I don’t think we should be over-extending morality to chickens. We should be looking out for each other, and living in harmony with nature as the dolphins do. I’m sorry your mother doesn’t love you.

I don’t think we should be over-extending morality to chickens. We should be looking out for each other, and living in harmony with nature as the dolphins do. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't think that it's over-extending morality. It's well worthy of consideration, even if different conclusions are reached. At the very least, the arguments here are better than any argument for God that I've come across, and have more of a bearing on our actual lives.

I’m sorry your mother doesn’t love you. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not what she tells me when we're in bed together.

That's not what she tells me when we're in bed together. — S

You have sex with your mother? Incest is a sin.

You have sex with your mother? Incest is a sin. — Noah Te Stroete

That's alright. God doesn't exist.

To each his own. I won’t judge you.

You mentioned using the particular relation (rather than general relation, which I'm specifying because remember that I think there are only particulars) of a thing being x (or having property F) and not being not x (or not lacking property F) at the same time as something to do with ethics, but I pointed out that that doesn't have anything to do with ethics (or rather it doesn't have anything more to do with ethics than it does the price of tea in China, or garbage collection schedules, or whatever). So I'm not sure what you're talking about. You could say that ethics has to be in accord with that particular relation as a fact, but everything has to be in accord with every fact in that same sense, so again, it's difficult to say what it particularly has to do with ethics. — Terrapin Station

I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be, and as I said you are working backwards from conclusions youve already come to. Maybe you aren’t interested, if so let me know, but Im talking about a starting “fact”, axiom or rule (if you are interested in proceeding, we might want to decide on a term) that you have stated is objective. This objective basis, as you alluded, applies to a great many things (garbage collections, price of chinese tea etc). All Im asking is why, amongst this great many things, ethics isnt one of them. Why can’t ethics have the same, simple basis of non-contradiction? Saying “it has nothing to do with ethics” doesnt answer that question, it evades it. Im already asking you to explain that, so I dont think your answer actually has any substance at all.

Maybe try being more verbose about what you have in mind. — Terrapin Station

Thats good advice, thanks. My fear is that then I will be accused of being condescending.

First, I don't think that there's an axiom or rule that's objective, just a particular relation.

I also don't think that logic is objective. The particular relation in question isn't itself logic. It's not sufficient to be logic. Logic has some basis in objective relations, but logic isn't identical to those objective relations. Logic is a way of abstract thinking about relations (and primarily it's thinking about our abstractions). You don't get to logic until you get to that thinking.

Ethics isn't anything about relations per se. So it doesn't make any sense to say that ethics is in any way based on objective relations. Logic is about relations. That's the whole subject matter of it. Logic is about relations--more specifically, implicational, inferential, etc. relations--on a generalized, idealized, abstract level. But that's not the subject matter of ethics.

The truth of your first statement hinges on your definition of "proper" survival. — S

I think that proper would mean to most people a healthy life, not just healthy enough, and it should be obvious from the context in which I used it.

And your following question appeals to a highly controversial notion about how we were "supposed" to be "by nature". — S

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? — Sir2u

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet[, then] where do you think [that that] would get them? — S

Firstly I do not like people changing what I say to suit their way of thinking. Especial when they are people who love to point out others mistakes while making their own. Second, it does not appeal to anything at all the way I wrote it. It is just a simple question that I wanted an answer to. Based on the few vegans and vegetarians that I personally know I have learned that they do take regular store bought supplements, because there are no "none animal" sources available for those vitamins and minerals. Does Taking pills to be health instead of eating a bit of meat sound normal to you?

However, it isn't a simple necessity for us to eat 300gm of meat everyday. Nor is it necessary for us to do so in order to live a healthy enough lifestyle. — S

As I stated earlier, it is not about the meat but about the contents of the meat.

It would only be "necessary" for someone, if, for example, they're a health freak with a fixation on achieving the ideal healthy lifestyle, and they're stuck on the notion that achieving that requires eating 300gm of meat everyday. But even then, that's not strictly necessary. Maybe instead, what's necessary for them is counseling. — S

This kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral. Why would you want to call someone a freak because they want to live their life properly. And what great authority do you process to decide just what is necessary and what is not? Could we see your qualifications on nutritional counseling please?

These kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral, not eating in excess. — S

So you think that it is OK for people to sit around doing nothing but overeating and getting fat?

What’s wrong with the comparison? They eat what they evolved to eat, and we evolved to eat cooked meat. — Noah Te Stroete

Nothing at all wrong with the comparison, it is quite good. But we did not evolve to eat cooked meat, the cooking part came much later. A discovery, whether it is cooking meat or riding around in a Peugeot are not part of human evolution. They are just things that make life easier. That being so, they have no effect on human nature at this time. The results of the laziness that these things cause might make a difference to how humans evolve over the next hundred thousand years but I am not going to wait around to see.

Show me a dolphin who has made a conscious ethical judgement to refrain from eating fish, and you may just have a point. Otherwise you're just trying to nail jelly to your wife. — S

So you think that dolphins automatically eat every fish they see? Try watching Discovery Channel instead of reading those mediocre books you keep recommending.

I think that proper would mean to most people a healthy life, not just healthy enough, and it should be obvious from the context in which I used it. — Sir2u

It should be obvious that that doesn't really clarify anything and still leaves a lot of ambiguity. Healthy according to who? Or according to what criteria? Criteria set by who? Is this an ideal? Whose ideal?

Firstly I do not like people changing what I say to suit their way of thinking. — Sir2u

Noted. I like good grammar.

Especial when they are people who love to point out others mistakes while making their own. — Sir2u

I thought you'd think that that was a mistake. What you highlighted isn't a mistake. Although it is common to use only one "that" in such sentences. I'm just a bit of a stickler for formality. You'll see the double "that" again up above a few times and in at least one other of my sentences further down.

Anyway, I'm glad that you haven't allowed yourself to become distracted by trivial side issues about grammar.

Does Taking pills to be health instead of eating a bit of meat sound normal to you? — Sir2u

Yes, if you're not a meat eater and care enough about your health. If you're attempting to spin this as absurd, I'm not buying it. One can make virtually any aspect of modern life sound absurd if you put it in a certain context: cars, mobile phones, planes, social media, plastic surgery, dietary supplements, hair dye, etc., etc. Isn't it all so peculiar and unnatural?!

As I stated earlier, it is not about the meat but about the contents of the meat. — Sir2u

Do you, or do you not, claim that it's necessary to eat a certain amount or a certain type or a certain whatever of meat each day or even at all in order to be healthy? If so, then the finer details don't matter in terms of my objection, which is that it's not really necessary regardless.

This kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral. Why would you want to call someone a freak because they want to live their life properly. — Sir2u

Yes, I concede that you've got me there. My language wasn't representative of an impartial judgement on that one.

You should also concede for your own fault. But I bet you won't.

And what great authority do you process to decide just what is necessary and what is not? — Sir2u

I use my judgement, and I use logic, and I take into consideration certain facts as I see them.

Could we see your qualifications on nutritional counseling please? — Sir2u

First of all, what claim of mine do you call into question? Then we can take it from there. If I think that anything I've claimed requires an authoritative source, I can look into it and get back to you.

So you think that it is OK for people to sit around doing nothing but overeating and getting fat? — Sir2u

I think that it's not necessarily wrong, and I think that it's wrong to simply assume that it's wrong.

So you think that dolphins automatically eat every fish they see? Try watching Discovery Channel instead of reading those mediocre books you keep recommending. — Sir2u

No, I don't, and that's a silly question which misses the point. If you think that that follows from what I said, then you're simply mistaken.

You think that Sapiens is mediocre? Have you actually read it? Or are you judging a book by its cover?

A discovery, whether it is cooking meat or riding around in a Peugeot are not part of human evolution. — Sir2u

See, this is where you're showing your ignorance. Please read the book and educate yourself. I purposefully chose the example of a Peugeot, because that's given as an example in the book. We didn't discover Peugeots, obviously. We created them. And that has to do with how we evolved to a stage where we can create fiction. That makes us unique, even among other species under the genus Homo. It's actually an extremely important part of our evolution.

Ive been struggling to come up with a response, I don’t see how most of that is relevent and I think you are still being evasive, and overcomplicating things and still working backwards from how you view ethics. That is the conclusion I said you were working backwards from, which if that wasnt clear why wouldnt you ask for clarification rather than just ignore what I said? In my view, this is the sort of thing you’ve mostly been doing in your responses. This is why I questioned your interest here, Im not keen to waste my time if what Im saying seems so trivial or lacking in substance that your only response is to ignore most of what I say and just go on an unnecessary explanatory tangent.
Im not trying to be antagonistic, i am perplexed and hoping being candid will at least move us out of a limbo where we talk past each other.

It should be obvious that that doesn't really clarify anything and still leaves a lot of ambiguity. Healthy according to who? Or according to what criteria? Criteria set by who? Is this an ideal? Whose ideal? — S

The same could be asked when when you say that it is not necessary to eat meat to live a healthy enough life.

First of all, what claim of mine do you call into question? Then we can take it from there. If I think that anything I've claimed requires an authoritative source, I can look into it and get back to you. — S

Just answered that.

I like good grammar.
I thought you'd think that that was a mistake.What you highlighted isn't a mistake.
Although it is common to use only one "that" in such sentences. I'm just a bit of a stickler for formality. You'll see the double "that" again up above a few times and in at least one other of my sentences further down. — S

Bullshit. It makes no sense as you wrote. The fact that you can use that twice in a sentence does not mean that it will always be right. If it had read "that they" it would be clear what you mean, but it would mean almost the same as I wrote.

Do you, or do you not, claim that it's necessary to eat a certain amount or a certain type or a certain whatever of meat each day or even at all in order to be healthy? — S

No I do not claim any such thing. If you would read what I have said it will be clear that I have stated that we need certain vitamins and minerals to maintain our bodies health.

You should also concede for your own fault. But I bet you won't. — S

If you are talking about me saying that it is immoral to sit around eating all day and becoming obese then I will not admit that I am at fault. It is my judgement based, just like yours, on my facts, as I see them, logic and my feelings.

I think that it's not necessary wrong, and I think that it's wrong to simply assume that it's wrong. — S

That makes a lot of sense. Try using your logic and the facts as you see them and make a judgement.

You think that Sapiens is mediocre? Have you actually read it? Or are you judging a book by its cover? — S

No, I did not read it. I listened to it because I do not do a lot of actual reading nowadays because of my eyes. But I have read(listened to as well) much better books explaining the history of humanity.

See, this is where you're showing your ignorance. Please read the book and educate yourself. I purposefully chose the example of a Peugeot, because that's given as an example in the book. — S

See, this is where you show your arrogance. Just because it is the only one you have read you think it is sacred. There are other ways to look at things you know.

We didn't discover Peugeots, obviously. We created them. And that has to do with how we evolved to a stage where we can create fiction. That makes us unique, even among other species under the genus Homo. It's actually an extremely important part of our evolution. — S

Pathetic, any machine is a combination of discoveries. They discovered the wheel, the lever, the gear, electricity, internal combustion all of which made the Peugeot possible. Human beings have evolved little since becoming Sapiens and fiction was created long before that.
So exactly how do you think that these creations are going to change the nature of humans. Will it make us less susceptible to disease, that does not seem to be working very well. Will it make us need less food or water, I can't imagine how. Will it help us to survive as a race, could we actually evolve into a carbon monoxide breathing being.

Going back to what I said, there is plenty of info sources available about the need for vegans to take supplements because they cannot live normally without them. Here is one from a vegan and one from a government institution.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/
https://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/recommended-supplements-for-vegans/

Please show me any reliable site that says they do not need to be taking supplements.

No u.

I suppose we just don't understand what each other is saying then. Not sure how to work around that, because you seem annoyed by all of my attempts to clarification/supplying more detail.

The only thing I could suggest is basically starting over, starting with something very short and simple to see if we can find some common ground to move on from.

This is what you said...

I gave the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. — Terrapin Station

I then responded and said, what you described is extremely similar (if not identical) to the law of non-contradiction or the law of identity.

Then you said...

I'm not referring to laws/principles. I just explained that to you. — Terrapin Station

This seems to be just a semantics issue. This is what you're doing.

Terrapin: I have no hair.
Chatterbears: So you're saying you're bald?
Terrapin: No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying I have no hair.
Chatterbears: Ok, but aren't those the same thing?
Terrapin: I'm not referring to baldness, I just explained that to you.

I see that you and Dingo are having issues communicating as well. Maybe it would be better to start off with definitions.

I don't know how to ask this without it seeming patronizing, unfortunately, but do you understand the distinction between particulars and universals or abstracts? Understanding that distinction is important for understanding what I'm saying.

I agree. Its a vexing limitation of the medium. I will go over the posts again and perhaps get back to you later if I find a better way to frame it.

Yes I understand the difference, but you could do the same thing with baldness.

You could say this.

having no hair = abstract
a bare scalp = particular

What you seem to be doing is creating your own subset of definitions and where words belong. You don't think you're defining the law of identity, when indeed you are. Because if you did conclude that your description is identical to the description of an axiom, you would understand why those axioms are related to ethical axioms.

You don't think you're defining the law of identity, when indeed you are. — chatterbears

Would you say that the law of identity is a particular, found on just one occasion, in one spatio-temporal location, etc.?

Would you say that thelaw of identity is a particular, found on just one occasion, in one spatio-temporal location, etc.? — Terrapin Station

Can we go back to definitions for a second, to make this as clear as possible.

law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time

These two statements are conceptually identical. I told you that you're referring to an axiom (the law of noncontradiction). You tell me you're not referring to laws. You tell me you're referring to something else.

I don't know what you are referring to. But can you agree that the definition for the law of noncontradiction is conceptually identical to what you have described? In the same way that "not having hair" is the same as "a bare scalp". Both refer to baldness and are conceptually identical. Both the law of noncontradiction and your statement are referring to axioms, and are conceptually identical.

If you don't know what I'm referring to then you don't really understand the distinction between particulars and universals or abstracts.

A particular is a single thing, in a specific spatio-temporal location, and it's only that thing.

The idea of a universal is that it's something that can be instantiated in more than one thing.

So for example, many individuals can be a cat, but a particular cat would be "that one, sitting on the living room windowsill of 33 Main Street, Des Moines, Iowa, named 'Fluffy,' who likes grapefruit juice."

I told you I understand that already. And to frame your particulars/universals in the axiom context, I'll do it this way.

Universal: An axiom
Particular: the law of noncontradiction

This is irrelevant to what I asked though and you didn't answer my question.

Did you agree with my definition of the law of noncontradiction? And do you agree that it is identical to what you stated?

law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

If you agree that what you stated is conceptually identical to the law of noncontradiction, in the same way that "not having hair" is conceptually identical to "a bare scalp", then you are tripped up on semantics. My initially problem was how you tried to label "something can't be itself and not itself" as an objective fact. When it is not an objective fact, but instead, an axiom.

No [you]. — S

No what? Could you please try a little harder to clarify what you mean?

I told you I understand that already. And to frame your particulars/universals in the axiom context, I'll do it this way.

Universal: An axiom
Particular: the law of noncontradiction — chatterbears

If the law of noncontradiction is a particular, then there's just one instance of it at a specific spatio-temporal location.

(Or in other words, no, you're not understanding what particulars are. You're thinking that I'm saying something akin to (super)set versus a member of the set. That's not what particulars are.)

I read through all the relevent posts, Im sorry to say it seems like pretty clear dodging questions from the onset. It looks like an attempt to control the framing of the discussion to suit you rather than a real attempt at understanding, and to be honest I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I accept this might be the result of miscommunication but Im comfortable to let what i have said stand.
You helped me understand I need to expand my points more and lower my unfair expectations of others to puzzle out what I mean, so thanks for that at least.

I don’t understand why you aren’t answering my question. This is the 3rd time now, for this specific question.

Do you agree that what you described is identical to the law of contradiction?

law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

If you agree that these are identical, then can you concede that your statement is an axiom, not an objective truth.

I am in the process of answering your question (the answer is "No," which I've already explained), but you'll not be able to understand the answer if you don't understand the universals/particulars distinction a la nominalism, and you don't understand that distinction if you're suggesting that a law or principle, objectively, could be a particular. Hence why I'm focusing on this distinction. What I'm saying can't be understood without understanding the universals/particulars or abstracts/particulars distinction.

Okay.

We can't do anything with that re forwarding a conversation, obviously, so . . .

you don't understand that distinction if you're suggesting that a law or principle, objectively, could be a particular. — Terrapin Station

You said it is not a particular, while I say it is. Do we just end the convo there?