Philosophical Vegan Forum

Good for you. Good for you. Good for you. It will always prove true. You taught me something good too. That deontological ethics is typically described as theory and/or a philosophy. The truth above doesn't apply, because it is neither. It already is truth. It has never been successfully challenged, anywhere. As matter of trivia... It was that truth that Al Gore accepted. My hunch is you will do far more with it than him. I really mean that. It was worded something like, 'If the cause of climate change is not for life, that which is truthfully most important, than what?'

Thank you.

I hope the others notice. It solves their dilemma too. They are looking at the the issue and trying as hard as they can to solve it, so that they have a logical framework to present veganism in debate or discussion, to bind laws, to promote the common good, etc. Good stuff and good intention.

It all seems to come down to our limitations, even though we have unlimited potential. If we can't agree that we are "truthfully alive", conceding on that requirement to present ...anything... we are agreeing 100%, of our own free will, that we do believe we are alive and that truth exists. Everything else comes after. That's why life is called the first self-evident truth. That is our limitation. Both of them, together. Something must be truthful, to be possible. We need not concern ourselves with what can't truthfully happen. Just what can. That will help them filter though stuff much more efficiently, when the practice and time is in.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am Its not a matter of an explanation but rather an argument. You need to argue that sentience is relevant to "moral consideration". Now if you did that and I missed it by all means could you quote your argument or otherwise point to it?

Absolutely, here you are;

Lay Vegan wrote:
It is called Argument from Relevance. To morally regard an individual means to take its interests (desires) into consideration. When making moral decisions, rational people should only take into account relevant factors. Consequentialists regard those who can be benefited or harmed, and when making decisions attempt to increase well-being and reduce suffering.

Animals are sentient, thus can experience reality subjectively and can be benefited or harmed (in the sense that its interests can be violated and cause it to suffer). http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeD ... usness.pdf. Therefore, animals should be morally regarded.

http://www.animal-ethics.org/argument-relevance/

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am Again, how does this address the issue? You're making a claim but not providing any justification. To say it again, you'd need to show that it is the only morally relevant characteristic.

I've argued consistently why sentience is the only morally relevant factor (see above ↑). It is the only characteristic that has weight on the ability to experience suffering or wellbeing. 


By encouraging you to connect other factors like race, gender, and sexual orientation, to one's inclusion within the scope of moral concern, I’m trying to drive home the point the they are all irrelevant. People do not ascribe traits like race or class to moral consideration because it is not relevant to one's ability to be harmed. Rather than refuting me, you continue feigning ignorance. So at this point it's safe to assume you don't have a valid counter-argument.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am All living systems can be harmed and benefited, what does that have to do with "interests"? In terms of the last part, how do you determine whether some action is unnecessary or not?

All sentient beings have interests (such as the desire to be free of harm) and overriding that individual's interests with no proper justification is objectively bad. Consequentialists care about reducing unnecessary harm (harm that isn't morally justified).

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am To say it again, all living systems can be harmed or benefited and that has nothing to do with sentience but instead that they are alive.

No, not all living organisms can be harmed in a moral sense, because harm is a subjective experience (each individual perceives negative stimuli differently). Sentience refers to both sense experience and cognition of those experiences in a meaningful way. Plants, bacteria, fungi are indeed living beings, and thus react to positive and negative stimuli, do not posses the neurological substrates or centralized nervous system for cognitive experience.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am You keep using the term "interests" without providing a clear definition of what precisely you mean in this context.

Desire to be rid of harm and experience well-being.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am All living systems have an "interest" in avoiding harm in a crude biological sense

I agree. All living beings have biological interests, (the desire to continue living and to keep its genetics present through reproduction).

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am the greater question is whether some set of animals has "interests" in an intentional sense.

Is there evidence that plants respond to operant conditioning? Operant conditioning controls for behaviors that are not present in nature, and the individual learns to associate various stimuli with different cognitive experiences (like well-being and harm).

In some studies, entomologists would poke drosophila larvae with hot pins, and they would uncharacteristically roll out of the way. Some scientists theorize that this behavior evolved to avoid the parasitoid wasp. In other words this is not a learned behavior as a result of some cognitive experience with various stimuli. It's not a matter of "ouch, this hot pin hurts. I'm going to move out of the way." Rather, it's an innate behavior and purely mechanical reaction.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:45 am For the reason mentioned in the OP, they lack moral agency.

Rights come from moral agency? Can you justify this? Why is moral agency indicative of rights?

This view would also justify and legally permit a lot of atrocious behavior toward the severely mentally impaired and young children who have no legal connection to others.

Exmly wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:28 am Thank you guys! I've read it all and it gives me much more to work with. No I wouldnt identify as a consequentialist but I'm gonna work on the "life is most important to life" strategy.

I don't think any of us know who that guy is, but his arguments are proximal to deontology if that's really what you're looking for.

However, I strongly advise against it. With deontology you're building a foundation on sandy ground and it won't hold up to careful scrutiny.

You may want to read this topic:
viewtopic.php?t=785

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 am Theories of indirect rights have nothing to do with relativism.

Of course it's cultural relativism. It's about the opinions of people, not derived facts of moral necessity.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 am Indirect rights aren't based on the "subjective opinion" of people but instead derived from the rights of others. Children are seen as patients of society at large so their rights can be seen to be derived from the society at large not just the guardians.

A bold claim. Then let's see the derivation rather than assertions.

Read esquizofrenico's reply.

esquizofrenico wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:13 am

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:56 am You don't have to bite that bullet for two reasons. Firstly indirect rights aren't just derived from the guardians but society as a whole. Also denying an entity direct rights doesn't mean the entity should be treated however you wish. Laws that protection a class of people or animals aren't inconsistent with a denial of rights from these groups.

The only other possible consideration you can have about something if it doesn't have rights is with respect its relationship with other beings that have rights. All moral obligations can be reformulated in terms of someone's right. So I think that at the very least you would have to accept that rules about mentally ill people or animals are because aesthetic or utilitarian reasons, if they have not direct rights. You could say: People should not torture animals/mental ill people because some people do not enjoy watching animals being tortured, or because it is generally bad for society when those things occur. But those kind of rules fail to give solid moral obligations on a personal level, if I personally do not get affected when I torture mentally ill people and I do it in the privacy of my home, I should not care about either of those arguments.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amSocial contract theories aren't necessarily deontological, we are discuss deontology here.

The attempts at objective theory that are based on it? Yes they are, so was Rand's (although she hated Kant).

You can consider social contract within a utilitarian framework for its instrumental value to social order, but that's not what the OP wants help with.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amWithin that framework, there is no reason why denying rights to some group would force you to accept that you can treat that group however you wish.

Within a consequentialist framework, no. Within a deontological framework, yes it does: the only thing that matters is direct rights violations, though the heavens may fall.
You can't appeal to consequences within a deontological system.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amThis is why I brought up indirect rights

Care to bring square circles into this too?

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amits way one of explaining why non-rights holders would have some protections in a deontological system.

No, they have protection on the basis of being property of the rights holders IF and ONLY IF the rights holders want them to have those protections.
If the parent saying "sure, you can eat my kid for $5" then you can eat the kid for $5 (you don't have to do it, but it's not wrong to do it).

If you don't understand that, you don't understand deontology or deontological social contract theories. Protection (not inherent rights) is only granted by actual rights holders.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amI agree....but you're the one discussing it. I haven't brought it up once.

I see, you just think deontology includes cultural relativism (and consequentialism, apparently), but don't realize it.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amWhy does denying rights force one to accept "anything goes" treatment for non-rights holders?

It's just how deontology works.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amAgain, that is the point of theories of indirect rights.

If you want to talk about cultural relavtivism or some trademarked mishmash of consequentialism and deontology, please start a new thread.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amYou need to argue that any theory of rights MUST accept "anything goes" for non-rights holders.

No, I don't. That's an issue of definition. If you want to go off on a tangent and argue that deontology isn't deontology (which I might even agree with, since deontology isn't logically consistent in itself) then you should start a new thread. There are all kinds of holes you can poke in it, which is why I don't recommend deontological arguments.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amThis is much different than humans using a toilet, we do that for specific reasons and those reasons can be understood where as a dog doesn't understand the reason they shouldn't poop on the floor of your house. They do it merely because they've been trained.

Most humans poop in toilets because they have been trained to, not because they understand the nuances of sewage management and sanitation.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amBut we are discussing moral thinking, dogs do not reason morally. Humans clearly do.

While most humans probably *can* reason morally if taught to, most humans clearly do not bother or think about it.
So do those humans who have not and do not think about it lack moral consideration?

If so, that's about as arbitrary as requiring humans to know calculus for moral consideration.
If that's your arbitrary moral basis and you think that's OK there's not much I can say about it, but it's as sensible as people who advocate that anybody who can't compute limits can be enslaved, killed, eaten, whatever, and you'd have no basis to criticize such people for enacting their system except trying to shout at them that you like your system better.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amthey very clearly do starting at around 2~3 years old.

They start to have empathy, that doesn't equate to moral reasoning unless you're claiming empathy IS moral reasoning, in which case many non-human animals do that as well.

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amIts funny, you always seem so hell-bent on attacking/insulting me yet I'm not even discussing my personal views.

Every claim you make is a personal view. Here, whether or not your subscribe to it,they are your views about deontology (which are very confused, although deontology itself is very confused so that is kind of understandable).

carnap wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:54 amThe OP wants a good deontological argument for veganism but part of that is going to be understanding the common objections one may give.

There's no good deontological argument for anything. The only arguments you can make are showing how deontological arguments against veganism are bad and hoping the person defaults to the opposite in attempt to conserve some illusion of consistency.

Lay Vegan wrote:Desire to be rid of harm and experience well-being.

So if I want to be whipped or hide my country’s secrets despite the torture I will receive I am not capable of pursuing these as interests?

The reason why it is useful to value interests, over day, just well-being or happiness, is that subjective experience permits subjective values. Yes, most people don’t want to be whipped or tortured, but some have desires that diverge from these basic ones. If we just arbitrarily satisfy some of these desires, like well-being, we can only do good coincidentally when our impositions align with others’ desires.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:16 pm

Exmly wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:28 am Thank you guys! I've read it all and it gives me much more to work with. No I wouldnt identify as a consequentialist but I'm gonna work on the "life is most important to life" strategy.

I don't think any of us know who that guy is, but his arguments are proximal to deontology if that's really what you're looking for.

However, I strongly advise against it. With deontology you're building a foundation on sandy ground and it won't hold up to careful scrutiny.

You may want to read this topic:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=785

Well, you should know that I AM most important, just like the rest of you. I wrote the truth of why we are each most important, and you didn't refute it with any logic. You also didn't accept it publicly. That's a real problem for you, because you no longer have a basis for logic. Just show me logic without life if I have it wrong. Furthermore, your only reason advising against it is deontology, and that doesn't apply to truth. Truth is neither philosophy (a thought that may be true) nor theory (a thought that has a logical basis that appears to be true). I am not Gary Francione.

Now, lets start over. Do you agree, "Life is Most Important in Life", is true? That life is the most important truth in life? Do you drive on the correct side of the road? Can you publicly concede that you believe you are really living? Will you? You seem to want to jump all over the place and never agree to anything. What is it that you agree with anyone with without living? Your logic lacks foundational common truth. e.g. Commonsense.

Truth is proximal to everything real. Even a lie told is a truthful lie. The association you made shows a clear misunderstanding between truth and philosophy and theory. Truth is the beginning the end and the reason for philosophy and theory. It was an absurd attempt. You can fix your embarrassment, but not without publicly upholding the the very truth all other truths depend on to be true themselves.

Of course you have your alternative. You can deny truth is real, again and again until you die. Then we won't be hearing any more of your denials. Your silence will prove to all that life was TRUTHfully most important to you too, even though you denied it.

DAVEWISHENGRAD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:02 am Well, you should know that I AM most important, just like the rest of you. I wrote the truth of why we are each most important, and you didn't refute it with any logic.

Based on the way you write (it's a bit on the dramatic side), there's reason to suspect you might be trolling us.
Can you substantiate your claims of having been making this argument for some years by linking to some other online accounts?

DAVEWISHENGRAD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:02 amNow, lets start over. Do you agree, "Life is Most Important in Life", is true?

No.
See above where @Cirion Spellbinder discussed self-sacrifice.
What is most important to any particular living person is up to that person. Sometimes there are things more important than life itself.

"What is most important to any particular living person is up to that person"
I really don't care what anyone else says. This IS the solution. They can't have what they "think" is most important, without life. It's complete nonsense to believe otherwise. Perhaps when they go through more pain than getting tortured to death more than a dozen times, they will revisit their original omission of commonsense. This is why I responded. To help those living vegan to avoid that pain and possible death, and continue their work.

Blows your mind that it's solved, does it? It was paid for by the blood, sweat, tears and lives of those that came before us.
Whether you agree or not, all alive will yield. How bad it hurts is up to each and every person. I can't accept the truth for you.

"No".
Then there is nothing to talk about. Your choice is to lie.

Now for the rest of you.
I have been at this a long time. I could of tricked brimstoneSalad and those eating our friends too, into conceding. It must be honest, otherwise we are attempting to place ourselves above the truth itself. Each person is most important and thus important enough to make their own choices. To use mind games to force others to our will is not ever going to be really productive. They have to accept the truth and with that comes the real acceptance of responsibility. Without the truth, a person has nothing, but lies, that they present as excuses, but their lies are not an excuse and should not be excused. Forgiven? Yes. Excused? No.

I am outta here... I don't need to stick around. The crew here seems to be doing a nice job and it's for them and you to accept or not. All of you must continue to grow and come into your own. My presence here further will only get in the way of that growth..that growth of heart that we need very badly right now.
Life is Most Important in Life is true for us, aliens (if they exist), and even for a True Living God. The only possible god there can be. There NO exceptions.

Lots of love everyone.

@DAVEWISHENGRAD
Could you summarize your argument for the propositions you have stated? So far I have only read assertions.

Also, is English not your first language?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:37 pm @DAVEWISHENGRAD
Could you summarize your argument for the propositions you have stated? So far I have only read assertions.

Also, is English not your first language?

We're pretty sure that was Pyro dropping in to troll us.