2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

[brimstoneSalad]

So, it's good you came here, but I won't defend his formulation unless you're already in the habit of making moral claims (and those that remotely resemble what most people would think of as morality).

Hey brim. I don't know about making moral claims. We only have the questions I proposed in the beginning.

If you claim to have a system or morality, or you have made moral judgements (like "genocide is wrong", "murder is wrong" etc.), then you have made moral claims.

Did you understand my point about the implicit claims tied to that, regarding logical consistency and non-arbitrarity (if you like: objectivity)?

[AMP3083]

@ Jebus ---------------------------------------------------

It would help if you wrote how you made these conclusions because as they stand now the statements make little sense.

Let me try again. If a meat eater's morality tells him it's ok to kill an animal for food and does that very thing, then that's being CONSISTENT with his morals. So, I ask again - does a logical inconsistency exists within the non-vegan system of morality?

Person who cares about animals who eats meat - Morally inconsistent - explanation needed

Yeah, this is why we're proposing that morals are merely preferences. If it's really an explanation you want, again I suggest reviewing the discussion thread in the link I provided.

You don't think that morality is preference? Then what did you mean by this:

Every intentional act is an act of preference.

@ Lightningman ---------------------------------------------------
Lightningman, thanks for the welcome! Glad to be here.

Regarding the matter of whether or not a moral system can be objective, I'd say it depends upon what is meant by "objective".

"Objective" in the sense that it requires consensus.

If, when you say "objective", you're referring to a person's moral system which does not depend upon his/her own desires, emotions, or opinions; then yes. In order for someone's moral system to be objective, he/she would have to treat others based upon what they themselves value, and not upon what he/she values.

Ok. Can you further elaborate using an example?

@ brimstoneSalad ---------------------------------------------------

If you claim to have a system or morality, or you have made moral judgements (like "genocide is wrong", "murder is wrong" etc.), then you have made moral claims.

Agreed. Yes, I follow all of what you said. You said there is an objective standard and I'd like to know what it is.

[brimstoneSalad]

@ brimstoneSalad ---------------------------------------------------

If you claim to have a system or morality, or you have made moral judgements (like "genocide is wrong", "murder is wrong" etc.), then you have made moral claims.

Agreed. Yes, I follow all of what you said. You said there is an objective standard and I'd like to know what it is.

The easiest way for most people to understand is by example.
Once we agree it can not be arbitrary, that's where contradictions pop up (when different treatment is not otherwise explained and justified).

@ Jebus ---------------------------------------------------

It would help if you wrote how you made these conclusions because as they stand now the statements make little sense.

Let me try again. If a meat eater's morality tells him it's ok to kill an animal for food and does that very thing, then that's being CONSISTENT with his morals. So, I ask again - does a logical inconsistency exists within the non-vegan system of morality?

Is it OK to kill a human animal for food too, under the same circumstances? If not, why?
Remember, it's important to avoid arbitrary distinctions.

Most people would agree that it's OK to kill for food when necessary for survival (stranded on a island with no food), but not just because you like the taste of people.
For much of human history, it has been necessary to kill for food. We did it to non-human animals, and we've even done it to human animals

We no longer need to do this. It no longer benefits us, individually or as a society, beyond personal pleasure for the people who like eating meat.

What Ask Yourself asks is what trait present in animals justifies this. To avoid arbitrary inconsistency, such a trait would also have to justify the same in humans.

If non-human animals are less intelligent and that is what justifies killing them for pleasure (not for food, we have other things to eat), then would it be justified to kill a human who was less intelligent?
If so, and you're OK with killing or even raising and killing people with low IQs for food, then you have advanced a consistent position.
If not, then you arrive at inconsistency.

The problem with Ask Yourself's formulation is that it is vulnerable to aberrant "moral systems" that achieve consistency as a framework for judgement and decision making but do not resemble anything people would understand as morality. For example, some formulations of Randian Objectivism and Egoism.

Objectivism and Egoism have many nuanced internal contradictions, but that's a much longer discussion.

Sometimes it may just be more useful to define morality straight out and justify that definition in a take it or leave it way.

If, when you say "objective", you're referring to a person's moral system which does not depend upon his/her own desires, emotions, or opinions; then yes. In order for someone's moral system to be objective, he/she would have to treat others based upon what they themselves value, and not upon what he/she values.

Ok. Can you further elaborate using an example?

When you build a brick house, do you build it out of bricks, or out of abstract values?

Morality is a value system, the key word being value. You can't construct a value system using physical bricks any more than you can build a brick house from values.

Not only must it be logically consistent and non-arbitrary, but it also must be framed in terms of values. That should be obvious, but most people don't get it.

A "moral system" which measures value in terms of bricks and demands we manufacture as many bricks as possible as the root of all good, maximizing the number of bricks in the universe, is incoherent. It's also arbitrary, so it fails on two levels (Why bricks and not pickles?).

Moral systems for use in guiding your behavior as a moral person are built by considering the values of others. An objective one is built not from consideration of one other person's values, not from one species' values, but the sum of all other values that exist. That means looking at what each other sentient being values -- pleasure, avoidance of pain, life, love, art, whatever (depending on the species values may be more or less abstract) -- and regarding those values with some measure of moral consideration.

If an animal (human or otherwise) does not want to die, an objective moral system considers that value and says it's wrong to kill that animal, all other things being equal.

Not too complicated. More or less it's the golden rule, minus any arbitrary choices to disregard the interests of members of species that are not your own.
That doesn't mean killing is always wrong. Sometimes it's necessary to kill one to save many. But perpetuating an unending cycle of suffering and death (one that is harming the environment and human health too) for short term taste pleasure just isn't morally acceptable by an objective consideration of the facts at hand.
We need to start eating other things. We are not lacking in delicious food that is less destructive to non-human animals and our own society. It may be difficult for a few weeks (like quitting smoking), but in the long run it's a win-win to go vegan. It's the only rational conclusion an informed moral agent can come to.

[Jebus]

If a meat eater's morality tells him it's ok to kill an animal for food and does that very thing, then that's being CONSISTENT with his morals. So, I ask again - does a logical inconsistency exists within the non-vegan system of morality?

I understand you better now. Obviously an individual can't simply make up what is moral or immoral. The whole point of morality and discussions about morality would be useless if that were the case. However, an individual can decide the following.

1. How much he cares about morals, i.e. if s/he wants to be a good person or a shit person.
2. To what degree s/he tries to twist what is immoral behavior so that s/he himself doesn't have to consider him/herself immoral. Examples of this are meat eaters who say that:
a. eating meat is ok since I'm not the one who killed the cow.
b. it's too bad that animals suffer but it's morally ok as my health requires meat.
c. it won't make a difference if only one person stops eating meat so why should that be me.
d. It's natural for animals to kill and eat other animals and I am on top of the food chain, so why not?
e. The cow never would have been born had it not been for meat eaters so in fact I am doing the cow a favor.

I suspect point 2 is what you meant the whole time and the point which eluded me until now. Do you think that it a pedophile who molests a child while believing he is pleasuring the child is moral or immoral?

You don't think that morality is preference? Then what did you mean by this:

Every intentional act is an act of preference.

See point 1 above. I can either choose to rape that attractive woman or I can choose not to rape her. Either way it would be an intentional choice.

[AMP3083]

@ brimstoneSalad ---------------------------------------------------

Is it OK to kill a human animal for food too, under the same circumstances? If not, why?
Remember, it's important to avoid arbitrary distinctions.

Are you suggesting that human murder is identical to animal murder?

To answer your question: No, I don't think it's ok to kill a human for food, but if a person's morality tells them it's ok to kill a human for food and he does just that, isn't that being consistent? That doesn't mean I agree with this kind of morality.

If an animal (human or otherwise) does not want to die, an objective moral system considers that value and says it's wrong to kill that animal, all other things being equal.

Not too complicated. More or less it's the golden rule, minus any arbitrary choices to disregard the interests of members of species that are not your own.

"an objective moral system considers that value and says it's wrong to kill that animal"

Is it really "an objective moral system" that makes the said consideration? Because from where I'm sitting, the only one making this consideration is... you. And that's about as arbitrary as you can get, despite the fact that you say "it cannot be arbitrary".

@ Jebus ---------------------------------------------------

I suspect point 2 is what you meant the whole time and the point which eluded me until now. Do you think that it a pedophile who molests a child while believing he is pleasuring the child is moral or immoral?

Am I being accused of twisting morality? If so, how can that be when I'm clearly not guilty of making any of the claims in the examples you listed?

As for the pedophile question: MY moral principle would say that such an act is immoral and I'm sure you will agree with me on that point. Is there a reason why you're asking me this question?

See point 1 above. I can either choose to rape that attractive woman or I can choose not to rape her. Either way it would be an intentional choice.

It's still not clear to me. First, you say that morality is not a preference. Second, you say that every intentional act is a preference. Am I missing something here?

[AMP3083]

Btw, did you guys even bother to review the YouTube link I provided? Here it is again: https://plus.google.com/109962215079387517038/posts/JCviehxHryf?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US

I think a lot of your questions have been addressed there.

[Jebus]

Am I being accused of twisting morality?

No.

As for the pedophile question: MY moral principle would say that such an act is immoral

Why do you consider that immoral?

See point 1 above. I can either choose to rape that attractive woman or I can choose not to rape her. Either way it would be an intentional choice.

It's still not clear to me. First, you say that morality is not a preference. Second, you say that every intentional act is a preference. Am I missing something here?

My intentional choice is to not rape the attractive woman. I prefer this option to raping her because even though the rape would give me some physical pleasure I don't want to be a shitty human being and do something that is immoral. Why do I think this is immoral? Because it would cause suffering to the victim and to her closest friends and family.

[brimstoneSalad]

@ brimstoneSalad ---------------------------------------------------

Is it OK to kill a human animal for food too, under the same circumstances? If not, why?
Remember, it's important to avoid arbitrary distinctions.

Are you suggesting that human murder is identical to animal murder?

I'm saying the same reasoning applies by default unless you can show how they are different.
Arbitrarily claiming humans are infinitely valuable but non-humans have no value by default without a consistent reason is in violation of the basic requirements.

It's not difficult to say a human is MORE intelligent, and so has MORE moral value, thus it is MORE wrong to kill a human. (It's something that needs to be stated)
But you can not escape the fact, from such reasoning, that it is still wrong to kill a non-human despite lesser intelligence. The wrong is just in proportion to the intelligence.

I believe Ask Yourself holds something similar.

To answer your question: No, I don't think it's ok to kill a human for food,

Is that just your personal feeling, or are you claiming it's immoral to kill a human for food, or enjoyment?
And if so, by what basis can you claim that it's perfectly fine (not even a lesser wrong, but involves no wrong doing at all) to kill a non-human for food, or just enjoyment?

but if a person's morality tells them it's ok to kill a human for food and he does just that, isn't that being consistent? That doesn't mean I agree with this kind of morality.

As far as the questions Ask Yourself asks, yes.
Like I said, his argument does not work for aberrant "morality".

Hannibal Lecter is being consistent when eating non-human animals or human animals. It's all meat to him, and he doesn't regard it as a problem to kill for pleasure.

Such a "morality" is incorrect, however.

Is it really "an objective moral system" that makes the said consideration?

In the sense that it's the + sign that "adds" things together, which is a manner of speaking. It's more that an objective moral system "tells"* us that, in order to be moral, we must make that consideration. Just as in order to do math, we must follow the rules of addition when required and the plus sign tells us what to do.
*Again, not literally talking to us with a mouth.

I feel like you're trying to be cheeky here. That's fair enough, but did you understand the point as I explained it with respect to values vs. bricks?

Because from where I'm sitting, the only one making this consideration is... you. And that's about as arbitrary as you can get, despite the fact that you say "it cannot be arbitrary".

Only if you think the principles of mathematics and logic are arbitrary because they're enacted by the reasoning of human beings. If you're one of those people, why are you even trying to have a discussion using reason and logic? If not, I don't know what you think I was saying.

When I say "consider", I'm not saying "as a matter of whim decide to go with it if you feel like it".
I'm talking about weighing the value of that being's interest and how it would be violated with one action against the benefits to others and consequences of alternative actions.

For example, in the trolley problem:



We must take into consideration the number of lives at stake on each track.
It's not an arbitrary process. It's mathematics, it's game theory, it's statistics (error bars and all), it's neuropsychology.

There are aspects of approximation that are subject to bias, but as with any science, the science of morality attempts to eliminate those biases -- and as with any science it provides us few very certain answers. The grey areas, the unknowns, do not make the process useless. There are still some clear prescriptions, and more importantly, we know the direction we have to move in research to find more.

Win-lose scenarios are complicated, and involve weighing the harm against the benefit. This is not always easy.
A human having the pain of being bitten by a mosquito (very sentient, small harm) vs. a mosquito's life (barely sentient, immense harm).
When we multiply out those values, small variance in the degree of harm and the value of the being can change the answer very quickly.

Win-win and lose-lose scenarios, however, are simple. The case of eating meat is a lose-lose scenario. Humanity doesn't benefit, the non-human animals don't benefit. Any well informed and rational moral agent can see the behavior is immoral and short sighted.

Some kinds of animal testing are another matter. Humans benefit there, non-humans lose. It's arguably win-lose. That's harder to weigh, so it's more of a moral grey area where we need more information before we can make a clear call.
The risk of personal biases swinging the calculation to one side or another due to uncertainty or incomplete information is very high in those cases because they may rest on a razor's edge.

There's definitely uncertainty in some things, but that doesn't make objective morality arbitrary. It means we need more information to make a call on more complicated topics. Meat eating is simple, though. The evidence against it is overwhelming from multiple fields, and only growing.
Does that help clarify things?

[AMP3083]

@ Jebus ---------------------------------------------------

Why do you consider that immoral?

Sorry, I take it back. I don't actually mean to say that pedophilia is immoral, I said it like that because you framed your question that way. Now, if you would have asked me if I would molest a child, then I'd say No simply because it's not my preference. We can attach all kinds of labels to this (i.e. shitty human, immoral, evil, disgusting, etc.) but the fact is that the choice you make is always your personal preference.

My intentional choice is to not rape the attractive woman. I prefer this option to raping her because even though the rape would give me some physical pleasure I don't want to be a shitty human being and do something that is immoral. Why do I think this is immoral? Because it would cause suffering to the victim and to her closest friends and family.

I enlarged and underlined the text where you said "prefer". Is this an acknowledgment of morality as preference? I do share your preference here about rape but I'm still not sure of your answer, unless you're implying that morality is different than the action itself...?

@ brimstoneSalad ---------------------------------------------------

I'm saying the same reasoning applies by default unless you can show how they are different. Arbitrarily claiming humans are infinitely valuable but non-humans have no value by default without a consistent reason is in violation of the basic requirements.

Except I haven't made any arbitrary claims. When I said that it's not ok to kill humans for food, what I mean is that such an act is just not my personal preference. I would rather eat chicken instead of a human being. If a person likes to eat humans, that's their preference too, although it would be strange to do so considering it's not part of the norm that I grew up seeing, and I might even feel anger.

In the case of Hannibal Lecter, you said his morality is incorrect. Why?

Thanks for the further explanation. Yes, this certainly clears things up. However, I do not look at the subject matter from a mathematical perspective, so I have to reject your mathematical claims as I do not perceive them to be reasonable enough to conclude an objective morality. It's important to note also that I do not see these matters as a "win/lose" scenario. If you like to live your moral life under the guidance of mathematical equations in order to be on the winning side, that's simply your preference. I just don't see any logical basis from which you're asserting other than it's a mere preference, regardless of how many ways you can make sense out of it (including science, neuropsychology or mathematics).

I assure you that I'm not being cheeky and yes I understood your comment about values vs. bricks. It only sounded to me as if you were speaking about "moral objective system" in the same way Christians speak of their God; in other words, adhere to a moral code and obey at all times. And what of this "objective moral standard"? Is it written in the universe? Is it set in stone? Is it something we are required to obey?

I'm talking about weighing the value of that being's interest and how it would be violated with one action against the benefits to others and consequences of alternative actions.

This is a very broad statement. Can you give me an example?

The case of eating meat is a lose-lose scenario. Humanity doesn't benefit, the non-human animals don't benefit. Any well informed and rational moral agent can see the behavior is immoral and short sighted.

How can you say eating meat doesn't benefit humanity? Clearly it does by satisfying their hunger enabling them to function the next few hours and survive the next few days. We can pretty much say this about any foods though, vegan or otherwise. As for animals not benefiting; in a way, they do benefit by helping me to survive, and they have my thanks and appreciation even beyond their death. Maybe you don't like this kind of a response and I understand if you don't. I understand and respect the ethical vegan's perspective (especially in practice), though practicing the lifestyle is currently not within my preference.

[Jebus]

Brimstone. I'm leaving this one for you now. Hopefully you can pull off another Theo.