peter_hurford comments on Why Eat Less Meat? - LessWrong

48 Post author: peter_hurford 23 July 2013 09:30PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (513)

CC Licenced

Comments (513)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 July 2013 05:42:47PM 9 points [-]

Thus, by being vegetarian, you are saving 26 land animals a year

I don't quite understand in which meaning is the word "save" used here.

It seems to me that an equivalent statement would be "After a short period of adjustment, you being a vegetarian would result in 26 land animals not existing any more (as in, not being born)".

In the ultimate case of everyone becoming a full vegetarian, domestic animals raised for meat would become endangered species in danger of extinction. I don't think it counts as "saving".

Comment author: peter_hurford 24 July 2013 09:16:49PM 3 points [-]

"Save" as in "saved" from a life of suffering.

Comment author: Lumifer comment score below threshold [+] (40 children)

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 25 July 2013 02:26:00AM 9 points [-]

But the reason we find such reasoning (about the babies) repugnant is that we don't actually believe that heaven and hell are real. Even the majority people who profess to hold these beliefs actually don't. So what we see is just babies being killed.

But what if heaven and hell were real things? What if it were the case that some or most people go to hell and suffer eternally, and we knew this, for a completely reliable fact, and also knew that murdered babies go to heaven? Don't you think our view of things might be different?

Comment author: Desrtopa 25 July 2013 06:03:53PM 3 points [-]

I think it's less that they don't believe heaven and hell are real, and more that heaven and hell are such far concepts that they don't generally intrude on regular believers' reasoning.

Most people believe in starving children, but they generally don't incorporate that knowledge into their day to day behavior even in situations where it would be relevant.

Comment author: Lumifer comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 25 July 2013 02:43:02AM 4 points [-]

Yes; the people doing the arresting and the prosecuting are unlikely to be literal believers. The afterlife is just not a concept for which we get any support in our experience; and in general, most people do not take their religions sufficiently seriously to integrate the implications of their religions' supernatural teachings into their belief systems.

There's a reason why one relatively-common path to nonbelief is that of the intellectual who attempts to take their religion seriously and finds it horrifying and incoherent.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 July 2013 02:45:50AM 1 point [-]

the people doing the arresting and the prosecuting are unlikely to be literal believers.

I don't think so. In particular, I can't see why a literally believing Catholic would not arrest and prosecute these people for murder.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 25 July 2013 02:52:56AM 4 points [-]

You're right, that is a good point. I often forget that most Christians (and indeed most people) are not consequentialists.

I guess I should have said:

What if we, here at lesswrong, or elsewhere where consequentialists hang out, knew that heaven and hell were real and etc. etc.? THEN would our views be different?

Comment author: Lumifer 25 July 2013 03:02:29AM * -2 points [-]

There is a reason why most religions are not consequentialist and usually include strong prohibitions on suicide.

A society of consequentialists who fully believe in Christian heaven and hell would probably start by killing all (innocent) children and then commit suicide at the moment which maximizes their chances of getting into heaven. Thus after a single generation such a society would cease to exist.

Comment author: MTGandP 25 July 2013 03:06:25AM 1 point [-]

If Christianity were true, wouldn't this be the most ethical thing to do? It's only wrong because Christianity is not true.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 July 2013 03:12:47AM 3 points [-]

If Christianity were true, wouldn't this be the most ethical thing to do?

Careful :-) If Christianity were true this would NOT be an ethical thing to do since Christian morality is not utility-maximizing.

Comment author: MTGandP 25 July 2013 03:20:21AM 2 points [-]

Hmm, fair point. If everything about Christianity is true then you're right. I suppose I was presuming that Christian facts about are true, but not Christian values.

Comment author: Lukas_Gloor 25 July 2013 03:33:36AM * 3 points [-]

I think that this assumption is warranted because I don't know what it would even mean for Christian values to be "true". If by morality being true you mean that those who disobey will be punished, then yes, but that doesn't mean that disobeying is wrong according to your personal utility function. And as far as moral realism goes, I don't see how a world where it holds would be different from a world where it doesn't. Even if there is some moral law written into the fabric of the universe, it would still be a further question whether you decide to care about it. So I agree with your original comment, if the heaven-and-hell version of Christianity was true, killing babies would be a very altruistic thing to do.

Comment author: MTGandP 25 July 2013 04:29:11AM * 0 points [-]

Thank you for saying this! I thought something along those lines but I couldn't think of how to put it.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 July 2013 03:41:53AM * -2 points [-]

I don't know what it would even mean for Christian values to be "true".

That's pretty simple. If God -- specifically the Christian God -- truly exists and the general teachings of Christianity adequately represent Him, then Christian morality is basically like physics: it's the natural law because that's how the world has been constructed and that's how it works. Your personal utility function is irrelevant in the same sense in which maybe you really want to fly, yet if you jump off a cliff gravity will still do its job.

That's quite standard theology -- since LW frequently discusses religious matters (without usually recognizing them as such :-D) I recommend at least some familiarity with it...

Comment author: Lukas_Gloor 25 July 2013 03:50:06AM 3 points [-]

My claim is that this idea of morality being "like natural law" is conceptual nonsense. Does it mean that I'd be incapable of violating it? No. Does it mean that I'm being irrational if I don't follow it? Well, one could define rationality that way, but what is the point; I don't care if I'm losing according to the "law of the universe" just like I don't care that I'm losing in terms of reproductive success.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 July 2013 04:03:23AM 1 point [-]

My claim is that this idea of morality being "like natural law" is conceptual nonsense.

I don't think so. "Like natural law" here means "will lead to certain consequences regardless of whether you believe so".

If Christianity were true (we'll ignore a bunch of issues and self-contradictions here) then, for example, dying after committing a mortal sin and without proper repentance will lead you to Hell. Doesn't matter whether you think it wasn't a big deal -- you still end up in Hell. Having free will means you can violate the Christian morality but it's similar to jumping off a cliff -- you just will make a messy splat. Whether you care or not is irrelevant.

continue this thread »

Comment author: hylleddin 25 July 2013 04:54:01AM 1 point [-]

It's much more like choosing not to have kids when you're in a situation where those kids' lives will be horrible.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 July 2013 04:59:51AM 1 point [-]

So every time you take the pill (or put on a condom) you go "I just SAVED another child!" ..?

Comment author: Desrtopa 25 July 2013 03:40:47AM 1 point [-]

I've never heard of anyone doing this, although it's within the realm of possibility, but this was the topic of one of my earliest comments on Less Wrong.

peter_hurford comments on Why Eat Less Meat? - LessWrong

Article Navigation

Comments (513)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (513)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login