User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-07 at 10:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by joerell A small town outside of Rome has the longest living residents and it's all related to working hard, eating traditional foods of the ethnic group, better traditional farming methods, reducing stress and having fun in your life.
fake news.
thats just their shill to drive tourists into their little backwater village. -
2018-06-08 at 6:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain So this is the exact problem I foresaw in my last post, and that's why I asked that we just discuss the standard "potential" argument, because the explanation I gave is more of an advancement of that position. This does not pose any challenge to my moral system.
The tl;dr answer (if you don't want to do it that way), is that if JP knew this for sure, and believes that if the situation was reversed, he himself would have no right to life as the doomed child, them I don't see any moral problem with JP's actions. The fact is, the information available to one does matter in one's moral considerations: it is what makes the difference between an act of ignorance or malice. Me giving money to a child in Africa might cause a butterfly effect* that does bad shit, but that doesn't factor into my moral considerations.
So your ethics have changed then, and we're now concerned with intentions (did JP have the intention to harm a morally considerable being). And this seems like an odd, foot in both camps, sort of ethics. The thing that makes the child considerable is that in the future they're going to become an adult, but the thing makes you right or wrong for torturing a kid is your belief in wether or not they're going to become an adult. Actually it seems like moral considerability in fact has nothing to do with moral action.
You're also condoning the torture of children who won't live to be a certain age which, uhh, well that's a pretty distasteful conclusion and I'm not sure you really believe it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-08 at 11:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So your ethics have changed then, and we're now concerned with intentions (did JP have the intention to harm a morally considerable being). And this seems like an odd, foot in both camps, sort of ethics. The thing that makes the child considerable is that in the future they're going to become an adult, but the thing makes you right or wrong for torturing a kid is your belief in wether or not they're going to become an adult. Actually it seems like moral considerability in fact has nothing to do with moral action.
You're also condoning the torture of children who won't live to be a certain age which, uhh, well that's a pretty distasteful conclusion and I'm not sure you really believe it.
My ethics have not changed one iota. This is why I wanted to discuss it the other way, because you're beginning to sound like "hurr" to me.
I think the moral offense in this case would kind of be like killing a cat. From a god eye view, the offense should probably be handled like an offense against the property rights of the parents, because their emotional pain is basically the damage done. I mean, I really don't see the difference. You seem to be using an appeal to emotion here. I don't see the logical issue.
In my moral system, if the killer would not agree to being murdered in the same way, he would be immoral. This is how I would derive a conclusion from my moral system, which is: something like the Golden Rule, under the veil of ignorance. Holy shit , like I said! Otherwise grab him and torture him to death to make up for the moral debt he had I guess.
When I'm talking about people being worth moral consideration or not based on their potential (and the way I stated it), it is a rationalisation for why not to kill a kid, typically. -
2018-06-08 at 11:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL The ancient manuscripts record that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were offered the finest meats during their long stay of years as the King's guests, but they politely refused and requested fruits and vegetables instead. The document chronicles how eventually the three become the strongest and fittest and mightiest men in the King's entire palace. The King and his men were amazed.
-
2018-06-09 at 1 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain I think the moral offense in this case would kind of be like killing a cat. From a god eye view, the offense should probably be handled like an offense against the property rights of the parents, because their emotional pain is basically the damage done. I mean, I really don't see the difference. You seem to be using an appeal to emotion here. I don't see the logical issue.
I didn't say there was a logical issue, I said your ethics lead to torturing certain children being an ethical actual. You can bite that bullet, but I don't think you want to. Presenting a counter example or uncomfortable case isn't the same as an appeal to emotion.In my moral system, if the killer would not agree to being murdered in the same way, he would be immoral. This is how I would derive a conclusion from my moral system, which is: something like the Golden Rule, under the veil of ignorance. Holy shit , like I said! Otherwise grab him and torture him to death to make up for the moral debt he had I guess.
You're right, you already said that and I already replied. If you're saying torture is unacceptable because you wouldn't want to endure it yourself, then why is it acceptable to subject livestock to the conditions routinely found in commercial farming operations?When I'm talking about people being worth moral consideration or not based on their potential (and the way I stated it), it is a rationalisation for why not to kill a kid, typically.
But it's a poor rationalization because it doesn't manage to prohibit killing some children that we would reasonably expect a system of ethics to cover. -
2018-06-09 at 8:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I didn't say there was a logical issue, I said your ethics lead to torturing certain children being an ethical actual.
That certainly would be true for anyone who has a god's eye view. But then I imagine a lot of ethical considerations would be different for such a being. Are you denying that the information available to you affects your moral considerations?You can bite that bullet, but I don't think you want to. Presenting a counter example or uncomfortable case isn't the same as an appeal to emotion.
Uhhhh, what do you think "discomfort"" is?
A counterexample is valid when it actually poses some kind of logical issue. I'm not uncomfortable at all with this case, because it poses no problem to my ethical system. I honestly can't make the functional distinction between a child whose biological outcome is to simply die, or a dog or cat, or something else that simply never develops to respect the social contract.
I doubt you can either. Depending on the child's age and intelligence, if you applied it to a 4D being with a god view, their moral considerability would vary like it would with animals who can make various levels of agreements with humans.
But that doesn't mean that this reflects their moral considerability from the POV of any real life agent within the system, and it doesn't.You're right, you already said that and I already replied. If you're saying torture is unacceptable because you wouldn't want to endure it yourself, then why is it acceptable to subject livestock to the conditions routinely found in commercial farming operations?
The simple answer is, I do believe it would be unacceptable.
I believe cows (for example) are somewhat domesticated and are among the animals have subhuman but non-zero moral considerability. I've already said I'm vehemently against factory farming. It's pretty clear that our pseudo-agreement with cows goes something like "I will feed you and then you will feed me", and IMO the agreement should at the very least be extended to something like "I will treat you well, and in exchange then I will eat you."
This is kind of where agriculture comes from in the first place; we would walk cows or sheep or whatever around for pastures for miles, they would enjoy their time being lead to green grass and eventually the shepherd would extract value out of all the work he put ibto leading them to food, protecting them from wolves etc. I don't know if I'd say people considered their animals' feelings when inventing agriculture, but it definitely was better for the animals and it has turned into something I cannot agree with.
If a cow is treated well and has no cause for alarm, I can be fairly confident it won't trample me, because it has no apparent natursl inclination to violate my right to life etc or unless it feels threatened, stressed etc. So I don't think it's moral to treat them like they have absolutely none.
So let's move the discussion to something less adorable and cuddly, like a scorpion, for example.
The reason I would be fine with any amount of torture being inflicted upon a scorpion is that I can't be confident in any way, even inductively, that no matter what I do or how ethically I treat it, it is reasonable to expect that it will ever offer me any ethical consideration before stinging me if it gets the opportunity. I can choose not to ever willingly encounter or fuck with a scorpion, but if I was asleep and one happened upon me, it could murder me because I look funny to it.
I wouldn't mind scorpion factory farming at all as a result. I don't see the difference between a scorpion and a little psycho serial killer in this case; it is in the scorpion's nature to sting, but I would argue that it is also in the serial killer's nature to murder.
So I don't give it any moral considerability, it is a little roving death machine and I will stomp it with my boot if I feel the need, or churn out millions of them, roast them on a stick and eat their bitch ass if I was so inclined. I wouldn't really mind farming serial killers either, I mean we practically already do it with the penal system, except instead of eating them, they're stamping license plates.But it's a poor rationalization because it doesn't manage to prohibit killing some children that we would reasonably expect a system of ethics to cover.
Certainly it does. What is a "reasonable system of ethics"? What "reasonable" objection can you tell me that makes this inconsistent or problematic?
If a normal person's biological outcome is typically to reach and respect the social contract, then you, as a 3D being who must inductively reason what to do in the future based on their interactions with the past (which is the entire point of a moral system, to establish philosophical "oughts"). -
2018-06-09 at 6:53 PM UTC
-
2018-06-10 at 4:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain That certainly would be true for anyone who has a god's eye view. But then I imagine a lot of ethical considerations would be different for such a being. Are you denying that the information available to you affects your moral considerations?
Certainly available information affects moral consideration. But there is a difference between moral consideration and moral fact. I think we could imagine situations where a well meaning person can do something wrong because they lacked the relevant information e.g. shooting a dangerous criminal might be justified but shooting civilians may not be, a police officer may do the latter intending to do the former because of some lack of relevant information, but it seems fair to say shooting civilians is bad regardless of what an officers intention is (and perhaps negligence or extenuating circumstances make it better or worse, but dead civilians seem bad per se).
What I'm talking about is wether or not we can say, after the fact, that injuring the child was actually a bad thing regardless of intensions. I think the moral framework you've presented so far does not find grounds to say anything wrong actually happened, even if there was malicious intent.Uhhhh, what do you think "discomfort"" is?
A counterexample is valid when it actually poses some kind of logical issue. I'm not uncomfortable at all with this case, because it poses no problem to my ethical system. I honestly can't make the functional distinction between a child whose biological outcome is to simply die, or a dog or cat, or something else that simply never develops to respect the social contract.
I doubt you can either. Depending on the child's age and intelligence, if you applied it to a 4D being with a god view, their moral considerability would vary like it would with animals who can make various levels of agreements with humans.
Sure, if you're willing to say that children have the same moral worth as house pets then OK, your system is internally consistent at the cost of being wildly unintuitive, at least in this case. For utilitarians it's quite easy to say that this particular class of children is morally considerable since it's hedonic facility that makes beings morally considerable, and this is intact in children of all ages.The simple answer is, I do believe it would be unacceptable.
I believe cows (for example) are somewhat domesticated and are among the animals have subhuman but non-zero moral considerability. I've already said I'm vehemently against factory farming. It's pretty clear that our pseudo-agreement with cows goes something like "I will feed you and then you will feed me", and IMO the agreement should at the very least be extended to something like "I will treat you well, and in exchange then I will eat you."
This is kind of where agriculture comes from in the first place; we would walk cows or sheep or whatever around for pastures for miles, they would enjoy their time being lead to green grass and eventually the shepherd would extract value out of all the work he put ibto leading them to food, protecting them from wolves etc. I don't know if I'd say people considered their animals' feelings when inventing agriculture, but it definitely was better for the animals and it has turned into something I cannot agree with.
If a cow is treated well and has no cause for alarm, I can be fairly confident it won't trample me, because it has no apparent natursl inclination to violate my right to life etc or unless it feels threatened, stressed etc. So I don't think it's moral to treat them like they have absolutely none.
Let's put aside the (valid and I think unresolved) question of wether domesticated cattle can be considered to be participating in a social contract (i.e. wether or not they have the ability to enter into contracts and if that's indeed what's happening in any kind of meat production process) and just say they can. This is progress as we can agree that the treatment of cattle in modern meat farming operations is unethical, but it seems like you've change your position since saying this:
Originally posted by Captain I believe valid and generalisable frameworks of morality can be derived from ideas like social contracts and Kant's categorical imperative.
Animals that have no ability to respect any laws or agreements or social contracts, deserve no moral consideration.
Certain animals have some ability to respect certain agreements or some subsets of a typical human social contract. For example: dogs; cats; certain birds; certain marine life such as octopodes, dolphins, orcas; pigs; horses. These animals deserve an elevated but still subhuman level of moral consideration.
Originally posted by Captain Animals that have no ability to respect any laws or agreements or social contracts, deserve no moral consideration.
To be fair you did follow up with:Certain animals have some ability to respect certain agreements or some subsets of a typical human social contract. For example: dogs; cats; certain birds; certain marine life such as octopodes, dolphins, orcas; pigs; horses. These animals deserve an elevated but still subhuman level of moral consideration.
But one of these statements seems like it has to be wrong, and the exclusion of cattle from the original list is what prompted the digression. -
2018-06-10 at 7:57 AM UTC[ACCIDENTAL SUBMIT]
-
2018-06-10 at 8:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Certainly available information affects moral consideration. But there is a difference between moral consideration and moral fact.
Many would argue the validity of the concept of a "moral fact", you can't just take that for granted.
IMO there aren't really such a thing; you can just be consistent (and non-hypocritical), or inconsistent with respect to your established moral framework, and whether or not you are morally consistent would entirely rely on the information available to you. Anyone can have any moral system, the question is whether or not you have a better justification for your actions than "this kinda doesn't feel right".I think we could imagine situations where a well meaning person can do something wrong because they lacked the relevant information e.g. shooting a dangerous criminal might be justified but shooting civilians may not be, a police officer may do the latter intending to do the former because of some lack of relevant information, but it seems fair to say shooting civilians is bad regardless of what an officers intention is (and perhaps negligence or extenuating circumstances make it better or worse, but dead civilians seem bad per se).
What I'm talking about is wether or not we can say, after the fact, that injuring the child was actually a bad thing regardless of intensions. I think the moral framework you've presented so far does not find grounds to say anything wrong actually happened, even if there was malicious intent.
What is "after the fact"?
Perhaps killing the civilian means preventing the destruction of a remote Alaskan fishing village after 60 days, and 20 completely innocent lives will be lost if the civilian lives. Now you're basically faced with a trolley problem, where saving the citizen is essentially the "wrong" answer, depending on your moral framework.
Imagine you are a time traveller and the death of the child in exactly that way means 1,000,000 people are saved from being genocided in the exact same way in the far distant future. You must actively choose to not interfere, or 1 million people are brutalized, let's say 1 million years in the future.
If you had this information, would the "moral fact" about letting the killer torture and kill the child be any different?
If you had different information then your considerations would be different, but you seem to be assuming that some arbitrary range on your "scope of context" is the "right" one.Sure, if you're willing to say that children have the same moral worth as house pets then OK
Well, children that will never develop into adults. Just a minor nitpick. It's unintuitive because the kid came out of a human vagina, but that's about it.your system is internally consistent at the cost of being wildly unintuitive, at least in this case. For utilitarians it's quite easy to say that this particular class of children is morally considerable since it's hedonic facility that makes beings morally considerable, and this is intact in children of all ages.
In such a utilitarian system, how would the case with the child vs the genocide be handled "intuitively"?Let's put aside the (valid and I think unresolved) question of wether domesticated cattle can be considered to be participating in a social contract (i.e. wether or not they have the ability to enter into contracts and if that's indeed what's happening in any kind of meat production process) and just say they can. This is progress as we can agree that the treatment of cattle in modern meat farming operations is unethical, but it seems like you've change your position since saying this:
To be fair you did follow up with:
But one of these statements seems like it has to be wrong, and the exclusion of cattle from the original list is what prompted the digression.
I just listed some examples. I also included some livestock, such as pigs and horses. I think these animals are probably of a higher level of considerability than cattle though.
I don't think the question is unresolved; they can participate in it to a lesser level, so they are considered to a lesser level. -
2018-06-10 at 8:58 AM UTCI'm vegan and I chose this way for the justice of animals, yes. Also, meat makes me nauseaus, especially when raw. YuK
-
2018-06-10 at 11:03 PM UTCBump
-
2018-06-10 at 11:11 PM UTCDo we really gotta stop altogether? Buying ground hamburger by the pound is one thing, but nothin' wrong with a few pepperonis on a pizza.
-
2018-06-10 at 11:33 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-10 at 11:41 PM UTCCan vegans eat bugs?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-10 at 11:58 PM UTCWhat does it mean to take moral responsibility for an action? Consider the following:
1. A 4 year old kills a woman after playing with his father's gun, which had been left loaded and unsecure.
2. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it."
3. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it." A brain scan reveals a tumor the size of a golf ball in a region of his brain responsible for the control of emotion and behavioral impulses.
In each case a young woman died. Each death, the result of events arising in the mind of another human. But the degree of moral outrage you feel probably depends on the situation described in each case.
We consider the brain of killer 1 is not fully matured or ready for the responsibilities of personhood. Killer number 2 appears to be a psychopath. Killer number 3 involves the same psychopathic motive and behavior, but somehow the brain tumor seems to clear the killer of all responsibility for his crime. We cannot help but see him as a victim of his own biology.
Despite our attachment to the notion of freewill most of us know that disorders of the brain trump the best intentions of the mind. And the men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad environments and bad luck. Which of these were they responsible for? No person is responsible for his genes or upbringing, yet we have every reason to believe these factors determine his character. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize how much luck is involved in morality itself.
Moral responsibility is a social construct - not an objective reality. -
2018-06-11 at 12:31 AM UTCLanny should just ban Obbe every time he copypastes Sam Harris without a reference.
-
2018-06-11 at 12:31 AM UTC
-
2018-06-11 at 12:56 AM UTC
-
2018-06-11 at 1:13 AM UTC
