The Issue with Gary Francione and Deontological Veganism?

[Jebus]

I disagree with the idea that, if I benefit ever so slightly more by harming you than you suffer from being harmed, that it is my moral prerogative to harm you.

I see no problem with this. If the two of us are stranded in the desert, and you have five liters of water and I only have one liter, I have no moral problem with stealing one liter from you. However, in the real world I can foresee negative effects from stealing which would make it morally wrong.

My problem with preference utilitarianism is the following: If I am the acting agent, I prefer to trust my own judgment of what's good for someone. My dog's preference right now is that I give her more food. However, I will not give her more food as my knowledge of what's beneficial to her is superior to her's.

[brimstoneSalad]

I see no problem with this. If the two of us are stranded in the desert, and you have five liters of water and I only have one liter, I have no moral problem with stealing one liter from you.

There would also arguably be no moral problem with killing and eating me, because that's a situation where morality doesn't factor in; one of extremes and survival. It's an amoral issue.

When you don't have to do so in order to survive, is it OK to take something from another, harming them, because you will superficially enjoy it more than it will cause them pain?

This is the Utility monster, and carnist utilitarians seem to like to argue that said utility monster is valid, and that humans are the utility monster -- having a moral right to cause suffering and death to lower life forms, because we will derive more enjoyment from their corpses than they suffer in dying. Although, they phrase it more florally.

However, in the real world I can foresee negative effects from stealing which would make it morally wrong.

Although certainly the social consequences of allowing those actions make them problematic, that only argues for restriction and punishment for those kinds of things, not against their morality as distinct actions.

This is an issue with Rule Utilitarianism.

It can be necessary to punish somebody for doing the right thing due to the implications of all people attempting to do that thing when it is usually wrong; that doesn't make that instance wrong.

My problem with preference utilitarianism is the following: If I am the acting agent, I prefer to trust my own judgment of what's good for someone. My dog's preference right now is that I give her more food. However, I will not give her more food as my knowledge of what's beneficial to her is superior to her's.

If you wanted to eat a cookie, and that cookie was poisoned but you didn't know it, would you prefer somebody let you eat that cookie -- since that's what you wanted to do -- or violate your current will (which is based on ignorance) and stop you from eating the cookie, because you have a stronger preference not to die?

The issue is self-correcting.
Also see, the golden rule, which is likewise self correcting (actually, preference can be seen as just a formulation of the golden rule within the Utilitarian framework).

[brimstoneSalad]

This probably won't be useful, but:

That's not quite what I meant. Everyone is selfish, just like every lion will kill you for meat. It's just the way it is.

Not everybody is selfish like that. Not every lion will even kill you for meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

And even if that were true, which it is not:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

That doesn't make it right.

It depends on where we start.

No, it doesn't depend on where you start. You've made a huge illogical jump from one thing to another without substantiating it.
You've left out the middle. The starting point is irrelevant.

Why do we assume that minimizing harm in favor of society is good?

We don't, that's just the basis of the thought experiment. Like I said, you can make other assumption there too, but then the evaluation changes. The logic, however, doesn't change.

I'm not society and society is not an individual.

You are, actually. A part of it. And society is individuals -- many of them.

But in the thought experiment, we're talking about the death of five people vs one. Five individuals, who each very much don't want to do.

For that, I'm not willing to sacrificing my own life, and I don't expect anyone else to do that either.

Would you kill five other people to save your own life? Why do you consider this moral?

Do you consider it Immoral to sacrifice your life to save others? Would you condemn somebody who sacrificed his or her own life to save a million people as evil?

Yes, I see now that you are consistent. It's just that I didn't really think you would want to sacrifice innocents just to minimize harm to group/society, just like I didn't really think people believed what they read in the bible when I was younger.

Now you're twisting words, and it seems deliberate.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

It's a common attack on consequentialism, to say "consequentialism is wrong because it's advocates are monsters because such and such".

I don't want to sacrifice anybody, it's about making the best of a bad situation (or the lead bad of a bad situation).

If somebody holds a gun to your head, and says "eat these feces or die", and you eat the feces, should I say you really really wanted to eat that fecal matter?

Come on. That's bullshit. Maybe even literally, depending on where the feces came from.

Or, do you really want to sacrifice five innocent lives for some nebulous and unsubstantiated social good?

And yours really is nebulous. It's all based on unproven speculation about the "maybe" effects of this kind of thinking. You can't prove it, you can't even provide evidence for it. At all.

Whereas in the other case, it's a fact that five individual people will die, instead of the lesser harm to one individual. Society has nothing to do with it. These are individuals suffering for your action or inaction.

And even in this thought experiment What I mean by not being consistent, is what you're advocating is more of an exception, like you want to make it work no matter what.

You're trying to say it seems ad hoc. It's not.

Actually, I do not expect others to kill people for me or my family to be saved if it's an accident, and I don't want/think anyone should expect that of others.

I didn't say expect, I said want.

Do you want your family to drown to death, so that one fat man can live?
Is that what you want?

This has nothing to do with expecting anything.

I do not have a problem with revenge. Those who breaks rules, should be punished.

Mindless revenge like you speak of is evil and irrational. Why do you consider this good?
Why do you think people should be punished?

You're inventing your moral system arbitrarily based on feeling, not based on reason. What you're doing is ad hoc. You can't substantiate or justify any of this. That's a big problem.

When people make up their moral systems as they go, deciding whatever is good is what they like, and what's bad is what they don't like, instead of using reason, they can justify anything they want.

Want to torture animals? Want to have sex with children? Want to kill all of the Jews?
No problem, just make up a random moral system that allows that, or calls it good.

This is the problem with what you're doing.
If there's no reason behind it, then it's just making stuff up -- and anybody making stuff up is using just as valid reasoning (none) in doing so as anybody else.

YOU aren't trying to use it to justify many bad things (aside from this revenge thing, which is wicked and you need to re-evaluate), but others do, and you can't effectively criticize their arbitrary moral systems if you uphold one yourself.

I think the consequences of people adopting a mentality where it is fine to kill innocents to save others is more problematic. I guess the issue is life vs quality of life. The mindset will lead to bullying, racism and maybe even murder.

Nobody said it's "fine" to kill anybody.

If life gives you lemons, maybe you can make lemonade. But when it gives you shit, there's not much you can do about it.
Consequentialism tries to do the least bad thing in a bad situation.
Nobody's celebrating these outcomes.

And no, it's not life vs. quality of life. The mindset does not lead to bullying, racism, or murder -- that's absurd.
Revenge mindset, however, leads to all of those -- and that's something you happily endorse.

What consequentialism leads to is open mindedly considering all of the options, and choosing the least bad one for bad situations.

We don't have that mentality in common situations, because we don't allow that line of thinking in common situations...

No, we don't because it's not necessary or useful in those situations.

I think if people have a quest for personal purity, the general attitudes will converge such that it will benefit most individual.

That's not how it's turned out. Collateral damage, the war on drugs, overcrowded prisons. Things aren't working out very well for idealism.
You're not living in reality with these projections. This is how those in charge of society have been mismanaging things since the middle ages.

There is no blood on my hands, no maliciousness. Accidents will happen.

You can tell yourself that, it doesn't make it true. When you let people die who you could have easily saved, that blood is on your hands.
Action and inaction aren't as distinct and different as you assume them to be.

You think that because you equate not saving with murder. I am not against fighting injustice.

Of course you are, in practice. You can't fight injustice with idealism. Those you fight will use your weakness against you, and hide where you won't reach them. Because you close yourself off to practical methods like a cartoon superhero "that would make us like them!", you become impotent.

We won't interrogate somebody, because that would be wrong, but we'll kill hundreds of innocents by accident while clumsily trying to kill terrorists and that's OK.
Or, we just sit on our thumbs and wait for the terrorists to politely turn themselves in.

You'll either do nothing, or you'll do more harm trying to do the right thing in a clumsy manner because you're avoiding effective solutions.

If you try to fight injustice like that, you'll do worse than failing; you'll harm others in the process.

People won't lift a finger if they are confused, but if it is clear that someone is doing something wrong/evil, I don't see why they wouldn't fight against it.

Because, in the real world, they can't. Your own arbitrary rules prevent you from following through with what needs to be done.
It's a serious problem.

But they are useful when they do work, and I think the golden rules is one of them.

I agree, the golden rule is great. Consequentialism based on the golden rule is what I follow.
But you aren't following it, when you do unto those drowning by letting them drown.

You can't always please everybody. Sometimes people's wills are opposed in emergency situations.
You can do unto five people as they would like to be done unto (be saved) while doing unto one as he wouldn't (pushing him over), or you can do unto one person as he would like (being left alone), and do unto five as they wouldn't (being left alone to drown).

It's not that complicated.

When things get too complicated and there's too much to think about, people tend to "shut down" and nothing gets done.

Deontology gets even less done, because you can't avoid conflict and contradictions in realistic situations, and there is no means by which to resolve it. It forces you into inaction in virtually ALL situations, and not just the tricky ones.

The thought experiment presented wasn't tricky. Five lives or one. But even if you do suffer analysis paralysis, you can do no worse than deontology, which wouldn't be able to act anyway.
This is not an argument against consequentialism, it's in favor of it.

[Lightningman_42]

I think I've improved my understanding so far of utilitarian ethics, and its possible flaws. I'll try to demonstrate below.

I disagree with the idea that, if I benefit ever so slightly more by harming you than you suffer from being harmed, that it is my moral prerogative to harm you.

I agree with that.

I see no problem with this. If the two of us are stranded in the desert, and you have five liters of water and I only have one liter, I have no moral problem with stealing one liter from you...

Let's say that you and brimstoneSalad each need 3 liters of water in order to survive long enough to escape the desert and reach civilisation. However, brimstoneSalad is being selfish and desires to keep his/her 5 liters, in this case the best moral option for you to make is to steal 2 liters from brimstoneSalad. The theft is justified in this scenario because it really does maximize benefit and minimize harm as much as possible.

When you don't have to do so in order to survive, is it OK to take something from another, harming them, because you will superficially enjoy it more than it will cause them pain?

Let's say that you have your 5 liters of water and Jebus has one liter. Each of you needs three liters of water to escape from the dessert, but neither of you realize this yet. You both think you can get by with two each. As a matter of pure pleasure, Jebus enjoys drinking water far more than you do, so goes ahead and steals 3 liters from you and now has 4. You only have 2. This causes you some displeasure but you let Jebus get away with it, because you know that he enjoys water so much that his pleasure exceeds your displeasure. You think that you'll survive because you still have 2 liters, but you don't because you need 3. You die; Jebus lives.

In this second example I tried to show a possible flaw in utilitarian ethics:
It's wrong to believe that any action that is harmful to another can be justified so long as your benefit exceeds their harm. It's shortsighted. Following utilitarian ethics in the dessert, you allowed Jebus to steal from you because his benefit seemed to exceed your harm. However this was problematic because you and Jebus did not actually pursue the course of actions that would have maximized benefit and minimized harm (both of you surviving, rather than one dying and the other surviving).

This is the Utility monster, and carnist utilitarians seem to like to argue that said utility monster is valid, and that humans are the utility monster -- having a moral right to cause suffering and death to lower life forms, because we will derive more enjoyment from their corpses than they suffer in dying. Although, they phrase it more florally.

Now let's examine utilitarian ethics in the context of carnists trying to justify tormenting and killing animals. Even if it really is true that we will derive more enjoyment from animals' corpses than they suffer in dying, such a rationalization is still flawed because it's shortsighted. As carnists we might derive a great deal of pleasure from the corpses and bodily secretions of animals, but we have the ability to git rid of that desire entirely by becoming vegan. The victimized animals, however, do not have the ability to stop desiring continued life and avoidance of pain. Therefore, according to utilitarian ethics, it is justifiable to kill animals if our enjoyment exceeds their harm. However, if carnists become vegan, then (as I explained earlier) this is actually the best way to maximize benefit and minimize harm.

brimstoneSalad, what do you think of this so far? I'm trying to better understand the flaws of utilitarianism, but I'm not sure if my explanation above properly demonstrates such an understanding...

[Jebus]

I'm trying to better understand the flaws of utilitarianism, but I'm not sure if my explanation above properly demonstrates such an understanding...

Just remember that the acting agent can only act according to the best of his knowledge. Hence, unforeseen circumstances do not factor into the act in question.

[brimstoneSalad]

Just remember that the acting agent can only act according to the best of his knowledge. Hence, unforeseen circumstances do not factor into the act in question.

Correct. Unforeseen consequences are a problem of all consequential systems; it's not a unique problem to Utilitarianism. Which is why all consequentialism relies on true an accurate knowledge, and reasonable/objective evaluation to succeed.

As carnists we might derive a great deal of pleasure from the corpses and bodily secretions of animals, but we have the ability to git rid of that desire entirely by becoming vegan.

This is correct, but it's not forbidden by Utilitarianism.
This is also an important point of philosophy in Buddhism (non-attachment) and Epicureanism, which you may want to study (these are not necessarily Utilitarian).
However, that only says it's not the most moral thing to do -- it's still considered moral (just the lesser of two good options).

My problem with Utilitarianism specifically is limited to the fact that it is considered a moral prerogative to harm another to help oneself, if the harm is ever so slightly less than the help. That if you do NOT do this, you are doing wrong.
This allows all kinds of parasitic activities as moral. And self-sacrifice to help others is condemned.

Helping yourself is a given in systems of amorality. It's unnecessary and not useful to factor it into morality.

As mentioned by Utilitarians, in practical applications this usually evens out, because others will usually vastly outnumber the self. With the exception of extreme cases, as the Utility monster, which ends up absorbing all resources at the expense of others.
Can the Utility monster change? Maybe. But it's still being moral if it doesn't (just not optimally so), and depending on the metrics of that change (if it only stops receiving Utility, rather than starts receiving the same Utility from something else) it may not even be desirable for it to change.

[zeello]

I have only now heard of deontology but I don't really see the problem with it.

I view morality in terms what's realistic, and realistically animal exploitation will rarely if ever be humane, so I think the deontological viewpoint is accurate. That is to say, once you permit animal exploitation even a little it will all go to hell from there, despite the best of intentions. And we've seen where that ultimately leads.

The whole "reason behind doing something" logic actually resonates with me. Moral deeds done out of immoral reasoning are arguably not that good and potentially dangerous. See also conflict of interest.

Oh, and I totally agree with the notion that improving welfare of exploited animals is harmful since its reinforces non vegan, non activist viewpoints and rewards non vegan, non activists for doing absolutely nothing. (and in fact, for partaking in the abuse of those animals to begin with) In effect it prolongs the exploitation of animals and we all know the improvements made are going to be petty and short lived anyway.

In the end though a deontological vegan is still a vegan. Even if it was irrational I don't see the harm in being a little irrationally moral here and there. I wonder if all morality can be argued as being dogmatic on dome level. You could define morality as reducing of suffering, but even then its on you to explain why suffering is bad in the first place or why I should even care if it's someone else that is suffering. But we should probably keep that a dirty secret between ourselves if we want to promote veganism. For most people its easy to intuit why something is bad without a technical explanation.

@VeganAtheist: Rather than policing every source listed on the website to make sure you agree with 100% of what they say, you should just list them all and simply add a disclaimer to the top of the page stating that their views may not be shared with your own and that the links are offered simply as a resource.

Edit: Man I sure hope I posted this in the correct thread.

[brimstoneSalad]

Edit: Man I sure hope I posted this in the correct thread.

You didn't, TVA's comments weren't in that thread, but don't worry, it is now.

You could check my last reply in the other thread: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... t=10#p8824 (which is kind of derailed, both of those posts might have been better here)

I'm sorry I don't have time to answer you more fully here. Somebody else will probably be along to do it. Maybe EquALLity?

[EquALLity]

I'm sorry I don't have time to answer you more fully here. Somebody else will probably be along to do it. Maybe EquALLity?

Alright!

I have only now heard of deontology but I don't really see the problem with it

I think this quote by brimstone shows what is wrong with it:

Why is it wrong to do X to Y? Because Y has inalienable rights to not have X done to it.
Why does it have such rights? Because it's wrong to violate those rights.
Why? Because they're rights!

Deontology, from what I know, is a form of morality in which things are inherently wrong.

If a deontologist believed it was immoral to steal, it would always be immoral to do this, even if you needed to steal medicine from a billionaire to survive.

I view morality in terms what's realistic, and realistically animal exploitation will rarely if ever be humane, so I think the deontological viewpoint is accurate.

You can't just accept a flawed moral system completely, because in practice, in this situation, it usually ends up happening to lead to something ethical. What about all the situations where deontology would lead to something unethical? Also, it's flawed.

That is to say, once you permit animal exploitation even a little it will all go to hell from there, despite the best of intentions. And we've seen where that ultimately leads.

Are you saying that we should never use animals for our gain, because thus far, it has usually resulted in bad things?

I doubt you think that it would be wrong to use a cow's milk to feed starving people, but that's what deontology would promote, because its stance is that things are wrong regardless of context.

And what if we could create a system where we used cows' milk, but treated the cows humanely? Would you be against that, just because up until now, animal use has led to bad things?

The whole "reason behind doing something" logic actually resonates with me. Moral deeds done out of immoral reasoning are arguably not that good and potentially dangerous. See also conflict of interest.

By this logic, if I save someone who wants to be saved, and nothing bad comes out of it, but I do it because I think the person wants to die, it's immoral. And therefore, I shouldn't have done it.

Oh, and I totally agree with the notion that improving welfare of exploited animals is harmful since its reinforces non vegan, non activist viewpoints and rewards non vegan, non activists for doing absolutely nothing. (and in fact, for partaking in the abuse of those animals to begin with) In effect it prolongs the exploitation of animals and we all know the improvements made are going to be petty and short lived anyway.

How does it reinforce non-vegan viewpoints? By helping animals, but not completely liberating them, we are advocating for non-veganism?
Rewards them for doing nothing? They'd be causing less suffering towards individual animals.
How do you know the improvements are going to be short lived?

I don't know how it would all work out. Would it make factory farming more humane, but last longer, and end up causing more suffering in the long run? I'm not sure.

In the end though a deontological vegan is still a vegan.

That doesn't take away from that they're adhering to, and maybe promoting, a flawed moral system.

Even if it was irrational I don't see the harm in being a little irrationally moral here and there.

They're believing in a bad system that can easily be used to justify harm, and are possibly spreading it. The system might even put people off from going vegan.

"Crazy vegans! They think it's inherently wrong to milk a cow! They're so extreme."

You could define morality as reducing of suffering, but even then its on you to explain why suffering is bad in the first place or why I should even care if it's someone else that is suffering.

I struggle with this.

But we should probably keep that a dirty secret between ourselves if we want to promote veganism. But we should probably keep that a dirty secret between ourselves if we want to promote veganism. For most people its easy to intuit why something is bad without a technical explanation.

Mhm.

[zeello]

I'm not saying you mustn't steal if it will save a life, however, even as you steal its important to understand that stealing is wrong. (and if possible why) but whether deontological or not, a vegan system of morality has respect for the animal which non vegans do not, so I welcome the viewpoint.

One reason why I suspect Francione might be taking the deontological approach, is that anything less could allow others to justify animal testing. (or for that matter human testing) But that's just a guess.

A system of humane cow milk is very unlikely since cows must be stationary.
I would consider it only for people with special conditions in which they need the milk to live (assuming such conditions even exist). So in other words for medical purposes only in which there is no alternative. In that sense I suppose I am not a deontologist.

If you wanted to kill someone, any action you take toward this goal is wrong, even if it results in accidentally saving his life somehow, since you did not know that would happen.
If you commit a selfish act, any incidental benefit to come out of this action is just an excuse.

Anima welfare reinforces non vegan viewpoints since it reinforces blind trust in the corporations, that they will take care of them.
Hey non vegan friend, check out this footage of animals being mistreated.
"That's terrible! Someone should do something!"
Its okay, we made a petition and they promised to start phasing out such cruel methods from now on.
"Oh, everything's hunky dory then!" *continues to slurp on ribs*
"(gee I wonder why he showed me the footage at all then, seeing as it did not matter)"

For the rest of their lives when they hear of animal cruelty they will think it is temporary. It reinforces the idea that the system is designed to stamp out problems like this when in fact it's designed to maximize animal suffering.

Rather than a call to action, animal welfare victories are a call to inaction.

Christianity is a vastly more flawed moral system than deontology sounds to me.

Deontology might be good in one way, if people understand that not every vegan has the exact same moral system, then it is a sign that veganism is much bigger than any one system and also that veganism is not a cult. Varied moral systems among vegans makes veganism normal and vast, just how non vegans don't all believe the same thing, and only share one thing in common: the fact that they buy animal product.

"Crazy vegans" what other vegans think is a flawed reason not to go vegan. Even so, PETA is probably a bigger issue rather than deontology which most people probably never heard of, and the solution to PETA is simply to have more vegans with a wide variety of viewpoints and to have other animal rights groups which we do.

Thanks moving my post before. I had many tabs open on my tablet and got confused.

Anyway that's my 2 cents.