Difference between revisions of "Talk:Table of Contents"

From Philosophical Vegan Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Unsorted)
(→‎Unsorted)
Line 107: Line 107:
 
2 questions people come to the forum to ask a lot, categorized in 'General' and 'Principles' under 'Ethics' at the moment. Maybe can move to lifestyle or will merge with other sections as project goes along.
 
2 questions people come to the forum to ask a lot, categorized in 'General' and 'Principles' under 'Ethics' at the moment. Maybe can move to lifestyle or will merge with other sections as project goes along.
  
−
**[[Is it Vegan? (Moral grey areas)]]
+
**[[Is it Vegan?]] (Moral grey areas)
−
**[[Staying Vegan (people and situations that make it difficult to stick to princliples)]]
+
**[[Staying Vegan]] (people and situations that make it difficult to stick to principles)
  
 
= List of threads to draw from =
 
= List of threads to draw from =

Revision as of 07:00, 2 August 2017

We should add this and the 'About' page to the sidebar also, can I gets admin privileges to do this please? Also shall we private message the regular users of the forum? I'm really happy putting in the lions share collecting and editing quotes of arguments, but might be good to have a few eyes on how people would like the table of contents to look like and what advice pages would interest them most. Also what's the role of bureaucrats? Just would like to know these things and be offered the option if I'm putting in a lot of the work, not that I'd definitely want the job --NonZeroSum (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2017 (CEST)

Didn't see this before. All trustedUsers now have the right to edit the sidebar. I'm not sure what bureaucrats are for now. Originally I think they're just meant to assign users to groups. I added in some permissions so I could redact IP addresses, but now because only logged in users can edit it's impossible (I think) for them to show anymore. I don't think we will have so many users that it will be much of a job. My plan is just to add recognized users to the trustedUsers group, which will have whatever powers are useful. Ideally bureaucrat will be an obsolete job once I figure out the permissions.--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2017 (CEST)


Sorting

Unsorted threads in ‘All the arguments against,’‘Advocacy,’ and ‘Ethics’ are unduly long and could use sub-categorizing better, whilst others could use merging, so can throw out ideas for a rough table of contents now but I imagine it will emerge as well with what pages we most enjoy writing. --NonZeroSum (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2017 (CEST)

Whay, successfully transferred all the hyperlinks for the categorized list of every thread on the forum to the table of contents talk page, so we can all edit it now on one page.

And the main table of contents page is red linked now so people can simply click on a broken hyperlink and start writing the page, as I said above feel free to create your own, merge or split categories further.

If you ever want to copy any format you're working on into libreoffice word, you can save it as a mediawiki file, then it's only a bit of rejigging with find and replace tool in officeword to clean up further. --NonZeroSum (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2017 (CEST)

Really great work on Diet/Nutrition, maybe just one thing, you changed Drugs in Lifestyle to Recreational and Medicine, the forum threads categorized under drugs were talking about recreational so that makes sense and one on self medicating for mental health, so I think all medicine will likely be covered in the disease prevention and optimal nutrition sections. The threads that I originally categorised into medicine was a subcategory of principles, mostly hardcore vegans coming onto the forum asking about the trace animal products in medicine they had no alternative too. Will take it out for now, but if you had something in mind change it back no problem. --NonZeroSum (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2017 (CEST)

I was thinking dietary measures in disease prevention/treatment; that is, specifically vegan relevant. Medical interventions are something we don't need to cover really, since that's mainstream and I'm sure others do that much better than we do, we just need to discuss the ethical aspects regarding animal testing or ingredients in medicines. Where did supplements go? That might fit with something like a beneficial substances, before dangerous ones. --BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2017 (CEST)

No worries, OK moved it from under 'Principles' in the 'Ethics' section to under 'Nutrition and Health,' just felt odd before under 'Lifestyle' when it's often not something people have any option over, but with the ethics section turning into moral schools of thought, specific ethical situations like medicine can be covered under Health. Agreed good place to talk about animal testing, animal ingredients and anti-vaxers etc.


Ethics


Existentialism

I removed this from the list under ethics for now while categorizing because I don't know where it belongs. Existentialism isn't really normative, or has a lot of mixed interpretations. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/ I think it probably belongs in a political subsection, or under spirituality. Existentialists were pretty hard line against nailing down any single consistent philosophy, and disagreeing with each other, so we don't really have a clear summary of what normative existentialist ethics look like, or the basis for its meta-ethical claims. It seems to be more literary, political, and spiritual in nature. Can you explain what the article would contain, or make some short summaries of the normative and meta-ethical positions so it can be categorized in context with other articles? Or should we put this in another area, and if so what (political, spiritual?)--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2017 (CEST)

You're right that it's not normative in the Universalist sense, there are 3 distinct schools; Universalist, Relativist and Nihilist:
Meta-ethics #Substantial theories
Also see wiki/Moral nihilism
Think about it like this, where a relativist would say the most ethical thing to do is participate in a drum circle for 8 hours in order to go more in sync with your community and learn to act as one whole, and the global consequentialist would say the most ethical is to stand up to your community and spend your time giving charity to the neighbouring village who are more open to help, the nihilist can accept the consequentialist view in theory but might spend half an hour at the drum circle in order to keep that family connection and learn something about themselves which felt entirely necessary, because if they didn't spend any time on the virtues everyone might become an unfeeling ghost and the quality of life that is produced from charity/solidarity is lessened. So it just asks for the accommodation of another norm of authenticity.
It definitely isn't spiritual as existence preceding essence is the polar opposite truth that religion rejects, Kierkegard, Wittgenstein and Spinoza can be seen as precursors to existentialism simply because they reinvented religion from it's tyrannical force to something entirely arbitrary, and took the view that it was a leap of faith to something pleasant, which couldn't be aligned with most of the the worlds religions.
So even though a lot of the ideas will be able to be merged with virtue activism on specific pages, to understand whole movements and groups it will be important to have a page explaining where the desire towards existentialist goals come from, from amoral to supremely humanist/animalist.
The standford articles are great, I spend many days reading their site, most important on this:
On the existential view, to understand what a human being is it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us. The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances—“mind” and “body”—is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist, who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth) suffices.
“Existentialism”, therefore, may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence. To approach existentialism in this categorial way may seem to conceal what is often taken to be its “heart” (Kaufmann 1968: 12), namely, its character as a gesture of protest against academic philosophy, its anti-system sensibility, its flight from the “iron cage” of reason. But while it is true that the major existential philosophers wrote with a passion and urgency rather uncommon in our own time, and while the idea that philosophy cannot be practiced in the disinterested manner of an objective science is indeed central to existentialism, it is equally true that all the themes popularly associated with existentialism—dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment, nothingness, and so on—find their philosophical significance in the context of the search for a new categorial framework, together with its governing norm.
2.3 Authenticity
Also a good conversation comparing and contrasting virtue ethics and existentialism
This conversation also is based around the stanford article of Wilfred Sellars which has existentialist implications - The scientific image of man, Sellars
--NonZeroSum (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2017 (CEST)


"because if they didn't spend any time on the virtues everyone might become an unfeeling ghost" That's consequentialist reasoning.
"it will be important to have a page explaining where the desire towards existentialist goals come from, from amoral to supremely humanist/animalist." I agree with that. This is more of a question, then, of "why be good?" rather than what good is (which is answered by the normative theories). This is a good reference to start the page, and then maybe pull in existentialist arguments? https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=1932 --BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (CEST)

Virtue ethics

Moved into new category, rule consequentialism.--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2017 (CEST)

I really don't think that's a great idea as rule consequentialism is the umbrella term for referring to all consequentialist schools from utilitarian to virtue:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/#GloCon
I think you may have misunderstood what they're saying there (unless I misunderstand you). Rules do not refer to the core axioms of judgement of the ultimate consequences. Rules refer to the heuristics involved in reaching those consequences... a step removed, basically. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/#FulVerParRulCon Classical Utilitarianism is not a form of rule consequentialism, the article didn't make that very clear. There are, however, spectra and arguments for rule consequentialism within every consequentialist framework (usually what one would call partial rule consequentialism), including within Utilitarianism; the difference is more of an empirical outlook. Virtue ethics typically holds that we should cultivate virtues [as a rule] because those virtues result in good outcomes [either for the world, or for the ego as in some self-interested schools of enlightenment oriented Buddhism (as opposed to, say, Mahayana)].--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2017 (CEST)


Virtue ethics is very well known for being a distinct 'applied ethic' to utilitarianism and deontology again. Best to keep going with effective activism, virtue activism and alternative perspectives on the specific pages, then explain in the ethics section that virtues come under universalist consequentialism, and alternative perspectives were often either amoral, relativist or deontological. --NonZeroSum (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2017 (CEST)
Well known isn't always accurate, of course. If you ask the question "why?" then you can get at whether it is in fact consequentialist in some form. We usually find that it's a form of rule-consequentialism. It is distinct from Utilitarianism, but Utilitarianism is only one form of consequentialism. I'm fine with just putting them all under consequentialism, under universalism, with deontological the only outsider under universalism, and then relativism outside that, and leaving discussion of rule-consequentialism to inside the ethics articles. I agree that our current "EA, virtue, and alternative" is a good format within other articles on the wiki.--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2017 (CEST)

Evolutionary ethics

Changed this to Evolutionary Ethics, since I don't think the meta-ethics alone can carry an article (on Wikipedia it's all one page) and other categories are not broken down into normative and meta-ethics.--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2017 (CEST)

OK makes sense, put it all under Universalist then, and the Meta-ethics side of evolutionairy ethics can be discussed as a sub-title of the Universalist page. --NonZeroSum (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2017 (CEST)
I moved Evolutionary Ethics and the others up under Consequentialism. I saw you changed Universalist to realist, I think you had it right the first time. Universalism is a better general descriptor, since realism may be more contentious: https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2710&start=40#p28879 --BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2017 (CEST)

Stjn's Theories

Minumum Complaint Theory

I removed this from the listing. This just seems to be the pet theory of a single person who presented it on the forum, and it doesn't make any sense/offer anything novel. (Note My and Inator's responses) If its originator can answer the challenges in a coherent way we could include it, but if we include every personal system here regardless of value I think we'll end up drowning out the signal of mainstream information with noise.--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2017 (CEST)

Fair enough, went back and looked at the moral hand theory too and that was also Stjn's paper, so nothing that would require a whole page on. --NonZeroSum (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2017 (CEST)


Unsorted

2 questions people come to the forum to ask a lot, categorized in 'General' and 'Principles' under 'Ethics' at the moment. Maybe can move to lifestyle or will merge with other sections as project goes along.

List of threads to draw from

Wiki


Diet/Nutrition


Supplements


Medical

General


Recipes/Products


Advice/ Nutrition


Sugar


Fringe Diets

Lifestyle

Community


Dining Out


Career


Friends


Partners


Family


Companion Animal Care

Vegan Music


Body Building


Places to live


Zero waste


Freegan


Growing your own


Wild food gathering


Pest control


Anger management


Drugs


Advocacy


Food Evangelism


News and Commentary


YouTube commentary


All the arguments against


Public intellectuals


Celebrities


Controversial Advocacy


Abolitionist vs welfare approach


Activism


Projects


Open Letters

Discussion groups


Ethics


Universalism

Consequentialism


Utilitarianism


Deontology


Virtue ethics


Evolutionary meta-ethics


Reletavism

Ethical Nihilist

Unsorted

General


Indigenous rights


Moral solipsism/relativism


Humanism


Anti-natalism


Strong AI


Atheism


Religion


Principles


Economics


Hypotheticals


Anti-Speciesism


Misc

Retrieved from "https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Table_of_Contents&oldid=223"