I've done some editing wizardry to show Vegan Gains and Matt side by side, roughly the same size. I'm going to upload it to my channel with maybe 2 clips from UV at the end (can do the PV Channel also). Or if anyone has any post-debate reflections they want to put on video or audio, I can include that to/instead.
Transcript of the debate is now in the first post:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3800
Margaret Hayek wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:45 pm
Interesting. First, just to clarify, I take it that Dillahunty is NOT, like Frey, engaging in a silly and fallacious denial of ethically relevant mental states to non-human animals (For arguments against this preposterous view that ethically relevant mental states depend upon the internalization of public languages like English, see e.g. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on things like Animal Cognition, Belief, Higher Order Theories of Consciousness, etc.).
Second, I don't think that you've actually spoken to whether Dillahunty considered a case in which the profoundly intellectually disabled human's parents AND OTHERS don't care about her. You've suggested that he's made a claim about what kind of society "we want" to live in - which I suppose at least involves "us" (whoever "we" are supposed to be) caring about the profoundly intellectually disabled child (because of some muck in our heads regarding freaking out about it being our child and perhaps also some crazy view about why we want to parent human children that involves thinking that bare biological species have underivative ethical significance - in which case our reasons for caring about all of this just go back to that indefensibly arbitrary view anyway? I'm not charging Dillahanty with actually thinking this, I'm just trying to make sense of the view that you're saying he holds). But if NONE of us care about the profoundly intellectually disabled, then the reason to give us what "we" want no longer supports not harming the profoundly intellectually disabled. Societies as wholes have surely done this; e.g. the Spartans. I meant to be asking after what Dillahunty would say about whether there is any reason not to harm the profoundly intellectually disabled in such circumstances - or whether we are morally required not to do so for relatively trivial reasons (like eating things that we do not need to be at least as healthy as if we don't eat them - cf. we can be at least as healthy vegan as not vegan - etc. ).
I think brimstone dealt with this, but I think you're right that it's not actually dealing with the ethical question and proposing to kick the ball down the court for future societies intuitionist whims to arbitrate.
_____
Margaret Hayek wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:45 pm
By the way I don't know what evidence you have of Dillahunty appealing to social contractualist / contractarian views. From everything I've heard him say he hasn't yet invoked any, although they would be a natural home for his views about moral agency being necessary for underivative moral patiency (or moral patiency of the kind that involves others having not only some moral reason but moral requirements to not harm one). But if Dillahunty or others are trying to push the social contract argument in interesting and initially somewhat plausible (but of course ultimately mistaken) ways that actual philosophers like
Jan Narveson and Peter Carruthers have pushed it, Mark Rowlands, Alastair Norcross, and Jennifer Swanson have a pretty good discussions and responses to this in their respective:
"Contractarianism and Animal Rights"
http://fewd.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Rowlands__Mark_1997_Contractarianism_and_AR_1468-5930.00060.pdf
"Contractualism and the Ethical Status of Animals,"* and Contractualism and the Moral Status of Animals (
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=bts).
As I remember, one of the main problems with this literature in general is that people tend to run together a contract theory motivated by trying to give self-interested reasons to be moral (as embodied by philosophers like David Gauthier) and a distinct sort of contract theory trying to explain morality in terms of fairness (as embodied by philosophers like John Rawls). For an argument that the Gauthier project fails in its own terms, see e.g. Holly Smith's “Deriving Morality from Rationality”* and Anita Superson's “The Self-Interest Based Contractarian Response to the Why-Be-Moral Skeptic."*
"A Kantian Case for Animal Rights"
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.Animal.Rights.pdf
Another way someone might try to push the view that moral agency is necessary for moral patiency of the kind that involves others have moral requirements to not harm one would be to adopt a version of Kant's ethics, to which Christine Korsgaard has a nice response in her "A Kantian Case for Animal Rights" (
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.Animal.Rights.pdf). I think that this whole project of trying to show that one is committed to being moral just by doing anything for any reason is deeply misguided, but I think that Korsgaard does a decent job explaining how it's supposed to work, and how it can be argued that if it actually justifies duties to other deliberating agents, it also justifies duties to non-deliberating but sentient beings.
*Sorry, I can't seem to find links to these free of a pay wall. If you want a copy just PM me.
These all look like really interesting reads, and would be really useful to discuss at some point and work into wiki articles. I've got the 25 most influential moments in history for veganism video lined up and then we can make more videos tackling philosophical approaches as we cover them in the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
1 Historical development in the West
1.1 Moral status and animals in the ancient world
1.2 17th century: Animals as automata
1.3 Treatment of animals as man's duty towards himself
1.4 18th century: Centrality of sentience
1.5 19th century: Emergence of jus animalium
1.6 20th century: Animal rights movement
3 In religion
3.1 Islam
4 Philosophical and legal approaches
4.1 Overview
4.2 Utilitarianism
4.3 Subjects-of-a-life
4.4 Abolitionism
4.5 Contractarianism
4.6 Prima facie rights theory
4.7 Feminism and animal rights
4.8 Transhumanism
Some papers I've put on the forum linked here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/User:NonZeroSum#Ethics
And proposed wiki table of contents:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/Table_of_Contents
Ethics
Objective-subjective distinction
Proving Formal Arguments
Universalism
Consequentialism
Altruism, The Golden Rule
Utilitarianism
Rule Based
Egoism
Evolutionary Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Deontology
Divine Command Theory
Relativism
Nihilism
_______________
Some clipped together debate reflections from the Ask Yourself discord:
BernieBro a.k.a Tristan
Dilahunty is the Fred Flintstone of atheism
That's what it comes to
Moral Obligation
The NTT argument will be dismissed as Virtue Ethics
Look into Aristotle
Zayzo
Dillahunty plays mental gymnastics. He says it is ethical to kill animals because they are unable to comprehend or show rights. Points out mental retardation and then switches the criteria to being part of a group that can comprehend rights
like he just keeps switching the arguments to fit his agenda
BernieBro a.k.a Tristan
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Matt has a two tier setup. The first tier is virtue ethics, the second tier is based on ability to reciprocate social behavior.
Matt's argument:
1.) Veganism is good in terms of Virtue Ethics
2.) It isn't mandatory, since animals lack the capacity for social responsibility & self reflection.
His beliefs about the faculties of animals aren't true, but they weren't properly challenged.
Instead, VG was focused on turning it into NTT
Rather than working with what he was given
So all attempts at creating this NTT argument were deflected with, "yes, I agree, it's good virtue ethics, but it's not obligatory"
"Sure, the dog can feel guilt, but should we allow it to vote etc." Matt
"even if we assume it feels guilt, it lacks the utility to extend our considerations to it"
Do not call me Isaac, I'm Will
@
BernieBro a.k.a Tristanhis whole argument for distinguishing between virtue and baseline was having to do with freedom...
Veganism is virtuous, but not obligatory cuz freedom to stabbystabby. Love how he thinks this freedom default doesn't apply to animals.
BernieBro a.k.a Tristan
"it doesn't apply to animals for the same reason we don't extend certain responsibilities to animals."
Do not call me Isaac, I'm Will
@
BernieBro a.k.a Tristansame reason why we don't extend certain responabilities with alzhimiers, severe autism, or various other disabilities and mental disorders
BernieBro a.k.a Tristan
"it'd be nice to be good to them, but they lack the capacities to justify endowing them with the same consideration. These people with naïve faculties being treated with respect is earned through their family's value that is placed on them. Since there are always exceptions to the rule, we draw the line at humanity."
"let's look at the age of consent laws. Some people are ready for sex at a much younger age, but for the sake of protection, we draw the line where we do."
"same is true with species"
Kelley
I think that a good way to approach matt with this the whole veganism thing would be health & climate change
at first I said just climate change but then aiu mentioned the health thing and he’s right
especially since if you follow matts fb I'm pretty sure he's mentioned reducing his meat consumption for health reasons as recommended by his doctor
I might be pulling that out of my ass but I am at least 40% sure that he said that
but yeah the health & climate change arguments would both fit into his wellbeing thing
the climate change one would be your best bet probably but you would need to have some sources on hand for it
B]BernieBro a.k.a Tristan[/b]
NTT is perfect for some circumstances, but this isn't one of them. There are more direct ways of navigating. Like Kelley said, the environment argument would have been a great starter
Do not call me Isaac, I'm Will
@B]BernieBro a.k.a Tristan[/b] yeah I get where he is coming from, but he makes so many mistakes and incorrect assumptious that there are many ways to tackle it
I am not sure if he would actually make those arguments online tho, even tho I know that is the standard crap you'd get from anarcho types too, does Matt Dillhunty actually let himself say cringe shit like "your mentally disabled loved ones have no inherent moral value and their suffering and wellbeing is irrelevant"
Tay
So I think how fat boy dillahunty says he bases moraly on wellness, and says you can't murder PEOPLE because it will cause anxiety to the persons life, he's not taking into account that murdering animals is effecting everyones wellbeing who care for the wellbeing of animals. that's his contradiction i don't think VG caught on to
i'm trying to make my own conclusion and opinion from the debate and that's what i've figured so far
he makes a remart saying 'you have to understand rights in order for it to be immoral to needlessly kill you'
and i think that contradiction is that retards can't understand rights
so i think the high kind sr should nail him on retard holocaust
so VG did bring up retard holocaust, i was able to forsee that one
now fat boy dillahunty said 'categoriacal reciprocation'
then back to wellness
then after wellness and categorical reciprocation failed
he said 'rights shouldnt be extended to animals because they can't go past thinking and feeling'
as in they can't understand rights
so that would go back to retard holocaust
but he would then say humans don't accept retard holocaust now, therefor its wrong
but retards weren't always given rights
so i think essentially fat boy dillahunty is basing his morals on what's currently accepted norms rather than what should be
which is fallacious
'its like you can't hear me'
'you arent listening'
these are all such underhanded debate tactics
'you think it's infringing on your freedom to needlessly kill and eat animals that can think and feel, just like you'
'bye'
beep
i'm confused at why VG asked 'you think its infringing on your freedom'
can someone explain why VG thought that's what fat boy dillahunty meant?
as far as i can tell, fat boy dillahunty would be against retard rights if he was in [the majority of human history] when they didnt
that would fall in line with his arguement as far as i can tell
because A. they didnt have rights in that period [collectively thought as retards to not be worth life]
if you strip away all of the philisophical jargon you can simply take his viewpoint and apply his rules [doesnt understand rights, collective populus accepts rights for social contract], he would therefor not support retards right to life in a different time period
and if you extrapolate that, he would also not support animal rights in this time period because [collective populus doesnt accept rights for animals]
and that also means he would accept animal rights in the future when it happens
he's basically fallaciously arguing bandwagon ethics and morals
i think it's an is/ought and bandwagon issue that VG didnt get a chance to call out
Lox
I think the debate/skeptic community will eventually catch up with the vegan arguments and develop some more challenging counter-arguments. Their validity is not certain -- personally I don't see how such arguments could be valid, but I estimate that they will be far more challenging for the vegan community. Right now, we have the element of surprise, as society has never been expected to formulate arguments against animal ethics as a general, logically consistent principle.
In this light, we'd do well to get ready for a nastier second round.
Ask Yourself
Debate reaction vid done, should be out soonish.
MY response is 1h 15 min...
That's how listening to this made me react..
Cause Richard spent the whole time trying to assess his position. And he asked some things that derive from NTT type thinking.
If that continued long enough for Richard to actually get matt to clearly spell out his position it would have gotten pretty brutal.
Ricahrd is like mayweather
he doesn't come in strong
he spends a long time just pace matching you and probing till he gets clarity on your view then he dummies you
just go watch his debate with JF first chuck is richard asking questions, this one never got out of that phase cuase of how fucking evasive matt is
I expose it pretty well in this vid..
I mean in a logical sense it's always on the person making the claim
but by our own moral standards it would be insanely inconsistent to suggest he doesn't have to take a burden of ethical justification
Really helps people understand what you value
Daz
What is the best response when you bring up the retard question and the person replies that they deserve rights because they're a member of a group who deserves rights?
the category thing
Ask Yourself
That's where NTT is a good deal more useful than marginal cases
Marginal cases you are semantically stuck there because by definition you can't name a siutation where a marginal case is the normal
(that argument is called species normality)
You ask them if 51% of the population were retarded do humans lose rights
and burden of ethical justification are a bit separate imo
I would say he does have a burden of ethical justification
By species normality logic it would justify murdering the non retards also daz
If the argument is that rights derive from the general character of the species as opposed to the individuals
also my comment on uv vid is over double as liked as next most popular
I like setting her straight when she bullshits
her vid today had some real silliness in it
I mean, she actually tried to say richard was appealing to nature
Philotards love to do this
they pretend you are making some obvious error then pretentiously explain a basic logical fallacy to you
it is so obnoxious if you see through it
as if she would mistake him describing the biological basis of morality for an appeal to nature
Banana Warrior Princess
I had afeeling the debate would go that way because the air time is short and Matt used that to his advantage
I'd abandon the socratic approach and just go full Gary Yourofsky
yeah tell him in no uncertain terms and lay out the contradictions up front before he speaks