Fair Comments on Peter Singer's argument?

[Frank Quasar]

do you guys think this is a fair point against Peter Singer's arguments/positions? what are your thoughts on this user's points?

[brimstoneSalad]

Not really fair, since that's not the point.

The fact that Singer defines the basis of morality as something physically real (it doesn't need to be based on biology alone) makes it a valid argument; it actually contains the necessary premises to come to the conclusions he's trying to reach. Now if you don't agree with those premises, that's where the argument lies. It's not like Isaac's NTT which tries to avoid naming or limiting the nature of moral consideration and ends up invalid because of it.

Of course if you could make an argument that didn't have to have such a premise you could potentially reach more people because you wouldn't be dependent on that agreement (even relativists like this Death Valley Druids person). That's what Isaac tried to do with NTT and it came at the expense of logical validity.

I don't agree with Singer's particular basis of morality (Singer is more of a classical utilitarian, whereas interests seem to be more important), but it's in the right ballpark.

Of course if you're a moral relativist and don't think morality is anything more than whim or opinion of individuals or society, then that realist designation might not work for you. Not even appealing to interests (rather than some quality like intelligence etc.) would be compelling.

It's pretty easy to attack relativism, though, seeing as how it degrades into complete subjectivism so easily and makes moral thought and discourse useless.

Death Valley Druids is dead wrong when he says that rational agents can assign moral status without any reference to such relevant properties; if they attempt to do so then they do it arbitrarily, and lose the quality of being rational themselves. The same thing can be used to justify racism or any number of irrational prejudices based on arbitrary consideration. It's something a legitimately rational agent would be averse to, instead choosing to look for qualities of the beings (or the instrumental value of those beings to others with those qualities) that substantiate moral consideration.

[Frank Quasar]

thanks for the response. i was kinda having a back and forth with him and another carnist (MiLK SOP) on the thread at the time, and i didn't feel as though i was particularly ready to challenge him thoroughly on his argument. (he's the carnist from one of your screenshots in the arguments against NTT)

i'm a bit curious, though. you're a moral realist from what i can tell, but i'm not too sure in what sense you are a moral realist. are you a moral realist in the ontological sense or are you a moral realist in the epistemological sense?

i'm really agnostic on this issue, i think this conversation has so much that i'm not understanding fully so i plan to read up/watch some material for moral objectivism to understand the basic framework of it. i don't necessarily agree with robust moral realism, but minimal moral realism kinda interests me. i'll read your article that covers the strawman of objective morality soon as a starting point.

i will say that as far as i can see, i do particularly find moral universalism to be interesting and something that i may agree with.

[brimstoneSalad]

i'm a bit curious, though. you're a moral realist from what i can tell, but i'm not too sure in what sense you are a moral realist. are you a moral realist in the ontological sense or are you a moral realist in the epistemological sense?

The distinction between "ontological" and "epistemological" is part of the strawman that Isaac/the "skeptic" community and William Lane Craig have collaboratively created and propagated.

You said you'd read it soon, but I'll link it again for anybody else reading:
wiki/index.php/Objective-subjective_dis ... y_Strawman

It's hard to deny minimal realism, but what exactly that entails as a distinction from robust realism is less clear.

Being a minimalist who is agnostic about robust realism seems like a sensible position.

i will say that as far as i can see, i do particularly find moral universalism to be interesting and something that i may agree with.

That's pretty much the only viable alternative to nihilism, since relativism collapses into complete subjectivism which is useless.

[Frank Quasar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJ1RwhFSPg

you should be made aware of this video by Omnizoa in regards to NTT. it's interesting.

[brimstoneSalad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJ1RwhFSPg

you should be made aware of this video by Omnizoa in regards to NTT. it's interesting.

Thanks, I have heard of it and I clicked but I have not yet watched it.

Do you think we could get this person on the forum to engage with the argument?

[Frank Quasar]

truth be told, i don't think many people are interested or willing to engage within the forum to have discussion. people just aren't interested in forums anymore in general, so the most realistic chance of engaging with him in regards to the argument is within discord or something.

also, i should add, if you want to speak to AVI again you should get in touch with the guy on discord because he's not going to join a forum when he can instead interact back and forth with you in real time through text. it could be productive between the both of you since this is idealistically the only realistic chance of prosper

what do you think of his polyaxiomatic position, btw?

[brimstoneSalad]

so the most realistic chance of engaging with him in regards to the argument is within discord or something.

Is he in Seitanism or Vegan Death Squad?

also, i should add, if you want to speak to AVI again you should get in touch with the guy on discord because he's not going to join a forum when he can instead interact back and forth with you in real time through text. it could be productive between the both of you since this is idealistically the only realistic chance of prosper

I'm not sure he's in any servers I'm in, and if I joined AY's server I'd be banned instantly.

The trouble with Discord (unlike the forum) is that there's a tendency to get overrun with trolling, and there are very few places where we could talk where I wouldn't be swamped or banned.

what do you think of his polyaxiomatic position, btw?

I'm not familiar with it. Can you find a quote that explains it, or summarize it for me?

[Frank Quasar]

yeah, omnizoa is in Seitanism from what i believe, yes. you can get into contact with him there.

well, you can always think of relocating yourselves and speaking through DMs on discord as a means to avoid getting swarmed or trolled by people, it can be private between the both of you and it excludes those issues.

i'm still trying to learn it fully, but i'll try to concise it in the way i know it, so take this with a grain of salt:

he bootstraps something like deontology (or consequentalism) at the base level, so for an action, such as murder, it is wrong according to this theory. on his graph it would be evil to murder 1 person in order to save 5 people. once the well-being to suffering ratio gets high enough he will switch over to consequentalism. so, once this happens, it would be evil to not murder 1 person in order to save 1 billion people. AVI also acknowledges that his system does have gray areas, and those are fine too, he does not proclaim to have an absolute totalitarian system because he thinks in some given situations deontologists/consequentalists will say crazy whack shit to the questions that his system otherwise does not adhere to. for example, a deontologist would have to say that it is still wrong to murder 1 person in order to save 1 billion people, whereas with AVI he would make the switch and not reduce to this absurdity.

^ this is bootstrapped from his personal intuitions, it's not meant to give out an answer to non-abritrary things etc.

you should ask for a screenshot of his graph in Seitanism and possibly look to whatever else has to be said. i'm still learning this through, so apologies if i messed up somethings, lol.

[Jamie in Chile]

The comment from Death Valley Druids is not particularly insightful in my opinion and certainly does not amount to an argument that can defeat the marginal cases argument.