My video on The Amazing Atheist's rebuttal

[brimstoneSalad]

Back to Harris.

I think I'm going to read this, because it looks like a good summary: http://cognitivephilosophy.net/ethics/s ... sumptions/
If I have a chance, I'll do a point-by-point discussion.

From the article, and assuming the article is accurate:

Harris’s basic premise is this: If ethics is about anything, it is about the conscious states of organisms able to experience consciousness. Any other definition is meaningless. Any action that has no actual or potential affect on the conscious state of an organism is by definition valueless.

I disagree with Harris (and Singer) on that point.
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... t=10#p5081

I consider helpfulness or harmfulness to be based on realization of interests, with or without the beings being aware of that realization.
This is a subtle but also profound difference, that has significant consequences in the margins.

Harris’s next point is a simple small jump. If ethics is about the conscious states of organisms, then this must by definition translate into facts about brains and their interaction with the world. This also seems uncontroversial. Assuming conscious states have a neurophysiological correlate (an extremely grounded assumption), then it’s obvious that science can give us a complete account of the ever evolving dynamic states of consciousness, the very thing that ethics is about.

I agree with this in the sense that interests are empirically verifiable (with the right technology), as arising from consciousness upon their inception. After that, however, they are conceptual (though no less matters of fact), and may persist in relevance after cessation of consciousness or death.

I think I agree with the spirit of Harris' claims, but with respect to the differences in the initial assumptions.

Sam Harris’s next point is that ethics must specifically be about maximizing the well being of conscious organisms.

Here's another point where we diverge.

While I don't agree that the term well being is useful unless it represents a realization of those being's interests, that's a simpler matter.
The broader issue is that this mirrors utilitarianism, and suffers from its same pitfalls; namely, the utility monster and the problem of selfishness.

On a personal level, it's a good in utilitarianism to harm another, as long as you benefit ever so slightly more than the other was harmed.

Although other factors may be relevant to considering justification, and nudge an action without choice toward amorality, it's not important in consideration of the fundamental nature of morality, which is concern for the other.

On a universal scale, where there isn't really any "self", I think it's more important to think in terms of maximizing morality; which the actions of the evil utility monster are unlikely to do.

[miniboes]

How do you determine whether or not a being has interests? You could, for example, make the argument that plants have interests, mainly the interest to stay alive and spread its genes.

[brimstoneSalad]

How do you determine whether or not a being has interests? You could, for example, make the argument that plants have interests, mainly the interest to stay alive and spread its genes.

In so far as we want to call evolution intelligent (and it may be/kind of is in a very crude trial-and-error sense), those are evolutionary interests of the species, not of the individual.

I'm happy enough to grant that, but calculating the sum intellectual power (through physical computation and learning through genetic changes) of an entire species, you might find a mind that could give a house fly a run for its money.
Distributed systems like that are not very intelligent.

Legitimate interests, not interests we impose upon something (like imagining a car has an interest in not rusting and continuing to function), are a matter of wanting that thing, which is only a component of intelligence (its building blocks, really). Individual plants have no intelligence, and can not want anything. They do not have personal interests.

So I would grant that it might be more wrong to destroy an entire genus of a plant, bringing a huge gene-pool to extinction, rather than kill a fly. Individual plants, however, have no such interest, and there is nothing wrong in killing it (in itself) so long as it doesn't harm the species as a whole.

[miniboes]

So, although you do not base your morality on intelligence, at least a base level is required for the being to have interests. That's a good point actually. I was having a discussion with some carnists on another forum a while back in which they brought up plants having interests. I had a hard time rebutting that, that's why I asked. I do think we can use measuring well-being or harm as a method of deciding upon moral questions, as well-being is generally the prime interest of most sentient beings. Would you agree?

[brimstoneSalad]

I was having a discussion with some carnists on another forum a while back in which they brought up plants having interests. I had a hard time rebutting that, that's why I asked.

You can say that evolution itself has interests, though, because in a sense it is intelligent (though only in a sense).
This would be like saying Ford had an interest in his cars not rusting and continuing to run. However, comparing it to a human interest in their creations would be anthropomorphising evolution (given its scope) into some kind of deity, which is a bit of a stretch. Although deification of evolution is about the most rational form of theism you could ask for, you'd have to realize at some point you're worshiping something with the sum total of intelligence equivalent to some kind of insect. That is, even granting everything we need to grant to call evolution and intelligent force, it isn't very intelligent.

So, although you do not base your morality on intelligence, at least a base level is required for the being to have interests. That's a good point actually

The capacity to hold interests is roughly proportional to intelligence, but only roughly. I follow more of a threshold theory, where certain amounts of intelligence are required or useful towards certain things, after which they reach points of diminishing returns.

In human IQ, for example, correlations with creative ability and a whole slew of potential capacity to feel interest and understanding seem to increase linearly until around 120 IQ, at which point there are only weaker links if any.

It might be possible to say somebody with a 100 IQ (which is, an average idiot), has less moral value through diminished capacity to understand themselves and the world around them than somebody with 120, but somebody with 200 might not be more valuable than that person at 120, since those extra IQ points are mostly flapping in the wind. That is, with regards to creativity anyway, as we typically understand it.

We have a lot yet to understand both in terms of human and animal cognition. There are links, but they're not necessarily linear, or consistent across species.

I do think we can use measuring well-being or harm as a method of deciding upon moral questions, as well-being is generally the prime interest of most sentient beings. Would you agree?

I don't agree. I don't think those words are inherently meaningful. Interest has a clear and objective definition; it is what that being is interested in, according to that being. Well-being is much more subjective, and many if not most macrofauna are not particularly interested in their own well-being when you go by the most likely definitions. The only reason that "well-being" would matter is because something has an interest in it, but that's only IF something has an interest in it, and to the extent of that interest.

You might as well say we should optimize time watching TV, since that is what most humans seem to be interested in, so it's as good a measure as any to decide moral questions. That may or may not be, but even if it is, it introduces arbitrary and unnecessary inaccuracy into the whole thing, when you can just look at interests directly and be right all of the time rather than randomly wrong much of the time -- and 100% wrong if you're advocating an objective theory.

[Collaide]

Hi. I am terribly sorry. Eating animals is never justified.
Ignore every point I was trying to make.

And no I am NOT joking.

I want to become a vegetarian but I'm too lazy to try.
Yes this is the reason why I fail to do a lot of things in life, laziness.

[EquALLity]

Hi. I am terribly sorry. Eating animals is never justified.
Ignore every point I was trying to make.

And no I am NOT joking.

I want to become a vegetarian but I'm too lazy to try.
Yes this is the reason why I fail to do a lot of things in life, laziness.

Eating animals can be justified in survival situations, right? Or if they died of natural causes and you just happened to find and eat them?

What do you mean, you're just too lazy? That's not an excuse.

If you know something is morally wrong, you can't just say, "Meh, I'm too lazy to stop."

Why do you think going vegetarian is some kind of really difficult thing, anyway? Just stop buying meat, and instead by more vegetables and grains and such.

[Collaide]

...

Eating animals can be justified in survival situations, right? Or if they died of natural causes and you just happened to find and eat them?

What do you mean, you're just too lazy? That's not an excuse.

If you know something is morally wrong, you can't just say, "Meh, I'm too lazy to stop."

Why do you think going vegetarian is some kind of really difficult thing, anyway? Just stop buying meat, and instead by more vegetables and grains and such.

This is getting off topic but I'll respond to this one.

Yes those are exceptions to when meat could be acceptable to eat.

No it's not an excuse. It's not difficult, but I have a personal issue with taking initiatives.
I'm not too lazy to stop, I'm to lazy to...
...tell everyone I know that I can't eat meat and force them to eat what I eat or cook special food for me.
...rely on products I don't know anything about.
...find out about a large enough amount of alternatives so I don't have to eat the same stuff every day.
...find out which products I consume that may contain meat that I am not currently aware of.

I really understand that I sound might like a d******d but so be it.

[EquALLity]

...tell everyone I know that I can't eat meat and force them to eat what I eat or cook special food for me.

Force them to eat what you make? They don't have to eat what you make.

What kind of ungrateful sh*t would have food made for them, and then be like, "BUT THIS DOESN'T HAVE MEAT EW."

Special food for you? Like at dinner parties?
I've never been to a dinner party that didn't have at least one vegetarian option.

What's hard about saying, "I don't eat meat"?

...rely on products I don't know anything about.

Well what do you eat now? Not just meat, right?

What do you mean by foods you don't know anything about? There's not much to know.

...find out about a large enough amount of alternatives so I don't have to eat the same stuff every day.

That's not what you do with meat?

It's so easy to learn about new meals to make. There are literally thousands of easy recipes online. Here's a site I used in the beginning: http://happyherbivore.com/recipes/

...find out which products I consume that may contain meat that I am not currently aware of.

You can just read ingredient labels. It takes like 15 seconds. There are lists online of non-vegetarian ingredients to help you learn.

I think gelatin is the only one that's that common and not too obvious so that you'll have to worry about it. You probably already knew about gelatin, anyway.

[brimstoneSalad]

...tell everyone I know that I can't eat meat and force them to eat what I eat or cook special food for me.

[...]What's hard about saying, "I don't eat meat"?

He suffers from social anxiety. He needs to see a doctor and get on anxiety medication to manage that, and see a therapist.
This is clearly causing a lot of trouble in his life, these are things most people wouldn't think about or worry about.

You can just read ingredient labels. It takes like 15 seconds. There are lists online of non-vegetarian ingredients to help you learn.

I think gelatin is the only one that's that common and not too obvious so that you'll have to worry about it. You probably already knew about gelatin, anyway.

Don't sweat the small stuff. If you even avoid food that is obviously meat, you're at least doing less harm than changing nothing and doing more harm.