Fair Comments on Peter Singer's argument?

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.
Post Reply
Frank Quasar
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Fair Comments on Peter Singer's argument?

Post by Frank Quasar » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:33 pm

Image

do you guys think this is a fair point against Peter Singer's arguments/positions? what are your thoughts on this user's points?

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8658
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:27 am

Not really fair, since that's not the point.

The fact that Singer defines the basis of morality as something physically real (it doesn't need to be based on biology alone) makes it a valid argument; it actually contains the necessary premises to come to the conclusions he's trying to reach. Now if you don't agree with those premises, that's where the argument lies. It's not like Isaac's NTT which tries to avoid naming or limiting the nature of moral consideration and ends up invalid because of it.

Of course if you could make an argument that didn't have to have such a premise you could potentially reach more people because you wouldn't be dependent on that agreement (even relativists like this Death Valley Druids person). That's what Isaac tried to do with NTT and it came at the expense of logical validity.

I don't agree with Singer's particular basis of morality (Singer is more of a classical utilitarian, whereas interests seem to be more important), but it's in the right ballpark.

Of course if you're a moral relativist and don't think morality is anything more than whim or opinion of individuals or society, then that realist designation might not work for you. Not even appealing to interests (rather than some quality like intelligence etc.) would be compelling.

It's pretty easy to attack relativism, though, seeing as how it degrades into complete subjectivism so easily and makes moral thought and discourse useless.

Death Valley Druids is dead wrong when he says that rational agents can assign moral status without any reference to such relevant properties; if they attempt to do so then they do it arbitrarily, and lose the quality of being rational themselves. The same thing can be used to justify racism or any number of irrational prejudices based on arbitrary consideration. It's something a legitimately rational agent would be averse to, instead choosing to look for qualities of the beings (or the instrumental value of those beings to others with those qualities) that substantiate moral consideration.

Frank Quasar
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:28 am

thanks for the response. i was kinda having a back and forth with him and another carnist (MiLK SOP) on the thread at the time, and i didn't feel as though i was particularly ready to challenge him thoroughly on his argument. (he's the carnist from one of your screenshots in the arguments against NTT)

i'm a bit curious, though. you're a moral realist from what i can tell, but i'm not too sure in what sense you are a moral realist. are you a moral realist in the ontological sense or are you a moral realist in the epistemological sense?

i'm really agnostic on this issue, i think this conversation has so much that i'm not understanding fully so i plan to read up/watch some material for moral objectivism to understand the basic framework of it. i don't necessarily agree with robust moral realism, but minimal moral realism kinda interests me. i'll read your article that covers the strawman of objective morality soon as a starting point.

i will say that as far as i can see, i do particularly find moral universalism to be interesting and something that i may agree with.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8658
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:58 pm

Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:28 am
i'm a bit curious, though. you're a moral realist from what i can tell, but i'm not too sure in what sense you are a moral realist. are you a moral realist in the ontological sense or are you a moral realist in the epistemological sense?
The distinction between "ontological" and "epistemological" is part of the strawman that Isaac/the "skeptic" community and William Lane Craig have collaboratively created and propagated.

You said you'd read it soon, but I'll link it again for anybody else reading:
wiki/index.php/Objective-subjective_dis ... y_Strawman

It's hard to deny minimal realism, but what exactly that entails as a distinction from robust realism is less clear.

Being a minimalist who is agnostic about robust realism seems like a sensible position.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:28 am
i will say that as far as i can see, i do particularly find moral universalism to be interesting and something that i may agree with.
That's pretty much the only viable alternative to nihilism, since relativism collapses into complete subjectivism which is useless.

Frank Quasar
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Frank Quasar » Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:07 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJ1RwhFSPg

you should be made aware of this video by Omnizoa in regards to NTT. it's interesting.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests