Gray Sloth response to PV on #namethetrait

[Daz]

You think western countries were doing that 300 - 5000 + years ago when life was a lot more hand to mouth, and a lot more skewed wealth distribution? We do it because we are in the position to right now, but as mentioned before, if everything crashed and we went back to a hand to mouth type scenario, how many people do you think would be going out of their way and dedicating their time to looking after and caring for the millions of mentally disabled and retarded people? In reality it simply wouldn't happen.
In the same light, if we have other means of survival in terms of food and nourishment (which we do), it is morally wrong to directly kill, exploit, torture, abuse, raise in captivity, otherwise healthy, innocent animals that just want to live freely on their own accord in their own environment. However it is not morally wrong to "put down" or put out of its misery, a terminally sick or extremely injured and suffering animal. If there is no help or resources to help an animal in this position to survive and arise out of the suffering, it could be argued that it is a moral obligation to put this animal down, similar to the euthanasia argument. Where is the inconsistency in my thinking here?
And we don't have any moral obligation to help every single person in need that we possibly can, unless we are literally omnipotent. Why do you think NTT leads to such conclusions?

Again same thing as a meat eater using the "on a desert island you vegans would eat a pig" to justify it outside of a survival context. It's totally irrelevant what other societies who lived in shitty conditions that are not present anymore today did or did not believe was a moral imperative. Total red herring to deflect from naming the trait that separates mentally disabled people from animals which justifies not giving the luxuries we give to retarded people to random animals aswell.

No you are confused. ANIMALS ARE NOT MENTALLY RETARDED. lol if you can't get that we should leave the convo here. I am saying we should leave animals the fuck alone and not mess with them. Give them there own space and land and let them be, humans don't need to envelope the entire planet. Similar to the way we shouldn't fuck with animals in the sea/deep sea. If people want to build sanctuaries and look after animals on them, they can do that also. As far as humans that have disabilities, if we can, sure help the mentally retarded. But no moral obligation there. Same goes for sick and injured animals. This is completely consistent.

[Daz]

We do not usually need to eat meat, and doing so is harmful.
We do not usually need to drive, and doing so is harmful.
Ditto for most of the things we do from day to day.

If we are not also against driving in any instance where it's not strictly necessary, then being against eating any meat in any non-survival circumstances is arguably inconsistent.

The question is weighing varying degrees of inconvenience against varying degrees of harm. Some inconveniences are larger than others, some harms larger than others.

The equation looks something like this:

Justifiability = inconvenience / harm

I think you are slightly confused. The point is what we would accept for ourselves. I accept that I can be killed on the road, and if I am so be it. Hence I am willing to drive and if I die it is what it is. Same goes for anyone else that drives. They don't have to get on the road but if they do there is a risk. That is completely consistent.
I would never want to be killed and eaten, hence I wouldn't do it to another animal. However, If I was stranded on a desert island with no other food with a few other people, then eventually I would accept either being killed and eaten by one of them or I would kill and eat one of them. Again, consistent. It's what treatment I would accept for myself.
This has nothing to do with convenience, it has to do with the golden rule.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think you are slightly confused. The point is what we would accept for ourselves.

That's attempted in the formulation of the original logically invalid version.
The modification that IS logically valid does not include that language, and removing that part is what helped make it logically valid.

So, no, accepting something for yourself has nothing to do with whether it is ethical or not.
It DOES have to do with a double standard, but again that is not a logical contradiction, and double standards have nothing intrinsically to do with ethics.

So, again, the VALID argument has nothing to do with that "accept for ourselves" nonsense. It only has to do with establishing moral value.
And when it comes to moral value, it's wrong to do things to other people even if we'd accept them for ourselves.
What is moral or immoral to do to others comes down to what they prefer (it has nothing to do with acceptable risk), not what you would accept via some twisted rationalization.

But let's go with this absurd reasoning anyway and see where it leads (even though it has nothing to do with a correct or logically valid argument):

I accept that I can be killed on the road, and if I am so be it.

Do you accept an alien species destroying the Earth carelessly (not intentionally) as part of a cosmic joy-ride?
If not, then you are immoral for driving around for pleasure at the expense of insects splattering on your windshield (including driving anywhere for pleasure, like going to the theater by car).

But let's try one step more:

Do you accept an alien species destroying the Earth carelessly (not intentionally) as part of a commuting to work?
If not, then you are immoral for driving to work at the expense of insects splattering on your windshield.

Hence I am willing to drive and if I die it is what it is. Same goes for anyone else that drives. They don't have to get on the road but if they do there is a risk. That is completely consistent.

We're not just talking about people who are driving and have chosen to take that risk (FYI based on any sane sense of morality, it is not moral to kill people for entertainment just because they did something with known risks).
We're talking about pedestrians, and even non-human animals, who had no idea of the risk of stepping into the road (or flying over it) and did NOT consent to this.

I would never want to be killed and eaten, hence I wouldn't do it to another animal.

Would you ever want to be killed by a spaceship zooming around the solar system haphazardly?

However, If I was stranded on a desert island with no other food with a few other people, then eventually I would accept either being killed and eaten by one of them or I would kill and eat one of them.

How exactly would you accept that?
Would you lie down and say "eat me if you like"?

Or are you saying that you believe you're entering into a "survival of the fittest" game, and you accept the outcome?
What if other people do not want to play that game? What if others prefer to go out peacefully and not be brutally killed and eaten? Do you force them to play anyway?
Do you just ignore their preferences? Because this "what you would accept" double standard test has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

This has nothing to do with convenience, it has to do with the golden rule.

No, that's not the golden rule, it's a corruption of it.

It's not "do unto others however you like as long as you would accept the risk of them doing it unto you even if you'd prefer them not to".

[Daz]

I think you are slightly confused. The point is what we would accept for ourselves.

That's attempted in the formulation of the original logically invalid version.
The modification that IS logically valid does not include that language, and removing that part is what helped make it logically valid.

So, no, accepting something for yourself has nothing to do with whether it is ethical or not.
It DOES have to do with a double standard, but again that is not a logical contradiction, and double standards have nothing intrinsically to do with ethics.

So, again, the VALID argument has nothing to do with that "accept for ourselves" nonsense. It only has to do with establishing moral value.
And when it comes to moral value, it's wrong to do things to other people even if we'd accept them for ourselves.
What is moral or immoral to do to others comes down to what they prefer (it has nothing to do with acceptable risk), not what you would accept via some twisted rationalization.

But let's go with this absurd reasoning anyway and see where it leads (even though it has nothing to do with a correct or logically valid argument):

I accept that I can be killed on the road, and if I am so be it.

Do you accept an alien species destroying the Earth carelessly (not intentionally) as part of a cosmic joy-ride?
If not, then you are immoral for driving around for pleasure at the expense of insects splattering on your windshield (including driving anywhere for pleasure, like going to the theater by car).

But let's try one step more:

Do you accept an alien species destroying the Earth carelessly (not intentionally) as part of a commuting to work?
If not, then you are immoral for driving to work at the expense of insects splattering on your windshield.

Hence I am willing to drive and if I die it is what it is. Same goes for anyone else that drives. They don't have to get on the road but if they do there is a risk. That is completely consistent.

We're not just talking about people who are driving and have chosen to take that risk (FYI based on any sane sense of morality, it is not moral to kill people for entertainment just because they did something with known risks).
We're talking about pedestrians, and even non-human animals, who had no idea of the risk of stepping into the road (or flying over it) and did NOT consent to this.

I would never want to be killed and eaten, hence I wouldn't do it to another animal.

Would you ever want to be killed by a spaceship zooming around the solar system haphazardly?

However, If I was stranded on a desert island with no other food with a few other people, then eventually I would accept either being killed and eaten by one of them or I would kill and eat one of them.

How exactly would you accept that?
Would you lie down and say "eat me if you like"?

Or are you saying that you believe you're entering into a "survival of the fittest" game, and you accept the outcome?
What if other people do not want to play that game? What if others prefer to go out peacefully and not be brutally killed and eaten? Do you force them to play anyway?
Do you just ignore their preferences? Because this "what you would accept" double standard test has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

This has nothing to do with convenience, it has to do with the golden rule.

No, that's not the golden rule, it's a corruption of it.

It's not "do unto others however you like as long as you would accept the risk of them doing it unto you even if you'd prefer them not to".

This is quite amusing. Are you actually legitimately suggesting that directly picking up a knife or gun and purposefully exploiting/abusing/killing/harming an innocent being for "pleasure" (human animal or non-human animal) is morally the same as accidentally harming or killing an innocent being as part of the natural randomness of life's (and the universe's) many interactions?? Please answer this before I address your other points...
Life on the planet and the universe doesn't move in straight parallel lines (which I'm sure you are aware), part of the necessary result of this freedom of energetic movement and activity is that things cross paths. Are you resisting this logic?
Do you think there is something inherently immoral in a natural disaster that kills many people and animals?

[brimstoneSalad]

This is quite amusing. Are you actually legitimately suggesting that directly picking up a knife or gun and purposefully exploiting/abusing/killing/harming an innocent being for "pleasure" (human animal or non-human animal) is morally the same as accidentally harming or killing an innocent being as part of the natural randomness of life's (and the universe's) many interactions?? Please answer this before I address your other points...

No, that is not even remotely what I said.

Now that I have answered your question, will you please answer the questions that I asked you in the post?

Life on the planet and the universe doesn't move in straight parallel lines (which I'm sure you are aware), part of the necessary result of this freedom of energetic movement and activity is that things cross paths. Are you resisting this logic?

That's an assertion, not logic.
Either way, the point is that you can choose not to move, or to move as little as possible rather than putting others at risk for YOUR pleasure.

Do you think there is something inherently immoral in a natural disaster that kills many people and animals?

It is inherently harmful, but a natural disaster can't choose to stay home and watch TV instead of going to a movie and destroying a few cities on the way by "accident".
If you were a sentient natural disaster, I would say it's inherently immoral for you to visit cities on account of the almost certain fact that you will kill many people, even if you (the natural disaster) didn't kill those people intentionally.

Would you agree with that?

[Daz]

No, that is not even remotely what I said.

Now that I have answered your question, will you please answer the questions that I asked you in the post?

OK so if that's not what you are saying why did you assert that the driving example above brings some type of illegitimacy or inconsistency to veganism and the way most people conduct themselves therein relative to the rest of their lives? Because that is what vd is asserting and you seem to be agreeing with after I asked you to explain where my inconsistencies stemming from veganism into my other practices in life that he said I have, are... So you agree that comparing accidentally killing beings randomly from driving or running, or even walking (e.g. snails, ants, etc) with purposely killing beings for reasons as stated above is a ridiculous comparison.. So why are we discussing it?

That's an assertion, not logic.
Either way, the point is that you can choose not to move, or to move as little as possible rather than putting others at risk for YOUR pleasure.

Not comparable to purposely killing others as you have already stated. Perhaps this is for a different conversation outside of veganism? Has no bearing on consistency in ethics and morals within veganism which is the assertion. We may differ in our beliefs regarding this but we seem to be in agreement about purposefully killing innocent beings.

It is inherently harmful, but a natural disaster can't choose to stay home and watch TV instead of going to a movie and destroying a few cities on the way by "accident".
If you were a sentient natural disaster, I would say it's inherently immoral for you to visit cities on account of the almost certain fact that you will kill many people, even if you (the natural disaster) didn't kill those people intentionally.

Would you agree with that?

No I wouldn't agree with that, I may not kill those beings. It is a matter of chance. I may kill more beings by the generation of energy (electricity) needed to watch television, or the processes that have to happen to produce televisions or the couch that was made for me to sit on, or the house built for me to be watching tv in... do you see where this goes? To absolute ridiculousness and ridiculous conclusions... I mean why don't you just kill yourself? You will certainly cause less harm in the world then

I once was standing in front of a great opening to a cave in thailand at dusk. As soon as the sun was quite low, thousands of birds came flying in from the sky and all started circling around in the air en masse in front of the opening to the cave. They then began to peel off one by one into the cave, shooting off from the group of swirling birds at an incredible speed into the cave, it was amazing to watch. During the time it took for them all to get into the cave, one single bird out of the entirety collided with another and dropped to the water below unconscious. The rest of the birds all flew into the cave, one casualty. Then a few moments later, thousands of bats came flying out of that same opening into the sky as the sun disappeared. Was it immoral of the birds to do this because that one bird by chance happened to be accidentally harmed in the process?

[brimstoneSalad]

So you agree that comparing accidentally killing beings randomly from driving or running, or even walking (e.g. snails, ants, etc) with purposely killing beings for reasons as stated above is a ridiculous comparison..

First, whether you do or do not happen to actually hit anybody or anything is irrelevant. The fact is that you put their lives at risk for your entertainment.
A drunk driver who kills somebody is morally the same as a drunk driver who does not and engages in the same behavior but got lucky. Both should be (morally) partially guilty of negligent manslaughter by their collective actions.

Maybe that's what's confusing you. It's the odds that matter.

You knowingly put their lives at risk, with the knowledge you will probably kill some, and you did it for nothing but your own pleasure (e.g. driving to go see a movie).

That is what is a valid comparison to killing animals for taste pleasure.

There are several differences, but none so fundamental they can not be compared:

1. The probability of meat being purchased without killing animals is probably nearer zero, while the probability of being able to drive around without killing them may be slightly higher than that (but still very small). At least for killing insects, the probability of you not killing them by driving may even be lower than the probability of animals not being killed by purchasing meat. Slightly different degree of probability at best.

2. The amount of suffering the animals experience is also probably higher in animal agriculture. The ones you killed by car probably die pretty fast (most of them) and lived free until that point.

3. The sentience, on average, of the animals you hit with your car is probably lower. Most are insects.

These are all differences in magnitude. None of them are completely fundamental.

You can try to get away with saying "well meat eaters will animals to die to get meat, I don't will them to die by driving to the theater" -- an appeal to some kind of virtue ethic -- but it's not true that meat eaters necessarily want that animals die. Many would be happy with clean meat (in vitro meat) which caused no animal deaths. Some would not even complain if all animal slaughter ended tomorrow... they might miss meat, but they may not protest.

If that were the case, all you'd have to do to be vegan would be to stop intending to kill animals, just reluctantly buy meat but don't intend the death, and don't complain if it gets outlawed/ends.

Not comparable to purposely killing others as you have already stated.

Accidentally doing so when you had no reasonable means to know the risk, or when the risk wasn't taken for pleasure, IS a little different.

But when you KNOW that you will probably kill insects on the way to the theater, you're doing it for pleasure. Not really any different from buying and eating some chocolate covered crickets for pleasure.

Perhaps this is for a different conversation outside of veganism?

No.

Has no bearing on consistency in ethics and morals within veganism which is the assertion.

The critical assertion is correct, it has everything to do with the consistency of vegan ethics.

If you will knowingly put animals at risk of death for your entertainment, that's comparable to eating some amount of meat.

Now, going to a movie may only be comparable to eating two chocolate covered crickets, or something like that. It may be very small and nothing to freak out about. But it's a problem when we'll do the former and then freak out at somebody for doing the latter without any clear differentiation in terms of ethics.

If you were a sentient natural disaster, I would say it's inherently immoral for you to visit cities on account of the almost certain fact that you will kill many people, even if you (the natural disaster) didn't kill those people intentionally.

Would you agree with that?

No I wouldn't agree with that, I may not kill those beings. It is a matter of chance.

So if you, as a tornado, want to go see a movie and there's a 99.999% chance you'll kill somebody, but a 0.001% chance you won't kill anybody doing it, it's perfectly fine to do it and put people at risk because you want to see a movie?

This is seriously your claim?

I suppose you think drunk driving for recreational purposes is 100% ethical too? Because you might not hurt anybody?

That's borderline psychopathic.

I may kill more beings by the generation of energy (electricity) needed to watch television, or the processes that have to happen to produce televisions or the couch that was made for me to sit on, or the house built for me to be watching tv in... do you see where this goes?

The morally relevant question is probability.
Are you saying that the probability of harm may be higher by staying home and watching TV?
If so, then that's a question of uncertainty.

If you do not know the risks you are taking and you have no reasonable way to know, then it is in some sense justified if you may reasonably conclude that you will likely not kill more by way of recreation than by inaction.

So let's put that to rest:

Assume you have a rigorous study that says, conclusively, that statistically you will cause more death and suffering by driving to a movie rather than watching one at home (including whatever infrastructure share that represents).

Now is it immoral to go to the movie instead of watching on your TV?

I mean why don't you just kill yourself? You will certainly cause less harm in the world then

That is incorrect. Killing yourself causes a lot of harm.

To your family.
To the government, wasting resources.
The environmental harm of disposing you.
A huge loss of potential both morally and economically.

Advocating suicide is ignorance of opportunity cost. There are much better things you can do with your life than end it, and you can do a LOT more good than harm.

Was it immoral of the birds to do this because that one bird by chance happened to be accidentally harmed in the process?

Did they do it for entertainment purposes, or for survival?

[Daz]

First, whether you do or do not happen to actually hit anybody or anything is irrelevant. The fact is that you put their lives at risk for your entertainment.
A drunk driver who kills somebody is morally the same as a drunk driver who does not and engages in the same behavior but got lucky. Both should be (morally) partially guilty of negligent manslaughter by their collective actions.

Maybe that's what's confusing you. It's the odds that matter.

You knowingly put their lives at risk, with the knowledge you will probably kill some, and you did it for nothing but your own pleasure (e.g. driving to go see a movie).

That is what is a valid comparison to killing animals for taste pleasure.

You are not aware of what you are saying here.. There are a certain amount of people/animals killed every year accidentally from manufacturing shoes. And televisions. And your clothes that you wear. And your electricity that powers your lights. And the system in place for water to come out of your tap on call. And your computer you are typing on. And your phone. And the construction of homes and apartment buildings, the wood that must be chopped down to go into that, or the concrete that must be manufactured. You, i am sure, are aware of this. No different from the driving example. Even the money you make, how do you think they manufacture that, what do you think happens in that process and how many people/animals do you think are killed? If you have any of these things or participated in any of these processes you're equally knowingly putting their lives at risk for your "entertainment" with the "knowledge you will probably kill some, and you did it for nothing but your own pleasure"... NOT a valid comparison to directly and purposely stabbing/shooting, exploiting, abusing, torturing, confining and killing animals (or humans) or paying directly for any of these things to happen, for pleasure.

I'm sorry but you are so confused here. You are appealing to the futility of doing literally anything. . Good luck with that.
Nothing about the analogy is confusing me, it's the ludicrousness of it that I am discussing. And, just as a side note, of course the odds play a role. If I knew that I would kill someone EVERYTIME I drove, or even every few times, or every ten times, or even once a year guaranteed, I wouldn't do it. You are seriously saying the odds have no moral relevance to the situation? Touch wood, personally I've never hit any person or animal while driving for my entire life, however if I did i know it would be a horrible experience that I would do everything to avoid, which is exactly what I do now and I drive as carefully as I possibly can. Of course I have hit insects though and these do count for something. But same thing goes for when I take a walk in the park and accidentally step on a snail, or ants.

Point is, we must live, and we are free to move. Things will die by accident as a result and certainly not just from driving (this is laughable that you focus in so hard on this while so many other things right in front of you cause similar accidents). Purposely and knowingly engaging in cruel practices of direct death, torture, suffering, exploitation, confinement and pain is a completely different thing, and certainly completely different from an ethical and moral perspective in regard to how one should conduct oneself, you have already admitted to this so why keep going?
Again, using your example of driving to the movies or watching a movie at home, if I can show you that you will cause significantly more (accidental) harm in the world as a result of a lifetime of living freely, compared to whatever immediate harm you may cause by killing yourself right now, would you go ahead and jump off a tall building? Would you think it a moral obligation to do so and that you are behaving in an immoral way if you don't? Of course you wouldn't and it's ridiculous to entertain this line of thought.

[Daz]

So if you, as a tornado, want to go see a movie and there's a 99.999% chance you'll kill somebody, but a 0.001% chance you won't kill anybody doing it, it's perfectly fine to do it and put people at risk because you want to see a movie?

This is seriously your claim?

I suppose you think drunk driving for recreational purposes is 100% ethical too? Because you might not hurt anybody?

That's borderline psychopathic.

Lol, no. Nice straw man you created here though.

[Daz]

This is quite amusing. Are you actually legitimately suggesting that directly picking up a knife or gun and purposefully exploiting/abusing/killing/harming an innocent being for "pleasure" (human animal or non-human animal) is morally the same as accidentally harming or killing an innocent being as part of the natural randomness of life's (and the universe's) many interactions?? Please answer this before I address your other points...

No, that is not even remotely what I said.

Just to remind you that you have already acknowledged the point I am making and agreed with me...