User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-17 at 10:18 PM UTC
-
2018-09-17 at 10:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by playingindirt @ Lanny
If it really made any difference to you one way or the other you would do the research to find out what scientific evidence there is instead expecting me to do the research for you. writing it off as some crack pot tree hugger hippy notion without doing through research is what people do when they really don't want to know.
Incorrect.
When you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with evidence. -
2018-09-17 at 10:21 PM UTCDietPiano lol funny name. I like it.
-
2018-09-17 at 10:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Incorrect.
When you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with evidence.
I'm not the one that thinks people shouldn't eat meat.
If plant eaters are so concerned about eating a life form they think may feel or what ever let em do their own research.
my intention was to just give them something to think about. -
2018-09-18 at 1:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Incorrect.
When you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it with evidence.
That's really just an old wives' tale, though. The onus is on both sides of the debate equally to prove and or/justify their claims. If someone claims the other person is wrong, that's still a claim; it's a claim of denial, which also needs to be proven and/or justified.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-18 at 5:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Morality relies on arbitrary criterion, such as living things needing to clearly possess intelligence in order to be worthy of moral consideration. Therefor, two people can both be morally consistent yet disagree on the moral imperative of a given subject.
To say that nobody should eat meat because it is morally wrong requires everyone to follow the same arbitrary set of rules, even if they reject the premises of those rules. They would then be forced to do something that they have concluded is morally irrelevant or bad.
Not true at all. I could as easily say "To say that the earth is not flat requires everyone to follow the same arbitrary set of planetary models". Obviously universal agreement or even consensus is not required for an idea to be correct. There may be a number of competing moral theories, just there are frequently multiple competing theories at the forefront of the physical sciences, but this doesn't mean there is no fact of the matter in moral claims.Moral rules are based on sentiment, not empirical evidence. Therefor, they are irrational. I don't accept the premise of irrationality.
I don't think you can make the claim that moral rule are based on sentiment, universally or even in most cases. Religious moral rules are based on cannon, the sorts of ethics you typically explore in academic moral philosophy are generally based on logical systems of ethics (although some will appeal to sentiment, certainly not all will). Empirical evidence is generally not at the foundation of moral systems but it's frequently critical in moral reasoning (e.g. my position on eating plants requires or may be challenged by certain evidence).
Further "empirical evidence" and "rationality" have little to do with each other, the former is certainly not a necessary condition for the latter. Consider mathematics, which nearly no one would claim is "irrational', which have no basis at all in empirical evidence of anything. Mathematics contains no empirical statements, refers to no empirical findings in forming or defending it theorems. Clearly saying something is "irrational" simply because it lacks empirical evidence in support of it going to be an unsuccessful argument.Why?
Because to some theorists that's the meaning of morality: participation in social contract. Like the way in which we acquire moral rights and duties is through contract and unless you can form and observe a contract like that then you can't have moral rights. That's not my position, but it's an example of a perfectly consistent system of ethics what selectively extends morally considerably to some organisms but not others.
Originally posted by playingindirt I'm not the one that thinks people shouldn't eat meat.
No, but you are the one who had made the claim, repeatedly, that plants can "feel" without providing any real evidence in support of this claim. I've searched for evidence and found none which is very convincing. If you think I've missed something then feel free to bring it up, that would certainly give me something to think about and for us to discuss. But don't continually promise me that there's some evidence in your back pocket but that you just don't feel like sharing it. I have no way of knowing if this "evidence" you keep talking about is among he findings I've already reviewed or not or if it even exists at all. Given how reluctant you seem to be to provide it I'm starting to think it's the latter.
-
2018-09-18 at 9:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
once again: I never said they are the same thing.
i never said you did.
again, can you explain, in simple english what you meant by this :I never claimed that "the magnitude of immorality doesnt change moral status ?". I said that a thing being morally wrong or not is the contingent on the existence or absence of different, potentially greater, moral wrongs.
cos i think i do but it doesnt seems to mske sense so idk. -
2018-09-18 at 9:17 AM UTC
-
2018-09-19 at 2:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Not true at all. I could as easily say "To say that the earth is not flat requires everyone to follow the same arbitrary set of planetary models". Obviously universal agreement or even consensus is not required for an idea to be correct. There may be a number of competing moral theories, just there are frequently multiple competing theories at the forefront of the physical sciences, but this doesn't mean there is no fact of the matter in moral claims.
Not the same. Planetary models are created based off concrete, measureable data. Morality is an intangible concept.
Only one planetary model is actually correct, whereas there is no way to know whose morality system is the correcter, as it is physically and mathematically immeasurable. Morality is an abstract concept.
Originally posted by Lanny I don't think you can make the claim that moral rule are based on sentiment, universally or even in most cases. Religious moral rules are based on cannon, the sorts of ethics you typically explore in academic moral philosophy are generally based on logical systems of ethics (although some will appeal to sentiment, certainly not all will). Empirical evidence is generally not at the foundation of moral systems but it's frequently critical in moral reasoning (e.g. my position on eating plants requires or may be challenged by certain evidence).
If you accept that canon is the word of God or some deity, then perhaps there is some wiggle room. Otherwise, canon is formulated through the maelstrom of someone's attitude regarding some subject.Mathematics contains no empirical statements
I have two coconutts and I grab two more coconutts. I empirically observe that the result is four coconutts.Further "empirical evidence" and "rationality" have little to do with each other, the former is certainly not a necessary condition for the latter. Consider mathematics, which nearly no one would claim is "irrational', which have no basis at all in empirical evidence of anything. Mathematics contains no empirical statements, refers to no empirical findings in forming or defending it theorems. Clearly saying something is "irrational" simply because it lacks empirical evidence in support of it going to be an unsuccessful argument
In this case they work together. Morality is irrational because it cannot be measured, and is based off how things make people feel.
"Good" and "bad" cannot be sensed in the world by humans. Each person must independantly decide what "good" means and what "bad" means. There are no inherent definitions if good or bad, unless you believe in divinely inspired texts or artifacts.
Does good denote pleasure? Some people may recieve pleasure by punching others in the face. Well-being? What if I consider my well-being to be living in the hospital when I'm not sick becuase I like how it feels? Happy? Perhaps I am happiest killing infidels for Allah. Even if it is some conglomeration of certain states of being, every state can be reached by different means depending on the person.
If you want me to stop eating meat, you have to force me to accept your idea of "good", which you made up based on your genetics, attitude, and environment you were raised in. None of which I can quantify or replicate, or even understand fully. I can understand how you would come to 4x5=20, because I can quantify and replicate it myself by using my understanding of multiplication, which was founded by counting bingo chips.Because to some theorists that's the meaning of morality: participation in social contract. Like the way in which we acquire moral rights and duties is through contract and unless you can form and observe a contract like that then you can't have moral rights. That's not my position, but it's an example of a perfectly consistent system of ethics what selectively extends morally considerably to some organisms but not others.
If that is the arbitrary criterion used, the position is consistent. -
2018-09-19 at 4:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Not the same. Planetary models are created based off concrete, measureable data. Morality is an intangible concept.
Fine, you can make this objection but your argument has changed from "morality requires everyone to agree on it to be true" to "morality isn't supported by 'concrete, measurable data'" with the tacit premise that a theory needs to be supported supported by 'concrete, measurable data' to be valid or acceptable. In which case I turn your attention to this part of my post:
Originally posted by Lanny Mathematics contains no empirical statements, refers to no empirical findings in forming or defending it theorems. Clearly saying something is "irrational" simply because it lacks empirical evidence in support of it going to be an unsuccessful argument.
Originally posted by DietPiano If you accept that canon is the word of God or some deity, then perhaps there is some wiggle room. Otherwise, canon is formulated through the maelstrom of someone's attitude regarding some subject.
Well that the canonical texts are truly representative of the will of god (even if he isn't the direct author) is a pretty common foundation for religious morality.I have two coconutts and I grab two more coconutts. I empirically observe that the result is four coconutts.
That's not a mathematical theorem though. That's you finding that a mathematical model of how collecting coconuts works. If I say "I have two coconuts and I take three coconuts then I should have six coconuts because 2*3=6 but I find I have five" I haven't formed an argument against mathematics, empirical counter evidence, I've simply formed a poor model of coconut collection.
Falsifiability is a cornerstone of the modern scientific method, to some the idea of falsification or verification is fundamental to meaning in general. But what experimental result could you possible find to disprove a theorem of mathematics? I don't think you'll be able to think of an empirical test of mathematical theorems.In this case they work together.
I agree we commonly use the two together to think about our experience but the difference is significant in this case, so I'm glad we agree they're separate things.Morality is irrational because it cannot be measured, and is based off how things make people feel.
There is nothing about "rationality" that requires measurement. How can you "measure" a logical proposition or argument like "p -> q; p; Q.E.D. q"? What units do you measure it in? What tools do you use to measure it? Rationality isn't about measurement at all."Good" and "bad" cannot be sensed in the world by humans. Each person must independantly decide what "good" means and what "bad" means.
Mathematical theorems can't be sensed by humans either. My math sense doesn't tingle when correct statements about mathematical objects are presented to me. I have to reason my way through a mathematical argument to be convinced of such things. This is what most secular moral realists believe too: we can't measure morality with some piece of equipment but we can use tools like logic and reasoning and argumentation to reach moral conclusions.
-
2018-09-19 at 4:17 PM UTCFuck I hate this fucking thread
-
2018-09-19 at 4:36 PM UTCWhat about fish and insects?
My position is very poorly informed and basically exclusively emotional. I grew up fishing and believe that they do feel pain but also that fish are stupid. I have once hooked a fish twice within 10 minutes. The first time it broke the line so I prepared another hook and fixed the line, threw it out and bang, another bite. I hook the fish and this time tow it in just to see that it's the fucker with my hook and bait dangling from its mouth. You don't really do that as an intelligent species. I still feel a lot of sympathy for them, though.
Insects... I kinda hate them and don't really care if they suffer or not but I also do care to be honest. I just really, really like seafood. Haha. Crabs and stuff are sea insects. I can't see myself stopping to eat them.
I love eating chicken, too. This thread makes me hungry but also feel bad about it.
What's your stance on cheese, everybody? -
2018-09-19 at 6:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
Fine, you can make this objection but your argument has changed from "morality requires everyone to agree on it to be true" to "morality isn't supported by 'concrete, measurable data'" with the tacit premise that a theory needs to be supported supported by 'concrete, measurable data' to be valid or acceptable. In which case I turn your attention to this part of my post:
Well that the canonical texts are truly representative of the will of god (even if he isn't the direct author) is a pretty common foundation for religious morality.
That's not a mathematical theorem though. That's you finding that a mathematical model of how collecting coconuts works. If I say "I have two coconuts and I take three coconuts then I should have six coconuts because 2*3=6 but I find I have five" I haven't formed an argument against mathematics, empirical counter evidence, I've simply formed a poor model of coconut collection.
Falsifiability is a cornerstone of the modern scientific method, to some the idea of falsification or verification is fundamental to meaning in general. But what experimental result could you possible find to disprove a theorem of mathematics? I don't think you'll be able to think of an empirical test of mathematical theorems.
I agree we commonly use the two together to think about our experience but the difference is significant in this case, so I'm glad we agree they're separate things.
There is nothing about "rationality" that requires measurement. How can you "measure" a logical proposition or argument like "p -> q; p; Q.E.D. q"? What units do you measure it in? What tools do you use to measure it? Rationality isn't about measurement at all.
Mathematical theorems can't be sensed by humans either. My math sense doesn't tingle when correct statements about mathematical objects are presented to me. I have to reason my way through a mathematical argument to be convinced of such things. This is what most secular moral realists believe too: we can't measure morality with some piece of equipment but we can use tools like logic and reasoning and argumentation to reach moral conclusions.
How would a moral realist convince a moral relativist that their moral conclusions are not relative? Could you use "we have a moral obligation to not eat meat" as an example? -
2018-09-19 at 6:33 PM UTC
-
2018-09-19 at 6:39 PM UTC@ Lanny
I didn't promise you squat. I simply relayed "some" of the material I found that scientists discovered on how plants feel.
what you want to do with it is your business.
If ya'll wanna eat rabbit food, have at it. -
2018-09-19 at 6:42 PM UTCScientists found that you are an idiot.
-
2018-09-19 at 11:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe How would a moral realist convince a moral relativist that their moral conclusions are not relative? Could you use "we have a moral obligation to not eat meat" as an example?
That's a reasonable question to ask, but unfortunately it doesn't have a single direct answer. There are a number of moral positions that fall under the heading of "moral realist", and they each have different ideas about ideas about where we get the basic moral propositions that we build moral systems upon. You can read about Kant's categorical imperative for one of the most famous examples of a realist metaethical argument.
But even if you are wholly unconvinced by the arguments put forward by any moral realist, the point I was trying to make to DietPiano was that ethical claims made by realists, structurally, do not depend on consensus e.g. they are either true or false in fact, regardless of what people think about that matter in the same way the proposition "the earth is round" has a truth value that's not contingent upon people's opinions. And also that collecting empirical evidence is not the only way we go about learning things, and there are things which are widely believed to be true (even by DP) which have no empirical support.
I don't claim to know everything, and I'd say that I have significantly less confidence in my concrete ethical position that eating meat is morally unacceptable than I do in these structural points about moral propositions in general, and evidence supporting them. I'd prefer to reach a common understanding on these points before venturing into specific moral propositions. There's not much point in trying to make the case that "we ought not to eat meat" is a moral truth if we don't have a shared understanding of what is meant by "moral truth".
Originally posted by playingindirt @ Lanny
I didn't promise you squat.
I never said you promised me anything. Where did you get that idea?
Originally posted by playingindirt I simply relayed "some" of the material I found that scientists discovered on how plants feel.
No, you did more than link a national geographic video, you made the claim that plants "feel" in a comparable way to humans. If you don't think this is the case I can link your post where you do it (see how that went? I claimed something (that you made a particular statement about plants) and offered to present evidence in support of that claim).
If you want to back away from your claim then that's fine. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and all of that. But don't keep claiming that the natural of plant experience is well understood by "science" and then refuse to provide any evidence in defense of that claim.
-
2018-09-19 at 11:51 PM UTCLanny, are u able to simplify?
I'm interested in what u have to say but it's hard for me to follow.
It's cool if someone were to be aware of whom their speaking, & not just speak. -
2018-09-19 at 11:53 PM UTC
-
2018-09-19 at 11:58 PM UTCI follow ur posts & I edited my last.
In simple terms, ur stance on Not eating meat.
