= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Why Eat Less Meat? - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (513)
Why? I actually think this is an important consideration. Is "suffering" by definition something only humans can do? If so, isn't this arbitrarily restricting the definition? If not, do you doubt something empirical about nonhuman animal minds?
~
You've characterized my argument correctly. It seems to me that most people already care about the suffering of nonhuman animals without quite realizing it, i.e. why they on the intuitive level resist kicking kittens and puppies. But I acknowledge that some people aren't like this.
I don't think there's a good track record for the success of moral arguments. As a moral anti-realist, I must admit that there's nothing irrational per se about restricting your moral sphere to humans. I guess my only counterargument would be that it seems weird and arbitrary.
What would you say to someone who thinks we should only care about the suffering of white humans of European descent? Would you be fine with that?
Suppose morality is a 'mutual sympathy pact,' and it seems neither weird nor arbitrary to decide how sympathetic to be to others by their ability to be sympathetic towards you. Suppose instead that morality is a 'demonstration of compassion,' and the reverse effect holds--sympathizing with the suffering of those unable to defend themselves (and thus unable to defend you) demonstrates more compassion than the previous approach which requires direct returns. (There are, of course, indirect returns to this approach.)
I'm confused as to what those considerations are supposed to demonstrate.
Basically, I don't think much of your counterargument because it's unimaginative. If you ask the question of what morality is good for, you find a significant number of plausible answers, and different moralities satisfy those values to different degrees. If you can't identify what practical values are encouraged by holding a particular moral principle, what argument do you have for that moral principle besides that you currently hold it?
I don't think moral principles are validated with reference to practical self-interested considerations.
What do you think moral principles are validated by?
Or, to ask a more general question, what they could possibly be validated by?
Broadly, I think moral principles exist as logical standards by wish actions can be measured. It's a fact whether a particular action is endorsed by utilitarianism or deontology, etc. Therefore moral facts exist in the same realm as any other sort of fact.
More specifically, I think the actual set of moral principles someone lives by are a personal choice that is subject to a lot of factors. Some of it might be self-interest, but even if it is, it's usually indirect, not overt.
OK. But standards are not facts. They are metrics in the same way that a unit of length, say, meter, is not a fact but a metric.
How do you validate the choice of meters (and not, say, yards) to measure?
The usual answer is "fitness for a purpose", but how does this work for morality?
True. But whether something meets a standard is a fact. While a meter is a standard, it's an objective fact that my height is approximately 1.85 meters.
~
Social consensus. Also, a meter is much easier to use than a yard.
~
Standards could be evaluated on further desiderata, like internal consistency and robustness in the face of thought experiments.
Social consensus and ease of use could also be factors.
I agree. You can state as a fact whether some action meets some standard of morality. That does nothing to validate a standard of morality, however.
Oh, boy. Social consensus, ease of use, really?