Video Response to Our Letter To Dillahunty

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Video Response to Our Letter To Dillahunty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 pm does this diminish the usefulness of the definition of woo as praxis based on falsehood?
I don't think so.
NonZeroSum wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 pmWe want religious demographics for veganism who openly couch their ethics in faith but it's important to go to arms with any of those who's actions are detrimental to consequentialist aims?
There are religious consequentialists too, who base their reasoning on a religious inspired consequentialist ethic based on love as embodied by Christ (or insert deity). If you loved animals as yourself, you wouldn't do that to them.
We probably want people using scriptural/conservative approaches too based on divine command, and that's Woo too of a sort, but when this leads to a generalized deontology that's a bigger problem (and I think more of a problem than a solution, because it's not going to appeal to conservatives anymore who are really interested in what scripture says and not what Kant reasoned).

There's scripture and then there's reason based morality, and I don't see deontology as belonging to either.
NonZeroSum wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 pmSo lastly this conversation could have good crossover to AskYourself debate, was it right to call namethetrait absolutist deontological in its formulation and not simply an ideological overreach?
The second half was, since the first only established that animals are of some value, and the second half used that premise in an absolutist sense as having the same value, and applied a generalized formula for judgement of action that ignores consequences.

Unfortunately the image was already too long so there wasn't much I could do to explain that... it's also harder to explain.
I'll try to expand the more lengthy explanation on the forum to include that half if I have time.
Post Reply