Why do so many look up to vegan gains and ask yourself?

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.
McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: Why do so many look up to vegan gains and ask yourself?

Post by McLovin » Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:33 pm

Lay Vegan

To avoid the confusion, I will form my question differently.
Does that, what you said, depend on the decision of vegans, or that would be true whether vegans and humans existed or not?

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:38 pm

McLovin wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:33 pm
Does that, what you said, depend on the decision of vegans, or that would be true whether vegans and humans existed or not?
Yes to the latter. Morality is objective. That is, moral claims are either true or false. Most moral maxims apply universally, and most reasonable people can agree on their true value. We know that moral claims are objective if their truth value is independent of the one making the claim. Causing harm without moral justification is objectively bad. The overall truth of any moral claim depends on summing the value of the outcome for all people.

Morality is objective, and moral claims are true or false, regardless whether or not vegans or humans are here to discover them. In the same sense that mathematics exists objectively, and 1+1=2 regardless of the presence of humans to "discover" this truth.

McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by McLovin » Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:18 pm

Lay Vegan

Alright. but how do you get to that conclusion?

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:12 am

McLovin wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:18 pm
Alright. but how do you get to that conclusion?
Which conclusion? The conclusion that morality is objective?

Unlike empirical claims, which can proven true or false from strict observation and experimentation (the scientific method) value claims can be proven true or false based on reason.

I became a moral objectivist after realizing that objective moral claims contain propositions that correspond with the natural world. Basically, moral statements are based on empirical facts.

For example, sentient animals possess brains with central nervous systems. We are capable of suffering, and of being harmed. "Harm" can manifest itself through pain, fear, agony, starvation, trauma, physical injury etc. Humans have the unique ability to rise above instinct, to reason, and to willingly mitigate harm. Why should we reduce harm? Well, because it is harm, and objectively bad. And harm (starvation, agony, thirst, disease etc.) exist objectively. The claim "We should not harm sentient beings" is therefore a moral truth.

McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by McLovin » Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:11 am

Lay Vegan

I was thinking more about conclusion that sentience is that line, and so.
Lay Vegan wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:12 am
For example, sentient animals possess brains with central nervous systems. We are capable of suffering, and of being harmed. "Harm" can manifest itself through pain, fear, agony, starvation, trauma, physical injury etc. Humans have the unique ability to rise above instinct, to reason, and to willingly mitigate harm. Why should we reduce harm? Well, because it is harm, and objectively bad. And harm (starvation, agony, thirst, disease etc.) exist objectively. The claim "We should not harm sentient beings" is therefore a moral truth.
I still dont know how did you come to certain conclusions. No body is disputing that physical harm exists, but I have no idea what you think by "bad", nor why we "should" reduce harm, nor how harm is objectively "bad", especially if there are no humans.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:30 am

McLovin wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:11 am
I was thinking more about conclusion that sentience is that line, and so.
Sentience (or consciousness) is the only morally relevant distinction because it is the only trait that directly corresponds with one's ability to suffer, or to be harmed. Harm itself can be generally difficult to describe (as stated farther up in the thread) but harm manifests itself through pain, fear, agony, starvation, trauma, physical injury etc.

Why not draw the moral line at race? Or species? Or level of intelligence? Or ability to walk up walls, use echolocation, or cook tofu scramble? Neither of these traits are relevant to one's capacity to be harmed. Being a black person does not impede your ability to starve. Left-handed people can experience fear and trauma, just as right-handed people can. So too can nonhuman animals. Most animals have brains and central nervous systems, and are capable of experiencing physical pain, trauma, depression, and are capable to some degree, of suffering. Species therefore, is just as arbitrary as skin color or gender (in regard to moral consideration). Neither are morally relevant distinctions.


Rational people make moral decisions based on relevant factors. Chipping a table is not causing harm. Non sentient objects like tables and computer cannot be harmed. However, invasive surgeries, like declawing, certainly harms cats (can be concluded by the summing of consequences of the outcome). We know that animals can be harmed by observing how they nurse their wounds, communicate distress, and become reclusive. For one to be harmed, one must be sentient.

We know that is is objectively bad to unnecessarily cause harm to others. Only sentient beings can experience harm, yet some nonhuman animals are sentient. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf Therefore, is is objectively bad to cause harm to sentient nonhuman animals.

McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by McLovin » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:56 am

Lay Vegan

As you can see, I also wrote that some clarification is needed, about the things you mentioned.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:35 pm

McLovin wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:56 am
As you can see, I also wrote that some clarification is needed, about the things you mentioned.
The questions about good, bad, and truth have already been addressed in my previous posts. I’ve also discussed why sentience is the only relevant factor in moral consideration.


Do you have any counter arguments to my claims? Do you recognize that morality is objective just as mathematics and logic are objective? Do you recognize that sentience is the only morally relevant distinction?

McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by McLovin » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:10 pm

Lay Vegan

No, you didnt tell me what is "good", nor what is "bad". In your previous message you mentioned the word "bad" only once, and used it to assert something, not to explain me what "bad" means.
As I said, no one is disputing that there is physical harm, but you didnt explain why should harm be reduced and why is harm "bad" (whatever that is supposed to mean), especially if there are not humans.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8852
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:59 pm

McLovin wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:10 pm
No, you didnt tell me what is "good", nor what is "bad". In your previous message you mentioned the word "bad" only once, and used it to assert something, not to explain me what "bad" means.
When we're talking about good and bad in the context of discussion on morality, we're talking about moral good and moral bad, with respect to moral theory and fact.
Just as "up" and "down" mean certain things if we're talking about the stock market or physics.

Dealing with circumstances, we're talking about relative harm and benefit when comparing different outcomes (good being less harmful and more beneficial, bad being more harmful and less beneficial), when dealing with behavior we're looking at consequences in terms of the harms and benefits mentioned as outcomes of that behavior so likewise we can say some behavior is relatively good or bad compared to other behavior, and in terms of judgement we can look at behavior in the context of the person to assess good or bad character.
McLovin wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:10 pm
but you didnt explain why should harm be reduced and why is harm "bad" (whatever that is supposed to mean), especially if there are not humans.
"Should" is also a moral should. If you are/want to be moral, you should do certain things that comport with that.

We can also discuss mathematical "shoulds". If you are presented with the problem "2+2" you should answer that it equals 4, mathematically speaking. Do you disagree with that?

Now if there is no being (not necessarily human, any sufficiently rational being would suffice) to ponder and answer these questions (moral or mathematical) "should" isn't so meaningful.
We don't usually say that a tornado shouldn't smash houses, but we say that outcome is morally bad/harmful.
We wouldn't usually say that a die shouldn't roll 5 when we ask it what 2+2 is, but we would say that answer is mathematically incorrect.

The goodness or badness of things exists independently of thinking things, just as the correctness or incorrectness of mathematical formula, but we can't prescribe actions to chaos; we can only say it would be better or more correct if chaos happened to do X. Because dice have no mathematical intent or inclination and a tornado has no moral one, and in fact they have no interests or thoughtful inclinations at all, it would be silly to presuppose that they might or could have these interests so saying they "should" do anything doesn't make much sense.

Yes, we could say to the tornado "Hey tornado, IF you are a moral tornado, you should not smash that house", and we could say to the die "Hey die, IF you are a mathematically accurate die, you should answer 4 to the question 'what's 2+2'"... and that's correct. If they were those things, if they had moral agency or mathematical ability they should do those things (morally and mathematically respectively). It just sounds silly to say it because we know they are not.

This is different from a psychopath, for instance, who is capable of understanding these concepts and valuing morality/mathematics and obeying a moral or mathematical should. It's not entirely unreasonable to suspect that he or she may be a morally or mathematically interested and competent psychopath.

We also know the psychopath has a mind, so beyond that there may be a teleological argument to be made for binding force of morality. But that's another topic. (Binding force deals with the question "why should we be moral?" rather than "what should we do if we are to be moral?")

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests