Philosophical Vegan Forum

It's not the philosophy I subscribe to, I need to read more to understand how any school legitimizes itself in epistemology. Virtue ethics say the only good is character virtue, right ends or right list of duties can inform whether we chose to pursue the right list of virtues. To them cultivating right logic can be a virtue, right understanding of physics and moral luck is a virtue of understanding the limits of your control, etc.

_________

Virtue Ethics
https://activistjourneys.wordpress.com/virtue-ethics/


Videos

SisyphusRedeemed
•On Virtue Ethics
•Antybu on Moral Vegetarianism
•Antybu on Vegetarianism

à-bas-le-ciel
•On Historical Nihilism (历史虚无主义) and “Having a Philosophy” in General.
•Plutarch vs. Jordan Peterson (vegans have philosophers, too)
•You can’t read this stuff in a book: “recommended reading” is hard to do.
•On Reading Philosophy: How & Why?
•Vegan Politics (Real Talk)
•Vegans can be idiots, too. Activism is fake, stupidity is real.
•[Patreon Exclusive:] Veganism: Socratic Method is Dead.

Essays

General:
•Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Nussbaum)
•Stoic virtue ethics (Matthew Sharpe)

Political:
•Anarchism: Ethics and Meta-Ethics (Benjamin Franks)
•Can Franks’ Practical Anarchism Avoid Moral Relativism? (Thomas Swann)
•Virtue and Utopia (Andy Blunden)
•Beyond Free and Equal: Subalternity and the Limits of Liberal-Democracy

Discussion

•How do you respond to arguments that say virtue ethics is subsumed in consequentialism and/or deontology?
•Virtue Ethics is [essentially] a form of consequentialism
•How to deal with assholes who constantly lie about and misrepresent your views?
•Is veganism based on utilitarian ethics?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:17 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics#Subsumed_in_deontology_and_utilitarianism
(never mind the false equating of Utilitarianism and Consequentialism; virtue ethics is not Utilitarian... Wikipedia is not always the best source, but it's usually a decent starting point)

I've actually been meaning to ask; What exactly is the difference between Utilitarianism and Consequentialism? I've read up on it, and I can't help but see both of them in the same light.
And on another note, what is the difference between moral absolutism and deontology? I mean, I'm sure they have their similarities, but some people say that they aren't necessarily the same thing. And moral relativism too for consequentialism.

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:25 pm I've actually been meaning to ask; What exactly is the difference between Utilitarianism and Consequentialism? I've read up on it, and I can't help but see both of them in the same light.

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, like dogs are mammals. Consequentialism is broad, Utilitarianism is a particular formulation with a particular goal.

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:25 pmAnd on another note, what is the difference between moral absolutism and deontology? I mean, I'm sure they have their similarities, but some people say that they aren't necessarily the same thing. And moral relativism too for consequentialism.

Relativism is basically, everybody's personal morality is their own morality and there is nothing other than opinion. If you think you're a good person, then you are. Basically makes morality meaningless.

Although of course there's a little more nuance than that when you get into different types:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

It's confusing, because moral absolutism is not necessarily the opposite, or everything that isn't relativism.
Deontology can be considered absolutist.

In that sense, both relativism and absolutism are wrong.

What's right and useful is "universalism" or "moral objectivism" (not to be confused with Randian Objectivism, which unfortunately is probably unavoidable so the term universalism is more useful). But moral absolutism is also a form of universalism, so to clarify further you'd have to say non-absolutist universalism... or something like that.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:39 am Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, like dogs are mammals. Consequentialism is broad, Utilitarianism is a particular formulation with a particular goal.

So would you say it's like a method of achieving what consequentialism demands?

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:39 am Relativism is basically, everybody's personal morality is their own morality and there is nothing other than opinion. If you think you're a good person, then you are. Basically makes morality meaningless.

So subjective morality, essentially?

However, I'd say that if a person has good intentions, that makes the person moral in a sense, but it doesn't make their actions moral.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:39 amAlthough of course there's a little more nuance than that when you get into different types:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Yeah, quickly reading through that page, moral relativism seems pretty asinine.
In a way, it can actually be kinda racist.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:39 amIt's confusing, because moral absolutism is not necessarily the opposite, or everything that isn't relativism.
Deontology can be considered absolutist.

In that sense, both relativism and absolutism are wrong.

Ok, I just thought that absolutism went with deontology, and relativism went with consequentialism.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:39 am What's right and useful is "universalism" or "moral objectivism" (not to be confused with Randian Objectivism, which unfortunately is probably unavoidable so the term universalism is more useful). But moral absolutism is also a form of universalism, so to clarify further you'd have to say non-absolutist universalism... or something like that.

So it's like the contrary to relativism?

So to summarize:
Utilitarianism is a subsidiary of consequentialism, with certain idea on how to achieve the most good.
Moral Relativism is like an each to their own moral system, where you're moral if you think so.
Deontology is absolutist, but absolutism isn't deontological.
Moral Universalism is that everyone has the same standards for morality.
Does that sound about right?

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:27 am So would you say it's like a method of achieving what consequentialism demands?

More one specific form of it, with specific rules and values.

There's hedonistic consequentialism which values only experienced pleasure and pain - hooking people up to electrodes to give them euphoria would be a good thing for a hedonistic consequentialist.
Then there's interest based consequentialism, which actually looks at what sentient beings want, or what they should want when those interests are idealized with correct information.
Then there are other forms too, like egalitarian consequentialism that just wants everybody to have the same satisfaction level and doesn't really care if it's low or high.

It's a question of what the goal is, usually.

Sometimes they also only value negative things negatively and ignore positives, i.e. pain is bad but pleasure doesn't matter.

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:27 am So subjective morality, essentially?

Yes, or sometimes relative to culture. "Slavery is moral because that's what we do in our culture", or "FGM is moral because that's what we do"
This is a tendency of many liberals; accusations of moral relativism from conservatives aren't always far off base.

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:27 am However, I'd say that if a person has good intentions, that makes the person moral in a sense, but it doesn't make their actions moral.

You'd have to look at what they're doing with respect to learning about ethics. People with "good intentions" who plug their ears probably don't really have good intentions, people with sincerely good intentions want to know if they're mistaken and causing harm. Most of these people are probably just stubborn and want to call themselves good and feel good about it (an important distinction).

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:27 am So to summarize:
Utilitarianism is a subsidiary of consequentialism, with certain idea on how to achieve the most good.
Moral Relativism is like an each to their own moral system, where you're moral if you think so.
Deontology is absolutist, but absolutism isn't deontological.
Moral Universalism is that everyone has the same standards for morality.
Does that sound about right?

Pretty much
Absolutism is a subset of universalism (an incorrect subset, unless it's very generalized to a tautological degree, e.g. doing good is good).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:29 pm

So would you say it's like a method of achieving what consequentialism demands?

More one specific form of it, with specific rules and values.

There's hedonistic consequentialism which values only experienced pleasure and pain - hooking people up to electrodes to give them euphoria would be a good thing for a hedonistic consequentialist.
Then there's interest based consequentialism, which actually looks at what sentient beings want, or what they should want when those interests are idealized with correct information.
Then there are other forms too, like egalitarian consequentialism that just wants everybody to have the same satisfaction level and doesn't really care if it's low or high.

It's a question of what the goal is, usually.

Sometimes they also only value negative things negatively and ignore positives, i.e. pain is bad but pleasure doesn't matter.

Oh, so it's like religion with it's different denominations. Except here one is actually right.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:29 pm Yes, or sometimes relative to culture. "Slavery is moral because that's what we do in our culture", or "FGM is moral because that's what we do"
This is a tendency of many liberals; accusations of moral relativism from conservatives aren't always far off base.

So appeal to tradition basically.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:29 pm You'd have to look at what they're doing with respect to learning about ethics. People with "good intentions" who plug their ears probably don't really have good intentions, people with sincerely good intentions want to know if they're mistaken and causing harm. Most of these people are probably just stubborn and want to call themselves good and feel good about it (an important distinction).

Yeah that's true. I was referring more to people like radical muslims who don't really have any methods of knowing any better. In that case, I don't condemn them as people, but I do condemn their actions.

Ignorance is something that we should be forgiving, but when it's inexcusable (which goes for pretty much everyone with an internet connection), then that's not something you can really be forgiving.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:29 pm Pretty much
Absolutism is a subset of universalism (an incorrect subset, unless it's very generalized to a tautological degree, e.g. doing good is good).

Circular logic then?

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:40 pm Oh, so it's like religion with it's different denominations. Except here one is actually right.

Sort of, yeah.

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:40 pmIgnorance is something that we should be forgiving, but when it's inexcusable (which goes for pretty much everyone with an internet connection), then that's not something you can really be forgiving.

They can be redeemed, though. Shitty people can change and become better people. It takes some work though.

RedAppleGP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:40 pmCircular logic then?

Not quite. Just meaningless tautology.