1) science is founded on taking random samples — Gregory

This is not true. Right out of the gate. What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples.

You havent provided any explanation that hasnt been refuted. Just because you ignore arguments does mean they havent been made.
So what you really mean is no matter how many times you repeat the same assertion I will not be convinced by it, and you are right. You have to do better than that.
Implying that Im too dogmatic or narrow-minded to understand what you are saying is just your way of avoiding arguments/questions you don’t have answers for.
Im an open minded person, but not so open my brain falls out. You have to have an an actual explanation, not just a bare assertion and you have to address counter-arguments instead of just pivoting and deflecting.
There is no fury happening with me, im not angry at all. If my last post came across as terse I apologise. I thought you were having some fun in your last post so I was reciprocating.

Could you please introduce us to the atheist who does not believe that reason is qualified to generate useful statements on the subject? — Nuke

Non-sequitor. This doesn't address you mixing up uses of the word “faith”.

Here's how it works. Not understanding their own perspective, most atheists will sincerely claim it is "merely a lack of belief". And then dictionary writers who probably aren't that interested in the topic and are racing against a deadline will accept this claim and put it in the dictionary. And then the atheists will hold up the dictionary as proof saying, "See? We told you. It's right in the dictionary!" — Nuke

Thats ridiculous conjecture and completely baseless. Not only unable to show atheists do not understand their own perspective, the notion that they do not is absurd. They just have to answer something other than “yes” to the question “do you believe in god”. Thats it. Anyone can understand that, unless of course they have a vested interest in not understanding it such as oh lets say in defence of religion for example.
You have a good sense of humour though, your phrasing made me laugh. I pictured this uppity atheist badgering these busy 50’s newsroom style Dictionary writers and one just gets fed up and snatches the paper to change the definition so the atheist will shut up

Ah, good, so you will then be able to provide proof that reason is qualified. — Nuke

Non-sequitor. This doesnt address what you quoted.

Believers are making a positive assertion that they know they are making, and atheists are (typically) making a positive assertion that they don't know they are making.

Please recall, theism is thousands of years old, whereas atheism is maybe 500 years old, or something like that. It's grandpa talking to a teenager. — Nuke

Lol, really? We’ve just been getting dumber and dumber since the good old biblical days huh?
Please, tell me all about what ignorant savages who believe in magic can teach us intellectual teenagers.
And just because you call it a positive assertion doesnt make it so. I precisely pointed it out to you already. Bolded so you wont miss it this time.

“Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.“

Ok, fair point. I will reframe my claim that this is a highly inefficient process which typically, but not always, goes pretty much nowhere. — Nuke

Ok. Why do you think that is?

So you think not saving someone is impermissible (you have to save them if you can), but killing someone is permissible (you can kill them if you have to)? That’s pretty backwards. Also contradictory: if you can save someone by not killing them, and you must save them if you can, it would follow that you must not kill them, yet you say also that you may kill. — Pfhorrest

Well I dont think anything in particular is always permissible or impermissible ethically, I dont go by a principled approach to ethics. Its only contradictory if you do. Even if I did though, that still doesnt necessarily mean my principal is that You must always save someone if you can. It could be either, or any number of other principals.

Sure, in which case it’s a contrived morally intractable situation. That doesn’t mean you get to murder someone. — Pfhorrest

Its designed that way precisely to challenge a persons principals. Your answer results in greater suffering and loss of life, and you call It the moral high ground. That has peaked my curiosity. In your view, where does suffering factor in, if at all?

No, you’re still misconstruing it. It’s: you can’t be expected to stuff yourself sick on as many chips as you can possibly eat, so it’s okay to leave some chips uneaten. — Pfhorrest

Ok, im trying to find out where you're losing me here, because you said I sounded backwards and now id say the same to you.
So this is essentially about the lesser of two evils, a choice you abstain from on moral grounds. Would you agree with that assessment?

Shifting the track does both of those things. One is supererogatorily good: saving peope. The other is impermissibly bad: killing something. That makes an act that does both of those things impermissibly bad. — Pfhorrest

Killing something isnt impermissibly bad. That's a convenient framing to service your conclusions.

Like is a hypothesis implies some things which are contingently true, but also some things that are impossible. That makes that hypothesis impossible. The true things are still true, but you need a different explanation for them. And the good thing (saving people) is still good, but you need a different means to achieve it. — Pfhorrest

There is no different way to achieve it, thats implicit in the trolley problem, its designed to exclude creative, problem solving ways around the moral dilemma posed.

No, I use the unreasonableness of saying that anyone who does anything short of absolutely everything they can do to help everyone they can is morally wrong (that that is impermissible) to conclude that failing to do good things is permissible, and therefore that failing to do a good thing because it would require an impermissible thing is permissible. — Pfhorrest

Thats still fallacious. I can’t eat 1 chip cuz I cant eat the whole bag. I shouldnt save one of my kids from falling off a cliff cuz I cant save all of them. I shouldnt try to save any jews from the holocuast because I cant save them all. Plus, you are taking something you yourself posited as unreasonable and using it as a basis to form your conclusion. Thats fallacious, like saying “a deeply unreasonable guy thinks the earth is flat, so Im going to use that as a basis to conclude NASA has been faking all the round earth stuff”. Garbage in, garbage out. We shouldnt trust conclusions with unreasonable basis.

Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified to deliver useful statements on issues the scale of the God question. — Nuke

No its not. A specific atheist might have that belief but thats him, not atheism. Neither is atheism a “refusal” to believe in god, its simply the lack of a belief in god. Atheism isnt even specific about WHY the person doesnt believe in god.
An easy way to think about it is if the answer to the question “is there a god?” Is anything other than “yes”, then you are some kind of atheist.

Atheism feels like "simply a refusal to believe in God" to most atheists because their faith in the infinite reach of human reason is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take such a qualification to be an obvious given requiring no inspection. — Nuke

This is just a broad and inaccurate generalisation. First, there is no “faith” in reason, not in the same sense that religious people have faith in god. The distinction is “faith” in the sense of confidence and “Faith” as a reason for believing in god (which of course its not). You are mixing those two uses up.
Second, its rich that blind adherence to dogma somehow qualifies as examined but noticing the lack of evidence and very clear contradictions and magical thinking of religious thought is somehow “unexamined”. Just the act of questioning religion or the existence of god thats being fed to you by trusted parents or authority figures is substantial “inspection”.

Few atheists seem to grasp that atheism is just as much a positive assertion as theism, with just as little proof to back it up. — Nuke

No its not, Believers are the ones making making a positive assertion, and atheists the ones unconvinced by the positive assertion believers make. Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.

That said, the belief that posting the above will accomplish anything at all is just as lacking in evidence as theism and atheism, so we are united as brothers in self delusion. — Nuke

Again, not true. There are many former believers who have been convinced by argument or discussion and are now atheists. There is plenty of evidential first hand accounts of the journey from believer to non-believer that directly contradicts your views here on every level. Likewise, many atheists have been converted to or back to religion and plenty of evidence there too.
The only way its a waste is if either or both participants in the discussion aren’t open to changing their minds and are being disingenuous.

Ok, I see what youre saying.
I dont think its “impermissibly bad” to shift the track to the one dude over the 5, youre just defining it that way. Your framing is “shifting the track to the one is killing one” and its just as easy to frame it as “shifting the track to the one is saving 5”. Semantics.
Also, you use the impossibility of preventing all bad things from happening as a justification to not prevent something bad where its entirely possible to do so. Thats fallacious reasoning.

Ok, but what Im asking is how you decided the prevention of greater loss of life in the trolley problem isnt obligatory. Walk me through your reasons for excluding it from obligatory in your diagram, I dont understand.

So what is the ideal moral person in your view? The one who acts the least is the most moral?

Do you think there are no moral obligations to act? Its just about what not to do rather than what you should do? If not, how do you justify excluding the trolley problem from the list of actions morality compels you to do?

I think the 3 things you described are part of the natural result of cognitive dissonance. The blurred lines that you are asking about between contradicting belief and action are cognitive dissonance in action.

Its a psychological term, holding two opposing ideas to be true at the same time, or consistently acting contrary to one or more beliefs.
Explainable given sufficient knowledge yes, of course.

Its not my spectrum, but I find it difficult to imagine the specific traits mentioned would “phase out” at some point along the spectrum Considering how specific they are to human beings. Aliens advanced enough might have a different set of traits they use to create a spectrum then we could very easily not be in it but I think the threshold that qualifies humans would be maintained on the offered spectrum.

They are only opposed opinions if one fails to recognise the distinction between where various animals (including humans) sit on the spectrum of certain mental capacities. My understanding is that Graeme is positing that the threshold on that spectrum can exclude many animals that the standard vegan does not based on certain mental traits/capacities.
Its not contradictory because he is not including all animals when he says opposing things, he is referencing two different categories. (Created by the distinction made based in mental capacities/traits.)
In order to show he is being contradictory, you would first have to show that the distinction he makes is not valid. No one has, and I don’t see how it can be done. Id like to though, just as soon as everyones on the same page about what he’s actually saying.

Nope, you still fail to address my concerns. Both of you have. It's a pretty simple request that someone be clear about their metaethics before continuing a conversation about applied ethics... His refusal to answer and his ungallant retort to this request were the end of the actual discussion. Everything else since has just been passing time amusingly. — Artemis

Well he can answer what he likes, Im specifically addressing you and you are specifically ignoring it while using your incorrect initial assessment of what someone else said to aid in your continued evasion.

Since you, however, seem to have nothing yourself to add to the discussion, I will leave the two of you to your unfolding love story. — Artemis

Just because its not swearing or direct insult doesnt make it any less childish or uncivil. Im being earnest with you here.
I think you’ve misunderstood what that guy meant, and you wont even acknowledge the possibility enough to deny it. You just keep making the same demand and ignoring everything else like its a matter of principal. Is it? Do you have some rule about engaging with online criticism because the internet is such a cesspool? Is that it?

Its cognitive dissonance. Human behaviour doesnt always make sense unfortunately.

You are evading madame, not me. You arent even paying attention to what Im writing, i specifically addressed this sort of response by expressing exactly why that particular query of yours isnt being answered.
One, its already been laid out. You failed to understand the point made and offered an invalid criticism (contradiction where there is none.)
Two, you have ignored being called out on your mistake. Even if I am wrong with those criticisms you should still address them by showing how they are wrong instead of just ignoring them. Ignoring them is what makes you in fact the one who is evading. If its a rise above it/high ground thing, please understand Im not trying to insult you or trying to hurt you. Im just noticing errors that are preventing the discussion from moving forward.

You say waiting, I say ignoring valid criticisms. You will need to address those first because as it stands your attitude and mistakes mentioned above are preventing you from being “enlightened”. If you do not address the criticisms, I have no reason to believe you wouldn't just commit them again and thereby waste my time in explaining anything. Also, its already been laid out, if there is something specific you need clarification on then tell me what it is and Ill try and explain it.
Im just trying to get you to be more charitable and open minded because I was enjoying watching the exchange and would like to see it continue (if you remember, you ejected from the discussion not too many posts ago)

Not a friend, Ive only interacted with him on this thread as far as I know and I wouldn't be defending anyone based on friendship anyway. This is an example of whats been mentioned to you...applying a little charity goes a long way. You assume that I didnt have a good reason to chime in...try assuming that I do.
Further, and Im not trying to be rude here, you didnt really point anything out about incongruity. You think you did, but you missed the point of what was being said and ended up (unintentionally it seems) straw manning him. He hasnt addressed what you said because its incorrect. There is no contradiction. You should focus on what people are trying to communicate rather than cherry picking phrases or words to leverage a dismissal of what they are saying.
I mean, just look at how you ended your last post...suggesting that a blind test would expose low motives or some other invalid thinking. (Not sure if youre trying to imply bias or dishonesty or what).
You have no real basis for thinking that, and its the sort of thing that makes it difficult to have a real discussion. Are you interested in discussion or playing “gotchya!”?

Well I said it was no more or less arbitrary. I just meant to put them on the same footing.

There must be some term for what your saying here. Its a vegan ethic applied to a more narrow spectrum of animal based on mental capacity. It seems no more or less arbitrary than normal veganism.
Are you the first Neo-Vegan?

Its true, it does seem like youre deliberately misunderstanding him. It does come across as strange that the sentence you referenced with quotes needed to be explained. Just because you feel what he expressed is unpleasant doesnt mean its not true.
Its not like he said anything more out of line than you have, careful of the glass house.
I was enjoying the exchange, i think he posed an interesting challenge to the vegan pov. So far you havent answered it, I think you need to read his points more charitably, and you will see he’s making a fair, logical point.

I probably would have picked an argument other than "medicine". What's the point in living longer in a world you loathe? — JoeyB

Good point.

Well what exactly do you loathe about it? Is there anything you like about it? (Medicine is pretty swell).

It wouldn’t. That isn’t scientific. — I like sushi

Of course it is. Science uses its method to determine the way things work. If the way things work is prayer or magic then thats what science will be about.

Besides the POINT of this is to try an appreciate what the world looks/feels like to those who we may consider blinkered/delusional/naive. — I like sushi

Sure, I'm just pointing out the incoherency in your thought experiment. (You asked to hear about flaws). If what you want is to address is differing perspectives, your work is already done for you with the simple analogy you yourself used. In another person shoes. That addresses what you want without being incoherent.

Anyway, I guess the main consequence of such a reversal would be blown minds. I think many scientific based people would have a period of hard adjustment but would in time be able to adjust to the new facts. I also think some scientific based people would have various mental break down. Like when Neo is “gonna pop” after learning reality was a lie.

I hope you remember your past thought experiments and my willingness to play along because this time I dont think you thought experiment makes sense. Not because its impossible, but because it contains a contradiction.
You cannot follow the scientific method properly and dogmatically cling to its its previous conclusions. If everything changed (reversed really) then science would change with it. If prayer instead of medicine worked for sickness and injury, then the scientific method (followed properly) would adopt prayer as the scientific facts instead of medicine.
So if everything flip flopped like you describe and there were people who clung to previous scientific facts/foundations rather than accept the new facts (prayer and whatever religious stuff is now true) then they arent scientists, nor are they practicing science.
Just to be clear, Im not objecting to the impossibility of everything reversing, Im participating in the thought experiment in good faith, Im just not conceding that in that scenario science would become its own antithesis. If you want to include science becoming its own antithesis in the parameters of your thought experiment then I dont think your thought experiment is coherent.

Throughout this discussion I've been making the point that animals don't have as much moral worth as humans. I don't see how I'm being contradictory. — BitconnectCarlos

I dont think youre really contradicting yourself, but a vegan can make a strong point about using a scale of moral worth simply by asking about where different kinds of humans fit on that scale. If some humans have lesser moral worth is it ok to eat them? (Barring any health issues concerning cannibalism of course.)

Ok but how was his post not amusing? Stinky pervert? Its just so...harmlessly juvenile. I laughed.

We are in agreement, I think your stance is consistent.

↪DingoJones I see what you are driving at. So if we are to use pain and suffering as our moral benchmark, some organisms may be excluded from consideration. For example, if we are confident that wheat doesn't feel pain, we have no need to concern ourselves with any moral duty to any particular wheat plant (we might however, on a different basis, have some concerns about a wider ethical concern relating to the growing of wheat as a commodity). Similarly, the same should apply to any animal that does not experience pain (if we are sufficiently confident that an oyster for example isn't likely to suffer any more than a stalk of wheat). — Graeme M

Yes, as you say you see what Im getting at. I think we might disagree about what levels of pain and suffering matters though...i wouldnt say you couldn't eat anything that feels any pain or suffering. I would say it depends on how and what capacity the animal has for pain, suffering and/or consciousness compared to humans. (Presumably there are attributes to human suffering that make it wrong that we would want to see present in the animal we shouldn't eat (ethically speaking, and with suffering as our metric).

This seems to point in the right direction. Broadly then we could see an endorsement for vegan ethics in regard to animal farming - that is, those animals which can feel pain and suffer would be those we'd owe the greater duty to. Wouldn't the typical farmed animal fall within that scope? And as I mentioned earlier, we have some reasonably sound empirical grounds for excluding insects from that duty which would free us from particular concerns about insects as individuals. That would mean we can happily eat insects and kill them in crop farming (with the same caveat as earlier - for example, a broader ethical duty to insects as species and members of the ecosystem). — Graeme M

Well I wouldnt qualify the capacity for pain and suffering alone. I think it needs to be an experience of suffering/pain of a certain kind, a kind that fits the same criteria for why pain and suffering is wrong to inflict on humans.
Aside from that consideration, yes I think ethics (with preventing suffering as the moral metric) would demand we be more careful about what animals we eat.

Just as an aside, is there a particular objection to folk seeking the higher moral ground? I'm not sure I'd advocate for chasing the lower moral ground!! — Graeme M

No, my issue is with claiming the moral high ground when you dont actually have it. (And by “you” i mean people in general, not you personally).
Plus, and again not directed at you personally, claiming the moral high ground is far too often the cry of the self righteous.
Anyway, Im glad I was eventually able to articulate my view more clearly. You’ve given me food for thought so Im going to do some thinking on what youve said.

I would guess we have reached an impasse, as your responses seems scarce on substance to me as well.

This sounds very vague. What meats specifically? What vegetarians specifically? I've been finding it incredibly difficult to actually apply your criticisms. — InPitzotl

I feel like ive answered this...the meat that meets the thresholds of suffering being used to decide what's ok to eat and whats isnt. The vegetarians im referencing have been the ones that dont eat meat because it causes suffering to the animal providing the meat and ones that think hey have the moral high ground for not eating meat. (Two different references for two different points but those are the two types of vegetarians Ive referred too.

Well I wouldnt agree with that no, because I wouldnt use suffering as the metric.
If you do use suffering as a metric then I think there is a spectrum and not a simple meat or veggie dichotomy. To be consistent, I think rather than being measured by whether its an animal or a veggie you would have to measure whats ethical to eat by the mental capacities of each thing you consider eating. I dont think that all meat would be entirely excluded in that calculus, we would find some meats (maybe alot) that would be ok to eat. It would depend on what “ability to experience suffering” standards are being used but the calculus is the same regardless and thats why I dont think vegans or vegetarians have the moral high ground they think they do.

I'm curious, what metric would you propose? Mind you, the original discussion was in relation to vegetarianism, extended to veganism. Neither is essentially about animal rights as far as I know. — Graeme M

Yes, this would be shifting the discussion. Thats why im arguing from the same basis of using suffering as the metric, I recognise my own views on ethics/morality to be idiosyncratic and unless the discussion is about moral epistemology it probably wouldnt be helpful to insert my own views.
To answer your question, Im more of social contract theory guy and dint see much merit to principal based ethics or avoiding suffering as the basis for morals/ethics.

It's not an inconsistency unless one believes that beetles and cows are capable of equal amounts of suffering, or that their lives somehow matter equally much. You don't believe it, animal rights people don't believe it, so no one's being inconsistent. — zookeeper

I think this is pertinent to both of our discussions. I think that deciding bugs dont count is the same as deciding certain animals dont count. Graeme mentioned that he had empirical reasons, and I would agree there is probably some sort of spectrum to consciousness and levels of suffering. However, I dont think that all the animals vegans/animal rights folk believe shouldnt be eaten are going to be shown by science to have anything like the human ethics or suffering. I think some will, and based on suffering as a metric we shouldn't (ethically speaking) eat those animals. That would be consistent with the premiss of suffering as the metric.

So just to clarify: you personally value the lives and suffering of, say, a beetle and a cow equally (or, alternatively, that you believe a beetle and cow are equally capable of suffering)? That your ethical judgement if you see someone squash a cat with a bat is more or less the same as when you see someone squash a mosquito? — zookeeper

I was pointing out an inconsistency that arises from the vegan/animal rights premiss of reducing suffering. Reducing suffering is not my own basis of morality, nor a metric I would use to defend/attack animal rights.

My concern isnt to reduce suffering, thats the concern of vegans/animal rights folk. Im talking about in what way operating from that stance leads to inconsistency.
Anyway, once you decide insects arent to be included as suffering creatures you are making the same calculus as a meat eater, arbitrarily drawing the line at insects the way a meat eater might draw the line at dogs, or monkeys. Thats problematic for what I hope are obvious reasons.

You will need to offer some actual numbers to back up your claim that the loss of animals from the proportion of crops to replace meat is astronomical when compared to the number of animals we kill/catch each year. I agree that generally speaking, cattle grazing on open range is relatively harm free and can be ecologically preferable, but we aren't talking about the impact of ALL crops grown for food versus just range grazed cattle. See my comment above. — Graeme M

Well in your first post you excluded insects. I was including them in my measure of individual lives.

I understand, Im familiar with vegan arguments.

That doesn't make any sense. How does plant-eating cause more suffering than meat-eating? It causes some, obviously, but if you make an esoteric claim such that it causes more suffering or suffering to more individual creatures, then surely you have some kind of rationale for that. What is it? — zookeeper

I was referring to the amount of lives lost/suffering. Insects and rodents are more enumerate than farm animals. Insects and rodents can co-exist with animal farm fields. Thats not the case with crops, the insects and rodents are wiped out or displaced (and most die). So many many times more individual lives and suffering result from a crop field. Ergo, if we are measuring the suffering of individuals we see there are more individuals suffering from the footprint of the crops than the animal farming. By a landslide really.
Just because you don’t understand something doesnt mean it doesnt make sense. I dont mind clarifying, I simply thought you understood the huge numbers difference in individual lives. My mistake, hopefully its clear what I meant now.