An open invitation to stop your misinformed fad and start making an actual difference in the world.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Don't mind me, I'm just here for the drama

[EquALLity]

Is there a reason why you didn't address what I was saying about those two 'dog arguments' really being the same, IslandMorality?
Do you agree with what I said now, or are you just not addressing my points?

If you're not going to be open-minded enough to address those points, then I don't see why you'd be open-minded enough to change your positions regarding 'conscientious' meat etc., so I see no use in bothering with what you wrote.

[IslandMorality]

Is there a reason why you didn't address what I was saying about those two 'dog arguments' really being the same, IslandMorality?
Do you agree with what I said now, or are you just not addressing my points?

If you're not going to be open-minded enough to address those points, then I don't see why you'd be open-minded enough to change your positions regarding 'conscientious' meat etc., so I see no use in bothering with what you wrote.

Yeah there is a reason. Because I dont give the tiniest bit of a fuck if two arguments, both of which I have already proven to be futile (twice I think by now), are or are not the same one. Isnt there like a rule on this forum that you have to remain on topic in threads?

And Ill be sure to cry over you not addressing my actual points, its not like im expecting something fruitful to come from having a discussion with someone like you


Edit: But you know what. Im in a particularly good mood this evening and Ill do you a favor. If you really wanna continue this nonsense side-debate. Open another topic on it and ill stop by.

[EquALLity]

Is there a reason why you didn't address what I was saying about those two 'dog arguments' really being the same, IslandMorality?
Do you agree with what I said now, or are you just not addressing my points?

If you're not going to be open-minded enough to address those points, then I don't see why you'd be open-minded enough to change your positions regarding 'conscientious' meat etc., so I see no use in bothering with what you wrote.

Yeah there is a reason. Because I dont give the tiniest bit of a fuck if two arguments, both of which I have already proven to be futile (twice I think by now), are or are not the same one. Isnt there like a rule on this forum that you have to remain on topic in threads?

And Ill be sure to cry over you not addressing my actual points, its not like im expecting something fruitful to come from having a discussion with someone like you

Always fun when someone breaks the rules while accusing you of doing so for pointing it out.
Seriously, what do you mean, off topic? You brought this up in the first place.

Edit: But you know what. Im in a particularly good mood this evening and Ill do you a favor. If you really wanna continue this nonsense side-debate. Open another topic on it and ill stop by.

Wow, a favor! Are you not merciful?!

Hm... I'm very much doubting your open-mindedness, but I'll give it a shot.
There's no sense in creating a new topic, but if it makes you feel better...

[IslandMorality]

Always fun when someone breaks the rules while accusing you of doing so for pointing it out.
Seriously, what do you mean, off topic? You brought this up in the first place.

This is a topic to debate veganism being misinformed or not, not for debating whether or not two arguments are or are not the same one.

And speaking of off topic nonsense issues... I didnt accuse you of breaking rules. I asked if there was such a rule on this forum.

[EquALLity]

Always fun when someone breaks the rules while accusing you of doing so for pointing it out.
Seriously, what do you mean, off topic? You brought this up in the first place.

This is a topic to debate veganism being misinformed or not, not for debating whether or not two arguments are or are not the same one.

And speaking of off topic nonsense issues... I didnt accuse you of breaking rules. I asked if there was such a rule on this forum.

Sure, that may be the central point, but you made other claims in your original post that I wanted to address in addition to the central point.

It sounded more like an accusation than an actual question, but never-mind if it wasn't one.

Well, anyway, I made the new topic: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =22&t=1744

[brimstoneSalad]

You can play technicalities all you want, a bet is not a formal contract. So when you get technical about it I dont owe you anything.

It is not legally enforceable, your honoring it, or reneging, is based strictly on your personal honor/honesty or lack thereof.

What you would or would not do if I sent you my personal contact information and showed you where I lived is irrelevant; I don't share that with people I don't trust. Your not honoring your obligation to pay up demonstrates to me you wouldn't be trustworthy. See how that works?
I would not have been "brave", but moronic to engage a Skype chat with you and show you around my home.

Are you serious right now? Where is the burden of proof? On the one making the claim "killing is wrong", or the one questioning it?

The person claiming "killing is wrong", and the person claiming (as you did) "killing is not wrong" have equal burdens of proof.
Only the person claiming "I don't know if killing is wrong or not wrong. Convince me." has no burden of proof.

Likewise, a positive atheist or theist assumes a burden of proof by claiming definitively that a god does not or does exist, but an agnostic (implicit athiest) who claims not to know (as long as the agnostic doesn't claim it is unknowable) assumes none.

"Wrong" in and of itself is not a physical thing, its something we decide.

Wrong (as in incorrect) again. It is a philosophical/logical thing. Not physical like a cat or a shoe, but a matter of axiomatic reasoning, like mathematics.
Moral wrongness is the position along an axis in a space defined by moral axiom.

When I say causing suffering is wrong, I dont mean it as an absolute.

What you're defining here is an axiom, but it's also useless to define a moral axiom that isn't "absolute", meaning definite and certain and not respective to opinion.
If somebody can come along and say "In your opinion suffering is wrong, and in mine suffering is right and pleasure is wrong" how can you respond to that?

I mean it as saying its more useful to define wrong in light of suffering than arbitrarily assigning certain actions with the label wrong, such as "killing is wrong".

You seem to be hinting at the difference between deontology and consequentialism.

You are wrong to say "killing is not wrong" (even on an island).
But you would be right to say "killing is not always wrong".

It depends on the consequences: Is the killing violating somebody's interests? Is it violating interests, but the lesser of viable violations (the lesser of evils)?

Granted your definition of wrong on the basis of 'interests' goes beyond that sort of arbitrariness. But why are interests important? Because having them met induces pleasure, and not having them met induces suffering, it seems to me to be the case?

As I have demonstrated multiple times, many have interests which transcend their experiences. This can be traced back even to evolutionary contexts (although philosophically irrelevant), where an organism may suffer and die for its offspring, because it has a greater interest in the survival of its offspring than its own survival.
We can determine this clearly with respect to our own obvious interests not to be killed painlessly without knowing it's coming vs. having our feet stomped on (it's a decision we can understand the answer to without even asking it).

Ofcourse I mind in principle, because torture is involved and that means suffering will be experienced by my dog, even if not by me.

As I said, your dog minds, but why do YOU mind, since you never know it happened?
Just as, with being killed instantly, you never know it happened.

You are, in a breath, proving that you have interests that transcend your awareness and experience if you claim you still value this even if you wouldn't know.
What about this is difficult to understand?

The reason you mind is because you have interests which are not related to your actual experiences of pleasure and pain. You care about things you don't even know happen.
The same way somebody cares about being killed instantly, because he or she values life, even if he or she doesn't know it's coming and never knows it happened.

Not even mentioning the huge problem with your argument that when you ask me this question you are violating the assumption thats needed to support it, which is me being unaware.
"Are you ok with knowing I swapped your dog and tortured it, provided you didnt know?" Thats completely absurd. In reality someone cant know and not know at the same time.

Ever seen the movie "the Matrix"? A turncoat character in that movie made a similar bargain, asking for ignorance.
Memory can be erased or inhibited from forming; that isn't entirely science fictional.

But beyond that, as I already explained, we can ask these questions as thought experiments without you thinking they will actually happen (and never realizing they do) to get your thoughts on them.

So, are you saying you don't actually care about your dog at all in principle, but just don't want to feel bad? So, as long as you don't know about it, and I don't make you aware by asking you these sorts of questions, you don't mind?

Some people feel that way, while others do not. If you are one of those people who don't mind if your interests are violated as long as you don't find out about it, then it may be morally permissible to kill you instantly, painlessly, and without you knowing it's coming -- provided nobody grieves you (maybe your parents are killed too, before they are troubled by finding out).

For people who care about their interests being violated, even without their knowledge, then it is immoral to violate those.

These situations may also vary from interest to interest.

And to that I would obviously say that I would still mind because of the suffering experienced by the dog.

Why would you care about suffering that you don't witness and don't even know about? Why not just stay ignorant, and ignore the suffering in the world so it doesn't trouble you, so you don't have to care about it?

Ofcourse its ok. Did you really expect a "no" to this question?

No, I expected a "yes".

Which kind of demonstrates your lack of empathy.

If the ARTIST wants his painting to survive him more than the wants to avoid suffering and death, then that should place valuing the survival of that painting higher than preventing the artists' suffering and death. It's not your business to tell him his priorities are off, and that he shouldn't care about what happens to his painting after he dies since he won't get pleasure from it anymore.

The question is if interests are a good thing to be used to define ethics in terms of.

The answer is that interests are the ONLY non-arbitrary thing to define ethics in terms of. Pleasure and pain are only meaningful because we have interests in experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain; but other interests can surpass those, and it's not your place to say "that's wrong"; it's to each individual to decide which interests take precedent.

It's not the interests YOU arbitrarily choose to value (like avoiding suffering or experiencing pleasure), but those the individuals at hand chose for themselves.

Because they're biologically driven to this for one.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Because they're biologically driven to seek pleasure, they should? Since we're not biologically driven to make works of art that survive us, we shouldn't value that?

Mostly because they're idiots with a fucked up sense of values of what should be important in life.

You may not agree with their values, but you have no objective basis to judge them wrong and yours right. All you do is appeal to nature.

What should be important in life? Only what you decide? Are you the god of this universe, arbitrarily dictating the meaning of all of our lives for us?

Each person gets to decide what he of she prioritizes his or herself. That's the beauty of an atheistic world.

You're trying to crown yourself as god, and replace the arbitrary theistic system of morality with your own arbitrary dictates based on your own set of fallacious appeals.

Because minimizing suffering maximizes sentient beings' flourishing

Why is "flourishing" important? More appeals to nature? More arbitrary declarations of value based on your personal opinions?

I however am not a selfish person and realize that something, for which the only sentient being that gives a shit about it is me, becomes irrelevant the moment I am no longer in this world.

You are a selfish person, though: You are a very selfish person, because you only care about your personal pleasure and pain. You only care about the suffering of your dog because it makes YOU feel bad. If you don't know about suffering, you don't care about it. If it happens after you die, you don't care about it.

At least, that's how you've been representing yourself (although I have doubts that you are being sincere).

That's the epitome of selfish hedonism. You can't even understand the golden rule.

Or maybe you do care about things you don't know about. Maybe you have actual values that transcend your experiences. In which case you'll have to realize I'm right, and that it IS the set of all interests (beyond mere experience, but also including interests in experience) that matter.

Is the artist a little selfish to want people to waste resources on his bad art? Sure. But we're all a little selfish when we value ANYTHING in life other than pure altruism.

You are being selfish by not humoring his interest, which costs you very little, just because you don't personally care about it. You do not really care about the interests of others -- as they clearly express them -- unless it makes you personally feel bad or good. Or so it would seem so far.

I don't care about his shitty art either; I wouldn't necessarily feel bad destroying it. And yet, rationally, I know it would be a violation of his dying wish, so in order to be consistent I should respect that if I can.

This same kind of bullshit argument is used to justify choice in becoming an organ donor, which is a fucking abomination and an insult to morality.

It is a similar argument, and it's a legitimate moral dilemma -- not an insult to morality, but the careful practice of it. However, morality is also not JUST about blindly respecting one persons' interest, but about weighing interests against each other. So there is another argument to be made from the other side about fulfilling the interests of a living person.

You can violate one person's minor interest (a small wrong), to save another's great interest (a large good). That's how consequentialism works.

If that were true then if bob has a pathological fear of needles and there is a supervirus on the loose, it would not be morally acceptable to hold him down and force the needle containing the vaccin in his veins against his will, which I and a lot of people highly disagree with.

You need to read the thread on deontology.

Again, we must weigh wrongs against each other. It is wrong to poke Bob with the needle, but it may be the greater wrong not to because it risks violating many more interests in a much more serious way.
Life is complicated, and we often have to choose the lesser of evils, because interests often conflict.

The moment you have decided on 'yes' the suffering is present until the words leave your mouth, so it doesnt make sense to say there is no fear.

You missed the point entirely. Please re-read that.

Questioner: "Hi Bob, this is a hypothetical question: Don't worry, you won't actually be killed. Would you rather be killed painlessly without knowing it's coming and have no suffering, or have your foot stomped on and suffer that pain and live?"
Bob: "I'd rather be killed, of course."
*Bob is instantly killed without fearing it or knowing it's coming.*

Get it?

Im talking about conflicting interests, what if person A has the interest of raping person B, and person B has the interest of not getting raped by person A. What do you do then? Oh right! You bring suffering into the equation! (or at least I assume you will... I might be wrong)

I weigh the interests. Not suffering for its own sake, BUT as I said several times, IF person B has an interest not to suffer, then you have to weigh that interest among other interests.

Suffering and pleasure are a couple of the many interests that beings often have.

You're making the same irrational error people make when they arbitrarily declare something like "killing is wrong in itself".
You have just removed it one step, to arbitrarily declare "suffering is wrong in itself, killing is only wrong if it causes suffering."

I have gone to the root of everything. Violating interests is what is wrong in itself, suffering is only wrong if it is in violation of interests, and likewise killing is only wrong if it's violating interests.

I dont see how your statement "sometimes injustice has better overall consequences" is particularly relevant when we were having a discussion on the definition of an ethical framework and I mention the definition of a framework of justice.

Some people think justice has something to do with ethics. Just making sure that was clear that it doesn't necessarily (there's some correlation, but they are not directly linked).

And no, didnt get around to it yet. When I saw the skype thing wasnt happening I went to bed.

I don't know why you thought I'd do that. You realize there are people who would sincerely like to kill me for things I've said (and may say in the future) about Islam, right?
You're probably not a jihadist waiting to pounce, but I can't trust you with my home.

If the former, then you're not quite intelligent, if you are actually convinced the environment would be better (or even habitable for that matter) if we eradicated all wild animals.

Was the insult necessary? Because I've been trying not to call you a moron for several posts now, which you clearly are if you don't understand this concept.

You were, yourself, apparently advocating eliminating wild animals (or as many as possible) and making them all farmed animals as something ethical -- this has even more dire consequences upon the environment than simply eradicating them. Farming animals harms the environment drastically.

A reduction in animal population is always environmentally preferable to a mere translation in animal population to a farmed context; farming is the worst of evils.
We need to use that farmland to feed our human population, and a waste of energy and resources on additional farming to raise livestock is not beneficial.

If the latter, then you didnt understand the scenario. In that scenario there is no choice of which animals will be there. You get the world there is, you just dont know which animal you will end up being.

Apparently the scenario gives you the magical ability to have infinite resources to transform all wild environments into cattle ranches and chicken coops?

If there are going to be 100 nonhuman animals and 100 humans, and you have some unlimited number of resources, then you make all of the non humans well cared for pets, or keep them on sanctuaries protected from predators and given basic medical care, you don't make them food.
And you make the predators pets too (the one in a hundred or so animals), and feed them (or the one) formulated vegetarian diets. You probably also engage population control, so more sentient beings can be humans in the future.

If you have limited resources, you certainly don't make them all farmed animals, since that's a waste of resources and will result in social and technological stagnation. You leave them to their devices in nature, and you try to establish human society well enough that it can advance to later improve the lot of the others.

You dont seem to understand what Im trying to say. Im saying it would be rational and morally defendable for someone in an initial position of ignorance as to what kind of species they will end up being, to allow farming, because it does not change their prospects.

This supposed rational mind would also have to be ignorant of thermodynamics and biology.
Or if this society had unlimited resources so they could all afford to be so wasteful, they wouldn't allow farming of the animals at all; they'd just make sanctuaries.

If you want to eat them after they died at or near (through legitimate mercy) the ends of their natural lives, that's another matter.

To clarify: I am asserting the answer to the question "would a rational individual be indifferent to being an antilope in the savanna in africa or a cow in an animal friendly farm?" is yes. Do you agree with that assertion?

I do not agree with that assertion. The cow is wasteful, dragging down society, reducing the chances of future improvement.

I also do not agree that macrofauna are worse off in the wild. Predation is a rare phenomena, usually only affecting the very old, and an antelope is liable to live a much longer more enjoyable life than a cow on a farm (a cow may live two years, and an antelope could easily live eight).

Being a pet or being in a refuge/sanctuary (no longer totally wild) may be better due to medical care, and the complete absence of predators (where lifespan and ease may be increased), but a farm is worse than the wild for most intelligent creatures.

1. Bullshit, there is literally no evidence that eating no meat is healthier than eating meat. There is only evidence that eating no meat is healthier than eating in the quantities that people in modern society eat.

You might as well say:

"Bullshit, there is literally no evidence that smoking no cigarettes is healthier than smoking cigarettes. There is only evidence that smoking no cigarettes is healthier than smoking in the quantities that people in modern society smoke."

But then you'd still be wrong. In several ways, actually.

1. You are ignorant of mechanistic evidence, and its difference from population studies. We know how and why smoking and eating meat cause cancer and heart disease. Less should be associated with a lower risk, but not none; any increase over none involves risk based on the mechanisms of action.
It's comparable in ignorance to saying playing a "little" Russian roulette shouldn't be dangerous, since there are no studies on it, despite the obvious mechanisms by which any slightly informed idiot can determine the danger of even one go at it.

2. There are also "literally" population studies comparing no meat to very small amounts of meat in diets rich in vegetables, and show no meat to be favorable.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-b ... -diabetes/
This video covers diabetes. So, you're wrong again.
When you get into very low amounts of meat consumption, like very low amounts of smoking, it becomes harder to pick out statistically significant differences, but there are studies dealing with these contrary to your ignorant assertions (you didn't bother to look, did you?).

2. Thats true, but the same thing can be said when comparing a western vegan lifestyle to a lifestyle in a self sustaining community. (and the degree to which this differs wouldnt be so enormously large in a society that farms conscientiously as it is in a society like ours)
3. Same as 2.

This is why I am critical of vegans eating harmful foods too: Like palm oil, or unnecessarily large amounts of fruit, rice, etc.
You picked on rice before, and I agree with you. All things being the same, we should enjoy pasta instead (potatoes probably aren't actually better than rice).

There are some harmful fads among vegans, like "30 bananas a day" and "raw til 4"; these are terrible for the environment as well, and a person eating very small amounts of meat (although likely MUCH smaller than what you've talked about) may be better for the world than those people.

All products have an associated moral cost to them. We should all strive to choose products with lower cost, and higher nutritional benefit.
It is a cost-benefit analysis. Animal products, unlike veggies, are actually harmful to us, so it's a lose-lose scenario, and a more extreme loss for the environment at that, so they fall at the extreme far end of the harm vs. benefit spectrum (for harm to others and the self), and only an extremely ignorant, delusional, apathetic, or outright immoral person (knowing all relevant facts) would choose to continue to eat them unapologetically.

We should also strive to take shorter showers, use more sustainable soaps, recycle and avoid packaging, compost, etc.
There are many things we should all work on.

Veganism isn't the ultimate end of morality -- it's one part of the puzzle.

I would be glad to live an even more sustainable life, and I work on doing better all the time. Nobody has the knowledge or ability to practically change overnight (your vision of these supposedly sustainable communities is actually based on delusion and mythology), but we can all work on gradually becoming better people.

I like to consider it more how hard you're working to improve to be the metric of morality, rather than where you started. We all have different life situations, and the important thing is working to improve. Only a complacent person has earned condemnation.

4. Like I said, you cannot have a world with just humans and their pets, thats not the scenario I presented

You were cherry picking. There's no reason that working toward such a world is unsustainable. What's unsustainable is the world as we are exploiting it now.

That part of your question involving the pollution and wasting of resources is unfair, because the way animal agriculture is organized now is not the farming I am advocating in my described scenario.

That's just ignorance on your part. Factory farms are actually more efficient and environmentally sustainable than all of this hippy dippy free ranged grass fed organic nonsense.
They're still terrible, but the lesser of two evils compared to organic animal agriculture, etc.

As for the part of if I think we'd be doing cows a favor by bringing them into this world (assuming the right form of animal agriculture). I would argue no, although I also assert we're not doing them a disservice.

We are doing a disservice to the world as a whole, and to ourselves. Assuming you create a farm that's legitimately kind and waits until the animal reaches its natural lifespan, lets them care for their children, etc. I could see it as morally neutral to the animal. Not to the environment, though.

I have no problem (with regard to animal treatment) with animal sanctuaries where people eat the animals when they reach the ends of their lives, and are euthanized only when a reasonable person would no longer want to live (only pain ahead).

Someone such as yourself however, who claims life has intrinsic worth would have to argue yes to doing them a favor bringing them into this world (although no to killing them afterwards).

I explicitly said the contrary. Life has inherent value for those who want to live ONLY. For an animal that has not been born or become sentient yet (in order to value things) it does not. A thing that has not existed has not brought interests into this world.

It being a far superior option aswell as that entire statement itself are both just your opinion.

False. It is morally superior in any objective rational framework. If you are not rational, or are functioning off an arbitrary dogmatic framework, then your results may vary.

[brimstoneSalad]

- Between two equally sentient beings

Then it depends on the magnitude of the interest. Comparing one being's interest in not having its foot stomped on vs the other's interest in not dying, there is a clear winner.

- Between a slightly more sentient being and slightly less sentient being

(crudely) Something like: Magnitude of interest * sentience level.

Double the sentience, but with an interest half as compelling, it's a wash (and it doesn't matter which one succeeds, at least in a bubble with no outside consequence).

Probably better a gnat be crushed to death than a man's foot be stomped on. But where that balance is drawn would depend on much more investigation into the sentience level of various organisms, and the way their interests work.

[IslandMorality]

It is not legally enforceable, your honoring it, or reneging, is based strictly on your personal honor/honesty or lack thereof.

What you would or would not do if I sent you my personal contact information and showed you where I lived is irrelevant; I don't share that with people I don't trust. Your not honoring your obligation to pay up demonstrates to me you wouldn't be trustworthy. See how that works?
I would not have been "brave", but moronic to engage a Skype chat with you and show you around my home.

Didnt say lead me around your home. And just facing me on skype would not have been moronic at all, it wouldve been funny as shit considering we were having a pissing contest and you wouldve forced my hand to either give up or piss more .

The person claiming "killing is wrong", and the person claiming (as you did) "killing is not wrong" have equal burdens of proof.
Only the person claiming "I don't know if killing is wrong or not wrong. Convince me." has no burden of proof.

Likewise, a positive atheist or theist assumes a burden of proof by claiming definitively that a god does not or does exist, but an agnostic (implicit athiest) who claims not to know (as long as the agnostic doesn't claim it is unknowable) assumes none.

First of all, I didnt say "nobody could give me a coherent answer as to why killing is wrong, therefor killing is not wrong". I said "nobody could give me a coherent answer as to why killing is wrong." And then started a new sentence "Killing in and of itself is not wrong and does not need to be justified" and elaborated a little bit on why I think so with those "bald assertions".
Its an easily missed subtlety, especially considering my odd interpunction, but your mistake to misinterpret it nonetheless.

Wrong (as in incorrect) again. It is a philosophical/logical thing. Not physical like a cat or a shoe, but a matter of axiomatic reasoning, like mathematics.
Moral wrongness is the position along an axis in a space defined by moral axiom.

Those axioms dont come out of nowhere, by rule of transitivity I said nothing wrong (as in incorrect).

What you're defining here is an axiom, but it's also useless to define a moral axiom that isn't "absolute", meaning definite and certain and not respective to opinion.

If somebody can come along and say "In your opinion suffering is wrong, and in mine suffering is right and pleasure is wrong" how can you respond to that?

I know that is what I was doing, and I meant not absolute in the sense of "it is in fact wrong and you cannot disagree with it", I meant not absolute as in the sense that you can reject this axiom if you so choose and live by other values, such as saying "in my opinion suffering is right and pleasure is wrong".
But then I would say (assuming they share my definition of what constitutes suffering) "Ok then, if you truly believe that, can I cut off your balls? Why not?"

You seem to be hinting at the difference between deontology and consequentialism.

You are wrong to say "killing is not wrong" (even on an island).
But you would be right to say "killing is not always wrong".

It depends on the consequences: Is the killing violating somebody's interests? Is it violating interests, but the lesser of viable violations (the lesser of evils)?

I didnt say "killing is not wrong", I said "killing in and of itself is not wrong", which implies "killing is not always wrong". And I totally agree that it depends on the consequences, but I do not agree that violation of the interest of "will to live" is a bad consequence. I am of the opinion that only if suffering is induced by the action of killing, it is wrong.

As I have demonstrated multiple times, many have interests which transcend their experiences. This can be traced back even to evolutionary contexts (although philosophically irrelevant), where an organism may suffer and die for its offspring, because it has a greater interest in the survival of its offspring than its own survival.
We can determine this clearly with respect to our own obvious interests not to be killed painlessly without knowing it's coming vs. having our feet stomped on (it's a decision we can understand the answer to without even asking it).

Did you just basically use the "its natural therefor its good" argument, or am I misinterpreting it? And no, that example of footstomping vs painless death is absurd as I have demonstrated multiple times.

As I said, your dog minds, but why do YOU mind, since you never know it happened?
Just as, with being killed instantly, you never know it happened.

You are, in a breath, proving that you have interests that transcend your awareness and experience if you claim you still value this even if you wouldn't know.
What about this is difficult to understand?

The reason you mind is because you have interests which are not related to your actual experiences of pleasure and pain. You care about things you don't even know happen.
The same way somebody cares about being killed instantly, because he or she values life, even if he or she doesn't know it's coming and never knows it happened.

No I am not proving that I have interests that transcend my awareness and experience. You are asking me if I think its wrong in principle. Aka if it is an acceptable action for anyone to take in my ethical framework.
And this hypothetical scenario is one where suffering is induced for a reason other than to avoid greater suffering (which is one of the few acceptable reasons to induce suffering), and that is wrong within my framework. That is a property of the framework, not my subjective experience.
What about this is difficult to understand?

Ever seen the movie "the Matrix"? A turncoat character in that movie made a similar bargain, asking for ignorance.
Memory can be erased or inhibited from forming; that isn't entirely science fictional.

But beyond that, as I already explained, we can ask these questions as thought experiments without you thinking they will actually happen (and never realizing they do) to get your thoughts on them.

Ah so its a temporal sequence as in I get posed the question and afterwards my memory is erased? Odd that you asked me if I care "in principle", kinda made it seem like it wasnt a temporal sequence.

So, are you saying you don't actually care about your dog at all in principle, but just don't want to feel bad? So, as long as you don't know about it, and I don't make you aware by asking you these sorts of questions, you don't mind?

How do you derive that? Ofcourse I care about my dog in principle. Im just saying me caring about her shouldnt hold any weight to anyone outside my subjective experience.

Some people feel that way, while others do not. If you are one of those people who don't mind if your interests are violated as long as you don't find out about it, then it may be morally permissible to kill you instantly, painlessly, and without you knowing it's coming -- provided nobody grieves you (maybe your parents are killed too, before they are troubled by finding out).

For people who care about their interests being violated, even without their knowledge, then it is immoral to violate those.

These situations may also vary from interest to interest.

No, thats just the way it is in your framework. In my framework both are acceptable.

Why would you care about suffering that you don't witness and don't even know about? Why not just stay ignorant, and ignore the suffering in the world so it doesn't trouble you, so you don't have to care about it?

This point has been well addressed by now.

No, I expected a "yes".

Which kind of demonstrates your lack of empathy.

Quite the bald assertion.

"Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another being (a human or non-human animal) is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position.[1]"

Build an actual argument with me saying its ok to destroy the painting as the premise and me lacking empathy as the conclusion, because Im having trouble making the connection.

If the ARTIST wants his painting to survive him more than the wants to avoid suffering and death, then that should place valuing the survival of that painting higher than preventing the artists' suffering and death. It's not your business to tell him his priorities are off, and that he shouldn't care about what happens to his painting after he dies since he won't get pleasure from it anymore.

Thats only if you have an ethical framework revolving around interests, which I dont agree with, as Ive stated repeatedly. Just for the record... if he feels that strongly about it and it would induce that much suffering in him, it is incredibly wrong for someone (with this knowledge) to destroy it while he is alive, or to tell him they will destroy it the moment he draws his last canvas so to speak.

The answer is that interests are the ONLY non-arbitrary thing to define ethics in terms of. Pleasure and pain are only meaningful because we have interests in experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain; but other interests can surpass those, and it's not your place to say "that's wrong"; it's to each individual to decide which interests take precedent.

It's not the interests YOU arbitrarily choose to value (like avoiding suffering or experiencing pleasure), but those the individuals at hand chose for themselves.

And I said interests are only meaningful because having them met induces pleasure and seeing them fail induces suffering. (never pain by the way, suffering and pain are two very distinct things)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Because they're biologically driven to seek pleasure, they should? Since we're not biologically driven to make works of art that survive us, we shouldn't value that?

My mistake, I read "why would a person want happiness" and answered accordingly.

Why should they? There's an unanswerable question if I ever saw one

You may not agree with their values, but you have no objective basis to judge them wrong and yours right. All you do is appeal to nature.

I am totally aware of the fact that I have no such objective basis for judgement. There is no objective basis for any kind of value judgement. When people say "you are an idiot with a fucked up sense of values", subjectivity is implied even though the words "in my opinion" are not present.

If you want a serious answer to your question... Your question is stupid because there is not a single answer. Different people with those same sentiments and desires may(/will) have different reasons for those sentiments and desires.

What should be important in life? Only what you decide?

Would end most of the things in the world 99% of people consider to be horrible

Are you the god of this universe, arbitrarily dictating the meaning of all of our lives for us?

Unfortunately not. But I should be

Each person gets to decide what he of she prioritizes his or herself. That's the beauty of an atheistic world.

Jup that is why I get to decide to not prioritize interests over suffering in forming an ethical framework and therefor not being morally obligated to look after the well being of a painting someone else really wanted to live on after his/her death.

Why is "flourishing" important? More appeals to nature? More arbitrary declarations of value based on your personal opinions?

Nope, its important because a majority agrees its important AND it is a cumulative system, as you can see in the increased prevalance of delinquent behavior (suffering inducing) in people having experienced a lot of suffering (abuse) in childhood.
While the interests framework has both these things going for it aswell, the fact that it has elements that a lot of people wouldnt agree with makes it a worse choice imo.
A significant amount of people, maybe even a majority, dont give a shit about trivial interests of dead people if they have no emotional connection to the person.
For instance, lets suppose for the sake of argument the artist engraves in his painting his desires of having it live on forever and describes his emotional connection to his work and pleads the person reading it to take on his interest. If its a shitty painting, a lot of people are gonna throw it away regardless of reading the inscription, because they simply dont give a fuck (and rightly so imo).
So maintaining interests is not as universally valued as an aversion to suffering is, so to use it as an axiomatic framework for ethics over suffering is absurd.

You are a selfish person, though: You are a very selfish person, because you only care about your personal pleasure and pain. You only care about the suffering of your dog because it makes YOU feel bad. If you don't know about suffering, you don't care about it. If it happens after you die, you don't care about it.

That's the epitome of selfish hedonism. You can't even understand the golden rule.

Or maybe you do care about things you don't know about. Maybe you have actual values that transcend your experiences. In which case you'll have to realize I'm right, and that it IS the set of all interests (beyond mere experience, but also including interests in experience) that matter.

Is the artist a little selfish to want people to waste resources on his bad art? Sure. But we're all a little selfish when we value ANYTHING in life other than pure altruism.

This nonsense is building off of your invalid assumptions, that Ive already discussed above, so dont have to address this.

You are being selfish by not humoring his interest, which costs you very little, just because you don't personally care about it. You do not really care about the interests of others -- as they clearly express them -- unless it makes you personally feel bad or good. Or so it would seem so far.

No Im being neutral. Selfishness in my framework is doing something that gives you pleasure while inducing suffering in another.

I don't care about his shitty art either; I wouldn't necessarily feel bad destroying it. And yet, rationally, I know it would be a violation of his dying wish, so in order to be consistent I should respect that if I can.

Indeed, in your framework you have that obligation. Good luck with it!

It is a similar argument, and it's a legitimate moral dilemma -- not an insult to morality, but the careful practice of it. However, morality is also not JUST about blindly respecting one persons' interest, but about weighing interests against each other. So there is another argument to be made from the other side about fulfilling the interests of a living person.

You can violate one person's minor interest (a small wrong), to save another's great interest (a large good). That's how consequentialism works.

You dont seem to understand what Im saying. Im critisizing your framework for bringing forth a moral dilemma where there would be none in mine.

You need to read the thread on deontology.

Again, we must weigh wrongs against each other. It is wrong to poke Bob with the needle, but it may be the greater wrong not to because it risks violating many more interests in a much more serious way.
Life is complicated, and we often have to choose the lesser of evils, because interests often conflict.

No there is no weighing. Weighing happens in terms of interests. You said that interests are derived from asking the person. Bob has a bigger interest in not having that needle in his body than surviving the supervirus, all of his other interests combined thus.
So unless Bob has a wife and 3 children that depend on him for their survival, which he doesnt, being the dazzling single familyless bachelor we know Bob to be, in your framework you cannot justify giving Bob the vaccine.

You missed the point entirely. Please re-read that.

Questioner: "Hi Bob, this is a hypothetical question: Don't worry, you won't actually be killed. Would you rather be killed painlessly without knowing it's coming and have no suffering, or have your foot stomped on and suffer that pain and live?"
Bob: "I'd rather be killed, of course."
*Bob is instantly killed without fearing it or knowing it's coming.*

Get it?

You dont get it. This is pretty much the exactly the same problem as your question of "would you mind if i swapped and killed your dog, provided you didnt know".
If you mean 'in principle' (equivalent to hypothetical) then it becomes absurd for reasons I said in my previous post.
You then tried to resolve those issues by making it a temporal sequence with your matrix nonsense (i.e no longer in principle/hypothetical). Translating that into this example, in the matrix version of the question, the fear of death would become real. And in the hypothetical you eliminate a principle element of the problem by making it a hypothetical.

I weigh the interests. Not suffering for its own sake, BUT as I said several times, IF person B has an interest not to suffer, then you have to weigh that interest among other interests.

And exactly what objective measuring rule do you employ in weighing those interests? And what happens if the interest of person A in raping person B is all encompassing (all they care about in life is raping person B), whereas person B has other things in life they care about.

Suffering and pleasure are a couple of the many interests that beings often have.

You're making the same irrational error people make when they arbitrarily declare something like "killing is wrong in itself".
You have just removed it one step, to arbitrarily declare "suffering is wrong in itself, killing is only wrong if it causes suffering."

I know. I kinda admitted that already. Twice I think. And I also gave some of my reasons for why I think its a better arbitrary decision than making interest the end-all wrong thing with my response to your question on the human flourishing thing and that part on how organ donation wouldnt be a moral dilemma in my framework.

Another reason why suffering is a better framework is because you cannot measure the severity of interests in an objective way. You can measure suffering by objective standards (all kinds of measureable stress indicators such as cortisol levels, blood pressure,...). Granted its relatively limited today, but it will only get better and better as technology improves.

I have gone to the root of everything. Violating interests is what is wrong in itself, suffering is only wrong if it is in violation of interests, and likewise killing is only wrong if it's violating interests.

No you havent. And again violating (some) interests is wrong because they induce suffering, meeting (some) interests is right because they induce pleasure.

I don't know why you thought I'd do that. You realize there are people who would sincerely like to kill me for things I've said (and may say in the future) about Islam, right?
You're probably not a jihadist waiting to pounce, but I can't trust you with my home.

Because I have no idea what kind of person you are and a lot of people wouldnt make it into that big a deal to just skype with someone.
And trusting me with your home, lol. Is your laptop camera directed at your street sign? Didnt think so

ps: If you're not currently on a vpn, skyping with people would give them no information about you than they do not already have access to by you posting here. (assuming for a second you have facebook, you do online shopping sometimes or anything in any email account of yours is linkable to your identity, and the people wanting your information are adequately tech savvy)

Was the insult necessary?

Yeah, because if you honestly believed that it wouldve been one of the stupidest things I've ever heard

Because I've been trying not to call you a moron for several posts now, which you clearly are if you don't understand this concept.

same same, but reversed.

You were, yourself, apparently advocating eliminating wild animals (or as many as possible) and making them all farmed animals as something ethical -- this has even more dire consequences upon the environment than simply eradicating them. Farming animals harms the environment drastically.

No I wasnt. All I said was from an initial position of ignorance to which animal you would be you would not have a problem with a world where there is conscientious farming, because it wouldnt change your prospects in life. In no way whatsoever does this imply I wanna make every animal on the planet a farm animal.

A reduction in animal population is always environmentally preferable to a mere translation in animal population to a farmed context; farming is the worst of evils.
We need to use that farmland to feed our human population, and a waste of energy and resources on additional farming to raise livestock is not beneficial.

Except for the parts in bold, I totally agree with everything you said.

Apparently the scenario gives you the magical ability to have infinite resources to transform all wild environments into cattle ranches and chicken coops?

If there are going to be 100 nonhuman animals and 100 humans, and you have some unlimited number of resources, then you make all of the non humans well cared for pets, or keep them on sanctuaries protected from predators and given basic medical care, you don't make them food.
And you make the predators pets too (the one in a hundred or so animals), and feed them (or the one) formulated vegetarian diets. You probably also engage population control, so more sentient beings can be humans in the future.

If you have limited resources, you certainly don't make them all farmed animals, since that's a waste of resources and will result in social and technological stagnation. You leave them to their devices in nature, and you try to establish human society well enough that it can advance to later improve the lot of the others.

That thing again about you making false assumptions...

This supposed rational mind would also have to be ignorant of thermodynamics and biology.

Bald assertion

Or if this society had unlimited resources so they could all afford to be so wasteful, they wouldn't allow farming of the animals at all; they'd just make sanctuaries.

Bald assertion

I do not agree with that assertion. The cow is wasteful, dragging down society, reducing the chances of future improvement.

I wasnt clear enough apparently in what I was asking you. So let me ask again: Judged solely on the personal experience of pleasure and suffering from the points of view of an antilope in the african savanna and a cow on a conscientious farm, would you be indifferent to being either one?

I also do not agree that macrofauna are worse off in the wild. Predation is a rare phenomena, usually only affecting the very old, and an antelope is liable to live a much longer more enjoyable life than a cow on a farm (a cow may live two years, and an antelope could easily live eight).

Being a pet or being in a refuge/sanctuary (no longer totally wild) may be better due to medical care, and the complete absence of predators (where lifespan and ease may be increased), but a farm is worse than the wild for most intelligent creatures.

Its all about how you judge "worse off". You choose to view it from your own human perspective, where you are aware of time. You have future plans, dreams,... A cow and an antelope dont share those abilities.

When Im arguing that a cow in an animal friendly farm is better off in a way, I am looking at it from what I would choose if I didnt have a concept of the future and then length of life becomes irrelevant. The only things that matter are wellbeing during life and way of dying. I'd argue the former is relatively similar for the 2 animals, and the latter is definitely worse for the antelope getting its stomach ripped open by a bunch of hyenas.

You might as well say:

"Bullshit, there is literally no evidence that smoking no cigarettes is healthier than smoking cigarettes. There is only evidence that smoking no cigarettes is healthier than smoking in the quantities that people in modern society smoke."

No its really not (necessarily) the same. There are many substances that you can ingest safely in some quantities per certain time interval without it showing any negative effect in longevity/health, whereas larger amounts per certain timeinterval might go as far as to kill you instantly.

But then you'd still be wrong. In several ways, actually.

1. You are ignorant of mechanistic evidence, and its difference from population studies. We know how and why smoking and eating meat cause cancer and heart disease. Less should be associated with a lower risk, but not none; any increase over none involves risk based on the mechanisms of action.
It's comparable in ignorance to saying playing a "little" Russian roulette shouldn't be dangerous, since there are no studies on it, despite the obvious mechanisms by which any slightly informed idiot can determine the danger of even one go at it.

No Im not. And as far as Im aware only processed meat has been classified as carcinogenic.

2. There are also "literally" population studies comparing no meat to very small amounts of meat in diets rich in vegetables, and show no meat to be favorable.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-b ... -diabetes/
This video covers diabetes. So, you're wrong again.
When you get into very low amounts of meat consumption, like very low amounts of smoking, it becomes harder to pick out statistically significant differences, but there are studies dealing with these contrary to your ignorant assertions (you didn't bother to look, did you?).

Odd, we are on a forum on veganism, yet you give me a shitty video instead of linking me to the topic containing all the pubmed links to actual peer-reviewed studies that can immediately silence "moronic" people like me.
Or do you not have such a topic?
Hmm... wonder why.

Im also very curious to see those supposed population studies where they compare no meat to very small amounts of meat. Particularly interested in how they controlled for quantity in ingested meat for a large enough population sample of subjects over a large enough time scale.

This is why I am critical of vegans eating harmful foods too: Like palm oil, or unnecessarily large amounts of fruit, rice, etc.
You picked on rice before, and I agree with you. All things being the same, we should enjoy pasta instead (potatoes probably aren't actually better than rice).

There are some harmful fads among vegans, like "30 bananas a day" and "raw til 4"; these are terrible for the environment as well, and a person eating very small amounts of meat (although likely MUCH smaller than what you've talked about) may be better for the world than those people.

We should also strive to take shorter showers, use more sustainable soaps, recycle and avoid packaging, compost, etc.
There are many things we should all work on.

Good! At least you are consistent in that regard. I applaud that.

All products have an associated moral cost to them. We should all strive to choose products with lower cost, and higher nutritional benefit.
It is a cost-benefit analysis. Animal products, unlike veggies, are actually harmful to us, so it's a lose-lose scenario, and a more extreme loss for the environment at that, so they fall at the extreme far end of the harm vs. benefit spectrum (for harm to others and the self), and only an extremely ignorant, delusional, apathetic, or outright immoral person (knowing all relevant facts) would choose to continue to eat them unapologetically.

I advise you to read the last part in my next to last reply to EquaLlity earlier in this topic. (the one before the one where I taunt her with me crying about her not addressing my points)

Veganism isn't the ultimate end of morality -- it's one part of the puzzle

Completely agree, that is why Im advocating for a movement that spreads awareness of everything. A movement that tries to get people to think of their entire impact/contribution to suffering, and isn't just hung up on eating meat.
Advocate eat less meat over eat no meat.

Like I told EquaLlity, me eating steak twice a week wastes less resources and has less of an environmental impact than her bringing a child into this world, all other things equal. (provided that child has what is to be considered a normal western vegan lifestyle, the vegan part not even being guaranteed despite how EquaLlity tries to raise it)

I would be glad to live an even more sustainable life, and I work on doing better all the time. Nobody has the knowledge or ability to practically change overnight (your vision of these supposedly sustainable communities is actually based on delusion and mythology), but we can all work on gradually becoming better people.

I like to consider it more how hard you're working to improve to be the metric of morality, rather than where you started. We all have different life situations, and the important thing is working to improve. Only a complacent person has earned condemnation.

Completely agree.

You were cherry picking. There's no reason that working toward such a world is unsustainable.

How are you eliminating all the carnivores? (or if you are keeping them as pets or in sanctuaries, how are you feeding them?)

What's unsustainable is the world as we are exploiting it now.

Agree

That's just ignorance on your part. Factory farms are actually more efficient and environmentally sustainable than all of this hippy dippy free ranged grass fed organic nonsense.
They're still terrible, but the lesser of two evils compared to organic animal agriculture, etc.

Who's cherrypicking now? Already talked about the problems with labels such as the bio-label in europe. Aside from that I also advocate lowering demand tremendously by limiting meat intake to twice a week at the most. Those things are an intrinsic part of my solution being environmentally sustainable.

We are doing a disservice to the world as a whole, and to ourselves. Assuming you create a farm that's legitimately kind and waits until the animal reaches its natural lifespan, lets them care for their children, etc. I could see it as morally neutral to the animal. Not to the environment, though.

I have no problem (with regard to animal treatment) with animal sanctuaries where people eat the animals when they reach the ends of their lives, and are euthanized only when a reasonable person would no longer want to live (only pain ahead).

Well thats all good and great brimstonesalad, but not particularly relevant to this exact issue now is it. You asked me if I think we were doing cows a favor, not the world and ourselves.

And aside from that: no, there is no need to wait till the animal reaches its natural lifespan, nor to give it complete freedom in taking care of its offspring. Thats just you moving from your deficient framework again.

I explicitly said the contrary. Life has inherent value for those who want to live ONLY. For an animal that has not been born or become sentient yet (in order to value things) it does not. A thing that has not existed has not brought interests into this world.

Fair enough, my mistake.

False. It is morally superior in any objective rational framework. If you are not rational, or are functioning off an arbitrary dogmatic framework, then your results may vary.

[/quote][/quote]
Nope, just in yours, which is equally arbitrary as pointed out repeatedly above.

[IslandMorality]

Am I experiencing a brainfart or was the title of this topic something else originally, and has it changed twice since then?