Everything we do, and everything that happens in the natural world, including the affairs of gazelles, eventually affects everything else. — Bitter Crank

Granted, but I am saying humans are not obligated to them as they are directly to animals under their care. Is it a good idea to look after the natural environment? Absolutely.

I mean, there's people dying in Ukraine.. I can't really prevent it. But I would like it to stop. I don't have an obligation to do anything about it either, unless I had a clear way to stop it, and I unnecessarily let it prolong. There are levels of care based on proximity, relation, care, and capacity.

There is a distinction between redheads and blondes. It doesn't imply we have a different ethical responsibility to each. Simply pointing to a difference in property isn't an argument for difference in ethical treatment. — Isaac

It is what those properties mean.. the semantics. Blondes and redheads is a distinction that makes no difference morally. Beings who can reason and beings who can not reason does make a difference when discussing how they interact. We have no obligation to save every animal on earth, nor every human. Humans CAN be considered more important than animals and it would STILL be correct to not cause them unnecessary suffering.

Well, if you're asking me directly, my answer is because it would be ridiculous. Same answer as I'd give to most such ethical extremes. I think it's absurd to pluck an ethical principle out of our intertwined biological and cultural milieu and then, for no reason at all, follow it through to whatever ends, even the destruction of the very wellspring which birthed it. What would be the point? — Isaac

Huh? I'm saying IFF you had the means to protect, why not?

So it occurs to me as I wrote something on another thread that one of the pessimistic outcomes of the behemoth technology that is our modern world is that we can't democratically participate in its production. This has less to do with distribution of resources than it does about the understanding of technology. It is just a fact that some people will more readily understand complex mathematical concepts and scientific formulas more than others. There is no "democracy of understanding". We cannot all participate in being physicists, chemists, and engineers. We can't all participate in the creation and design of useful patents. The majority can only be passive recipients. They can only be fixers, sellers, transporters, administrators, and of course users of the technology made by the creators.

Why not. Why are we not morally responsible for other animals? — Isaac

Because there is a distinction with the "natural world" and the human world. The natural world is that which does its thing without human (beings who are self-aware and can reason) influence and conversely, doesn't directly influence humans. But there can be a case that, if humans have the time and resources, why not go above and beyond (supererogatory actions) and preserve that which might be saved?

You really are scraping the bottom here.

I appreciate the effort it took to write that down, and find little to disagree with. But I’m just asking why you yourself must be governed. — NOS4A2

Thanks.. Because I like having clean drinking water, construction codes, educational institutions offered to everyone, safety nets, courts of law, police protection, protection against invasion, etc. and that are accountable to a democratic process and the informed electorate.

Why are the gazelles on the African savannah not in our protection — Isaac

Because were are not kings with dominion over the earth with all animals as our subjects for protection. That's an odd and antiquated way of looking at it.

Why must you be governed? — NOS4A2

Because nothing happens in a vacuum. Political development is tied in with historical development. We were never in a "state of nature" that is a thought experiment. Rather, we always had communities of a variety of cultural practices. You might say from one perspective that the Native American tribes were "free".. But then you take a closer look and realize that there were immensely restrictive practices on what one can do or not do without becoming an outcast, etc. So have humans ever lived "free" from their fellow man? I'd say no.

So in this "modern" time, we have states that developed due to peculiarities of kingdoms of European conflicts, feudalism giving way to mercantilism, colonization, and the idea of nation united under language and culture rather than religion or territory. But within this current system, states developed as a result of a king uniting various territories or (mainly) Western European countries carving out territories from tribes or previous empires. Within these kingships and colonies, feudal lords and merchant-classes who controlled the resources had interests to protect. They wanted to make sure their property was protected. They wanted to make sure that there was someone around to punish wrongdoers. Methods were developed such as courts and judges and juries for this purpose. Taxes were needed to raise armies and pay knights or sheriffs or strongmen of varieties working on behalf of the crown or council. In order for the lords and the merchants to have their property protected and to gain more wealth, they needed roads. As land was parcelled, they needed a proper way to distribute it. What wasn't in someone's possession was the "kingdoms" and owned by the king. They parcelled it out for favors and allegiance.

As the merchant class began to have more power, they overthrew the lords as ruling class and developed their own councils that the king could not ignore and had to listen to. Some places threw off the king altogether. Merchants, craftsmen, and independent farmers became dominant. They increased the towns and the cities. Most of the farm laborers continued so or became laborers for more wealthy merchants who used land and resources to start corporations and enterprises. With the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment came improved technology. This technology created immense wealth but also a variety of externalities.. Ideas about protecting consumers who might not know the harms were percolating. Ideas of creating social safety nets for the elderly or the poor who could not afford it were promoted. The ideas of following certain safety codes in construction and water consumption were thought of, and on it goes for many thousands of things.

So to sum it up, we have always been "governed" in some way. The modern form started with the rise of the merchants, the Scientific Revolution, and the increase in technology. With this increase in knowledge and technology was a need for more nuanced understanding of how to survive, which included things like safety nets, consumer protections, health care, and the like. The things that were not even around prior to the Scientific Revolution (so weren't even a consideration). Then add the classical merchant interests of protecting one's capital, property, and territory, along with the other classical things such as courts of law and protection of territory.

So why do we protect other humans from natural (non-human) causes of harm, but not other animals? — Isaac

Well, we should try to if they are in our protection.

I mean this is patently false. Again the reason why I provided the example I did. If other humans were suffering as a result of frequent animal attacks, or frequent earthquakes, or volcanoes... We don't wash our hands of the humanitarian issues because they were not caused by other humans. We have barriers in place to prevent such tragedies because we care about the humans who would otherwise suffer. So if our ethical concerns extend without caveat, to other animals, then why do we not similarly protect prey from the suffering at the hands of their predators. A lion is no less a natural occurrence than an earthquake. We evacuate people from the vicinity of the latter, ought we evacuate prey from the vicinity of the former? — Isaac

This is just bad reasoning. Ethics can only go human-to-animal, and not animal-to-human or animal-to-animal as it is obvious most animals cannot, by their biological nature, ethically reason (though perhaps things like fairness and compassion play some roles- another discussion). Rather, the question becomes, how do we humans (who do have capacity for ethical reasoning), treat other animals? Because animals cannot ethically reason, it does not negate them to "thus, humans can treat animals as beings deserving of being killed for X reasons by humans". Rather, if we "know" what is going on and the animal does not, the onus is on the person who "knows" what is the case. There is no onus for a lion or whatnot. They cannot help but kill. You cannot reason with them.

Of course being NOT a consequentialist, silly reductio ad absurdums like, "But humans DO know that animals will get killed by other animals", doesn't come into play in most deontological discussions of rights and ends. Animal-to-animal relationships are categorically not in the "rights' purview. Humans need only stick to human-to-human or human-to-animal relations.

And so, as far as animal-to-animal relationships, that is not in our realm, as it is two non-reasoning animals. You cannot blame animals for something they cannot reason about. While it is tragic for the animal being eaten, and a pessimistic part of life (see my pessimism), it is not a matter of human ethics that this takes place and we don't prevent every single instance of this. It actually speaks to a larger pessimism itself (that it needs suffering to sustain life).. But being that animals can't ponder this tragedy, they are to some extent going to be subject to their instincts and what happens to them as a result of other animals' instincts.

Conversely, by letting animals follow their nature (again, being animals that CANNOT reason by their nature), it is protecting their rights to follow the ends of their animal interests. We can argue about what kind of animals deserve this protection, but that would be a different argument. Do mice deserve the same protection as a cow or a great ape? Does a chicken deserve the same protection from harm than a mosquito or fish? I think there are good answers to this based on empirical evidence, but that would then be a different argument and a red herring.

Also, can people protect their own interests against aggressive animal behaviors and such? Of course. Animals need not be treated EQUALLY to humans, when it comes to moral reasoning. It simply stands that we have an obligation towards them, as sentient beings, to not cause unnecessarily harmful behavior towards them. And that is the key part.

Similarly to antinatalism, I think the basis of ethics lies in not causing unnecessarily harmful behavior, when you can prevent it. For a person, that might be not causing for a new person to play an often harmful game that they cannot end, (and have little say in their choices and harms they will encounter), except suicide. For an animal it may be not killing them if you don't need to. Killing for food may be less harmful than simply killing an animal for no reason, but killing for food if you don't have to is still problematic.

Since I am not a moral realist, I am not making a moral argument. I am critiquing the is part of your postion. — Bylaw

I believe a refuted your argument in my last post so I’m not sure there’s much to say.

A claim is not defended by pointing out that an alternative claim is wrong unless the two claims are mutually exclusive. — Isaac

You are not the only one who gets to attack bucko. Sometimes you gotta move your queen back a space.

Why? This is Graeme M's thread about veganism and you posted a claim on it. Why are we now discussing a caricature of a theory of mine that I haven't even mentioned? — Isaac

You were the one refuting my claims against the naturalistic fallacy (ancestors etc). Thus I refuted that refutation. When arguing someone in good faith, it’s reasonable to anticipate similar arguments if they are consistent with their reasoning (ie community and historical practices somehow confer morality- conflated perhaps with moral sense, etc).

...if you're not willing to defend that position, then why post it? — Isaac

Stalling. I was critiquing your ancestors theory. I don’t wanna rehash the same type of arguments but in the form of vegetarian or what not instead of antinatalism because it’s all the same thing. You’re gonna say that if the community says it’s OK or ancestors said it was OK then it’s OK and of course I’m not OK with that. I’m going to say that it’s about suffering and preventing suffering and you were going to try to trivialize that it’s all going to rehash the same way blah blah.

But I don't see what my personal meta-ethical stance has to do with your position.

How does your caricature of my position further your argument or counter the points I raised against it? — Isaac

I’m arguing against your position, so it has quite a lot to do with this debate between me and you. This. One. Right. Here.

:lol: :wink:
You forgot to direct that to Isaac. He’s pro suffering all around as long as everyone’s up for it.

It might do. You've not given any account of what makes things right yet, so 'our ancestors did it' is currently as good a contender as any. — Isaac

We’ve been though this before. You are for ethics being anything that the community decides is right. So if the community is 56% pro slavery, it’s right! If ancestors had slaves for thousands of years, it’s right!

Life and chess are incomparable. The fact that one can move on from a game like chess is another reason why it is a false analogy. — NOS4A2

Yes, that’s the point. We cannot move on from this setup and rules. We cannot resign and move to a different version. If you rather the treadmill analogy think of that. A treadmill can end. This survival etc game can’t lest death. It’s a treadmill that one cannot step off of without dire consequences.

But what is tragic about that? Death would be an end to suffering. Continuing to live would mean continuing to suffer. If you resign from a game, you continue to suffer. If you "resign" from life, you don't. — Ciceronianus

It's morally wrong to put someone in a situation where you either "play this game or kill yourself". That is a tragic thing. Yes, it is indeed the case, but what a case to defend! Seems pretty obviously tragic to me and wrong from the standpoint of starting for someone else.

So because you don't see it, I must be playing dumb? Seems a theme. One wonders what exactly you expect from a discussion forum whilst assuming everyone else simply must see the world the same way you do. — Isaac

No I don't see it. One doesn't involve killing, one does. Add in "highly sentient" adjective there as well. I see the distinction, and you apparently don't. Yet, that's odd, because something (highly sentient) getting killed and something not seems like a distinction that is pretty recognizable as an event, even if you don't see it as a moral event. Again, all dog and pony show stalling it seems. It's too obvious the distinction fro you to simply shrug it off as just another event like walking.

Why? — Isaac

Our ancestors did a whole bunch of X things. Doesn't make our ancestors right. Or, perhaps more nuanced, doesn't make it right anymore.

Not my place to. I'm critiquing your post. — Isaac

And I was critiquing yours.

But Putin wants to reconquer at least part of that greatness and this is the end result. Yet in the end Putin will be like Milosevic for Serbia, an absolute disaster.

And now we have a huge conventional war in Europe, a war that is in it's eight year. Hopefully this will end in Russians rethinking just how smart holding to those imperial aspirations is. — ssu

Right, so I still don't get why there is much of an argument pro-Putin or whatnot.

Imperialists see the World as zones of control. Other states can actually believe in the sovereignty of nations. — ssu

Understand.. But even if this is wrong, let's say.. The wrong right now is Russia's actual invasion. Not just soft influence.

And this question comes even more close to home for me: Why did Finland and Sweden choose to join NATO and not stay out of the military alliance. Well, it's kind of obvious, actually. You really have to be quite clueless not to understand why. — ssu

Here's the difference.. If Ukraine didn't ally NATO and NATO in turn brutally attacked Ukraine, that would be wrong. But they didn't. Russia did.

No. It ought to be. — Isaac

Ok agreed.

An odd question. As if we do other things for other sorts of reasons. Why do you go for a walk? Why do you seek relationships? Why do you listen to music? I'm struggling to see why eating meat has to have some existential urgency to it that other activities lack. — Isaac

Because I don't see the equivalency of taking a walk in the park and killing certain highly sentient animals. I'm not sure why you are playing dumb here and equivocating. Seems to be stalling.

The naturalistic fallacy just expresses your belief that what is natural is not necessarily what is good. It might be. It's not like you've got some competing theory of what is good that is more coherent. I think that if we want to eat meat, but we also want to see animals happy, we have to find a way of achieving both, or balancing those desires. I'm not seeing any argument as to why one of those desires must be met but the other is to be discarded. — Isaac

We can make choices. To assume that we it is fine to eat meat because our ancestors did or because other animals do, would be wrong.

It is also wrong empirically that we can't survive (in a healthy way) without eating large mammals and birds.

A competing theory? You never provided one. What I see of a moral theory here is, "If your taste buds like it, do it". But would you really say that in every situation?

I don't understand. You're not forced to play chess for fear that (lest) you'll kill yourself? — Ciceronianus

Um, so like the OP is stating.. In a game like chess.. You can play it and if you want to resign, you can move on. You can't do that with the "game of life". Simple, but tragic. You can't get off the treadmill and move to another "game of life" with different premises. You start someone on the treadmill, the only way out is death. It's a game where someone starts you on it, and you can't move on to another game. The only option as a way out of the game is death.

Yes. It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book).

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always. — ssu

Yep, what you say here makes sense.

However when it comes to the war in Ukraine, Russia's aggression and imperial objectives are so evident, so clear, that is hilarious to uphold the "NATO enlargement made Putin do it" -card. — ssu

So, the underlying premise seems to be "If a large country views its neighbor as its dependent client state, it is its right to control the government of that country". If NATO isn't FORCING their will on Ukraine, and Ukraine vote in majority (democratically) to align more with NATO countries, then how is this wrong? Russia can also freely give to Ukraine as well.. But it seems that it rather align with NATO than Russia. That doesn't mean, ergo Russia gets to invade Ukraine because it didn't get what it wanted.

I agree, but I don't think you've made the case that a well cared for farm animal wouldn't feel good over its lifetime even if raised for slaughter. Even harder with an egg-laying chicken, or a fish. — Isaac

But it’s not the norm that animals are raised this way (nice pastures, good food, etc). Also, if you can survive without eating meat, why do it other than it tastes good? How do you not commit a naturalistic fallacy in justifying it? We can choose, and have reasons. Enough there to choose not killing large mammals and birds if we don't have to. Granted, we created these animals by domestication, so it would be up to us to figure out what to do with them, but that's a different issue of practicality rather than morality.

I was reacting to an implicit moral argument on your part with a description of what I think is a factual issue. The fetus and babies will seek out more life. — Bylaw

Then this isn't arguing anything contra my moral argument. It is simply a description that fetuses develop and become babies.

I have not argued that having babies is good. I don't think that even makes sense. — Bylaw

Then, I am not sure the point.

We havta ponder all the negative aspects of life; it's a necessity if we're into selling life tickets (making babies). — Agent Smith

Well said. :up:

Yeah Putin/Russian military is killing people to gain territory. How is that disputed? Where is the dispute?

Some make the accusation that Putin is acting in self defense, or at least defense of what is rightfully his client state. Because the US has been supplying military aid to Ukraine, the idea is that Putin reacted in a way that should have been predicted. Therefore the fault goes back to the US and NATO. — frank

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor?

You may play chess again, but in that case you play a different game, you don't play, again, the game you chose to end by resigning. — Ciceronianus

The point is you are not forced to play chess lest you kill yourself.

Some are saying that, yes. — frank

But at the end of the day, isn’t Putin/Russian military killing people to gain territory? How is that disputed?

The controversy in this thread? It's hard to say. I've asked, and I don't get back anything that makes sense to me. It's maybe just people expressing their angst about war crimes and war profiteers. There's a fair amount of people assuming everyone else is naive about the agendas that give rise to mass events.

I think that expressing angst about all the victims involved is why I'm here. — frank

Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying?

Just saying, I wonder what the controversy is? Appeasing or not appeasing right?

Appeasement was the lesson of WW2 wasnt it? Or do nukes plus uncertainty change everything?

Any life they create immediately desires life, the organism does, and strives to live. You can only create something living that immediately strives to continue living. — Bylaw

My previous post still remains my reply.

It is not some neutral or negatively aimed at life. It is life that wants to live more. — Bylaw

And this is explicitly the naturalistic fallacy as stated in last post

It seems like you are presenting this as putting someone in a situation it may or may not want. But no, parents can only make life. — Bylaw

Life that leads to a person with self-awareness and reasons. The parent chose to do it, and the adult functioning person is the one who deals with it (run on the treadmill or die).

What power, if any, do the notions of self-obligation, commitment, command, etc. have with respect to the duties of our future selves? And what does it mean if the self of the present has neither duty to the past nor ability to impose upon the future? Differently, what does it mean if present self has no duty to future self? Does all conservation turn into a whimsical act of self-denial?

Pathologically, when discussing our past selves or future selves with another ("But you promised!"), should we treat those selves as separate moral actors/agents? Do we disavow ourselves? — Ennui Elucidator

It’s simply custom that we use to allow for transactions to go smoothly. Kant had a point. A society where nothing is believed, is a poorly run society and leads to breakdown.

I didn't say it did. I responded, I think pretty clearly, to this idea of a parent throwing someone into life. A someone who may or may not want life. I think that model is confused. — Bylaw

You are using “throw” as some literal term. It just means starting someone else’s life on the treadmill. Equivocating the fact that babies can’t reason/have reasons/aren’t self aware yet with”life striving” and THUS some other implication about life (that we want it?) is confused and again, a naturalistic fallacy. Our reasons don’t have to confirm with any instinctual mechanism.

I never said anything about embracing life's game, whatever that means. — Bylaw

Life striving to live you said etc

I am talking about an organism doing what it can to live, both on a cellular level and to whatever extent it can as it can move. There is no incarnating a not wanting life organism. — Bylaw

That’s great but doesn’t quite capture human like (I.e a self-aware being that has reasons).

I'm not arguing that one can change the game of life. — Bylaw

That’s good because that’s exactly my point. You start a treadmill that the person can by it’s nature cannot be ended without simply death. There is no platonic heavenly better way except what we can imagine and cannot attain.

it strove for life — Bylaw

That’s more social conditioning. Babies don’t decide things yet. We tend to get hungry and fear scary stimuli. But to equate that with a reason for embracing life’s game is a naturalistic fallacy.