And canines, yep, I have some, they are sharp & pointy.
Go take down an antelope with only your teeth ;)
What are my other choices in morality besides subjective and objective?
I don't know. I was really trying to stray away from people arguing how there are no objective morals so killing and everything else is fine. I didn't want to argue about how there are no objective morals. There aren't objective morals, so I wanted to talk to people who actually had morals and would be willing to talk of them.
You don't have to fit into my false dichotomy. You do you.
I don't kill humans for the same reason you do though. I could possibly be persuaded, but I'm not exactly sure what it would be. I think it would be something of the sort following: You would either have to convince me killing sleeping (I'm just gonna use sleep as equivalent to cruelty free for convenience sake) humans is ethically fine OR that cows are different in some way other than logistically speaking (I wouldn't say that the fact that cows can't kill you is morals, that's more practicality; so something other than the two (redemption killing or trea...
How do you justify when you don't eat 'cruelty free' meat? Those animals are suffering during their.
My other question would be, I don't understand why you don't care over the logic of the first paragraph to cows?
I do get what you're saying with creating beings that do have a decent life.
Being perfectly honest, I actually don't understand what's wrong with starting with those words. Maybe this is a failure of communication on my part. I do understand that I shouldn't have said 'so surprised' and some of the other stuff, but what's wrong with asking, "Can I get your guys' perspectives on veganism?"
"I'm a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!"
I'd rather debate things coherently as that's what rationalism is about. I think I'm done here at this point though because not much is getting through on either side. Some o...
I'd like to hear the argument about why trees lives are worth antthing. Sure, they're worth instrumental value, but thats not what we're talking about. I'm arguing that trees are worth 0 and that animals are comparable to humans. Trees aren't conscious. Many animals are.
All aspiring rationalists are equally correct, but some are more equally correct than others ;)
Anything specific? That's not really a crux... yet you criticize me for mine.
What I consider "preserving my life" is weird enough that it could probably be its own conversation though :)
Sure, I could be interested in hearing this as a different topic.
Thank you for linking the crux. I'll try to explain my morality as well.
...I'm using the word "suboptimal" to mean a state of affairs that is less than the highest standard. For example, I have a crick in my neck from looking down at my laptop right now, and there is not a fruit smoothie in my hand even though I want one. My life would be closer to optimal if I did not have a crick in my neck and did have a smoothie. My life would also be suboptimal if I was intense chronic pain. Suboptimal is a very broad term, I agree, but I think my usage of it
You give the benefit of the doubt to even bugs based on weak evidence.
No I don't. I never said anything close to that. In fact, I don't even think there's enough evidence to warrant me from not eating honey.
but are morally opposed to eating other brainless things like bivalves.
Again, not opposed to this. I never said anything about this either. Stop assuming positions.
Me being vegan isn't my only course of action. I convince others (on a micro level and I plan to do it on a macro level), I plan to donate to things, and push for actions like the one you said, but not really focused on school. I'm just getting into effective altruism, so obviously I'm more into consequentialist actions.
Part of me being vegan is so that I can convince others, not just the physical amount of meat I forego. You can't really convince others on a micro, macro, or institutional level if you yourself aren't following it.
Well yes it would still be wrong. I'm talking about the act itself. You would be doing better than the majority of other people because you saved a bunch but then you're stilling doing something wrong.
For instance, if you saved 100 people, its still wrong to kill one.
I think that's what you were saying? If not, could you rephrase, because I don't think I understood you perfectly.
Also, could you explain what information you have to get to change your mind?
I'd like to hear the information what a lot of you would require for your minds to be changed as well!
So the crux of the matter for me is the consciousness of mammals and birds and some other nonhuman animals. As you go down the 'complexity scale' the consciousness of certain beings gets more debatable. It is less known and likely that fish are conscious compared to mammals. And it is less known and likely that insects are conscious compared to fish. However, there is quite the amount of evidence supporting consciousness in all mammals, birds, and some oth...
Yes it does. I'm just arguing that they are comparable.
Is it some deontological objection to killing living things?
Nope
Vegetables are also alive.
And?
To killing animals in particular?
Yes, all mammals, birds, and more are conscious. Many more are self aware. Pigs are of similar intelligence to dogs, so it could be highly likely they are self aware just like dogs are.
I thought we were over this "soul" thing.
Stop being so condescending please.
...Commercial vegetable farming kills animals! Pesticides kill insects with nerve gas. If they're conscious, that's a horrible way to die. But that w
Animistic cultures feel may feel empathy for sacred objects, like boulders or trees, or dead ancestors, or even imaginary deities with no physical form.
Ya.. I'm not buying this here - that's a giant false equivalency. You're comparing inanimate objects to conscious beings; you're also comparing religion and spiritual cultures to scientific arguments.
...Where do we draw that line? Is it only a matter of degree, not kind? How much uncertainty do we tolerate before changing the category? If you take the precautionary principle, so that something is morally
It's not that a chicken, pig, or cow's life is worth some minimal but comparable amount. Because even then there would be some threshold were N chickens, pigs, or cow happiness-meters (for some suitably large N) would be worth 1 human's.
I'm arguing they are comparable. See, I don't think the N is that large.
is not obviously relevant to whether it is moral for humans to eat them.
Sure it is. That's the crux of the matter.
A question. Would you rather be born and live for thirty years and then be executed, or never be born at all?
I would personally rather have been born, but I am not everyone. I have an excellent life that I'm very grateful for. Like you yourself say though, I think the majority disagrees with me on this. This [the fact that most would prefer to not exist than a hellish life] is partially, only partially, why I think its wrong to kill the animals either way.
...(I am planning to make extraordinary efforts to prolong my life, but what that means to me is a l
Very true. Thanks for catching me. I need to work on my communication skills.
I didn't think they weren't numerous. There just isn't a point debating morality with someone who says "morality is subjective." I usually leave those people alone.
I don't think I consciously had this thought though, so thank you that actually could be a different explanation.
people who spent a pleasant day are more willing to do some unpleasant but important task in the evening, compared with people who had a busy and frustrating day and how they finally have one hour of free time that they can spend either doing something unpleasant but important, or browsing web.
This makes a lot of sense. I'm a get-shit-done kinda guy and this could possibly be because I'm also very happy most of the time. I think that I've had a bunch of unintentional and intentional success spirals that I'm very grateful for.
The thing about "far m...
I see now that it could be evidence. I do think its the second paragraph though. I have questioned myself very deeply on this from many angles and I still think I'm correct. I think there's a collective delusion on acting upon arguments for veganism. The difference between veganism and other philosophies is you actually have to do something on a day to day basis unlike a lot of others.
I am very open to being wrong. I know exactly what information would have to be presented to change my opinion.
I never said the second quote. Someone was arguing that this site isn't about change. I argued it is.
Ah I see the argument! That's interesting I hadn't heard of it like that and I would understand if you thought the chicken's life was near worthless. However, I'm going to challenge you on saying that the chicken's life is that minimal amount. Chickens are consciousness and feels pain and pleasure. Should you could rationalize and say "oh but its different from humans" but from what cause? There's nothing to make you think this.
I can move on to chickens, but let's talk about pigs for instance because they are easier. I find it very hard to believ...
I thought I started out fine. I'm not trying to kick shit up. The other person said "That you don't know other big numbers?" so I responded with the same tone.
Isn't mitigating biases change?
I agree.
It's interesting that you don't defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
I don't follow. I did defend that its about change.
This is what I would've said, but you did it in a much more eloquent fashion. Thank you!
Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part. There's no number of deaths in history comparable to this number.
Where did I get that idea? Frequently quoted on this site is, "Not every change is improvement, but improvement starts with a change" or something to that liking. This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change. Learning about biases and mitigating them is all about change. Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.
I hope this a joke. This is low brow even for a response from an average person.
"canine teeth tho"
C'mon, I was expecting more from lesswrong community.
I'm not saying there is objective morality. If you think its subjective, I'm not addressing you here.
I have to say I really think its the backwards rationalization. Everyone here eating meat as a strong drive to want to keep eating it, so there is a lot of motivation to argue that way.
As for your first point, I see what you're saying, but obviously not all vegans think that. A lot of the point is getting the message across to other people as you can't make the message if you yourself eat meat.
I'm against all animal farms so I really don't know how to address that. I mean its a pretty easy argument to say they suffer more in the intensive environments. They're in cages and they're abused their wholes lives. No room to move and only pain.
Honestly looking at the replies, this makes the most sense. I guess this is the answer I was looking for, thank you! I better understand the difference between thought and action.
Just curious, would you put yourself in this same category? If so, do you know why you or others are like this? If so, what goes through your mind because it obviously isn't rationalization? Is it lack of motivation? How do you live with it?
To be perfectly honest, I was hoping for better responses from lesswrong community, many of which would classify themselves as aspiring ration...
Is it ok to eat severely mentally disabled humans than?
The only way for your argument to work is if you think a human's brief minutes of taste outweighs the happiness of the entire animal's life, which is extremely ludicrous. This isn't a nonhuman animals vs humans thing anyway. You can be just as a happy and have just as much great tasting food as a vegan.
I addressed a similar argument above to a self-labeled pescetarian.
I think that starting off by claiming an opposing position is "ridiculous" is very counter productive. Also a debate like this probably doesn't have a "simple answer."
I see what you're saying with the first part of your argument and it's good the subject at least crosses your mind, but for my moral framework, it isn't solely about utilitarian ethics. I don't think happy animals should be killed for the same reason I don't think humans should be killed in their sleep. You may bring up that humans have ideas for the future and such, but do babies? Why then is it wrong to kill babies? Because they will be more conscious in the future, perhaps. How about the severely mentally disabled than? Right here we see an argument fro...
I see what you're saying but I have to disagree. I agree that humans are worth more. Here's the thing though. You have to compare the numbers. This isn't one animal to one human, where I WOULD pick the human. The fact is that 60+ billion animals are slaughtered each year. And as we both probably know, at that point its just a statistic, but take a moment to think about how much that really is. There's no other number comparable to it.
While I applaud that you are pescetarian, I think more can be done and more should be changed. I think that if you pushed yo...
I get what you're saying. That's not evidence that I'm false though. Its not really evidence towards anything. How about we actually discuss the issue than rather that what other people think.
I stated the morality given of which I was talking.... Plus I was asking for perspectives anyway. Why not give yours?
I know this is an old comment, but I still wanted to address it.
Yes, you strongly doubt that, as you should doubt everything, but you're offering no addition to the conversation. You're just saying, I see this, but I doubt it. Would you like to discuss the topic in greater detail? I think I know quite a bit about it and when it comes to economy, nutrition, and morality, there are very strong arguments in favor of veganism.
I'm extremely surprised that the percentage of vegans here is only slightly higher than the general public. I would consider myself an aspiring rationalist and I've had countless, countless arguments over the subject of animal rights and from everything I've found (which is a whole lot), the arguments side heavily towards veganism. I can literally play bingo with the responses I get from the average person, that's how reoccurring the rationalizations are. I can go on in much, much greater extant as to why veganism is a good idea, and from posts and comment...
I live in a tiny rural town, and get the majority of my meat from farmer's markets. Having been raised on a similar farm to the ones I buy from, I'm willing to bet those cows are happy a greater percentage of their lives than I will be. I recognize this is mostly working because of where I live and the confidence I have in how those farms are run. In the same way that encouraging fewer animals to exist in terrible conditions (by being vegan) is good I feel that encouraging more animals to exist in excellent conditions (by eating meat) is good. I don't stop...
Eat less meat.
Thank you for such a clear response and the additional info! :) I have read most of the sequences but some of those links are new to me.
This is a dangerous statement to make. Would you change your mind about Veg*ism? What would it take?
Sure, very easily. You would have to prove to me that 1) Animals aren't conscious or for some reason aren't worth moral consideration 2) Global warming doesn't exist or factory farming doesn't affect it 3) Meat is healthy (I understand paleo can be healthy so this point may not matter) 4) Meat is cheaper, more efficient, and more sustainable compared to plants
We grow plants, many more are not automatically fed.
True, but I think they should be ;)
...Fact
If my worldview was, "animals are inferior and their suffering is irrelevant".
Wouldn't that be an irrational 'axiom' to start from though? Maybe the inferior part works, but you can't just say their suffering is irrelevant. If you go off the basis that humans matter just because than that's a case of special pleading saying humans are better because they are human. There suffering may be less but it isn't irrelevant because they can suffer.
My main reason is animal suffering but thanks for the new information. I'll look that up and keep that in mind!
There is usually a distribution of a few "hardcore" members, and many lukewarm ones. In a statistics that includes all of them, the behavior of the hardcore members can easily disappear.
Could you explain this more in depth; I'm failing to grasp this completely. I apologize.
if we ignore the animal suffering
Why would we do that?
Or maybe it's just that food doesn't get as high priority as e.g. education, making money, or exercise, so people focus their attention on the other things.
I guess, but you can usually focus on multiple things at ...
Thank you for the polite and formal response! I understand what you're saying about the chicken and fish. Pescetarian is much better than just eating all the red meat you can get your hands on.
...When you look at animal suffering, things get a lot more speculative. Clearly you can't treat a chicken's suffering the same as a human's, but how many chickens does it take to be equivalent to a human? At what point is a chicken's life not worth living? This quickly bogs down in questions of the repugnant conclusion, a standard paradox in utilitarianism. Although
Why do you think that rationalism would lead people to becoming veg(etari)an?
Because it is the rational choice. There are barely any benefits to eating meat and a ton for vegetarianism. Animals are conscious to pleasure and pain and can suffer (ask for sources - its a documented fact). If you gave any consideration at all to animals you would abhor factory farming as 50+billion die each year. Factory farming contributes to 50% of greenhouse emissions. On a macro-economic scale, plant foods are much more sustainable and many more people could be fed if w...
Hey! My name's Jared and I'm a senior in high school. I guess I started being a "rationalist" a couple months ago (or a bit more) when I started looking at the list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia. I've tried very hard to mitigate almost all of them as much as I can and I plan on furthering myself down this path. I've read a lot of the sequences on here and I like to read a lot of rationalwiki and I also try to get information from many different sources.
As for my views, I am first a rationalist and make sure I am open to changing my mind about ...
That's my point. You're cheating now. Lions don't cheat.
Carnivores can eat raw meat.
Nah they work better for plant foods. They aren't even very sharp. Also, other herbivores have canines but whatever.
Regardless of this bs^ doesn't matter whether we have canines or not or whether they are useful or not and we both know that. I don't need to explain the natural fallacy to you.
... (read more)