P6 Gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted.* — Soylent
I don't think free range husbandry followed by the swift killing of animals would constitute gratuitous suffering. — Michael
P7 If it is possible to adopt and maintain a vegan diet, then gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable
P8 It is possible to adopt and maintain a vegan diet. — Postmodern Beatnik
Also, are you interested in shorter and/or simplified versions of the argument? — Postmodern Beatnik
From the OP: "If there is an interest to discuss the soundness of the premises, I can create a spinoff thread elsewhere." — Postmodern Beatnik
P6 Gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted.
Sure. But the standard way of writing that would be to identify P7 as following from P6 (which would make P7 C3), and then C3 (which would now be C4) would be listed as following from P7/C3 and P8. Right now, you have P7 listed as if it is just another assumed premise. It's just a minor technicality. And since it turns out you don't need the original P7, it doesn't end up causing any real problems.I said C3 follows from P6, P7, and P8 because P7 is an elimination of the biconditional. The biconditional adds a robustness in the ought claim, if it can be maintained with a defense of the soundness. — Soylent
Fair enough!This is a simplified version — Soylent
No problem. I was being a hypercorrective ass. ;)Right. I was being a trigger happy, argumentative ass. — darthbarracuda
By anyone who is in a position to, I would think. There are two ways to go about this: rewording the argument to make it explicitly apply only to those who are in a position to adopt a vegan diet, or to leave it as is and accept that it is only applicable to those who are in a position to adopt a vegan diet. Moreover, I do not think that "adopted by all" is the natural reading here in part because the elimination of all suffering cannot possibly be the goal here. In fact, considering this might lead us to think that the "by those who are in a position to" condition is already built into the argument: it may not count as known and preventable gratuitous suffering if one is not in a position to avoid inflicting it.Adopted by whom? — shmik
For the sake of discussion, do you have any suggestions to solve the problem you brought up, or do you think it's beyond repair? — Soylent
By anyone who is in a position to, I would think. There are two ways to go about this: rewording the argument to make it explicitly apply only to those who are in a position to adopt a vegan diet, or to leave it as is and accept that it is only applicable to those who are in a position to adopt a vegan diet. Moreover, I do not think that "adopted by all" is the natural reading here in part because the elimination of all suffering cannot possibly be the goal here. In fact, considering this might lead us to think that the "by those who are in a position to" condition is already built into the argument: it may not count as known and preventable gratuitous suffering if one is not in a position to avoid inflicting it. — Postmodern Beatnik
That depends on the person. Not everyone gets their food from a supermarket or a restaurant.There is no direct link between the person who eats the animal and the treatment of the animal. — shmik
But the choice is not between reading P6 as meaning "by everyone" or "just by one person." If the reading is "by anyone who is in a position to," as I suggested, that is going to be a very large number of people. So the fact that you cannot change your local supermarket's buying patterns alone is irrelevant. And if it were true that a vegan diet ought to be adopted by anyone who is in a position to do so, then it wouldn't matter whether or not other people will in fact do so. All that would matter is whether or not any given individual was in a position to adopt a vegan diet.It could well be that my going vegan does not have any effect on the animals that are farmed, chances are my super market is not going to order less meat because I am no longer buying from them. — shmik
Which is my point, it depends on the subject.That depends on the person. Not everyone gets their food from a supermarket or a restaurant. — Postmodern Beatnik
I disagree that this follows from the premises. I think it very much does matter what whether or not other people adopt a vegan diet. We are claiming in 6 that if every element of the set of people who can go vegan, do go vegan, then we will achieve a desired outcome. This speaks about one specific situation and says nothing about the outcome of any other distribution of veganism within the set. Effectively we have a statement like: if X&Y&Z then T. Nothing is said about X&Y&~Z.But the choice is not between reading P6 as meaning "by everyone" or "just by one person." If the reading is "by anyone who is in a position to," as I suggested, that is going to be a very large number of people. So the fact that you cannot change your local supermarket's buying patterns alone is irrelevant. And if it were true that a vegan diet ought to be adopted by anyone who is in a position to do so, then it wouldn't matter whether or not other people will in fact do so. All that would matter is whether or not any given individual was in a position to adopt a vegan diet. — Postmodern Beatnik
P9 If it is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices, and gratuitous suffering caused by food productions practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted, then a vegan diet ought to be adopted. — Soylent
Whether there is a direct link depends on the subject. But you have yet to show why a direct link matters to the validity of the argument.Which is my point, it depends on the subject. — shmik
It's unclear what you think doesn't follow. The point I was making was very simple: "some" follows from "all." So if the argument succeeds in getting "anyone who is in a position to adopt veganism ought to do so," it can get "S, an individual who is in a position to adopt veganism, ought to do so" as well. It's the same way that you don't get to murder someone just because you live in a place where someone else will do it if you don't.I disagree that this follows from the premises. — shmik
But that's going to depend on the nature of the wrong. I mentioned before that the argument could be rewritten depending on whether one is addressing deontologists or consequentialists. For instance, P1 could just as easily be "If any gratuitous suffering is preventable and known, it is wrong to participate in said gratuitous suffering" (and mutatis mutandis throughout).I think it very much does matter what whether or not other people adopt a vegan diet. — shmik
Sure. But the biconditional is not the end of the story. It's a premise, and all that matters for the topic of this conversation is whether or not it does its job as a premise. Strictly speaking, worrying about whether or not it is true is a topic for the associated discussion. Nor does it matter that nothing is said about (X & Y & ¬Z). The point of P6 is just to be part of the antecedent in P9 (and, originally, to get us P7).We are claiming in 6 that if every element of the set of people who can go vegan, do go vegan, then we will achieve a desired outcome. This speaks about one specific situation and says nothing about the outcome of any other distribution of veganism within the set. Effectively we have a statement like: if X&Y&Z then T. Nothing is said about X&Y&~Z. — shmik
But again, "some" follows from "all." If all x ought to P, then x1 ought to P.So with P9 and C5 all we can say is that the set of people who can go vegan should go vegan (as a set). The argument can almost never claim that any individual should go vegan. — shmik
P9 If it is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices, and gratuitous suffering caused by food productions practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted (by [ oneself as a member in ] the set referred to in P6), then one ought to ensure that a vegan diet is adopted by [ oneself as a member in ] the set referred to in P6. — shmik
This is because each individual does not necessarily play a contributory role in causing suffering. — shmik
I agree that some follows from all generally.Sure. But the biconditional is not the end of the story. It's a premise, and all that matters for the topic of this conversation is whether or not it does its job as a premise. Strictly speaking, worrying about whether or not it is true is a topic for the associated discussion. Nor does it matter that nothing is said about (X & Y & ¬Z). The point of P6 is just to be part of the antecedent in P9 (and, originally, to get us P7).
So with P9 and C5 all we can say is that the set of people who can go vegan should go vegan (as a set). The argument can almost never claim that any individual should go vegan. — shmik
But again, "some" follows from "all." If all x ought to P, then x1 ought to P. — Postmodern Beatnik
Great. But in fact, "some" always follows from "all." To say that something is true of all members of a set is to say that it is true of each member. Therefore, it must be true of some members of the set (which is to say that it must be true of at least one member of the set).I agree that some follows from all generally. — shmik
And if you said this, you'd be wrong. Brian ought to go to the park (if and) only if 21 of his other friends are going and they are willing to play soccer (with him). What you might suggest to Brian, then, is that he bring 21 friends with him to the park. Furthermore, this is not the same move if my previous point (that the short term impact on a local supermarket is not the proper measure of whether someone is in a position to reduce the gratuitous suffering of food animals) is correct.I then reply, 'Brian you ought to go to the park and all your friends ought to go with you'. — shmik
But when there are two interpretations and one of them has no problems, you assume the one with no problems is the one that was intended. It's called the principle of charity.There are 2 interpretations. — shmik
P6 Gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted — Soylent
Interesting that you frame the discussion like this considering my first and second posts state that there is an ambiguity, assume that interpretation (2) is the one that Soylent means and suggest a way to patch up the argument so that interpretation (2) works.But when there are two interpretations and one of them has no problems, you assume the one with no problems is the one that was intended. It's called the principle of charity. — Postmodern Beatnik
This is clearly false under interpretation (2) being that interpretation (2) is false if there is one person whose independently going vegan has no effect. As such instead interpretation (1) is the charitable one. If you can find a way to make this quote work for interpretation (2) I'm happy to hear it.But the choice is not between reading P6 as meaning "by everyone" or "just by one person." If the reading is "by anyone who is in a position to," as I suggested, that is going to be a very large number of people. So the fact that you cannot change your local supermarket's buying patterns alone is irrelevant. And if it were true that a vegan diet ought to be adopted by anyone who is in a position to do so, then it wouldn't matter whether or not other people will in fact do so. All that would matter is whether or not any given individual was in a position to adopt a vegan diet. — Postmodern Beatnik
Also, I don't think you have formulated the first option correctly. What you've written is the ambiguous formulation itself. Your (1) should be: "Gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is simultaneously adopted by everyone who can adopt it." But of course, it is obvious that this is not what the argument intends to assert once this interpretation is made explicit. So while I can agree that this interpretation would cause problems, I don't see any reason to read it into the argument. — Postmodern Beatnik
You seem to be confused. All I was saying with the point about charity is that the one interpretation is obviously not what was intended that there's no real threat to the argument's validity. The first interpretation is not relied on anywhere else in the argument, so there is no reason to read an equivocation into the argument.Interesting that you frame the discussion like this considering my first and second posts state that there is an ambiguity, assume that interpretation (2) is the one that Soylent means and suggest a way to patch up the argument so that interpretation (2) works. — shmik
Then you are definitely confused because I haven't endorsed (1) or (2). Your argument only works if we are taking P6 to be "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted by anyone who is in a position to do so" (which is the original version of P6 with my suggestion about who is involved tacked on). But from the beginning, I have been suggesting an alternative P6 (along with an alternative P7 and P8): "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if it is possible to adopt a vegan diet." This alteration already incorporates the "anyone who is in a position to" suggestion in virtue of adding a modal term to the claim.It's true that in my conversation with you I have taken (1) as your interpretation but this is the most charitable interpretation (of your posts). — shmik
Then you seem to be contradicting yourself. Your original complaint was that the original version of P6 is ambiguous. You then claimed that P6 with the "anyone who is in a position to" clause tacked on is also ambiguous. But P6 with the "anyone who is in a position to" clause tacked on gets us "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted by anyone who is in a position to do so." If this is ambiguous—and your entire argument is based on the claim that it is—then "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted by anyone who can adopt it" is also ambiguous (as it is essentially the same claim).The way I have written it is unambiguous. — shmik
OK, maybe you don't realize that its unpleasant when someone implies that your posts rely on uncharitable interpretations and that it comes across condescending when you then post a link to the principle of charity.You seem to be confused. All I was saying with the point about charity is that the one interpretation is obviously not what was intended that there's no real threat to the argument's validity. — Postmodern Beatnik
Then you are definitely confused because I haven't endorsed (1)
or (2). — Postmodern Beatnik
Maybe I have somewhere, who knows?Then you seem to be contradicting yourself. Your original complaint was that the original version of P6 is ambiguous. You then claimed that P6 with the "anyone who is in a position to" clause tacked on is also ambiguous. But P6 with the "anyone who is in a position to" clause tacked on gets us "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted by anyone who is in a position to do so." If this is ambiguous—and your entire argument is based on the claim that it is—then "gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted by anyone who can adopt it" is also ambiguous (as it is essentially the same claim). — Postmodern Beatnik
To which you didn't reply.There is some ambiguity in the terms. Maybe you could rewrite P6 in a way that incorporated your 'by anyone who is in a position to'.
'Gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices is preventable if and only if a vegan diet is adopted by anyone who is in a position to', specifically excludes some (only if). If you mean it in the way: let X be the set of anyone who can go vegan, and V the set of vegans, ∀ x ∈ X, gratuitous suffering is preventable iff x ∈ V. Then that isn't true if there is a single individual whose capable of becoming vegan but whose contribution does not have an effect, which was the original concern. — shmik
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.