:up:

I what I'm going to comment on here isn't what you're focusing on in this thread, but my moral views are not at all based on suffering, harm or happiness. I think all of those concepts are way too vague to base any moral stances on. — Terrapin Station

What are your moral views based on?

If suppose your moral theory was x. Is it possible that x causes harm and unhappiness and would you, then, still maintain that your theory is good?

If yes, I'm interested to know more.

What are your moral views based on? — TheMadFool

I don't use a principle-oriented approach for ethics. It seems to me that principle-oriented approaches always lead to absurd stances. It's the ethics version of theory worship.

There are definitely things that amount to harm and unhappiness in some opinions that I think are morally right. For example, I'm a free speech absolutist. Some speech is going to offend/upset some people. It's morally wrong to prohibit or to socially pressure speech restrictions in my opinion.

For example, I'm a free speech absolutist. Some speech is going to offend/upset some people. It's morally wrong to prohibit or to socially pressure speech restrictions in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

Do you think someone should be allowed to lie and shout fire in a theater when it will cause mass hysteria and people will get hurt in their attempts to escape?

And free speech is important because the harm caused by restricting it is potentially greater than by letting people talk.

How does a vegan justify the use of anything beyond the bare necessities of life when such luxuries almost universally cause harm to something, somewhere? — Tzeentch

I'm sorry but I can't quite bring myself to believe that you really do not understand the difference between 'removing all harm' and 'reducing harm', despite your best attempts to persuade me otherwise.

Do you see, then, the irony (paradox?) that the most violent species, humans, are the ones troubled by their own natural bloodlust? — TheMadFool

Perhaps we are the most dangerous species, rather than the most violent one. After all, there are other species whose entire life is conflict and predation or parasitism.

Perhaps our danger comes from our enormous brains, and the ability to reflect and feel concern for others comes from the same source.

The more capable we are of living without inflicting suffering on the innocent, the more we are morally obligated to do so. But what happens if we should reach the limit of our ability to live free of animal exploitation? Where reducing the suffering for one means increasing the suffering for another?

I don't quite see a vegan paradox, but I do see a vegan dilemma; at some point the suffering of animals may only be reduced by increasing the suffering of humans (at which point empathy for animals fails, and sympathy for ourselves takes over).

When, if ever, does our duty to not-exploit animals succumb to our desire to maintain our own well-being?

Giving a specific case would be fairly easy, but what about in general?

I think a god way of describing it is in terms of the foreseeable risks involved:

We may be theoretically capable of living without exploiting animals in any way, but there are significant risks should we attempt to do so. It's certainly true that we can exploit animals less (with no risk at all), and I think we ought to, but once we've trimmed the fat from our animal agriculture any further cuts might court national economic and dietary risks (efficient animal farms being shut down will cost the aseconomy (in addition to the added cost of replacing the nourishment, and finding alternatives for all those useful by-products). Orchestrating a nutritionally adequate national food supply entirely devoid of meat might not be logistically feasible given the variety of seasonal produce that would be required, and the unfathomably large amount of artificial dietary supplements (nutrients like iron and b12) that we would have to produce and distribute.

Once we start cutting in to funding we now use for other things (hospitals, schools, basic infrastructure, etc..) to afford our veganism, how much suffering or even death ought we transfer back onto humans in the name of saving the animals?

I mean what vegans as a philosophy are advocating, otherwise 'vegan' becomes meaningless. — Isaac

I can see how one might take it that way when one comes up against militant vegans that angrily proclaim that anybody who has even tiny bits of animal produce is evil. But I don't think it's fair to characterise an entire movement based on its most extreme fringes.

I think it makes perfect sense to say something like 'I try to be as vegan as I can', meaning one tries to reduce one's use of animal products as much as one can bear to do.

There are nuances too. Some philosophers argue that it is wrong to use products of animals even if they were not harmed or coerced in the process. Such people will not use honey, because it is using bees. This is reminiscent of Kant's dictum that we should see people as ends not means, but applying it to all animals rather than just our species. I say that goes beyond mainstream veganism, but some might disagree. That's the trouble with labels - they're too short to contain all the essential aspects of an idea.

I've not heard 'vegan' being used in that way (as in more vegan / less vegan) I've only ever heard it used as a term to describe people who do not use animal products. I can understand how there might be a use of a term that I've not come across, but I find it quite hard to believe that the only use of the term I've ever heard has been an 'extreme fringe'. So I maintain that the vast majority of people who claim to be vegan do so on the basis that they do not use animal products, not on the basis that they have simply reduced their meat consumption.

Sure that's what most vegans seem to aspire to. My point is that advocacy of veganism is not rendered meaningless by being non-absolutist.

I think it is correct that most vegans aspire to not use any animal products at all. I think that is not completely practical because so many things one uses may indirectly rely on animal products. But I admire those vegans for the sacrifices they make in pursuit of their moral values and, if in striving for complete elimination they achieve ninety per cent elimination, they will have prevented a great deal of suffering.

Do you think someone should be allowed to lie and shout fire in a theater when it will cause mass hysteria and people will get hurt in their attempts to escape? — NKBJ

Yes. People need to learn to not panic, and you don't assume that there is a fire and flip out just because someone yells "Fire"

Really? What if its 10 people? Or 50% of the people in the theatre?
You really are a free speech absolutist.
So there is never any speech of any kind that you would consider restricting?

Really? What if its 10 people? Or 50% of the people in the theatre? — DingoJones

Surely you're not advocating panic in any situation, no?

So there is never any speech of any kind that you would consider restricting? — DingoJones

Correct.

Ya, panic is bad of course. You have no other concerns about public mischief though? I would imagine you mean this as it pertains to speech by itself, so excluding something like a con man using speech to steal money or something like that. This would be speech used for crime, rather than free speech by itself?
Im also imagining that its something of a nanny state problem, with the panic I mean. You are saying that in the long run people would learn not to panic if we didnt treat them like children. This would count for many such instances of free speech, your setting the bar higher fir the long term gain. So even in cases of slander or even spreading lies the same argument works, people will learn to not believe everything they hear about a person or instance, to do their own research etc etc. Is that right?
I dont mean to babble, Im just wrapping my head around this...embarrassingly I just sorta accepted the conventional restraints on free speech I guess.

Yeah, you've got all of that basically right. I'd keep contractual fraud illegal, but that's not just a speech issue--it's a contractual issue. And I'd have a category of criminal threatening, but speech wouldn't be sufficient for that, there would need to be some immediate physical threat present--for example, holding someone at gunpoint.

Re slander/libel, part of my goal is to get people to not put so much weight on mere claims, to be more skeptical and require evidence beyond just a claim (or set of claims from multiple parties).

In a similar vein, if I were king it would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime via testimony alone.

Guess it's a good thing you're not king. Under your rule more rapists would get away than already do, and the current number is shocking enough.

Luckily most people realize that you can't just say anything you want. Basically, most of us realize that you should not be allowed to use speech to harm others by inciting force/violence, committing fraud, or defamation. It should be pretty obvious why.

And I'd have a category of criminal threatening, but speech wouldn't be sufficient for that, there would need to be some immediate physical threat present--for example, holding someone at gunpoint. — Terrapin Station

5'4" 100lb woman home alone with her infant child. 6'2" 275lb man comes in and threatens to kill her baby if she doesn't sleep with him/give him all her money/something else horrible. Hmmm, no guns needed to make that woman feel threatened enough to comply. And obvious enough that a serious crime has been committed.

Under your rule more rapists would get away than already do, and the current number is shocking enough. — NKBJ

It's outrageous that anyone would ever be convicted of rape merely on testimony.

See my above example.

If you just docilely comply in that situation and you have no other means of providing evidence of force (like cameras in your home, for example) then you wouldn't be able to convict the perp.

So, (a) learn some self defense (size is irrelevant there and can rather be a disadvantage), (b) be careful who you allow into your home, (c) consider setting up recording devices in your home if this is a common occurrence.

Wow.
Way to have a) zero compassion for others.
and b) absolutely no understanding of the human psyche.

In a similar vein, if I were king it would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime via testimony alone. — Terrapin Station

I understand. Talk is cheap.
Im not sure id make it impossible, But I take your point.

Basically, you're saying, someone should risk having their child murdered to avoid rape, or let themselves be raped to save their kid and we should all just sit back and say, "hey, that's what you get for being a weakling."

Way to have a) zero compassion for others. — NKBJ

Thinking that we should be able to convict others on testimony alone is what amounts to having no compassion for others.

I have compassion for those testifying to horrific situations that were beyond their control.

Out of 1000 rapes, 994 perps walk free. But you're worried about false testimonies...
Consider the 1.3 million rapes a year... and you're worried about false testimonies....

I don't use a principle-oriented approach for ethics. It seems to me that principle-oriented approaches always lead to absurd stances. It's the ethics version of theory worship.

There are definitely things that amount to harm and unhappiness in some opinions that I think are morally right. For example, I'm a free speech absolutist. Some speech is going to offend/upset some people. It's morally wrong to prohibit or to socially pressure speech restrictions in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

Why is free speech good in your opinion?

:up: :ok:

I understand the difference, but you didn't answer my question.

If one believes one shouldn't eat animal products because it causes harm to others, how does one justify driving a car, which pollutes the atmosphere? How does one justify living in a consumption based society which inevitably causes suffering to both animals and humans on a large scale? Why does one believe that not eating animal based products is the chosen method? Practicality?

how does one justify driving a car, which pollutes the atmosphere? — Tzeentch

I think it is very hard to justify unnecessary use of a car, which is why I very rarely drive, and try to get as many passengers as possible when I do. The long-term, committed vegans I know feel and act similarly.

How does one justify living in a consumption based society which inevitably causes suffering to both animals and humans on a large scale? — Tzeentch

One doesn't have to justify something for which there is no reasonable alternative. If one is born into such a society, the best one can do is minimise unnecessary consumption. Again, the vegans I know do that.