Philosophical Vegan Forum

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Their free will is arguably severely limited however.

The concept of free will is fallacious in the first place.
There's not free will - one does not have complete control over what he's going to decide to do.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:Why would you take into consideration Christian morality, and use it as an example of a valid moral system?

Are you not abstaining from meat because it is morally wrong to eat sentient beings? Most people do not think it is morally wrong so it's a hard case for you to argue it's morally wrong.

You've not answered my question, and have said something completely unrelated.
And you're jumping on the bandwagon logical fallacy again https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:Why would you care about what most people do/think?

Then there is literally no reason to care what vegans think, or?

What? Vegans are not most people.
What I meant is: don't appeal to popularity. Use rationality and logic, don't accept something as valid just because most people think so.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:Human babies are not self-aware, do you not give any moral value to them?

I think it's easier if we just talking about beings that have reached maturity, don't you think?

Why only talk about beings that have reached maturity? Human babies exist, and they can be put into moral situations/examples. What value do you give to a non-self-aware human baby?
You've dodged the question.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:Dogs/cats and other pets are not self-aware, do you not give any moral value to them?

No, of course not.

So, kicking a rock and kicking a dog wouldn't make any difference for you?
Killing a carrot and killing a cat would be the exact same thing, from a moral point of view?
Why do you disregard their ability to feel/want?

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:Sentience is what matters. It's an axiom.

Not according to me (and most of the population). It seems like and arbitrary limit.

Banwagon again. You keep committing the same logical fallacy.
Also, how do you know that most people don't care about sentience?
Because they obviously do. They don't treat animals and rocks in the same way. They agree that animals have moral value.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:That's called hedonistic pleasure. Do you think it's OK to seek pleasure, harming others so much?

As long as you don't harm humans (or perhaps self aware beings), I do think it is OK.

Why do you think self-awareness matters so much when giving a being moral value?
Self-awareness doesn't give you the ability to feel and desire.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:That doesn't explain what self-awareness is, that only tells how it's recognizable.

Would it not be enough to recognize it to assume an animal unfit for human consumption for reasons of being self aware.

The question was how you define self-awareness.

Okay so there is a lot to respond to so I'll try to congest the main points I feel needs addressing or answers.
Some answers/question seemed to be repeated as well. But I'll try my best.

Blind people can't pass the mirror test. So, we should eat them, right?

No, of course not. It was obviously an example of one possible way to determine self awareness in applicable beings.

The mirror test is not an adequate test of self-awareness. You would know if you had actually studied it. There are numerous tests, none of them very good.
The term "self" itself is something of a nebulous metaphysical construct on its own.
But in terms of the most reasonable definition, ALL sentient beings are inherently self-aware to the extent they are sentient, because they have to be in order to respond properly to the environment. A sense of selfish want is inherent to a sense of self -- you don't have one without the other. You can't be selfish without a sense of self, and selfishness is the only thing that has been proved.

Plants lack a sense of self, because they are not sentient. They have no wants. There are things that are beneficial to their grown, but they do not want to grow; they just do it.

Anything that demonstrates associative learning has a sense of self-awareness. Simple.
Associative learning => Wants => Sense of self.
Associative learning => Wants => Sentience.

But you are incorrect in your definition.
You can be aware of yourself, but it's the realization that you are which makes you self aware.
What you refer to is mere consciousness, and yes, animals can indeed be concious.

Associative learning/operant conditioning isn't truly learning.
Does a person that is rewarded for answering "25" to the question "What is 5 times 5?" know multiplication if he answer it enough times?
One will probably need to be metacognicient to truly learn.

Pedophilia gives pedophiles joy, doesn't it? Do you agree that practice should be encouraged?

Of course I don't want to encourage something that can harm someone, especially not a child.
Some jurisdictions even make illustrations of pedophilia illegal, which I think is wrong since it would hurt no one.

I'd really like to get a sense of whether you have any notion of moral values at all.

My morals could be defined as objectivism/ethical egoism/ultilitarianism if you are interested.

However, neither eating meat, nor pedophilia, give people joy in themselves.
Eating delicious food, and having sex give people joy.

This feels like it could ban sex between same-sex couples.
Homosexuality and pedophilia is obviously the same void of any moral values. And the latter is only morally wrong because the child is too undeveloped to fathom the consequences of its actions.

Take some time to think about that. If you doubt that there are suitably delicious vegetarian foods and insist that your life would be a gloomy existence without animal suffering, you're just ignorant. Go to some vegan restaurants, buy some mock-meats, learn to cook. Any half-competent chef can make delicious vegan food.

Since I don't mind the slaughter of animals, I don't really have any reason to abstain from it. In the future all our meat might be lab-grown and I wouldn't have any objection switching to that.
Vegetarian alternatives would, for me, need to meet the following criteria:
Be as enjoyable as meat
Be as available as meat
Be as nutrient as meat

A child isn't a moral agent, does a child have any moral value?

It's true, they are not. And that's why abortion is legal.
If they were moral agents it would be morally wrong to allow abortion.
Today in most places (at least in the western world I don't really have any numbers for world statistics) abortion is legal up to a certain point, because we do understand that it will eventually develop into a moral agent.
So it's the ability to become moral agents that gives us intrinsic moral value.

If morality is about anything -- if it is to have any meaning at all -- it is about extending concern beyond your own selfish interests, and giving consideration to the interests of other beings as well. It is about altruism, and it is about the golden rule.

Altruism is silly. It essentially demands people to live their life for other people.

No, because without sentience, there's no such thing as "negative" or "positive" stimuli. Plants do not perceive pain, because they are not sentient.

Pain is just a chemical response, there is absolutely no need to be able to be concious to "feel" pain.

I can't parse what you just said.

Vegetarians:
Plants are not sentient so they are OK to eat, but animals are sentient so it is not OK to eat.
Meat eaters:
Animals are not self aware so they are OK to eat, but some animals are and they are not OK to eat.

It's the same. You think it's silly to argue about plants, I think it's silly to argue about animals.

"My supposed fallacy" - appeal to popularity

I'm not saying eating meat is right because most people do it. Hopefull I have explained why I think it's right above.
But since the most people have moral values that allows them to eat meat, it is hard to appeal to their moral value that is would be wrong to eat it.

So, kicking a rock and kicking a dog wouldn't make any difference for you?
Killing a carrot and killing a cat would be the exact same thing, from a moral point of view?

If it's your rock and your cat I don't morally object to it. I might feel that it's unnecessary and/or needless

Why do you disregard their ability to feel/want?

I don't really see how it is beneficial to humanity.
The animals we slaughter are born in captivity, they are literally made to be eaten.
In fact, most animals that are slaughtered have us to thank for their lives. I suppose you could argue their lives are miserable, especially those of factory farm animals, but living is probably better than not living at all.
What if we bioengineered animals that could not perceive pain or wants? Would these be OK to eat?

HeightenedIntellect wrote:My morals could be defined as objectivism/ethical egoism/ultilitarianism if you are interested.

That makes ALL the difference, because it speaks to your inherent assumptions.
I suspected as much (I was at least 90% sure).

In the past, I have found Randroids devoid of any capacity for rationality. I could hope you would be different, although I won't expect it.
You're in a less favorable position compared to a young Earth creationist in this regard (who I have found more open to logic than 'objectivists').

Point 1:

As with arguing with a Christian, I apparently need to teach you what your own beliefs mean. I have no interest in doing this, so you're going to have to do some outside reading if you want to understand this because I'm going to go fast.

Utilitarianism is not Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Please refrain from conflating the two; they are philosophically incompatible.
If you attempt to mix these up, you will be assumed to be trolling.

Objectivism is "rights based", Utilitarianism is consequentialist.
It speaks to the extreme ignorance you have of your own stated beliefs that you don't already understand this distinction.

Under Objectivism, society should never demand anything from an individual for the greater good of the many. It's entirely about autonomy, and individual rights. Utilitarianism is precisely the opposite on those grounds, and rejects the notion of any supreme individual right (this is actually a common criticism of Utilitarianism, although it is a poor criticism which is easily addressed).

Objectivism is a convergent derivation of Kant's deontology (Rand rejected and loathed Kant, but you can read on the subject to understand what I mean).

Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" is philosophically and morally bankrupt. It's internally inconsistent, and there is in no sense any moral or rational value to it.

Utilitarianism has its flaws, but it is at least in the right ballpark, and it isn't overtly self-contradictory.

The fact that some interpretations of Utilitarianism may have similar outcomes to Rand's Objectivism is merely coincidental, and does not reflect a similar underlying philosophy.
Bats and Butterflies both have wings, Sharks and Dolphins both swim; superficial similarity does not reflect how related something is to another.

Are you a Randroid, or are you a Utilitarian?
You can not be both, they contradict each other.

If you are a Utilitarian, and not a Randroid, then you may yet be reasonable; we can have a serious and rational discussion, but you will need to abandon a large number of Ayn Rand's assumptions.
If you are a Randroid: Are you open to rejecting your objectivist beliefs when I demonstrate them wrong, or are they an absolute dogma for you? How long have you held these beliefs? Are you in any social groups that are reinforcing this delusion for you?
If these are your dogmas, in my experience there's nothing I can do to change your mind at this point. Political dogmas can be worse than religious ones. I'd sooner move the Pope to atheism.


Point 2:

Politics do not equal ethics/morality, and ethics/morality do not equal politics. Don't be an idiot.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Altruism is silly. It essentially demands people to live their life for other people.

Altruism "demands" no such thing. It is merely a definition of morality.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Live your life however the fuck you want.

To the extent you were selfish, you were an amoral person.
To the extent you were more or less altruistic and did more good in the world, you were a moral person.
To the extent you were sadistic or delusional and harmed others for irrational reasons, you were an immoral person.

Nobody is perfect, in any of those regards. We all do lots of immoral, amoral, and moral things. The balance of our actions tells us a bit about what kind of person we are (or were).

Understand clearly: ALTRUISM is a definition. It is a premise which is compatible with the word "morality". It is not some ideological socio-political mandate.

Concern for yourself -- selfishness -- is simply a default behavior of all minds. It's not some extra special behavior to be congratulated and given a gold star. This is amoral by nature.

Ayn Rand attempted to mix up politics and ethics, don't assume that this is accurate, or that normal and sane people use the words this way or think along those absolutist and ideological lines.
Just because you've fallen into this personality cult that doesn't understand the difference between political ideology and ethics, doesn't mean everybody else thinks like you do.

You want to pretend that they're the same thing? Whatever.
Don't impose your presumptions upon me, or the world in general.

Neither altruism, not Utilitarianism, are inherently political ideologies. They can inform politics, just as any belief system can, but they are not inherently tied to it. Objectivism is -- that's the only one here that makes demands, because it is inherently a political system as well as making claims to absolute moral authority. To that end, it has the most in common with fundamentalist Islam.

If you attempt to assert that legitimate non-political systems of morality are "demanding" anything, you will be considered to be trolling.
That's an ignorance that should end here and now.

Point 3:

Regarding points 1 and 2, I'm only asking you to be honest enough here to actually have a discussion. If you had any idea how insulting your ignorance and claims are, you might scoff at yourself.

If you do insist on being a Randroid, do not misrepresent others' beliefs. And be at least passingly informed on your own.

To those same ends of honesty, understand also that any discussions that you attempt to have predicated on your belief in Ayn Rand's Objectivism are not honestly issues of morality and philosophy, but also highly political in nature.

As I said before, to normal people, your political 'morality' is Blue and Orange Morality:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... geMorality

'Objectivism' is so fundamentally different from Utilitarianism, Altriusm, or any other form of Consequentialism. It's even radically different compared to other Deontological ethics.

It's like you just arrived from Mars, and to you, Green is Red, and now you want to have a discussion about what color the grass is without disclosing that, and you will insist that YOUR definition of Red is the correct one, and everybody else is wrong.

Do you at least understand how that's a problem?

You CAN NOT simply jump past all of your deviant assumptions, so radically different from normal senses of morality, and claim that your definitions are right, or try to hide them and argue past other people.

You want to argue your case for Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Fine. Make a thread about that.

Don't hide all of these bizarre assumptions and try to engage with people when you fundamentally disagree on the very concept of morality itself.

As such, my final warning:

If you attempt to engage with others in discussion on ethics or morality, you need to either accept their assumptions on word definitions, and general philosophy, at least provisionally (for the sake of argument),
Or otherwise, clearly disclaim that you are an Ayn Rand Objectivist, and that the discussion (for the sake of argument) should occur within such an 'Objectivist' context.

Without this, discussion is impossible, and you will be assumed to be trolling. Like a Christian who demands that all atheists accept his premise that the bible is literally perfect and infallible -- you can't have a discussion like that.


I expect you to address each of these points, and clarify how you want to proceed (or if you really just want to discuss 'objectivism' to start another thread).

Although I don't think this conversation will go anywhere, for posterity, I'm going to go ahead and answer these questions. But, I'm not going to do so in the context of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (which would be like doing it in the context of literal Biblical infallibility, 'objectivism' is self contradictory, like the Bible). I will do so in two ways:

1. In Red, I will answer the way I would answer in the context of true, honest, egoism. To a person who is trying to maximize his or her self-interest, and doesn't pretend that selfishness is some special kind of morality but recognizes it for what it is.

2. In Blue, I will answer in the context of Utilitarianism, in a way a rational person basing his or her world views on some form of Utilitarian ethics would benefit. I will explore several, slightly different frameworks.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: No, of course not. It was obviously an example of one possible way to determine self awareness in applicable beings.

You are not blind now, nor disabled in any way, so you have no reason to show compassion to disabled or consider them worthy of moral consideration, particularly since they are less able to harm you.
However, you may become blind or disabled in the future. So, if a person was not born blind or disabled (and such, entered into the social contract and acquired its protection while able), they should retain that protection. But if born blind or disabled, you should advocate their disenfranchisement and elimination, to free more resources for yourself unless they can prove themselves useful, in which case they should be enslaved and used until expended.
(It's a dick move, but it's logically consistent)

Utilitarianism is 'the greatest good for the greatest number'
The question is in deciding, primarily, who count among that number.
The only non-arbitrary standard for Utilitarian consideration is sentience, because it is the lowest possible denominator at which a being has interests and wants of any kind. Below that, there are no interests or wants.
It's perfectly reasonable to consider a being to have value in proportion to its degree of sentience. E.g. Insects higher than worms, mice higher than insects, pigs higher than mice, humans higher than pigs.
But drawing any arbitrary line along that continuum and saying "these count, and these don't" is irrational.

If you choose a different standard than sentience to decide which beings are worthy of consideration, you are making a random, arbitrary choice. You need to substantiate why that standard would have anything to do with wants, needs, or capacity to realize them.
It is equally valid to use the mirror test, or any other test. You could use the "can you say the alphabet backward" test. Just as valid.
I could use the "are you vegan" test. Just as valid. And then you're out of luck.
We could fight and kill each other over which arbitrary standard to use, nobody better able to substantiate that standard than anybody else. OR we could just default to the lowest possible standard that still makes the question meaningful: sentience.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:But you are incorrect in your definition.
You can be aware of yourself, but it's the realization that you are which makes you self aware.
What you refer to is mere consciousness, and yes, animals can indeed be concious.

It's all irrelevant. A person could be self-aware, or not self-aware, or genius, or idiot. The only question that matters is:
"Can they hurt me, and do I need to agree not to hurt them in order to convince them not to hurt me back"
This is the social contract. I won't kill you if you don't kill me. But if you don't have the power to kill me to begin with, there's no rational reason I should agree not to kill you. Unless I can enslave you, and that's more productive. But you have no right to life unless I give it to you, because it benefits me, and there's no reason for me to give you the right to live unless I get something in return -- namely, that you guarantee the same to me, having the power to kill me, and abstaining.

You're using all of these vague terms, but really, you're just cherry picking. You can't define them scientifically, and you can't even test for them. Even if you could, the choice to use "self-awareness"* as you've tried to define it (I would have to fix your definition to make it coherent) over anything else is arbitrary. It's just your random whim. I could use "over six feet tall" as my standard, and I would be just as right as you.
The only non-arbitrary standard is sentience, because it's the minimum possible standard that has any meaning.

Or actually, that's not entirely accurate. If you wanted, you could set the maximum possible standard that has any meaning. You'd be defining moral value as belonging only to some kind of god, which would make you a theist (this is basically what theists do).
Only the minimum, or the maximum, have any meaning. However, the maximum is imaginary. So, for atheists, only the minimum has any non-arbitrary value.

*In terms of cognitive science, though, it should be noted that if you attempt to define self-awareness in any way like this, it comes and goes. You are ONLY self aware in the moments you happen to be contemplating yourself. So, you would obtain temporary moral value, and then lose it.
If you used this standard, and I distracted you from your train of thought, if would be acceptable for me to kill you.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Associative learning/operant conditioning isn't truly learning.

"If Man evolved from Monkeys, why are there still Monkeys??!1" Scientific ignorance.
This is just you being an idiot. Your assertion is false, read a book. Or even that article I linked you to.
This applies within any framework of response.
Also: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Of course I don't want to encourage something that can harm someone, especially not a child.

You're a hypocrite, you shouldn't care about that at all, it doesn't affect you. As long as the child belongs to the pedophile, or was rightfully purchased from another it belongs to (and not your child, which is your property), you should support him or her in that right.
It would be fair to require that he kill the child after finished, or keep up certain standards for his prison, so that the child wouldn't grow up and escape with mental illness, and be a danger to you. You have to clean up after yourself and be responsible.

A child is equally sentient to higher animals, you should feel the same way about them.
Even if you go by your arbitrary standard of "self-aware", which is incoherent, and choose an arbitrary threshold, which is also wrong, the child is only as cognitively developed in any sense as higher animals, so you should feel the same way about them. You're being inconsistent otherwise. You either need to support the Pedophile in his or her right, or oppose the right to harm animals of comparable cognitive ability.
Although, all the better if you would actually be coherent and non-arbitrary in your standards while you're at it.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:This feels like it could ban sex between same-sex couples.

This is another case of you just being an idiot. There's nothing immoral about homosexuality by any rational standard. Homosexuality is identical to non-procreative heterosexual sex.
You apparently missed the point.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Since I don't mind the slaughter of animals, I don't really have any reason to abstain from it.

Excessive animal agriculture is contributing massively to global warming, which will very soon affect you personally. It's irrational to promote it. This is a case of your right to swing your fist ending where my face begins, but instead of a fist, you're flinging methane and CO2 into the atmosphere in record quantities, causing climate change, and harming me that way.
It also affects your health, but if you want to kill yourself that's your own business. But you shouldn't be entitled to public healthcare that others pay for if you're going to destroy yourself.

By any standard, the practice is harmful to others, to the environment, which hurts many humans. It will harm people in the First world soon, and is currently harming them in developing countries. No rational standard can discount the harm done to animals, but this goes far beyond that to harm done to humans as well.

Be as enjoyable as meat

They're about the same, particularly if you like spicy food.

Be as available as meat

They're not as available, but in order to make them more available, more people need to EAT them first. Only capitalism can solve this problem. The more people who consume them, the cheaper and more widely available they will be.
If you want them available, then start demanding them as a consumer.

Be as nutrient as meat

They're actually more healthy.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Today in most places (at least in the western world I don't really have any numbers for world statistics) abortion is legal up to a certain point, because we do understand that it will eventually develop into a moral agent.
So it's the ability to become moral agents that gives us intrinsic moral value.

That's completely absurd. Only its ability to threaten you NOW should convince you to give it the right to live. Anything else is not rational self interest. If something is not a threat to you, it has no means to negotiate. It should be enslaved or killed for use. Including children, unless they belong to another person who can threaten you, in which case they're personal property, and it's up to that person to decide what to do with them. A child should be able to be tortured and killed at any time, as long as it's not released into the wild after to cause trouble for you.

It's not the ability to become moral agents, it's the ability to want and have desires that grants consideration -- sentience. It's the only factor that's non-arbitrary. It's also not the potential to become sentient later, but sentience NOW. A potential being does not exist, and has no wants.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Pain is just a chemical response, there is absolutely no need to be able to be concious to "feel" pain.

Here's another case of you being just wrong. The nerve and chemical responses are distinct from the perception that is pain, although they can often be conflated.
Pain itself is experience.

See phantom and psychogenic pain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain#Phantom

Pain can also be created or relived by suggestion, and placebo effect, which is not inherently connected to the associated nerves firing.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: Vegetarians:
Plants are not sentient so they are OK to eat, but animals are sentient so it is not OK to eat.
Meat eaters:
Animals are not self aware so they are OK to eat, but some animals are and they are not OK to eat.

It's the same. You think it's silly to argue about plants, I think it's silly to argue about animals.

I don't think it's silly, those people are idiots. They are not making rational arguments, and neither are you.


The only thing that matters is if a thing can threaten you, thus forcing you to exchange your protection from yourself, for their protection from themselves.
"Poor and disabled people have no guns or influence so they can't threaten me, so they're OK to enslave and kill."
True. Although also morally irrelevant (why would anybody want to be moral? It just limits you!).


Your's is both incoherent, and arbitrary.
You might as well say:
"Black people have dark skin, so it's OK to enslave and kill them, but white people have light skin, so it's not OK to enslave and kill them."
Or:
"Redheads have malfunctioning melanin producing genes, so it's OK to kill them, but dark haired people have functioning genes, so it's not OK to kill them."

Do you understand the concept of arbitrary morality being useless?

Sentience is the only non-arbitrary qualifier to be suggested.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: But since the most people have moral values that allows them to eat meat, it is hard to appeal to their moral value that is would be wrong to eat it.

It's also so hard to convince them to accept slavery and killing of humans who can't fight back! What a bummer.

Most people do not have moral values that allow them to eat meat, most people are simply internally contradictory. When you point out their conflicting values and hypocrisy, they become very uncomfortable, and tend to offer up bad rationalizations like you do, or draw arbitrary lines in the sand, ad hoc, around whatever they do and do not consider acceptable to kill and eat, whether that's dogs and cats, or human children.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: If it's your rock and your cat I don't morally object to it. I might feel that it's unnecessary and/or needless

You should agree that if it's your child or your slave, you can also do whatever you want to it.

By any rational standard, cats have more moral value than rocks. Humans may be more important, but equating the two is completely irrational.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: I don't really see how it is beneficial to humanity.
The animals we slaughter are born in captivity, they are literally made to be eaten.
In fact, most animals that are slaughtered have us to thank for their lives. I suppose you could argue their lives are miserable, especially those of factory farm animals, but living is probably better than not living at all.

Same thing with children and slaves. If they're yours, and you give them a purpose you want, like sex slaves or food, that should be your right. Of course, as long as you're not producing pollution that affects others who you had to give rights to live in order to prevent them from doing the same to you.
Don't try to justify it. Caring about others is for the weak! If they can't hurt you, whether children, disabled, slaves, etc. then you shouldn't consider their feelings no matter what.

Humans aren't the only species with moral value.
What a being was born into isn't the right thing. Many people were born to be slaves, and that doesn't make it right.
We just have to look at the harm vs. the benefits to everybody, and in these cases, the harm is much greater in every regard.
Do you believe we should make more and more babies, more than we can ever take care of, and leave them to suffer in misery to maximize numbers, because any life, no matter how horrible, is better than no life? And create more and more misery for everybody else, due to strain on resources and the environment? Basically turning the world into an even more overpopulated shit hole, where there are tens or hundreds of billions who have next to nothing, and barely cling to a diseased and impoverished life, waiting for death?
If you don't, then you're being inconsistent.
If you do, you're an idiot.
It's crucial to Utilitarianism to at least have a life worth living. But in producing those lives, we also can't detract from the value of others' lives. Making more lives, and making everybody more miserable, is counter productive. The environment can not sustain this.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: What if we bioengineered animals that could not perceive pain or wants? Would these be OK to eat?

Only if they don't affect the environment, thus causing problems for you. Due to thermodynamics, they would still be inefficient, so it probably wouldn't be more useful.

It would be better, but there are still major issues of climate change, and effects on humans.

Looks like HeightenedIntellect checked out. Too bad as this was one of the most interesting/entertaining threads I've followed in a long time. Intellectual humiliation at its very best.

Jebus wrote:Looks like HeightenedIntellect checked out. Too bad as this was one of the most interesting/entertaining threads I've followed in a long time. Intellectual humiliation at its very best.

Looks like.

Randroids are low hanging fruit, like flat-Earthers.
Their [Randroids'] premises on "ethics" are so absurd and far from anything a reasonable person would take seriously, it's pretty much impossible for them to have these kinds of discussions, and as soon as anybody gets a glimpse of what they actually believe, they're self-defeating.

Here's a question: I was almost certain he was a Randroid from his second post. Should I have called him out on it earlier?
It might have saved some time. But then again, maybe the thread itself will be educational.

This thread is now about memes on Rand and 'Objectivism'

John Rogers wrote:There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

brimstoneSalad wrote: TLDR: In veganism, there are consequentialists, and deontologists. The deontologists are the ones ranting about rights, and the whole dogma. They are crazy people.

Isn't this a bit generalizing? On what ground do you label them as crazy? That dogma, and to be clear, I don't like dogmas, carries a weight that all animals should be free from slavery, including humans, what is crazy about people supporting that?
On the same note, consequentialism, gives firm ground for terms such as "humane killing", "humane raping" and all that bullcrap, as it is the lesser of two evils.


By the way, I think that heightenedintellect must have had stomach troubles, after tasting that sentient robot. Sometimes intellect can be lowered by such incidents. (of course, I don't advocate that harming of sentient beings of any kind is morally ok. So if I had to choose between slaughtering a sentient robot/sentient rock/sentient truck tyre or just eating a salad, I would always prefer the salad)

metalized wrote: Isn't this a bit generalizing? On what ground do you label them as crazy?

You might want to give this thread a read: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=7&t=785

Deontology is inherently dogmatic. The reason I find it crazy is because the dogma is asserted without being able to back it up with reason; instead, when those who advocate it attempt to support it, they do so with crazy (circular reasoning, supernatural suppositions, etc.).

metalized wrote: what is crazy about people supporting that?

Because it's an absolute claim, and it's not substantiated in any rational way. It's also non-functional in reality.

metalized wrote: On the same note, consequentialism, gives firm ground for terms such as "humane killing", "humane raping" and all that bullcrap, as it is the lesser of two evils.

Not exactly.

When you're between a rock and a hard place, it typically advocates the least of evils available (although there are a wide range of forms of consequentialism). And sometimes the least bad thing is still a shit sandwich.
Deontology, on the other hand, advocates doing absolutely nothing, and just watching while the world burns to the ground to avoid getting your hands dirty.

I see the point you take with deontology.
The thread did explain a lot, indeed.

So if I am for instance vegan because I believe it is wrong to harm animals, as I wouldn't want the same to happen to me, is different than
than being vegan because I feel sorry for the animals.

I am not a big fan of dogmas, or categories, and certainly not dogmas that are not backed up by some argument.

The problem here is that I agree with much of what I have read about the deontology; I agree, no arguments is as good as crap.

On the other hand consequences for the animals would not exist if that deontology was strong in people. If they were, let's say, "brainwashed" by that deontology, which also agrees to me.

Also regarding the social contract mentioned there, I think that the example lacks taking many factors into consideration. What if two of the other boys were terminal ill, should the fat boy still be thrown off the boat? Or what if the other boys were worthless scum? Or what if the fat boy, just had a weird decease that made him so fat, or if it was for instance his parent's fault that he/she is so?
Or, what if the fat boy would eventually grow up to be a brilliant scientist whose research and work save much more lives than those 4?

I know, too many "what ifs" there, but I think that the social contract is not signed by anyone, I certainly have not signed any such social contract, and it is open, I think, to change according to circumstances.

metalized wrote: So if I am for instance vegan because I believe it is wrong to harm animals, as I wouldn't want the same to happen to me, is different than
than being vegan because I feel sorry for the animals.

Well, one is a rational ethical reason, and the other is a more emotional reason. However, you can certainly have both reasons influence your overall motivation.

metalized wrote: The problem here is that I agree with much of what I have read about the deontology; I agree, no arguments is as good as crap.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you give me an example?

Deontology and consequentialism can have a lot of overlap in effect in certain hypothetical cases, where they differ most greatly is in justification, and practical application (deontology doesn't work practically).

metalized wrote: On the other hand consequences for the animals would not exist if that deontology was strong in people. If they were, let's say, "brainwashed" by that deontology, which also agrees to me.

I don't know what you mean.

If people have a certain rule they live by, and the consequences of that rule are good, and they consider that rule to be good because the consequences of living by it are good, then that's consequentialism and not deontology.
Consequentialism works very well with "rules of thumb".
Where it differs, is that those rules are not absolute, such as in extraordinary or unusual circumstances where the rules break down and obviously fail to provide good consequences.

For example, it's generally good not to lie. Not lying is a good rule of thumb, and 99.9% of the time that's going to give you good result.
But when the Nazis knock on your door and ask you where the Jews are hiding, you run into a dilemma. Should you lie and protect the lives of innocents? Or should you tell the truth?

A deontologist would demand that you tell the truth, because lying is always bad no matter what, no questions asked.
A consequentialist would call you an idiot for even asking the question, and say of course you should lie to save a life.

That is to show that probably 99.9% of the time, there can be a lot of overlap. But where deontology breaks down is where two moral prerogatives come into conflict... which actually happens more than you might think, and usually in the more important moral decisions you make in your life.

metalized wrote:Also regarding the social contract mentioned there, I think that the example lacks taking many factors into consideration. What if two of the other boys were terminal ill, should the fat boy still be thrown off the boat? Or what if the other boys were worthless scum? Or what if the fat boy, just had a weird decease that made him so fat, or if it was for instance his parent's fault that he/she is so?
Or, what if the fat boy would eventually grow up to be a brilliant scientist whose research and work save much more lives than those 4?

Those are all questions we would ask in the context of consequential ethics (the more information, the better). Often we have to make decisions based on inadequate information, which of course is not ideal, and raises the chance of horribly screwing up, which is why consequential ethics is inherently reliant on an ethical obligation to learn and explore.

As to your issue/question, I'm not sure I understand. Can you rephrase it?

The social contract is implicit, it doesn't need to be signed. Generally speaking, we inherit it. But in terms of a democratic society, we do contribute to it (or we can, if the system is working).