of all his comrades dying."

So, I see the point.
So are you saying that you don't care about what happens after you die? E.g. as far as you're concerned, all of your loved ones could be tortured to death, as long as you would never know about it (because you're dead) you don't mind?

Because caring about what happens when you can't experience it goes against psychological egoism.
The thought of what happens after I die matters to me in the present moment, while I'm alive. But unless my own consciousness is still in existence after I die, at that time I will no longer care.
Deva wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:17 pmEmpathy is when you see yourself in someone else, so to speak and you want them to feel well being because they are like you.
Sure, but we can also want for things to happen that we do not or can not experience pleasure from the realization of.
Yes, but you can experience some form of pleasure from the thought of it.

---------

Ultimately, my view of psychological egoism goes back to self interest and interest in the well being of others overlapping. They are, to some degree, one and the same. But only to a degree.
Post Reply