I'm not exactly sure. I just know what I'd choose.

First I'd be curious. What in the heck are you talking about? Sure, I want to see what that's all about. And then I'd sort of feel like I was caged, just taking the premise of the film at face value, and I would want to remain free.

Misery in the domain of the real!

Well, I don't know if I'd call it misery. But I'd want real power and money, as opposed to dream power and money. And besides that there are other more important things which would be similar -- whatever we care about I'd want something real rather than a simulation of what is real. What is real matters to me.

That's fair.

I'll own up to the fact that love has been one of my philosophy topics for a bit. :D But there's wisdom to what you're saying here.

Again, have a expressed my love and adoration with saying that I love you more than words can say? — Posty McPostface

Sure. But I don't see what you think this entails.

Surely, we can talk about love; but, it is often shown through deeds and acts. A transactional relationship can entail everything that is the case about love.

Yes, it's shown through deeds or acts.

I'm not drawing the same implications you are. I don't see how you get from your first sentence to your second sentence, in a reasonable fashion.

"Psychology: an interaction of an individual with one or more other persons, especially as influenced by their assumed relational roles of parent, child, or adult" — Baden

I had hoped that the use of examples like a shopkeeper would make it clear exactly what I mean by transactional.

But even a role seems a bit off to me. I'm not so sure about that.

To me though it seems to inhere conditionality, the necessary expectation of something in return, which doesn't fly with regard to love. See Un's post. . — Baden

Yeah, I think you're right there.

Anyhow, talk is cheap in this area

It can be. But I think it's worth exploring love at a conceptual level, too. I'm halv-sies on the role cognition can play in healthy relationships -- it's not all talk, feelings and actions play a bigger role than Reason may wish, but reason can help too.

But I do. They feel different. Just as I have a reason to distinguish between red and blue -- they look different -- so I have a reason to distinguish between transactional and loving relationships -- they feel different.

You have no grounds for doubting here. — Posty McPostface

What? I'm totally confused as to what you're getting at. My best guess right now is you believe I was talking about someone else's relationship which is transactional and so I don't know what they are feeling -- but I wasn't talking about someone else's relationship, I was talking about my feelings with respect to someone I have a purely transactional relationship contrasted to someone I have a loving relationship with.

Yes. Though I'm a little hesitant to call something second nature, just because I'm always leery of essences in general, but maybe that won't be an issue. Unthinking behavior and analysis are definitely different from one another, though. I think I can agree that human life has both in them, and they are different from one another.

I'd say feelings are noticeably absent. Also, the kind of commitments , as well as specific commitments, in a transactional relationship differs from a loving relationship. My commitment to a store clerk is to not steal, or some such, but that's about it. To a lover I'm committed to their well-being.

And then there is the relationship itself -- the mutual feelings and commitments that are shared between people that I do not feel for the store clerk, nor do they feel that for me.

And then there's the kinds of actions. For a store clerk I simply pay for what I'm buying, and leave. If I don't buy something of his there is nothing personal at stake -- he's just not selling what I'm buying at the price I want it at, and that's that. But for a lover I will think of things they enjoy and do things so that they might enjoy them because I am motivated out of care for them, in particular. I'll know their quirks, their dislikes, their likes, dreams, feelings... so many personal details that just are not present in a strictly transactional relationship, which is goal-oriented and ends the moment the goal is completed.

Being in love, falling in love, and acting out of love just don't feel anything like a business arrangement or simply working together towards some end-goal. It's deontological and motivated intrinsically, rather than utilitarian and motivated extrinsically.

This is nonsense. When someone says that they love someone more than what words can convey, then they have conveyed their love, no? — Posty McPostface

Sure. But my bagel is not a "bagel", and when I eat it I'm not eating words.

Love needs more than expressions of love -- it is also actions, commitments, feelings, a relationship, and an experience.

Yet, we treat it as if a beetle in a box, that is unique to us only or to two partners. — Posty McPostface

Hmm. I dunno. It seems to me that love isn't ineffable. Because it's not strictly propositional there is more to love than words, but we can sensibly talk about love.

I don't understand the difference between the two here. — Posty McPostface

Learning is more broad than development. It seems to me like development involves a kind of programme or discipline where someone could potentially teach a skill. But we can learn what pizza tastes like only by eating and tasting pizza -- there is no class that can teach that taste. True, we can develop theories of taste and improve our discernment based upon said theories, but I'm not sure that there is a real discipline here as much as it is a mutual discussion about a shared experience.

Maybe you could develop some sort of discipline, but I am merely uncertain.

We can talk about what people or ourselves think about love; but, in many cases love is a transactional attitude. — Posty McPostface

Like when? And, if so, how is it different from other transactional attitudes? (or is it different at all, in your view?)

Doesn't that imply that love is a unique experience, in a phenomenological nonsensical sense? As if the feeling cannot be learned, and appreciated, and developed over time? — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure what you mean by "phenomenological nonsensical sense" -- care to expound?

I don't know if it's unique. I think we know what we're talking about when we talk about love, at least -- it's not like a beetle in a box that only I have access to. Is that what you mean by unique, or something else?

And I'd say that love can be learned, but I don't know if it can be developed. We learn what love is by being in, falling in, and acting out of love. Then talking about love can help to gain understanding as well, but I think you'd have to have the experience first. I don't think that love is purely propositional and can be understood simply by telling someone 'This is what it is", in the manner that we might say we can understand that the capital of the United States is Washington D.C.

I think I'd fall pretty close to how @Ciceronianus the White talks about love just above in my thoughts, though I think I might make a little more room for its frequency and application.

But is that love?

I'd concur with @TimeLine in saying that a transactional relationship, at least on the face of it, doesn't seem like love. Not even erotic love, which may seem like a transaction of beauty for beauty, seems quite like that to me: I'd say that erotic love is a relationship where you share mutual feelings of appreciation for one another's bodies and mutual pleasures.

At least not "at bottom" -- obviously you can enter into transactions with a lover, such as the splitting of the chores, but you'd do so with a loving relationship already in place for it to count as love. Otherwise it seems like I must love the store clerk, the waitress, a coworker, or anyone who I do interact with on a strictly transactional basis.

I realize you could restrict the definition of love to particular kinds of transactions, but to that I'd just say that love doesn't feel like that -- phenomenologically the experience of love just doesn't feel like an exchange. Hence the difference between friends with benefits and lovers proper.

Love to me is not about how you feel, I see it as a shared goal that you and your partner are constantly striving to work towards — Gord

What's the difference, then, between a lover and a business partner?

I think Bourdieu was touching on the bodily quality of social practices. As you walk through the day, notice how you position your body relative to other people, relative to things. These are social practices that can be unpacked to reveal an array of propositions. — frank

The split is between my emerging view, Dreyfus, and whatever Heidegger was actually trying to say. My view carries more weight with me, obviously — frank

No worries.

I'm not sure how to respond to your quote of Bourdieu. But I'm more than happy to hear your emerging view.

What do you believe social practices can instill? And, for that matter, what do you mean by "instill"? Simply to make someone believe?

I admit -- I don't know all of what you're getting at. But I like that music video and want to talk about it.

There was also a good live performance on SNL worth watching if you haven't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2P2qbr-_Ps

To me: The music video and song is the most angry expression of being trapped in something he doesn't want. America views blacks as happy dancers from Africa willing to put on a performance to get the money they need to escape the poverty enforced upon them, but the song points it out on multiple occasions: "This is America". This happens after the reggae-ish intro claiming that "we just want to party, party just for you, we just want the money, money just for you" -- to set the scene and point to "this" in "this is America".

Of course in the music video he also kills a man just prior to the music change and saying "this is America". But that's because blacks are faceless victims of murder in America, and in spite of that fact -- whether it be police or criminals carrying guns pulling the trigger -- the popular stage for black Americans is as entertainers who are pretty and hip and happy who just want to party.

Also, as if to warn what happens if you fall out of the Black America character, Gambino explicitly says "don't catch you slippin up" -- you're accepted as a party icon, as someone who is out for the money (for you), as someone who would pull the trigger, and also as a victim forgotten not even 2 seconds after the trigger is pulled -- but don't slip out of that.

The dance confirms this variation between happy-fun-entertainer and serious-minded player -- by hopping between clear expressions of gay frivolity that are exaggerated where the eyes are pointed off screen to looking straight at us, the viewer, no smile with advice and a dead cold stare that says 'here is the truth'.

Also, shortly after Gambino is joined by dancers in school clothing that present the "nice negro". They are always involved in a song and dance number as well as in the SNL stage version of the song. They are the front that you need to present, well dressed with good dance moves, that you can't slip out of.

Contrast this with the lyrics where weapons are a necessary part of life, where you have to think like you are going to get what you need, that you are cold, that you are cool, that you are engaged in guerrilla war.

Quick change to a black church choir singing -- the advice from grandma saying you gotta get your money, black man. It sounds happy and looks happy and ends with a Kalashnikov killing every one of the singers.

I honestly thought of the civil rights movement when I saw the choir. It was the old way of doing things, the get your money black man and stand up way. I saw the killing as a breaking away from the old way, as well as throwing back to the worthlessness of black lives in America -- because, immediately after, Gambino says 'this is America'

In the montage that follows we have Gambino and the school-clothes dancers at front, but in the back we have people running around everywhere and chaos -- first there's a guy thrown from the rafters, then you see people sitting in the rafter recording everything with a cell phone, and then a car on fire with a police officer chasing after the people causing chaos in the background.

I am honestly uncertain about the reference to Oaxaca. Just prior to that we get the answer though: "Hunnid bands, hunnid bands, hunnid bands
Contraband, contraband, contraband:

And just after we get a reference to reparations, but ones that are individual:

"America, I just checked my following list and
You go tell somebody
You mothafuckas owe me"

with the quick justification that grandma always told the speaker.

Just prior to all this we have the speaker lighting a blunt, and after the justification we have a common hip hop theme of the speaker hopping on top of a vehicle with plenty of vehicles on display with girls as if he owns them all. But they aren't the usual luxury vehicles. They are old vehicles, as if "get your money" and a blunt are what you have to settle for.

Dancing all the way until the end. Where the truth is presented --

"You just a Black man in this world
You just a barcode, ayy
You just a Black man in this world
Drivin' expensive foreigns, ayy
You just a big dawg, yeah
I kenneled him in the backyard
No probably ain't life to a dog
For a big dog
"

Someone trapped, and running -- and to take the SNL video -- someone still performing for the money.

The fact that the song is catchy and dance-able just adds to the meaning. It's the only medium in which this sort of feeling could be expressed.

edit: So in conclusion I felt the song was both very angry and cynical in its presentation, but because of the ending it seemed like the singer -- as opposed to the person in the music video -- wanted more than this "new" way of doing things. Like there was hope outside of the structures that forced the performer to perform, since at the end he was running. And in some sense, according to the music video, it looked like everyone was running too, even people who are not black. Just that black America has it worse.


Having said that, I don't know that philosophy works in the same way that art does. Art has a place in the world for expression. Philosophy does too. But I don't know if this art replaces philosophy -- they are just different modes of expression.

One thing art has over philosophy is that it's able to express philosophical ideas in a manner that is more tasteful and moving than philosophy tends to be.

But philosophy appeals to reason, at the end of the day. That is both its weakness and strength.

I picked up AB Dickerson's Kant on Representation and Objectivity -- it's an argument that Kant is a particular kind of representationalist that is unique to his philosophy based upon his reading of the B-Deduction. It's been good so far, especially because the deduction is just so hard to understand.

The tv aspect is huge too, and I'm having trouble pinning down its significance — csalisbury

For me I think the television just serves as a strange setting to make the distinction between reality and imagination yet even more difficult to discern. There's also this notion of how the tropes of television seem to constitute the imagination -- sort of like a collective imagination that bridges the gap between persons, erasing their individuality and turning them into Babysitters or Sheriffs or Lovers.

Your whole position seems to me to just be by fiat, in that case. Justice is objective, in your view, because it is not dependent on the subject. But you define justice in a manner which people clearly do disagree with -- there are people who believe the death penalty is just, for instance. There are people who also don't think that justice is the most fundamental value. When confronted with those counter-examples, you say they don't really disagree on values, but rather are making mistakes in reasoning. Why? Because justice is the equal treatment of people, and what they propose violates justice.

It's a bit circular. Of course if what you say is true then what you say is true. But the same could be said for the man who believes in the death penalty -- in which case it is you who wish to spare a man's life who justly deserves death, to use your reasoning, that is falling to an error in fact or reasoning.

Can a whole cosmology really be instilled by social practices? — frank

I feel like this thread must have split off from another conversation, but I like the question so I thought I'd have a go at it.

I'm split a bit on what you mean. In one sense of cosmology it seems obviously true that a cosmology can be instilled by social practices. You would just need a social practice which teaches cosmology to people, like a school or a church or some such. And we obviously already have institutions which do exactly that. Insofar that someone believes what's being taught, you'd have your cosmology instilled entirely by a social practice. That's just a straightfroward example. I don't know if "stand up straight" has the same effect as a school, though maybe in conjunction with many such norms, injunctions, habits, and so forth social practices could basically function the same as schools do.

I feel that I have but I'll try it again.

I'll think upon the action at hand. I'll apply this or that moral calculus as an exercise. Then I'll make a decision based upon what seems best, relative to the things that are important to me. I'll reflect upon what I've done in the past, and make adjustments based upon said reflections.

I don't think this is unique to me. But it's a fair description of how I decide things.

I don't see any difference here than people insisting on being right in other threads here. Unless you'd claim that all threads here eventually devolve into mere persuasion? But then again, the art of rhetoric is the art of persuasion, so perhaps that's a big part of what all discussions are about? — NKBJ

I don't wish to say that everything devolves into persuasion. I don't even wish to say this thread devolved, even. At most I was giving @chatterbears a light ribbing for simultaneously claiming reason and science while obviously being motivated by a deep passion, and being unable to admit to that. It's the sort of thing that you see Sam Harris do too -- thinking that there really could only be one position that anyone could reasonably hold.


It's not just the act of persuasion. I mean, sure, we frame our arguments in that way. But at the point of discussing rhetorical tactics to persuade? That's what really set my mind off with respect to missionary work, because those sorts of apologetics are exactly the kind of thing discussed in groups dedicated to persuading others. The same happens in politics too, for what it's worth. "if they believe X, then respond Y" There's a kind of lack of ability to listen to others that comes with that level of planning out your conversation.

For what it's worth, I have not for a moment thought that anyone would change their minds due to this thread. I've mainly seen it as a useful vehicle for helping me better clarify and articulate my own position.

Sure, I feel the same there.

I think veganism can be defended, it's mostly the manner in which chatterbears did it that I was responding to. I wouldn't even mind if vegans won their political goals. There would be some good from it.

There's sooo many fallacies this whole "you're just a missionary" statement could fall under... suffice to say that it would be pure stubbornness on your part to look at this entire discussion and claim that the entire vegan position (even if you don't agree with it) lacks any merit whatsoever and that anyone trying to defend it is just being a missionary.
That goes against a core principle of philosophy--the principle of charity. — NKBJ

I don't think that the entire vegan position boils down to missionary work. I don't think missionary work is even a bad thing -- especially in light of a good cause. I have soap box issues myself that are near and dear to me.

But discussing what to say to what sounds an awful lot like apologetics to me. I mostly try to avoid my soap box issues here anymore, though I'll mention what I believe, because soapboxing isn't philosophy. If you have that kind of conviction the issue stops looking like something that's really worth debating. You're persuaded. And persuasion seems to be the goal at that point.

Does that count as philosophy, anymore? Maybe so. But it's a philosophy which is concerned with the beliefs of the listener -- a kind of medical philosophy where the practitioner is attempting to move someone from one belief to another for their betterment, be it moral or otherwise.

Every missionary has their bible and their conversion story. But without a passion for a value the reason and logic won't do the work that the missionary does.

:D

Vegan apologetics spoken like a true believer. It reminds me of missionary work -- if the person you wish to convert believes this, then respond with that, if something else then this argument works better.

It seems to me that there is a fourth option available while discussing bootstrap problems: agreement.

We can disagree with any assertion. But do we? I'd say usually not -- usually there is something we can find that we agree upon.

Insofar that there is some agreement between participants in a philosophical dialogue then there is a place to begin from.

That's a great story. And I didn't see the ending until it was too late, too -- sort of like what the son went through.

I thought the story was definitely about race. And, in particular, race in the United States. The author had a very clear picture of the minds of white people which still relates to today. The only time that our characters interact with black people is through whiteness -- and they are both condescending to blacks in their own way. We just get two sides of the same coin; whiteness is the basis of each of their interactions towards blacks, be it of a genteel southerner used to looking down on blacks or an educated white man proud of himself for being beyond race.

I like the title as well. It seems to go along with the mother's dreams for herself and her son -- and rather than live in a world where whites are integrated, she would die on her path to the pinnacle.

The son is equally rotten. He's just so mean to his mom. He thinks it's because of this or that moral platitude, but really I think the author lets on enough that it's because she didn't secure enough for him, and he is bitter about his lot in life and he takes it out on his mother. Not that he really wanted her to die from it; he just wanted to lash out at something, and his mother was an easy target. His meanness went beyond mere annoyance at having to escort her because of integration. I think that the imaginings of the mansion are the clue to his mean spirit.

What I meant by this was, how do you differentiate between right and wrong? What mechanism do you use to morally justify an action as right/correct? — chatterbears

I don't think there is such a thing as a mechanism which justifies action as morally right or wrong. Differentiating between right and wrong takes judgment, choice, and a willingness to look at the effects of your actions. The various calculi proposed can help in thinking through any choice, but they are just tools for reflection.

There is only judgment, action, and living with the choices you make.

Some humans aren't moral agents, such as mentally disabled people — chatterbears

I don't think this is the case at all. If you are human then you are a moral agent, and deserve the respect that this entails. There are circumstances of character or environment which mitigate responsibility, but that does not then mean that the person is not a moral agent.

Consider, for instance, how strange it would be to hold your dog as morally responsible for digging through the trash. That's just silly.

This is just as flawed as appealing to 'preference'. What makes you happy does not say anything about what is right or wrong.

If it make me happy to cheat on my wife, am I then justified in doing so? If it makes me happy to torture animals, am I then justified in doing so? If it makes me happy to exploit animals for my taste pleasure, am I then justified in doing so? No. No. And no. — chatterbears

I'd say this suffers from a impoverished view of happiness. Happiness is not so singular as this sort of view suggests. There are general enough trends in happiness that it can serve as a guide to a good life. Not as something failsafe, or anything. Just general.

But, regardless, I did note other things in my reply to you. Namely that we are moral agents, and if aliens were sufficiently human-like to be moral agents then they'd be included and not treated like beasts. Beasts are not culpable for their actions, but they do suffer -- so it is reasonable to treat them as beings which suffer, and not with the same respect as I give moral agents. So we can kill them, though to make them suffer is too much.

Also, as a side question. What do you base your moral foundation on. The bible? The mind of God? Etc... — chatterbears

I don't believe there are moral foundations at all. We are adrift in a universe devoid of intrinsic meaning or value, and one way that we create a meaningful life in said universe is living an ethical life. But said meaning-seeking activities are a matter of choice more than anything. Rather than having a moral foundation we are beings which believe this or that is right or wrong, and act in accord with this or that to the extent that we are passionate enough about it.

For myself I think living a happy life is good. I also think that living a just life is good. I also have moral intuitions which are similar, but not identical, to Kantian moral philosophy. Those are probably the most foundational values I have, but I'm willing to go against them too depending on the situation. I'm willing to hear out other thoughts, and find a middle road between them when working with others. I have very few hard rules. I think that the world is too complicated to live a life bound by principles -- generally, a good will, a willingness to listen to others, and prioritize the people you love will go far.

But there are no guarantees and there are no answers. There are just choices which prioritize values, and the responsibility that this sort of freedom incurs: the acceptance of the choice and the act.

Plus, I view ethical thought as a constant work in progress. So there aren't any rods to hold to. As the world changes, as I change, so do the morals. It is more appropriate to deliberate the world as it is than it is to fashion whole new commandments from on high that we stand by.

Again, unless you want to produce an inconsistency within your own ethical framework, you would need to grant the same 3 basic rights to animals. — chatterbears

I do not believe that humans have inalienable rights. They have legal rights, and that's it. As God does not exist so too with Inalienable rights -- they do not exist. There is no God who we stand in front of as equals.

Since you claim you are not a speciesist, you seem to be basing your reasoning on preference? Which we can easily refute right now.

Is "preference" a valid justification to use for causing needless harm to another sentient being? It could be the preference of a white man to enslave a black man. It could be my preference to torture a dog and then kill it. It could be your preference to contribute to factory farming. None of these are a "need". So when you say, "when it comes to satisfying needs", eating meat is not a NEED for survival.

Clearly "preference" is not valid, and not consistent. — chatterbears

My preference was for human needs, not for causing needless harm. It is a moral preference, if you will, and I don't think there is anything more than preference to secure moral feeling. Reasoning only goes so far, and is moored in moral preferences of moral agents. Also note that need, for myself, is not just brute necessity, but is defined by what makes human beings happy rather than what is required to survive.

The beasts aren't even moral agents. They are not culpable for their actions, because they are beasts. We are. But, in being culpable, we are also simply reflections of what we desire in a moral sense. So, for yourself, you desire rights to be universal. This would include beings that can feel pain, and not just morally culpable agents. You believe this in your desire to be consistent. Consistency is the main drive behind all of your replies -- maybe you could give up rights, but whatever you or someone else proposes you believe that they must be consistent in their proposals.

I'd say that this notion of consistency is a bit vague. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's just mere logical consistency you're thinking of. I think it only makes sense for your notion of consistency to apply to animals in the light of another commitment -- that those deserving moral consideration are those who can feel pain. I don't think that sentience makes sense, because that's a much harder thing to prove of various animals, and besides it seems that you're mostly concerned with animal suffering anyways. In light of an animals ability to feel pain you believe they should have three rights, because you believe all humans deserve those three rights. In that sense I can see what you mean by consistency -- anything that feels pain is worthy of moral consideration, and animals can feel pain, so you would be inconsistent if you just decided that only humans got these basic rights when the important thing is that all animals feel pain.

That makes perfect sense to me. But I don't believe in rights. Further, I don't think that the ability to feel pain is enough, or even the only thing. What if a human couldn't feel pain, after all? Well, they would still be human, and deserving of the respect afforded them as a moral agent regardless of this trait. I believe in a commitment to other human beings, and maybe more generally to moral agents (so in the case of aliens who are relatively human-like I would say we should treat them like humans, and not like cows).

I think pain is an important thing to consider in how we treat some being. Needless suffering I can understand should be prevented -- I am the sort of moral agent who prefers this kind of world, and think it a good thing to pursue. But I don't think that leads to veganism, simply reform of how we kill animals.

This seems to me you are a speciesist. Is this correct? That because a species is different, we are therefore justified in treating them however we want. — chatterbears

If that's what speciesism is then I don't think I'd qualify as a speciesist.

How different are we from animals, really? Is there a difference that makes a difference?

Not really. We are nothing but animals, ourselves. And we are an animal I happen to prefer over other animals, when it comes to satisfying needs.

That doesn't then imply that I think we can do whatever we want to every other animal. I don't believe in torturing animals. I find some scientific experiments that use animals to be inhumane. I think dog fighting and cock fighting are wrong. I don't think the way we produce meat now is humane.

So I guess I don't qualify, by this particular definition. Still, I think it's fine to eat other animals. We can do so, and other animals do the same as us. I don't think it's necessary, as you note. We could get by on a vegan diet -- the species wouldn't cease to exist were everyone to go vegan.

But so what?

It seems to me that you believe animals have inalienable rights. But why? Why on earth would you believe such a thing? What gives animals rights?

Humans have rights in our current political setup. I don't think they have inalienable rights. Rights are legal entities that gives some political agent a claim to something -- be they positive or negative rights.

If you're not consistent within your own subjective ethics, you have no grounds for telling me what is moral or immoral. And also, you have contradictory/hypocritical beliefs within your own internal moral framework. — chatterbears

Well, I wasn't telling you what is moral or immoral. :D By all means bless your vegan heart.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. It's up to us, and so we should? Or we have the power, whereas they do not, and so we should grant rights to animals? Or they have rights, and don't have the power to secure them, whereas we do, and so we should secure the rights they already have?

People keep misinterpreting what I mean by the moral trifecta. I am not stating that most people adhere to this moral trifecta, because in reality I would say most people do not. You don't need empathy for other animals to lead to Veganism. All you need is empathy for humans, and logically consistency. And I would also argue, you may not even need empathy, but could replace empathy with a foundation for basic universal human rights. So just focus on these two things. — chatterbears

OK.

Do you believe in the most basic universal human rights?

I do not. I think rights are inadequate for addressing the needs of human beings. That doesn't mean I think that they should be violated, mind. It only means that I think the political theory which requires us to frame demands as rights is deficient.

Regardless, though, for the sake of argument I'm fine with just saying I do believe in the 3 articles below.

And I am not even referring to all 30 articles of human rights. For the sake of argument, let's just say these:

- Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
- Freedom from Slavery
- Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment

If you believe that every human deserves at least those 3 articles of human rights, that ultimately leads to veganism. You don't even need to bring empathy into the discussion. Because after you acknowledge those 4 articles of human rights, it now comes down to ethical consistency.

Why do you deserve those 3 articles of rights, but an animal does not? Whatever that trait/quality may be, if it were true of a human, would you then be willing to violate the rights of that human? Simple consistency test.

Because humans are more important to me than other animals. It's not a particular trait of humans that makes me feel that way, or a set of traits. I belong to the group 'humans', and I look out for their self-interest.

These are, after all, human rights. Rights which human beings decided we deserve and in turn built into human institutions to make those rights a reality, to the best of our ability. With Locke the reason humans all had natural rights was due to being created by God and equal in the eyes of God.

I'm going to hazard a guess here, since you're talking about Sam Harris in your OP, that you probably don't share that view.

What, then, could secure rights for human beings? It seems to me what is left are institutions. And since institutions are built for our own self-interest, we aren't being inconsistent in giving rights to ourselves and not to all animals.

Indeed. I've thought that from the start. We've had to try to tease them out. The opening post doesn't say anything about equality, for example, yet some kind of equality seems to be a big part of it, and a part which is much more controversial. Perhaps that's why it was hidden. — Sapientia

I don't think @chatterbears is intentionally setting up their argument to be deceptive or anything like that. I think chatterbears is very passionate about animal rights, and sometimes when that's the case it becomes hard to understand why other people don't believe as oneself -- and hard to see that there may be implicit assumptions that make the belief justified to themself.

From what you're saying, this sounds like speciesism, correct? — chatterbears

Sure.

I think there's an easily exploitable flaw in your trifecta, which is that you're relying upon empathy. And many of us don't have the emotional reservoir to be empathic towards every living thing -- not even every living thing that experiences pain.

Empathy and compassion are important, but it just doesn't follow that having empathy and compassion and consistency implies veganism. Because we can have all three, feel nothing for certain animals, and continue on our marry way.

There are more commitments than you're letting on that makes your belief work.

Which is why the most important part of the trifecta is logical consistency. If you are a believer in universal human rights, that ultimately leads to Veganism. Because you cannot justify the discrimination of animals without internally contradicting your own position, as I have pointed out multiple times on this thread.

Person A believes it is okay to kill animals because animals are less intelligent.
Person A believes it is NOT okay to kill humans because humans are less intelligent.

These are two contradictory statements. One justifies killing based on intelligence level, while the other does NOT. Because as I have asked before, for this specific example, if you took a human (severely autistic) who had the intelligence level of being no greater than a cow, would we now be justified in killing them? No. Therefore using the justification of "lesser intelligence" to kill something, is invalid and inconsistent. — chatterbears

But I didn't use intelligence. In fact I said intelligence is not a good basis for moral feeling.

The difference between me and you and a cow is that you and I are human. That's it.

well, I double checked before saying that :D. But maybe I missed something. I thought that the timeline as presented vs. events actually reported was one of the meta-fiction conflicts, but maybe I missed something.

It is anecdotal, but nonetheless accurate to a greater degree than you may think. I've watched plenty of debates on this topic, as well as spoken to 100+ people about it. Out of the hundreds of opposing views I have read or watched on this topic, only 1 person has been internally consistent without being vegan. They were holding the view that human rights don't matter, and they also lacked empathy for ANY living being (human and animal included). This is a position, I would argue, almost nobody holds — chatterbears

Anecdotal experience is not evidence.

So are you appealing to the societal/cultural norm? Which, I don't think I would need to state how flawed that position is. The cultural norm says nothing about what is moral or immoral, but more so what people have generally agreed is permissible. in Saudi Arabia, it is the cultural norm to put homosexuals to death, yet I think we would both agree that their cultural norm is immoral. So you cannot point to 'societal or cultural norms' as a justification for your actions. — chatterbears

I am merely telling you why I feel as I do, from a causal perspective.

What is flawed, I think, is your moral trifecta. If you want to argue for veganism then you need to include more than mere empathy -- because empathy is indeed influenced by cultural norms.

Oh yeah! Something else I wanted to mention to hear what others thought...

There's a number of times that the babysitter is either looking at a penis or imagining that she has a penis. It's never flattering -- the penis is small and rubbery and she imagines how funny it must feel to have it come out of the hole in male underwear. In some sense, to my mind, it almost seems like a desire to escape being the object of desire. Because the men are never mistreated in the story. And it points out how funny that a little rubbery bit flopping between the legs ready to piss over everything (as evinced with the Jimmy) makes such a huge difference.

I'd say that the story does say something about the nature of desire, though.

Not that this is the whole take. I think you're right to point out that it's metafiction -- it is fiction that is about fiction, playing with the tools of fiction.

But there is something about desire that is communicated in the story -- how it melds with reality and crosses from mere imagination to collective imagination to mass media. And how desire, as contorted like this, is fragmented. It is a ecstatic high, but it's also pitted against itself and totally confusing.

I think that the reason it kept flipping into my mind while reading Cat Person was because of the subject of both was erotic desire, but in an unpleasant way. Plus you had in Cat Person desire contradicting itself, so it just kept leaping to mind. Though clearly they aren't the same kind of story, either.