Philosophical Vegan Forum

I am a new member. As the title suggests, I am planning to ask a question about whether cat ownership is compatible with consequentialism, the philosophical framework that inspired me to go vegan. Thanks for having me!

hello averagefolk, welcome to the forum!

We have plenty of threads on cat and pet ownership, but feel free to start a thread on it!

Welcome averagefolk, what kind of consequentialist are you? More utilitarian or more altruist?

Sounds like an interesting discussion either way. Happy to answer here, or in a new thread if you're up to starting one.

Welcome to our community.

To address your question. Cat ownership can be compatible with consequentialism if it is done right. Unfortunately, it rarely is.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:03 am Welcome averagefolk, what kind of consequentialist are you? More utilitarian or more altruist?

If I'm being completely honest, I often describe myself as a naive consequentialist. I am not especially well-educated on the topic and I'm not sure i understand the difference between utilitarianism and altruism.

That said, I have found Peter Singer's arguments to be compelling. I want to act in a way that reduces suffering overall, even if doing so causes me to suffer or be inconvenienced. I'm more skeptical of what I have heard called positive utilitarianism. I don't understand how happiness and pleasure can cancel suffering and pain, but I'm open to having my mind changed about that.

averagefolk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:19 pm If I'm being completely honest, I often describe myself as a naive consequentialist. I am not especially well-educated on the topic and I'm not sure i understand the difference between utilitarianism and altruism.

Well feel free to start a thread on it, but a good start is to note that utilitarianism and altruism are both forms of consequentialism; Some people think utilitarianism satisfies the definition better, and altruists believe that altruism does.

averagefolk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:19 pmThat said, I have found Peter Singer's arguments to be compelling. I want to act in a way that reduces suffering overall, even if doing so causes me to suffer or be inconvenienced. I'm more skeptical of what I have heard called positive utilitarianism. I don't understand how happiness and pleasure can cancel suffering and pain, but I'm open to having my mind changed about that.

I love Singer's works on veganism and effective altruism, but last I heard he identifies as a 'hedonistic utilitarian' which from I gather is utilitarianism that adjusts itself so as to deal with the utility monster argument.

averagefolk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:19 pmI want to act in a way that reduces suffering overall, even if doing so causes me to suffer or be inconvenienced.

That would be altruism.

averagefolk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:19 pmI'm more skeptical of what I have heard called positive utilitarianism. I don't understand how happiness and pleasure can cancel suffering and pain, but I'm open to having my mind changed about that.

That's just normal utilitarianism. The difference with altruism is that *your own* pleasure doesn't make up for the suffering of others. But happiness for others can make up for the suffering of others. Take a dollar away from a rich man (suffers ever so slightly the loss) and give it to a poorer man (whose life is made better by the gain) and you have net gain. The good has overwhelmed the bad. Basically the concept of taxes to pay for welfare, or the classical Robbin Hood.

Red wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:35 pm I love Singer's works on veganism and effective altruism, but last I heard he identifies as a 'hedonistic utilitarian' which from I gather is utilitarianism that adjusts itself so as to deal with the utility monster argument.

I don't think it has anything to do with the utility monster argument.

It's just consideration only for experienced pleasure and pain, and no consideration for interests themselves. Abducting people off the street and plugging the whole of humanity into pleasure machines would be good even if people didn't want that because it would maximize pleasure.

averagefolk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:19 pmI want to act in a way that reduces suffering overall, even if doing so causes me to suffer or be inconvenienced.

That's great, but would you:

donate one of your kidneys?
perform oral sex on the bottom 1 percentile on the attractiveness scale?

It doesn't take much to be better than average but I don't think anyone is 100% altruistic.

Jebus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:44 am donate one of your kidneys?
perform oral sex on the bottom 1 percentile on the attractiveness scale?

It doesn't take much to be better than average but I don't think anyone is 100% altruistic.

An effective altruist probably wouldn't do those things. Donating a kidney puts you at risk and you can save far more lives being in top health.
Performing oral sex on an unattractive person may give that person false hope of a relationship which you likely don't have time for as this person probably wouldn't be an optimal supportive mate for your altruistic pursuits.