Please make an effort to be a bit more clear. Your posts are clearly being misunderstood and it would help if you mentioned the hypothetical that you don't think I replied to.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:30 amNot sure what your question is. The reason I said "really?" is because he didn't answer the hypothetical, he went off to some other hypothetical. He essentially did a Motte and bailey
population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
- Jebus
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
If you want to play that game, then ok... my posts are not being misunderstood by the people whose answers I'm interested in hearing.Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:12 amPlease make an effort to be a bit more clear. Your posts are clearly being misunderstood and it would help if you mentioned the hypothetical that you don't think I replied to.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:30 amNot sure what your question is. The reason I said "really?" is because he didn't answer the hypothetical, he went off to some other hypothetical. He essentially did a Motte and bailey
- Jebus
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
I doubt anyone understood your "Seriously" post the way you wanted it to be understood. If so, you are quite delusional. If you want a further discussion, you could start by identifying the Motte and the Bailey that you referred to. Otherwise, I will assume that you don't understand the term properly.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:24 am
If you want to play that game, then ok... my posts are not being misunderstood by the people whose answers I'm interested in hearing.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
I'm not really interested in going there but since you keep insulting i feel compelled to: I don't want a discussion with you because I don't think you have anything valuable to say. Not necessarily because you're stupid, you could just be lazy and not read what I'm writing. Either way, not interested.Jebus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:34 amI doubt anyone understood your "Seriously" post the way you wanted it to be understood. If so, you are quite delusional. If you want a further discussion, you could start by identifying the Motte and the Bailey that you referred to. Otherwise, I will assume that you don't understand the term properly.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:24 am
If you want to play that game, then ok... my posts are not being misunderstood by the people whose answers I'm interested in hearing.
- Jebus
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
In my first post, I clearly demonstrated (the obvious) that not only do I not find the killing morally justified, but I find it more immoral compared to if the cow had lived an unhappy life. You then replied:Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:30 pm So the issue is whether or not in a hypothetical scenario where 1) a cow lived a life worth living 2) the cow would not exist unless it were to be slaughtered, if killing that cow (painlessly) is then morally justified
I thought this was a non sequitur but I thought I would be nice and engage nevertheless. As I had already replied to the initial hypothetical I instead replied to your latest comment (which you had already included as an assumption to the hypothetical).Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:36 amYou're not incorporating the fact that the cow wouldn't exist but for its eventual killing. The killing is a practical pre-requisite for the cow having a great life at all.
To this you then replied:
This was a strange (and rude) reply which left me wondering why you would disagree. After another poster questioned why you would disagree with my post you pivoted (or clarified) your previous post by accusing me of a motte and bailey. I then asked you to be more clear and to identify the motte and the bailey, whereupon you posted:
Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:24 amIf you want to play that game, then ok... my posts are not being misunderstood by the people whose answers I'm interested in hearing.
Your final two comments is something I would expect to read from bigbossomni in the Youtube comment section. If you at all care about proper forum etiquette you should either admit that you were wrong, or you should identify what you think was the misunderstanding during the discussion.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:12 pmI'm not really interested in going there but since you keep insulting i feel compelled to: I don't want a discussion with you because I don't think you have anything valuable to say. Not necessarily because you're stupid, you could just be lazy and not read what I'm writing. Either way, not interested.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
The simplest response seems to be that that's impractical.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:29 am I do think it's something we need to have a quick and coherent response to, because it seems to have some intuitive appeal to carnists; Ie it's better for cows to exist and have a happy good life and then be killed quickly than to never have existed at all.
Compensating for all of the ills of animal agriculture would be a monumental task, and make meat extremely expensive. To the point of people who eat thousand dollar bites of caviar; all for the sake of what? A cow? There are human beings suffering and in need of help. That level of opulent indulgence is morally repulsive on its own.
It's one thing to spend $20 now and then to go to a movie, but quite another to indulge in that level of excess to satisfy gluttony.
It is kind of a matter of virtue, because we're looking at population level moral judgement, it's just not a blind one. Saying somebody is being significantly worse or more wasteful than others isn't really hypocrisy.
If we could control environmental factors and the cow was dying five minutes before her natural death, and otherwise had an amazing life? I'm not sure. There probably is a point at which the payoff is higher for existing for the cow.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:29 amVegans think it's better not to have a cow at all if it's going to be killed, even if it lived a good life, than for that cow to exist. Even if we could control for environmental factors.
The bigger issue is waste and opportunity cost at that point.
Correct. Or even a cost of not doing human welfare, if we still have human suffering.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:29 amIf I understand you correctly, your utilitarian response would be that the cost to more happy cows existing is less happy humans being able to exist, and so since humans have a much richer experience of life it's better for the latter than the former, yes?
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
Mate... you didn't demonstrate anything. You made an assertion, and you didn't back it up with anything, which essentially makes it useless. If you think the sum total of life A: cow suffering for its entire existence until being killed painlessly and unaware is somehow better than sum total of life B: cow being happy for its entire existence then being killed painlessly and unaware, then please gop ahead and justify that claim. If you're going to reply that one case involves more wellbeing being taken away than the other then you still fail to comprehend the hypothetical.
And please explain how "The killing itself is probably the least bad part of a slaughter house as the animals are probably suicidal already. " is relevant when I specifically said the cow lived a life worth living. Do you think the end of life is not part of life? Do you understand the concept of "painlessly", which clearly involves emotional pain in this instance? If I literally have to spell out every single nook and cranny of a simple hypothetical then, again, I'd prefer to just let people who understand it answer (and I got good answers so clearly it wasn't that difficult).
You didn't answer the original hypothetical and then you started talking about an entirely different hypothetical. You never demonstrated comprehension of the question asked. You said "Given the short life, the tragic death which probably involved a great deal of fear, the sorrow experienced by the cow's friends, I think it is safe to conclude that it would have been better if the cow had never lived at all". How the fuck is that relevant to anything I said?I thought this was a non sequitur but I thought I would be nice and engage nevertheless. As I had already replied to the initial hypothetical I instead replied to your latest comment (which you had already included as an assumption to the hypothetical).
The Motte and bailey would be you, instead of actually engaging with the harder question posed by the hypothetical, retreating to defending the easy case of a cow that lived a short and tragic life, being aware of its imminent death and having cow-friends that mourned it. That was not the hypothetical posed and it should be clear to anyone who actually bothered to read what I wrote. And yes I'm using the term somewhat liberally since you didn't make the initial claim but I'm sure you comprehend the fallacy. And I'm not going to bother responding anymore because this really is a waste of time.This was a strange (and rude) reply which left me wondering why you would disagree. After another poster questioned why you would disagree with my post you pivoted (or clarified) your previous post by accusing me of a motte and bailey. I then asked you to be more clear and to identify the motte and the bailey, whereupon you posted:
Last edited by Gregor Samsa on Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
Yeah I think that's a pretty good point. There's an obvious cost-benefit analysis they're ignoring.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:10 pm The simplest response seems to be that that's impractical.
Compensating for all of the ills of animal agriculture would be a monumental task, and make meat extremely expensive. To the point of people who eat thousand dollar bites of caviar; all for the sake of what? A cow? There are human beings suffering and in need of help. That level of opulent indulgence is morally repulsive on its own.
It's one thing to spend $20 now and then to go to a movie, but quite another to indulge in that level of excess to satisfy gluttony.
It is kind of a matter of virtue, because we're looking at population level moral judgement, it's just not a blind one. Saying somebody is being significantly worse or more wasteful than others isn't really hypocrisy.
I should probably have said "some vegans". I agree that there's likely a point where the hypothetical shifts to being in favour of the killing assuming one makes it artificial enough (which isnt saying much about the real world anymore of course).If we could control environmental factors and the cow was dying five minutes before her natural death, and otherwise had an amazing life? I'm not sure. There probably is a point at which the payoff is higher for existing for the cow.
Thanks I think I have several avenues of responding to this argument now. You can essentially use both utilitarian and virtue ethics arguments against it, both in the real world and in most hypotheticals that aren't too far removed from it.Correct. Or even a cost of not doing human welfare, if we still have human suffering.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
"Seriously" was a kind of rude response. You probably should have clarified what kind of response you were looking for or just left that one alone if you didn't want to and just waited for other replies.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:30 amNot sure what your question is. The reason I said "really?" is because he didn't answer the hypothetical, he went off to some other hypothetical. He essentially did a Motte and bailey
Maybe this dumpster fire can be extinguished?
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: population ethics and the cow that lived a good life
It's not a big deal, it's just a little annoying when, in my opinion, someone isn't actually engaging with what you're saying. Reread the conversation and judge for yourself. But since I don't like pointless fighting I can apologize for the "seriously?" if it came across as snarky or rude, even though that wasn't my intention.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:21 pm"Seriously" was a kind of rude response. You probably should have clarified what kind of response you were looking for or just left that one alone if you didn't want to and just waited for other replies.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:30 amNot sure what your question is. The reason I said "really?" is because he didn't answer the hypothetical, he went off to some other hypothetical. He essentially did a Motte and bailey
Maybe this dumpster fire can be extinguished?