Philosophical Vegan Forum

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pm what authority are vegans to tell others what is right or wrong?

However bad it might look, people present their opinions in this forum. People let you see the world through their eyes, is all. Authority can only exist where there is subservience respecting it. There is no authority in my world to tell others what is right and what is wrong. Or is there, according to you? I would like to know your opinion.

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:48 pm so jebus which dogmatic vegan youtuber are you? This is not a discussion this seems like an echo chamber. you've had it out for every meat eater in the forum. you aren't capable of hearing opposing opinions. Ohhhh a threat im shaking kid

We're interested in hearing your arguments to back up your beliefs, not in listening to you make assertions and ignoring our questions.

We LOVE having meat-eaters join the forum because it stimulates discussion. It's great that you've joined and that you're starting topics etc. We don't want to ban you, but if you don't participate in actual discussion we'll have no choice but to ban you.

If you don't want to be banned, you need to make a good faith effort at answering Jebus' question:

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:52 am

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pmwhat authority are vegans to tell others what is right or wrong? Because ethically everything vegans claim is emotionally based opinions. Not facts

What if you caught a child molester messing around with one of your kids? What authority would you have to decide if what he did was right or wrong?

You can answer that with, for example:

"Non, morality is subjective, but I would kill the molester because I feel like it"

Or:

"Legal authority, molesting children is against the law and the social contract we have arrived at"

Or even:

"Sorry, I don't know"


Let's advance this into an actual discussion.

You're welcome to ALSO say stuff like "again jebus comparing a human issue to animals why dont you just admit you hate non vegans" if you want, but you need to answer the question to advance the discussion. All comments like that do on their own is derail the conversation.

Jebus gave you a warning, and I'm going to second that. You really need to engage with conversation, not just provoke and give these non-answers that are counterproductive to discussion.

The question is not complicated, and it helps get at where you think moral authority (any authority) comes from (it in no way is saying humans and non-human animals are equal to answer the question), so go ahead and give a good faith effort at answering it:

Jebus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:52 am What if you caught a child molester messing around with one of your kids? What authority would you have to decide if what he did was right or wrong?

If you can't, you can admit that or float away, but what you must not do is continue replying provocatively and evading having an actual discussion.

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pm Take it nobody will look at this since it's apparent I'm hated within this forum but I'll try anyways.

Nice persecution complex you have going there.
You're not hated.

We appreciate people starting good topics and answering good questions, but as I said above you also need to be willing to engage in the conversation. We will reluctantly have to ban you if you do not answer people's questions (or make an effort at it).

This IS a pretty good question you've asked.

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pmWhy do vegans love to throw traits on animals we eat that are incapable of feeling such traits? Yes most livestock we eat are sentient they are aware they are alive but they aren't sapient.

The distinction between sentience and sapience isn't a clear one. Meta-cognition and language is not a binary situation; even relatively simple animals can have complex thoughts in limited degrees.
It's unlikely we would have evolved the degree of sapience we have if it weren't a gradation.

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pmWhich is funny because vegans claim just being sentient is most important.

Having interests is what's important. Sentient beings have interests.

You can not respect the interests of a rock or a plant, because it has none.

You can respect the interests of an insect (at least a large one), a mouse, or a cat, a dog, a cow, a chicken, and human. These beings have interests.

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pmThe livestock we eat aren't capable of abstract though or anything beyond their basic drives to eat and breed.

That's not correct. They certainly aren't doing calculus (neither are most humans), but that doesn't mean they don't have any abstract thoughts (they can look for things they expect to find despite them not being present, for example, and they can remember the environment and navigate it without seeing a path).

Even if it were true, why is abstract thought important morally?

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pmSo again i ask what authority are vegans to tell others what is right or wrong? Because ethically everything vegans claim is emotionally based opinions. Not facts

If you think morality is subjective, then nobody has any authority to tell anybody what is right and wrong.

Some vegans believe morality is subjective, and they don't do this.
Other vegans believe morality is objective, founded on (for example) respecting the interests of others. If it is, then establishing those interests with empirical evidence provides that authority.

McLovin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:38 am Mostly, when i talk with vegans, they say how sentience is what gives moral value to organisms, and reason for that is because with sentience an organism can experience pain (and something more about pain), but isn't that using an "is", to get to an "ought"?

The explanation of pain is a poor response.
Sentient beings have interests. One of those interests is often avoiding pain, but pain doesn't matter: interest do. Pain only matters insofar as an animal has an interest in avoiding it.

Interests/preferences/values (call it what you want), this is what matters.

Morality, when it is objective, is a value system that considers and respects the values of others (rather than just your own selfish interests). No arbitrary lines for family, race, species, or anything like that. If a being has values, you respect that.

You can't respect the interests/preferences/values of non-sentient rock or plant because it has none. It's simply not possible, you'd have to make things up.
You CAN respect the interests/preferences/values of a sentient being. We can establish the reality of these empirically.

McLovin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:38 am My second question would be....if sentience (or ability to feel pain) is all what matters, then how come degree of sentience has any relevance?

Because it's interests that matter (not pain). Interests are expressed/proved by response to the environment; things like operant conditioning.
A thing that can barely respond or learn to pursue its interests is barely interested. It's the only way we have to compare different beings' levels of interest in things.

McLovin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:38 am Third question would be...Some vegans speak of harm, but when they say that they actually mean pain, but that is not the only way an organism can be harmed, so why just pain and not all other typed of harm?

They are incorrect to fixate on pain.

brimstoneSalad

But isn't that also deriving an ought from an is? Also, if one can take Interests/preferences/values, then why cant other add, for example what bigbossomni mentioned, abstract thought?

McLovin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:56 pm brimstoneSalad

But isn't that also deriving an ought from an is?

Most philosophers don't find it impossible, or even that difficult, to derive ought from is.
The notion that it's a "problem" is more of an assertion.

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the issues (much shorter than SEP):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem#Responses
Please give that a read (it's short).

How we can derive objective morality (for a moral ought) and what binding force it has (if any) are much better questions.

McLovin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:56 pm Also, if one can take Interests/preferences/values, then why cant other add, for example what bigbossomni mentioned, abstract thought?

For the same reason one can't use maximizing paperclips as the basis of morality, or "has white skin" as a qualifier: they are arbitrary.
When considering objective morality, we're looking for something non-arbitrary.

brimstoneSalad

The context of me mentioning is-ought problem is about moral ought, and I did read the text, but I have hard time to see how the problem has been dealt with.

But, what makes something arbitrary and non arbitrary? You took some specific quality which some beings possess, and if I take abstract thought, I would be doing exactly that, and the only difference between the two is what is that specific quality.

bigbossomni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:14 pm Take it nobody will look at this since it's apparent I'm hated within this forum but I'll try anyways. Why do vegans love to throw traits on animals we eat that are incapable of feeling such traits?

Animals have many of the same valuable traits as humans, which allow them to experience and enjoy life, and variety of emotions as well.

Yes most livestock we eat are sentient they are aware they are alive but they aren't sapient. Which is funny because vegans claim just being sentient is most important. The livestock we eat aren't capable of abstract though or anything beyond their basic drives to eat and breed.

Ok, so I agree with you that this is a real difference between us and many animals.

Animals probably do not fear death the same way most of us humans do. So it is better to kill an animal, than a human.

But here's my logic for why I think its still better to not kill animals at all:

Animals can enjoy their experiences, feel concern for their own health and happiness, and the health and happiness of others, and feel emotions. A pig doesn't have to comprehend its life's meaning or the idea of life and death, in order for the pig's experiences to be valuable to it. Would you agree or disagree?

So again i ask what authority are vegans to tell others what is right or wrong? Because ethically everything vegans claim is emotionally based opinions. Not facts

I hope I was able to answer some of your questions fairly and that I understood your points. I'm not 100% convinced of veganism. I just want to communicate my opinion clearly and firmly so that it can be understood.

I think my arguments this time went beyond emotion and into logic. That doesn't mean they're right, but at least you can see why a vegan might feel they have some sort of ethical stance.

McLovin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:27 pm The context of me mentioning is-ought problem is about moral ought, and I did read the text, but I have hard time to see how the problem has been dealt with.

The challenge comes in with establishing a non-arbitrary basis.

There's some discussion on that here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3641

You might want to scroll down past the first couple posts to where the discussion starts with myself and DrSinger.

McLovin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:27 pmBut, what makes something arbitrary and non arbitrary?

There are several components to arbitrarity.

Context and scale are relatively simple to explain:
In the same way we do it in science.
A good analogy is weight vs. mass.

Weight is somewhat arbitrary, since it actually depends on whatever arbitrary combination of forces are acting on an object, based on the planet, and if measured crudely in an atmosphere the bouyant force, etc.
Mass is independent of those things (we'll ignore relativity for a moment), it's essentially context independent. BUT the scale is arbitrary. That is we use kilograms, or pounds, or electron masses, or even some kind of bean. But scales can be converted into each other, and it's not arbitrary to say X weighs more than Y, or X weighs twice as much as Y.

The other is a question of selecting what to measure and call "mass".

Why measure what we do, rather than something else entirely like conductivity, velocity, or how spherical something is?
The answer to that is harder to explain: the teleology of use.

The way we use "mass" in science, measuring anything else instead would basically mess everything up. We'd have to redefine every single term, and then come up with a new term for what we now call mass because such a concept would still be needed.

McLovin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:27 pmYou took some specific quality which some beings possess, and if I take abstract thought, I would be doing exactly that, and the only difference between the two is what is that specific quality.

The quality of having interests is not an arbitrary one. It's not specified at random.
It's not at all like selecting the quality of how many toes something has or how long its digestive tract is.

What we are fundamentally talking about with morality is value systems, and these can only be measured in terms of value systems.

Another analogy:
What is the mass of that bus in kilograms? A very answerable question (even if you might not know it).
What is the mass of that bus in pinto beans? If we take the average mass of a bean, still a somewhat answerable question within a margin of error.
What is the mass of that bus in hours? Can you answer that?

Mass can only be measured in terms of things have have mass (or at least energy). Hours do not have mass. You could arbitrarily make up a mass for an hour, but you'd be no more right or wrong than anybody else making up a completely different mass.

When we deal in objective metrics, we're looking at what can be established objectively, whether it's in terms of kilograms or beans.

So, for a value system, we must measure it in terms NOT of toes or the dimensions of intestines or "abstract thought", but in terms of values: preferences, interests, etc. Things that are fundamentally related to values and have an innate exchange rate.

Sentience itself isn't a value, but it indicates that the organism has values to consider (unless it's catatonic or something).
Capacity for abstract thought isn't a value, but it may indicate that the organism also has additional abstract values to consider (in addition to whatever "non abstract" values the organism may have from being merely sentient).

In order to be non-arbitrary about it, we can't arbitrarily discount values that don't derive from whatever we arbitrarily consider "abstract thought". Just like we can't measure mass and claim that things that are blue don't count to the total.

Abstract thought probably means a being has a lot more moral value (because it has a multitude of additional values/interests/preferences deriving from that abstract thought), but what we're looking at on a fundamental level to establish objective morality is the presence of interests.

brimstoneSalad

Why not add additional criteria for moral value, like abstract thought and similar things, which is needed for understanding what morality could be?
That also brings me to the thought I had. I think a solid case could be made that even if animals are of some moral value, killing then and eating them would be morally justifiable.

And if is-ought problem is ignored, what stops me to make an argument like this:
1.If plants are living things, then plants have moral value.
2.Plants are living things.
3.Therefore, plants have moral value.

Third question is about comatose beings. If those beings (lets say, humans), during the short therm coma, have no, interests, values, preferences, would they still be or moral value?
And fourth question.....If interests, values, preferences, and similar, gives moral value, how come then multitude of those things is more moral value?