Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:Well, we're making a little bit of progress, but not much.

First, stop trying to bring up moral relativism, or that you don't believe moral propositions represent true objective positions. I know you think that.
I'm asking you to assume a particular axiom for the sake of argument, and participate in a thought experiment within that context. Can you understand that concept?

I need you to reply to the cake scenario. If you want, I'll switch it around to make it easier for you to understand the concept of a thought experiment, and even bold the important assumptions:

There are two cakes, equally available, accessible, edible, etc. (every pragmatic consideration)
Cake A and cake B are also equally delicious and pleasurable to eat in every way. (every hedonistic one)
Cake A is attached to a pressure mechanism, such that when you lift it to take it, it will kill a million children. (assume this IS a good thing)
Cake B is not attached to any such mechanism, and will harm nobody.
You can choose to take one cake, the other will be destroyed (and any pressure mechanisms diffused without triggering if they have not already been triggered by your choice of cake).
You estimate, in your perversely inflated sense of self-importance, that any minor discomfort you will receive from killing a million children is less than the good that would be done by ridding the world of those vermin.

Given those assumptions which I have provided, Which cake should you eat?

This is not a challenging problem. You even indicated before an understanding that certain conclusions actually follow from certain axioms, but now you seem confused by it.
Before we consider moving on, I need to confirm that you aren't a complete moron, or there's no point in discussing these things with you.

I'd like to think responding to this will get you to stop calling me an idiot, but I have this inkling you are so morally offended by me you never will.

I would eat Cake B. Are you satisfied?

OneQuestion wrote:You overrate consistency - there is nothing consistent about the arbitrary. Consistent moral theories are all well and good, but since they too are based on arbitrary axioms they have no more objective value than any other non-consistent moral compass.

You don't understand what I mean by consistency. This is important to understand.
I'm talking about logical internal consistency; the lack of contradictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
Chances are, you even reject the validity of logic, and consistent axiomatic systems like mathematics.

This is incredibly easy to understand if you have two properly functioning brain cells to rub together.
When an axiomatic system is internally consistent, it can come to conclusions based on those axioms.
When an axiomatic system is logically inconsistent, it produces contradictions, and those contradictions "explode", invalidating any conclusions the system creates.

A moral system is an axiomatic system.
Like mathematics -- we make certain axiomatic assumptions or proclamations about what operators mean and how they work (+, -, /, etc.), and about numbers, and how they work, and if they are consistent, the system is valid.

If you're a relativist, you can try to start with whatever 'moral' axioms you want:

Assume saving human life is good.
Assume killing children is good.
Assume all green things are evil and it's good to destroy them.
Assume the only good in the universe is maximizing the number of rocking chairs.
Assume the only good is producing pleasure for yourself.

Take any assumptions you want. Take a mixture of assumptions, and rank them in importance, or give them relative weights. Try to create a consistent system (internally consistent, not necessarily consistent with others), and then it actually is a system.
If it's inconsistent, it's incoherent, and it's incapable of actually producing conclusions from its rules -- it is no longer a system.

Are you capable of understanding that concept, or are you too stupid to have conversations with adults?

If it's the latter, you have no business pretending to put on your big boy pants and making philosophical sounding noises.
If it's the former, and you can understand that concept, and you're capable of correctly understanding the cake example above (and in my prior post), then you may actually have the prerequisite brain power to engage in this subject.

I already know that, and it's good you meant internal consistency. Usually when people say consistency, they mean "how can you be FOR killing animals but not people?". But this length of this really does betray your elitism. You think I am so stupid, so utterly moronic, that I can't understand what you're saying. Which, for you, means you can mock me and feel better about yourself, because as I already pointed out I can't technically be proven wrong.

OneQuestion wrote:So is it bad to harm others to pleasure oneself? Well, from your point of view yes. From the view of a sociopath he has no empathy for human suffering, so he doesn't really see such events as negative, and won't care. For him, it isn't bad.

If this weren't so pathetic, it would be cute. Like a five year old trying to explain space ships to a NASA engineer.

I know more about moral relativism than you do, and the fact that you don't even understand that we're not even discussing that subject at the moment is very telling.

Again, you're just taking shots at me. What I said is correct.

OneQuestion wrote:And I know most people, even the ones who houses, as you say, might be washed away, would agree.

First, you don't know that. If they were properly informed, they may decide differently as many vegans already have.

And second, if you think you've discovered that people can behave irrationally and self-destructively, meth addicts might also agree that doing meth is worth being poor, homeless, jobless, stealing from people, losing teeth, having sores all over their faces, and dying a very early death; shouldn't you go join in on the fun?

This is irrelevant. And you know it's irrelevant. Other people behaving like idiots isn't an excuse to be an idiot yourself.

OneQuestion wrote:Argument from majority is a fallacy, but I'm simply pointing out that this "hypocrisy" is widespread, mostly unconsciously.

Yes, it is a fallacy, and none of that matters. Not one jot.

Fundamentalist Muslims probably won't stop killing people for Allah. Why don't you go join them?

OneQuestion wrote:The idea of not eating meat to most of the world is utterly baffling and they won't do it.

No, it isn't. When people are informed, they largely understand and sympathize -- many even try.

Ten percent of the population were vegetarian at one time, which indicates that they understand some of the concept. In most cases, social pressure, boyfriends, girlfriends, etc. compounded with lack of availability of convenient healthy vegan food, pushed them back to eating meat.
And most of the population don't even know half of this stuff.

It's a bit of a catch 22 -- many people only won't go vegetarian because it's 'too hard', and it's 'too hard' because more people aren't vegetarian so there's less availability and more peer pressure against it.
There's a certain critical mass of both information and social acceptance that's necessary. We've seen it very recently with, for example, gay rights in the states. It's something that takes a very big push to overcome.

There will always be psychopaths, and people like you who value their personal pleasure over preventing suffering to others. You really are in the minority there; most people feel bad about it when they understand what's going on.
Most people, when presented with the information, can understand that it doesn't make sense to eat meat.
Even you can apparently understand a little of that.

Given the innate biological wiring you're trying to fight against, I sincerely doubt you will ever succeed in making most, or even a significant minority, of the population vegetarian/vegan.

But even if you did, I won't ever switch. And if you outlaw it...well, I never thought I'd become a domestic terrorist but there's some red lines I won't let be crossed.

OneQuestion wrote: YES, I VALUE EATING MEAT MORE THAN PEOPLE WHO MAY/WILL BE KILLED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

I need you to confirm that you know that:

1. Meat is unhealthy, and that this is not controversial (fish is more of a matter of debate, but there is consensus that tetrapod meat is unhealthy).

2. There are plant based meats which are healthier, more environmentally sustainable, and if prepared correctly are indistinguishable from animal meats.

Since meat is a valuable protein source, the only meat that is inherently "unhealthy" is meat with significant saturated fat in it - red meat. Even then you still get the protein, so it's a trade off, one I'm willing to make. Flavour + protein in exchange for an tiny increase in the chance of heart disease every time I eat it? Sure, I'll take that. Hell, butter and cheese are way more unhealthy, still eat those.

Point 2 is largely correct, except for being "indistinguishable". That is false no matter how you try to spin it. It is not.

OneQuestion wrote: You see this as bad, I'm am perfectly fine with it.

No, YOU would see this as bad IF you actually valued human life as you claimed.
The reason you are fine with it, is because you do not in fact value human life. You value your personal whims, habit, and steadfast position of carnism as a point of faith.
This is a matter of ego for you, you identify irrationally as a "meat eater", and though the world burn you will not change. You value your ego. You do not value human life.

Hell yes I value my ego. I guess I do value human life, insofar as it lets people enjoy themselves more. But if doing something shortens your life but makes it better for you, I'm fine with that. Whatever floats your boat. Want to freeclimb? Smoke? Be alcoholic? Go ahead, indulge. There's no point to existence anyway, might as well enjoy it in whatever way you see fit while you're here - you're doomed to die anyway.

OneQuestion wrote: Hypocritical given that I generally value human life?

Hypocritical given your claim to value human life.

You probably don't actually know what hypocrisy means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

That is to say, you are lying (to others, and maybe to yourself), and you do not actually value human life.
The idea that you value human life is a fabrication, a fiction that you maintain.
It may make you feel uncomfortable when you see humans suffering in front of you. Most people don't like to watch bugs get squished either and see the guts fly everywhere, it looks gross. That's not the same as legitimately valuing something.

I concede that.

OneQuestion wrote: Trying to find consistency in things that are arbitrary like morality is a fruitless exercise.

Only if you're a moron.

We can get to this, and I will show you how fruitful it can be, if you will prove you aren't a complete moron.

1. Respond to the cake thought experiment.
2. Correct your views on what consistency means.
3. Confirm that you understand meat is unhealthy.
4. Confirm you understand that there are equally delicious and more nutritious plant based meats available.

Reply acceptably to these points four, and about moral relativism can we finally discuss more.

I already responded to the rest of this.

Point 4 is utterly false because it is based on subjective valuation of flavour and texture and whatnot. Real meat > fake meat for me, period.

miniboes wrote:If you have trouble understanding objective morality, you may want to watch this lecture by Sam Harris: http://youtu.be/sTKf5cCm-9g

it's somewhat atheism focused, but it gets the basic principles across quite well in my opinion.

I understand the argument, I've watched that video before. He is completely wrong. You must accept his initial moral axiom for his argument to be correct. He doesn't even realize he began with a subjective assumption.

OneQuestion wrote:You must accept his initial moral axiom for his argument to be correct.

That's what I said. He does not substantiate his initial assumption as I do. However, you will not read my argument, wherein I substantiate that assumption.

OneQuestion wrote:He doesn't even realize he began with a subjective assumption.

If you will watch the Q&A, he does, actually. I mentioned the question in which he discussed this in my post in response to Miniboes.

OneQuestion wrote:Point 4 is utterly false because it is based on subjective valuation of flavour and texture and whatnot. Real meat > fake meat for me, period.

Not when you don't know, and can not tell, the difference. You have very little confidence in science, it seems.
You have not tried any of the convincing fake meats. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and I'd put money on that. Will you bet on it? There are good odds, because for the best samples, most people can't tell. The ones who can are probably guessing.

OneQuestion wrote:I concede that.

Well, I can appreciate the honesty, if you're admitting that you do not -- in fact -- value human life.

Do you realize that, on those grounds, you are very much in the minority among humans? Most people do value human life; perhaps, in your view, irrationally.

OneQuestion wrote:There's no point to existence anyway, might as well enjoy it in whatever way you see fit while you're here - you're doomed to die anyway.

This is a very uncommon attitude. Not unheard of, but uncommon. Most people have a tendency to give a shit about existence, and the point of it.

OneQuestion wrote:Since meat is a valuable protein source, the only meat that is inherently "unhealthy" is meat with significant saturated fat in it - red meat. Even then you still get the protein, so it's a trade off, one I'm willing to make.

You are dreadfully misinformed. Meat is not a valuable protein source. All cells are made up of protein, plant and animal alike. By dry weight (dehydrated), broccoli has about as much protein as beef. It's just a fact of cell biology. 'Edible' vegetables just have a lot more water in them. Vegetables also have fiber in them, where animal meat mainly has fat.

If you're interested in this, we can discuss it. But all you're getting special out of meat is cholesterol, a higher degree of saturated fat, and a few trace non-essential amino acids that the body manufactures anyway (that is, does not need).
The only valuable thing in meat is probably creatine (look it up), which occurs in trace amounts. It's one of those things that the body makes, but there's limited evidence that eating a little more might be good for you. As I said, there are only tiny amounts in meat, and lucky for us it's very easy to synthesize (molecularly identical) from vegan sources and cheap to buy (if we are so inclined to want to eat it -- as I said, the evidence is limited). Some body builders use it, but they use vegan sources, since meat is impractical as a source (contains only small amounts).

That's really the only half-decent argument for a benefit of meat I've ever heard. I just gave it to you and debunked it in one paragraph. There's nothing good in meat we can't synthesize (and it's available cheaper online than the meat source). Modern science is awesome.

You have to be a nutty anti-science natural food loon to really think there's anything special in meat that isn't better gotten elsewhere thanks to the advances of modern science. Take an unbiased look at the evidence, and you'll understand that.

OneQuestion wrote:Hell, butter and cheese are way more unhealthy, still eat those.

You really shouldn't eat those either. There are identical replacements for butter (but they're also unhealthy -- saturated plant fat is bad too).
There are not really identical replacements for cheese though, YET. I will concede that point if you like.

There will be soon, we hope: https://realvegancheese.org/

OneQuestion wrote: But even if you did, I won't ever switch. And if you outlaw it...well, I never thought I'd become a domestic terrorist but there's some red lines I won't let be crossed.

You're so caught up in your ideology, that you're advocating terrorism?
You realize this doesn't paint you as particularly rational, right?

You're just dogmatic. You came here acting like you had an argument. You don't. You're a dogmatist. You can't argue with something that's not an argument.

I have debunked a number of your claims, and you've retreated to a position of fundamentalism.
That's not something you should be proud of.

OneQuestion wrote: You think I am so stupid, so utterly moronic, that I can't understand what you're saying.

Correct.

OneQuestion wrote: Which, for you, means you can mock me and feel better about yourself, because as I already pointed out I can't technically be proven wrong.

Nope. Actually, I'd be glad for the chance to demolish your moral relativism. It's pretty easy to debunk. But I have a rule that I will not proceed in another topic until this one is done. I don't think you have the attention span or the intellectual honesty to engage with multiple topics simultaneously.

When or if we resolve the current issues, I will school you on ethics.

OneQuestion wrote:I'd like to think responding to this will get you to stop calling me an idiot, but I have this inkling you are so morally offended by me you never will.

I don't call people idiots because I'm morally offended by them, I call people idiots because they're being idiots. There are people I'm offended by, but do not regard as idiots.

OneQuestion wrote:I would eat Cake B. Are you satisfied?

Why would you eat Cake B? Cake B will not kill the children. In this thought experiment, killing the children is assumed to be a good thing according to the provided axiom (again, for the purposes of this thought experiment).

Come on! Meat is delicious! Sorry, but honestly, it is!

Ener9y wrote:Come on! Meat is delicious! Sorry, but honestly, it is!

You can get vegan food just as delicious as meat, and that doesn't cause as much harm as meat does.

It doesn't make sense to choose, out of two equally tasty options, the one that produces more damage.

Ener9y wrote:Come on! Meat is delicious! Sorry, but honestly, it is!

Are you in favor of eating humans, as well? I'm sure human meat is just as "delicious" as animal meat -- if anything, it probably tastes a lot better, since humans are fed better than animals and get more exercise.

A system could certainly be set up so that some people are raised as food. Alternatively, people over 65 could be slaughtered and eaten so that we don't have to worry about social security. Poor people could be eaten as well -- many on the political right believe that poor people are intrinsically inferior and are to blame for their problems; why not eat them? We could also eat criminals and murderers rather than lock them up for life; that would save a lot of money. If taste is your only criterion, I don't see that you could possibly have any problem with any of this.

^ I fully agree, however, you should note that babies are also a great source of tender meats. Simply take the babies from the inferior gene pools (as you said, the poor and the criminals) and slaughter them in an ethical manner (by which I mean brutal and horrific). Not to mention, babies are relatively undeveloped and have the cognitive capacities of a lot of mature farm animals, so it'll be just like eating a cow, right?

This is in response to the original post in this thread.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that we are driven by evolution. We are not. It's far from clear that genes determine human behavior. Anyone can make up a scientific-sounding argument about how evolution supposedly favors one thing or another; that does not mean the argument is scientifically sound. You need to first prove that your evolutionary argument is correct.

Let's consider a slightly different question. Do you believe murder is OK? One could easily make up an evolutionary argument that a person who commits murder is stronger and more intelligent than his/her victim. Evolution should therefore have ensured the survival of the genes of murderers and the disappearance of the genes of pacifists. Indeed, many animals eat the young of their own species -- sometimes even their own offspring. Based on your logic, we should celebrate and reward murderers and child killers, not lock them up; we should eat not only animals but also humans.

Finally, if we didn't have a huge system in place to provide animal meat for human consumption, I doubt very much that you would be eating any meat. It's a lot easier to make up self-serving arguments justifying the status quo than to capture and kill animal with your bare hands. There is no honest evolutionary justification for the modern factory-farm industry.