Isn't worry about one's current mental state an emotion and a negative one at that?
In any case, it doesn't sound much like nirvana to me, since you're supposed to enjoy/like/be content with nirvana.
It could be depression as others have pointed out. (In which case I hope you find some way to get out of the funk!)
But it could be a natural phase of emotional growth. Are you simply not sweating the little things? Or are there things that relatively objectively should have made you angry or sad and failed?

I think you should stop trying with Michael. If he can't understand how supply and demand works, I don't know what to tell you. — chatterbears

It's hard to understand how someone can't understand that... but it's a fun exercise to try and find the best way to explain it!

Your use of the term "paying for" is misleading. I exchange my money for some meat at a supermarket. That's the extent of my involvement. That the supermarket then uses some of that money to cover their costs of purchasing that meat from farmers who in turn kill animals for that meat is not any of my responsibility. — Michael

As a paying consumer, you are participating in the whole process. You cannot simply wipe your hands of responsibility when you know part of the process is immoral.
Otherwise you could justify paying for and consuming all sorts of heinous products including, but not limited to: elephant tusks, child pornography, soap made out of the ashes of dead Jews (like they made during the Holocaust), and so on.

You said that me eating meat (or rather buying meat) is responsible for those deaths, and so is wrong. Now you're just saying that it's wrong to support an industry that kills animals. That's a different argument altogether. — Michael

It's the exact same argument. Buying meat supports the industry, which means you're co-responsible for the deaths.

How does animal biology and evolutionary theory show that there's something it's like to be an animal (to use Nagel's phrasing)? — Michael

Since their biology mirrors ours in all capacities that are required to experience pain and suffering. And evolutionary theory states that all capacities humans have must exist in varying degrees (more, equal, or less) in other animals. And again, you don't have any evidence to suggest they are not capable of suffering.

Again, it's not the eating that's wrong. It's the killing that's (supposedly) wrong. The problem is that you haven't shown a sufficient connection between the two to warrant blaming those who eat meat for those killings. — Michael

It's not ridiculous if it's true that eating human meat isn't unethical, and you agreed that it isn't. — Michael

I'll reiterate once more, eating animals is really only in theory okay, since the morally acceptable practice thereof applies only to such marginal cases that don't pertain to our actual lives. Soooo, any talk about eating animals really implies that they were slaughtered as well.

Then that negates NKBJ's ridicule of @Sapientia's claim that it can be acceptable to eat a human burger. — Michael

I'm not trying to actively ridicule anyone as much as I am pointing out the ridiculous conclusions some people try to defend when it's about animal rights.

Me buying meat doesn't kill or harm animals, either directly or indirectly (given that my individual contribution isn't sufficient enough to have an affect on the amount of harm done or number of animals killed). — Michael

Yes it does. When you buy a product, you are paying for all of the services that went into making that product the way it is. In the case of a chair, that means craftsmanship, and in the case of meat, it means slaughter.
Perhaps one single person's contribution is but a drop in the bucket, but you can't use that as excuse to take part in something immoral. In part because this system exists due to the sum of single persons contributing to it, and in part because the fact that I can't stop x doesn't mean I should take part in, condone, or in anyway support x.
Unless you are a hunter, eating meat implies buying meat. Unless you only eat dead animals you happen to find, which then, be my guest (I mean, ewww, but be my guest). But that really goes without saying.

That's just speculation. You have no way of knowing that outward behaviour is indicative of an inner subjective state (or that any inner subjective state is similar enough to your inner subjective state that you are capable of empathy). — Michael

Actually, I do have ample evidence to suggest it is. Evolutionary theory, ethology, and what we know of animal biology (nervous systems, brain structures, etc) all tell us that this is the case... you on the other hand have no evidence to suggest it is not the same. As such, the only rational thing to do is to assume that it is the case.

This is a non sequitur. Hypocrisy doesn't show that it's wrong to kill cows for food. It could be that it's acceptable to kill cats for food, too. All this shows is that given our particular culture (remember that some cultures eat those animals, too) we have a stronger emotional attachment to these animals. — Michael

Like I said, we have evidence to back up the conclusion that animals suffer in a significant way. And it's not a non sequitur, since if I'm right, hypocrisy would point to the wrongness of hurting all animals.

We've already established that there's nothing wrong with eating a cow burger. Your issue has been with killing and harming animals. So, presumably, eating a cow that has died naturally is morally acceptable? But then what of eating a human that has died naturally? Many people might say that that would be unacceptable. The above suggests that you agree? If so then there is some other reason – unrelated to the immorality of harming and killing things which can suffer – for eating a human to be unacceptable, and this other thing can explain the difference between a cow and a mentally disabled person, and so we can avoid the reductio ad absurdum against Sapientia's position regarding intelligence as a measure. — Michael

Eating a naturally dead cow or human would be gross. And there may be an Aristotelian/Kantian argument to be made you shouldn't even be engaging in behavior like that because it sets a bad precedent. However, since in our current reality eating burgers implies the killing (and overwhelmingly also the lifelong torture) of an animal, cow and human burger eating are both wrong.

How so? Is there some reason to believe that it's wrong to eat animals? — Michael

There's nothing wrong with eating an animal per se. It's killing or harming an animal that's wrong.
And it's the same reasons I have for not kicking my cat or my dog. It's so obviously true that my dog suffers if I hurt her, and that her suffering is akin to my suffering, that I know hurting her is wrong.
And, to be honest, most meat eaters don't defend the idea of harming or killing animals when it comes to cats, dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, etc. It's just when the idea is brought up that they personally might have to change what is for most a thrice daily habit, that they suddenly try to find some way to say that animal suffering doesn't matter or doesn't exist...


I mean, sorry Sap, but as much as I have enjoyed our discussion for entertainment purposes, your final statement about basically being okay with eating a mentally disabled human is just a hilarious example of biting the bullet.

I don't recall anyone saying it here, but I am reminded of how ironic it is when people think vegans are crazy or ridiculous, when all we're saying is "don't eat the cows, just eat a veggie burger" and omnis say things like "in order to justify my cow burger, it's okay to eat a human burger."

But I do appreciate the discussion with both of you!

I never said pain was the only source of suffering. Though it is obviously a major source of it for most people capable of it.

Everything. If intelligent beings couldn't suffer, then hurting them wouldn't be a problem.

Participating in, or at least not even attempting to extricate yourself and your actions from, the active and ongoing suffering of billions of animals.

I know. I guess what I don't understand then is how you can claim to be okay with doing something you can't really defend. Since, if your gut feeling is wrong, and it seems more likely than not that it is, the consequences are so dire.

So.... basically, you have no idea what the actual markers of difference would need to be between humans and animals?

Well, if there were a human who had the same level of intelligence as a chicken, who looked and acted just like a chicken, had the same kind of flesh as a chicken, and was to all intents and purposes treated just like a chicken on a farm, then I would have no qualms with eating a human burger made from this human. So yes, it's fine to eat both humans and chickens under the right circumstances. — Sapientia

At least you're trying to be consistent, even if I think you might just be biting the bullet here!

However, what if we tweaked the above scenario just one iota and said a human who was in every regard like a chicken except that he/she looked like a human?

(Also, I'm curious, why does it matter to you how others have treated this human?)

That sounds contradictory to me.
Your first sentence seems to be claiming that intelligence is not the marker that makes killing permissible.
Your second sentence seems to be claiming that intelligence is the best marker you can think of that makes killing permissible.
If not, can you please clarify it for me?

that humans are far more intelligent than cows. — Michael

Generally, yes. But not all humans are. Which means, if merely intelligence is your marker, that those humans would be fair game to torture and/or kill.

You haven't shown that it's the latter. — Sapientia

I have. But you haven't shown that there is a significant difference that would make killing animals acceptable.

I was talking about humans in general. But one difference is that a pig won't develop the intellectual faculties of an adult human within its lifetime. — Sapientia

If you're talking about humans in general deserving certain treatment on the grounds of a specific trait, all humans have to have that trait.
So, if I have a handicapped person who is permanently intellectually at the level or below that of a pig or chicken or cow, does that mean I can cause that person pain or kill him/her?

So how can you claim that there is a significant difference if you don't know what it is? Or are you admitting to a mostly unexplored and possibly just biased gut feeling about the whole thing?

Yes, at least I'm giving it some thought instead of jumping straight for the conclusion they're pushing me towards, like a lamb to the slaughter. — Sapientia

I'm glad you're trying to give this some thought--really I am. But I don't think your snark or portraying our argumentation in such a negative light as the above lends itself to the idea that you are unbiased and encountering our side with an open mind.

Yes, but I've been also understanding you to be agreeing with him:

I'm OK with eating pigs but I'm not OK with eating humans. I can't put this down to simple speciesism as I can imagine not being OK with eating some intelligent alien. So how do I explain the difference? The intelligence of the species certainly seems like the most obvious distinction. — Michael

So, again, I put to you the question, what marker of intelligence do all humans possess that no cow possesses?

Humans have reached that level and cows haven't. — Michael

What exactly is that level? What capacities do all humans possess that no cow does?

No, I'm pretty sure that it's not all or nothing, and that we can and do discriminate. — Sapientia

Only by being inconsistent.

in terms of intellectual capacity — Sapientia

And what intellectual capacity does an infant possess that you think a pig doesn't?

Okay, let's farm them too, then. I'm sure Kentucky Fried Human would be a real hit. — Sapientia

Well, exactly because that is ludicrous we have to do the opposite: eat neither animals nor people.

But that's not my logic. I was only disputing your claimed equivalence in how humans and other animals relate to pain in light of their respective intellectual capacities. If I had meant to single out infants, then I could have easily done so. I suspect that you're intentionally skirting around my meaning to try to score a point. — Sapientia

It's what your logic leads to, whether you intended it to or not.

And I'm not trying to "score points." I wasn't aware that philosophical discourse was about winning or losing. I'm just trying to get at the truth and what the right thing to do is. Part of that entails explaining the problematic conclusions your argumentation would lead to logically. It's not personal.

No. There's no human sufficiently like a chicken to justify equal treatment — Sapientia

Some of the persons I've worked with were much less capable than a chicken, since their disabilities kept them in the mental and physical state of infancy.

ou're either clearly wrong or have yet to reveal your own narrow interpretation of what I'm saying. No chicken, pig, cow, duck or other farmyard animal can relate to pain in the same ways that we do. You think that a chicken or a cow has an opinion on whether life is worth living, given the inevitable pain which we must live through? You think that they're able to contemplate whether that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger? You think they're capable of understanding to the extent that we are what pain is, and what causes it? No, of course not. That would be ludicrous. — Sapientia

By that logic it would be permissible to cause pain to an infant, because they are not yet able to think abstractly about pain.

It's not about having or not having moral status. I haven't spoken in those terms. So you're asking me the wrong question. It's about the difference in how we treat humans and other animals in light of the differences between them — Sapientia

To me that just seems to be a matter of difference in semantics. My same argument applies. If you exclude animals from certain types of treatment, you exclude some humans, and if you include all humans you have to include at least some other animals.

If you want to talk past me, then you're going the right way about it — Sapientia

I don't believe I was talking past you. I said pain perception, which means also how animals relate to pain, and would include their intelligence levels. The latter, as I already said, animals possess to the same degree as many groups of humans whom we protect.

What exact mental capacity does a being at minimum need to deserve moral status according to you? Because if you draw the line to exclude all nonhumans including dogs and pigs, you will be excluding some humans. And as someone who has previously worked many years with handicapped persons, I can assure you that some are little different than your average human adult, and others are far less capable, mentally and physically, than a dog or pig.

You have no real basis to claim the pain perception of a pig is wildly different from a human's. Evolutionary theory and what we know about the biology of mammals (their nervous system and brains) leads to the conclusion that they do feel pain in the ways we do. And even if you cannot know it for absolutely certain, since it's way more likely than not, you have to err on the side of caution.

That only seems wrong to someone who is so against the value of non-human animals that equating them in any way to humans is to denigrate human status. Whereas I would say equating them is to leave humans in value right where they are while raising the status of animals.

But I wouldn't even equate them in every way. A dog and a pig are simply as capable of pain as any human, and as conscious as three year olds, and in many ways as smart too.

Once the child is born, it is indeed deprived, ne — schopenhauer1

Once again, you are assuming the same pessimistic outlook for everyone. Well, everyone doesn't share that view of life, including me.

Almost all goals fall into one of those three categories — schopenhauer1

I know that's not true of me, so therefore it is not true of all humans.

If they don't exist, what do they lose? There is no they, so nothing can lose. Something can definitely lose once born — schopenhauer1

It's nonsensical to compare it's non-existence to existence. So existing can never be better or worse than not existing.
You can have a good or a bad life, sure. But from what I have seen and what I've heard from most people, life has more good in it that outweighs the bad.

But we're going nowhere debating whether life is worth living subjectively. I just still think all you can say with your pessimism, is that you personally don't see the point in procreation for yourself. Just, stick with speaking for yourself.

Well even someone who has never touched a woman cannot get out of the conundrum of a loaded question like "did you stop beating your wife yet?" Loaded titles are just as bad — YIOSTHEOY

The fallacy is technically a complex question.

But anywho, it's not necessarily committing this fallacy just because it assumes something to be true. All questions assume certain things to be true. Even asking the pro's and con's of white privilege assumes that a) there are pro's and con's, b) someone can figure out what they are, c) that white privilege is a concept that exists at least in theory.

The beating your wife question is a fallacy because you are intentionally, and maliciously trying to trap the questioned person into admitting something he may or may not have done.

Bitter Crank, as far as I can tell, wants to be provocative, but not maliciously so, and is not trying to trap anyone.

True enough.
But I would argue it is more appropriately reasonable to care about being safe from bodily harm than to care about footwear aesthetics. With competing passions, reason has shown me which one I should choose.
Hence, not being governed by passions, but reason tampering or redirecting these if they are inappropriate.

I seem to be of the other angle in that people need to get out of their comfort zone and feel emotions such as empathy and a feeling of care for another. — Posty McPostface

Being appropriately moved by reason often entails just that... I'm not sure I understand how you understand the word appropriate if not entailing that we do things going against our comfort zone at times because reason tells us we ought to?

This is a typical no true Scotsman fallacy phrased in good will. What is 'truly reasonable'? — Posty McPostface

Um, no. That fallacy would entail my argument is so self-contained that counter-examples can be dismissed out of hand simply for being contrary to my argument... which I can't.
I'm not making any claims about specific instances of "true reasonability." I'm saying reason and emotions help us assess what might be so. No guarantees, but it seems to me our best bet.

Yet, reason seems to be instrumental here. One could go in slippers if one so desires. — Posty McPostface

I really, really like my slippers. My reason is telling my passions that if I go out hiking in slippers I can reasonably expect to be injured. Reason has saved me from my passions.

Buddhists like candy just fine

Here's a video of the dalai lama giving candy to a kid:
https://youtu.be/7YX7npkQSlA

What about life needs to be started for a new person in the first place? Is it some X experience you would like it to have? Is that the only experience it will have? Are you unwittingly doing the bidding of society's perpetuation (on the child's behalf)? What of the circularity- life is essentially survival, maintaining environment/comfort levels, and boredom-fleeing? Then what of the contingent suffering that is unexpected, unpredictable, and contextual. — schopenhauer1

I'll answer you in order:

-Nothing needs to be started. But it also doesn't need not to be started.
-Yes, there are a multitude of experiences I hope my child has.
-Nope.
-Also nope.
-I don't believe that is true.
-Life is risky, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having.

In Harvey Siegel's book Rationality Redeemed the critical thinker is defined as: "one who is appropriately moved by reason."

I think this is spot on. Note that the thinker must be "moved," which involves at the very least the emotion of caring about what is true or reasonable.

Note also the word "appropriately," as in, emotions should keep the thinker in check, but also not take over and lead the thinker astray.

Philosophy seems obsessed with reason. One can run around in circles talking about it, much like the person without emotion cannot decide which pair of shoes to pick, for hours, until someone intervenes or commands a choice — Posty McPostface

I would argue that emotions merely help us assess what is truly reasonable. Deciding between the black or brown shoes may be ultimately a choice of taste, but when I go hiking today, I will leave my slippers at home even though I may "like" them more than my boots.

I don't understand why the pessimist has to project his own feelings about the world onto everyone else to the extent of being an antinatalist. If your life sucks and you suffer, then don't have children. But certainly you must see that not everyone feels that way about life?

I'm an optimistic realist. I like life, I enjoy more in life than not, and I think most people do. I decided to procreate, in part because I think that life has more good than bad to offer. Of course there is suffering, and potentially more suffering than joy, but it is more likely for a child growing up in the environment I can provide, that the good will outweigh the bad.

Perhaps these fleeting thoughts are simply judged as youthful angst or a depressive mood, but pessimists are willing to stare at it directly and explore this understanding further. — schopenhauer1

To paraphrase Nietsche, I have stared into the Abyss, and the Abyss has stared back into me. One can be an optimist even after having confronted the darkness of the human condition and existence in general. But ultimately I choose to live life with another quote in mind: "The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness." (Nabokov) I like to focus on the "brief crack of light" part, while the "eternities of darkness" are there to remind me to carpe diem.

Ego dissolution involves the complete loss of ability to identify oneself internally and a fragmentation, breaking apart of your internal self-representation. — aporiap

That's the Jungian understanding of the phrase. I believe Regi is talking about the Buddhist sense of it.



But, yes, in both senses you wouldn't have felt guilty about eating a piece of candy, and you wouldn't have talked to yourself, since you would no longer recognize yourself as one whole being separate from others. In the Buddhist sense you become "one" with the universe.

I'm not a Buddhist, but I know that Siddhartha went through something somewhat similar to what you describe before reaching ego-death in the mythology. He went through an intense phase of self-abnegation almost to the point of suicide. However, since the self it part of the universe, to inflict suffering on the self is to inflict suffering on the universe.

I agree that to a certain extent it would be subjective. Like, for one person it may entail being a doctor, for another joining the Peace Corps, and for yet another writing and making music.

However, I don't think it's totally arbitrary. Seems to me there are a limited number of ways we as humans find meaning in life (though it may be a large number, and I am not sure what number exactly it is). Part of that is because we evolved to enjoy and strive for certain things. We're social beings, so many people derive meaning from caring about others. We're inventive creatures, so many of us derive meaning from creating new things.

It's not actually ludicrous to say that a person could derive meaning from bricks or apples. What if I made a career out of growing apples? What if I grow massive orchards that will sustain me and secure my children's future as well as provide healthful food to others? I may not be able to derive meaning from one single apple, but a single apple can be a metaphor to me about the rest of my life.

Interesting thing about our evolution towards finding meaning in certain things: humans fall into depression if they truly cannot find personal meaning in anything. It seems we are somehow wired to NEED meaning in life. I'm not saying you need meaning to live, but to be generally happy/content with living you do.

And I'm sure there are some nihilists out there who would disagree, but I have yet to meet one who had a happy life and wasn't somehow depressed. Maybe the exception would be some sort of psychopath?

a degrading and demeaning discussion about men — T Clark

I haven't seen that. Could you cite a specific moment when men were demeaned or degraded? I, for my part, have tried to stick with facts about the prevalence of male-perpetrated crime world wide.

If Jake had picked on something more arbitrary then I would agree with you. Like, if he said, men are hairier so we should get rid of them, that would be just discriminatory.

Pending various conditional claims, yes, I believe it can be rational to have children. Those conditionals include (but are not limited to):

If you have the material conditions to support another person until independence.
If you reasonably believe you are capable of providing a psychologically sound home (loving, caring, mentally stable, able to provide structure, etc, etc).
If you genuinely want the companionship of this person-to-be, including most types of person s/he could turn out to be.
If you have reason to think your child will not be an undue burden on others(besides your partner)
or society.

Basically, a mature adult in the right circumstances can rationally indulge in his/her natural instincts.

Sadly, too many people have kids for the wrong reasons under the wrong circumstances....which can of course turn out fine, but more often than not turns out poorly.

You don't find laughing and crying ''logically unacceptable'' when it happens to two people, here Heraclitus and Democritus, both rational and growing up in the same culture? — TheMadFool

No. Also, you're talking in circles. So I'll quote myself to answer that:

A and B are different, with different DNA, brain structures, hormonal balances, moods, histories, experiences, etc, etc. You could attempt to raise clones side-by-side in an absolute identical manner and still, all it would take is for one of them to happen to glimpse a butterfly flying by and the other not to see this and they would perhaps make different paintings. — NKBJ

If two people came out from after a movie, one crying and the other laughing, you would be surprised right? — TheMadFool

Marginally. But that's because movies are made with the intention to cause the audience to react a certain way. The range of interpretations is smaller than in real life. But it still wouldn't be paradoxical, because, again, even small differences in a person's brain or experiences can lead to hugely different interpretations of the same thing. I might laugh at a supposedly sad movie cause it was poorly made, or because I finally realized how trivial the supposed sad stuff was, or because I'm a sadist, or because the final thing to do in the face of despair is laugh, or, or, or.

There's an implicit understanding all humans have about the uniformity of experience. — TheMadFool

It's not totally uniform. Some people don't like ice cream at all, and there are different flavors cause people like different kinds.
Some things are (almost) universal, but not universally uniform. Parental love seems universal across cultures, but how we express it, the importance it takes in our lives, how we react to it in others, and so on are all variable and not uniform in person to person.

What's your definition of a paradox? — TheMadFool

The definition of a paradox is: A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

However, this difference is not logical. It's only a matter of personal preference. Logic doesn't work like that. — TheMadFool

Sure it does. You're simply taking an example from real life that clearly has a huge number of variables and therefore leads to different conclusions. If you were to map it out in logic, it would take a few book-length entries to map out why person A draws x and person B draws y. A and B are different, with different DNA, brain structures, hormonal balances, moods, histories, experiences, etc, etc. You could attempt to raise clones side-by-side in an absolute identical manner and still, all it would take is for one of them to happen to glimpse a butterfly flying by and the other not to see this and they would perhaps make different paintings. Because of that minor difference in their experiences, which would have to be part of your logical proof if you wrote it out, the whole thing would lead to a sound conclusion and not be paradoxical or contradictory at all.

It's neither apparently a contradiction, nor really one at all.

As someone who teaches English lit, I think especially philosophy dealing with this sort of close attention to language should appeal to the literary-minded. Which of these two sentences appeared in a poem or dialogue would make a profound difference on the interpretation thereof.

Also, this inspired me to a little dialogue drafting myself:

"You'll always be alone and unhappy, because you think all men are fools!" He growled at her, waving his hand in disgust.
She was taken aback for less than a moment, "That's not true!" Glancing out the window she regained composure and in a more even tone added: "But I do think all fools are men."
With that, she left him to ponder the implications of her statement for himself as well as for mankind.

but find my instinctive reaction is, 'Who cares'. Philistine of me, doubtless. — iolo

Your word, not mine. Poo-pooing what others spend time and energy discussing, and what some spend their whole careers dissecting, is usually what my younger students do in an attempt to mask their ignorance of a subject.