Philosophical Vegan Forum

It seems to me like it's not much use to argue against a self-proclaimed skeptic that is making ridiculous claims and pushing a political agenda, by pointing out specific issues on which he's wrong. He's simply not on the same page, rationally. You could try to tackle his fundamental flaws, but I doubt whether it will be effective. The only real reason I can think of for doing this letter is to let people see the failure of his thinking.

Volenta wrote:It seems to me like it's not much use to argue against a self-proclaimed skeptic that is making ridiculous claims and pushing a political agenda, by pointing out specific issues on which he's wrong. He's simply not on the same page, rationally. You could try to tackle his fundamental flaws, but I doubt whether it will be effective. The only real reason I can think of for doing this letter is to let people see the failure of his thinking.

I didn't (and don't) hold out a lot of hope for Dillahunty to be reasonable either.
He'll have the opportunity to be, but whether he takes it or not is up to him.

The way I would like to structure this:


Part 1: assume for the sake of argument, as close as possible, that his general notion of morality is valid.
Argue that, in that case, he should agree that the modern practice of meat eating is immoral due even only to its effects on humans.
Grant that, according to his world view, he is consistent in believing people should have the right to destroy their own health -- so health arguments are irrelevant.
BUT that if the effects of environmental damage and climate change are real (which he doubts), then there is a direct non-consensual negative effect upon other people (just like PUBLIC second hand smoke).

Part2: Demonstrate why climate change is true, and why it's a real problem.
Explain how science works, and the burden of proof. Focus on his prior denial of the negative health effects of second hand smoke, and WHY he was wrong to deny it at the time. Explain how the default assumption from a rational scientific world view is not what is absolutely proven, but what is consistent with the best supported theory.
Some people say "science hasn't proven that if you dump a hundred buckets of water on yourself that you'll be wet. One bucket doens't prove 100"
This is bullshit. Explain clearly why.
Go into creationism, and the idea of Macro vs. Micro evolution as another example, and the infinite number of "missing links" creationist demand.
Explain, briefly, the science behind climate change.
Prove it's hurting other humans.
Sum up that, because climate change is real and harms others, our current practices of animal agriculture are not consistent with his own ethical positions.
Explain that there might be exceptions from this in the case of more sustainable farming, and give examples. Also mention the notion of carbon credits, and explain how this allows the free market to solve the problem on its own (and would just make meat much more expensive).

Part3: Dismantle the underlying assumptions of speciesism, and the idea of the social contract as ethics (Randian 'objectivism').


Any thoughts?
I would handle parts one and two first, because if he doesn't like part 3, well, there are at least those two points that prove effect upon other human beings.

brimstoneSalad wrote:BUT that if the effects of environmental damage and climate change are real (which he doubts), then there is a direct non-consensual negative effect upon other people (just like PUBLIC second hand smoke).

I thought Randianism doesn't value the lives of others? Or does this violate the social contract?

And why do they randomly care about the social contract?

Anyway, I think the format is good.

UPDATE- Will they never violate the social contract then, even to save their own lives?

That sounds deontological, but they also base certain actions off of the consequences. So how do you decide how to classify it?

EquALLity wrote: I thought Randianism doesn't value the lives of others? Or does this violate the social contract?

They only care about one individual human harming another individual human against the latter's will.
They don't actually care about people dying by their own devices, or starving, etc. because those people could't fend for themselves. That would be "aesthetic".
However, I think Penn claims to care about that kind of thing, he might admit it's 'aesthetic'.

EquALLity wrote:And why do they randomly care about the social contract?

It's their dogma. Why do you expect them to have reasons for this? They decided that's the root of all good, and everything that claims to be morality beyond that is just personal preference.

EquALLity wrote: UPDATE- Will they never violate the social contract then, even to save their own lives?

That sounds deontological, but they also base certain actions off of the consequences. So how do you decide how to classify it?

Generally, correct. Unless somebody else has violated it first. You're supposed to sit there and starve if you couldn't fend for yourself, and never steal from somebody no matter what.
One important thing to understand is that it's inherently inconsistent. There aren't really any Randian Objectivists in the world for the same reason there aren't really any Biblical Literalists -- there are just people who think they are these things. Due to contradictions, is an impossible view to fully hold and uphold.

It's deontological because it's absolute, and it doesn't weigh anything (although determining what degree of violation is harmless and inevitable and what even is a violation might be weighed, that's also arbitrary, and they wouldn't be likely to weigh it in terms of number of violations... this is more complicated*). There is no case where one person is permitted to violate the sovereignty of another who has followed the social contract. Either you're in the social contract, and so absolutely protected, or you're out, and so have no moral value whatsoever.

Violating the sovereignty of one person to save a billion people is unacceptable.
Let's say one person has some medicine, a cure to a disease. He doesn't want to share it, and it belongs to him. A billion people are dying of this disease which could be easily cured. You can't take it from him, that would be wrong. It's their own damn faults for dying of this disease (unless that person created the disease to begin with and released it, which would be a violation and allow you to kill him and take all of his stuff, including the cure).

Get it?

To them, the only wrong is violation of sovereignty. But it's not consequential; e.g. you shouldn't act to violate one in order to save a billion.
To put it more clearly:
Let's say it's a terrorist releasing that disease. To them, it's better to allow (by inaction to prevent) a terrorist (who is out of the social contract) who you can't find (if they could find the terrorist they'd stop them directly) kill a billion people (violate a billion individuals' sovereignty), rather than violate one yourself by stealing from the medicine man to put an end to the terrorist's plot (it wasn't the medicine man's fault, you can't violate his sovereignty).

This way there's no confusing it being those billion people's fault (although you could say it still is, because they failed to make their own medicine ). There is obviously an agent acting here. What an 'objectivist' would say is, that's horrible, but they would put all of the blame on the terrorist, and the medicine man hoarding his medicine is blameless (it's his own business), and the people who refused to steal his medicine to save a billion people are also blameless.

They also arbitrarily include all humans and exclude all non-human animals, even including potentially disenfranchised groups of humans without explanation.
*And, like Kant, they arbitrarily include or exclude items from the social contract (the social contract itself is ultimately arbitrary). For example: Native Americans didn't have a clear concept of land ownership, in the sense that we do now, and yet they had a social contract about killing, and other things like that. So, a social contract that includes a concept of land ownership is NOT the minimal social contract, because there have been societies that have functioned with much less. Indeed, you don't even need a concept of property at all for people to agree on the social contract (Communism, although this has not always been stable). Randroids arbitrarily define the edges of the social contract based on their own whims of what they would prefer, while ignoring what others might prefer to get out of a social contract. How do they resolve these discrepancies? They don't, really.

I like Penn. I didn't think take quote seriously. It was hyperbole obviously, I don't think he hates animals, I assume his emphasis was on showing compassion for the junkie. The animal rights episode however, the one where they dress up in leather and eat chicken, that was rather shameless.

zeello wrote:I like Penn. I didn't think take quote seriously. It was hyperbole obviously, I don't think he hates animals, I assume his emphasis was on showing compassion for the junkie.

Does he mean what he says? I'm pretty sure I've heard him cover this before, and say clearly that YES he does mean everything he says. While he exaggerates phrasing and delivery for effect, he actually means and believes everything he says.

Can anybody find where he said this? It might have been on Penn says in a Q&A.

Anyway, I take him at his word on that. So, although he may take an extreme position, I do take the quote seriously.
I don't think he hates non-human animals; hate implies having some regard for them. I think he's completely indifferent to non-humans, and considers them equivalent to things with no moral value whatsoever.

In the exchange we discussed in this thread: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=17&t=831
Chomsky made the suggestion that such indifference might even be considered morally worse than hate and deliberate intent to harm. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's an interesting point to consider.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Can anybody find where he said this? It might have been on Penn says in a Q&A.

Hm, there's only one video on that channel, and it's not a Q&A.

I found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF5EZgRxulg
Were Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss in it too?

Or was Teller in it with him? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv_Xkz9zepI

I found this about his exaggeration: https://twitter.com/pennjillette/status/22341503887
He exaggerates to clarify his points... So he must agree with them, then.

Unless I'm not supposed to take that seriously.

He claimed to do it save a junkie though, so it is useless to argue the point since he is still saving somebody.

If he said he'd kill every chimp in the world for no reason, that would be different. But he'd still only be saying it, not doing it, and it is a completely unrealistic scenario. I doubt he had any expectations of ever carrying out such a feat, even when he said, thereby making it an empty boast.

He may claim to mean what he says, but how do we know that isn't a lie.

zeello wrote:He claimed to do it save a junkie though, so it is useless to argue the point since he is still saving somebody.

If he said he'd kill every chimp in the world for no reason, that would be different.

That is precisely why we would argue the point. If he said he would kill every chimp the world for no reason (he wouldn't say that) then there would be no point in discussing it.

What is is saying is that he would kill a very large many to save one.
And I understand why he would say that, but it makes a point that we'd want to address; the extreme devaluing of non-human lives.

zeello wrote:But he'd still only be saying it, not doing it, and it is a completely unrealistic scenario. I doubt he had any expectations of ever carrying out such a feat, even when he said, thereby making it an empty boast.

It doesn't matter. It's the idea that we'd be criticizing; the concept.
Penn is a strong believer in the free market of ideas, and if you asked him, he'd say something like 'absolutely, let me have it'.

zeello wrote:He may claim to mean what he says, but how do we know that isn't a lie.

Well, we're writing him a letter. It would hardly be useful to accuse him of lying about what he says outright he believes as the very premise of the letter.
Sure, you could if you really thought that (I don't believe he is lying), but he would ignore the letter entirely, and so too would most people who follow him.