Re: what it has to do with philosophy.

It's categorical logic, i.e., a hugely important part of philosophy.

Just to clarify, is your "liberal" basically what we in America call "libertarian"? Here "liberals" are the ones in favor of social programs and helping out people.

Not only is it expensive to be poor, but because the poor have no money in the bank, every small disaster (flat tire, need new shoes, Fortune Magazine sub expired) every minor problem gets magnified. For want of a tire, the car can't run, one can't get to work... and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yes! The whole system is rigged against the working class.
Which is one of the main points of the articles I linked to :)

For a more literary version of what capitalism is like for poor people trying to get just a little bit ahead, see The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

It's expensive to be poor in America.

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/01/25/why-it-costs-so-much-to-be-poor-in-america/?noredirect=on
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-high-price-of-being-poor/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-high-cost-of-being-poor/

I certainly don't think a capitalist economy could function by giving away the necessities and only selling the "luxury" goods - which seems to be what you are proposing. The production and sale of necessities is the foundation of the capitalist system, the production and sale of luxury goods is parasitic upon it. Take away that foundation and the whole edifice collapses. — jkg20

I don't think that's quite true. And, honestly, if stopping 9 million people die for lack of food and adequate nutrition every year means I have to give up my luxuries, I guess that's just something we have to do. But it's not the case. There are countless ways we could end world hunger and each starts with at the very least strongly curtailing capitalism. 9 million dead people in the world each year, but the US alone just throws away a third of its food... capitalism is disgustingly wasteful.

The biggest challenge would involve changing people's mindsets. The two most important ways:

1) Having people realize that they must work as part of society, not for a direct monetary gain, but so that the whole system can work. People would have to see labor as a part of the greater good for themselves and everyone else as well. Ultimately it would make people happier, as studies have shown that people are more satisfied with work they do for the intrinsic value over an external reward, but it will be hard to get people to that point.

2) Getting people to accept that everyone deserves these bare necessities, regardless of education or career choice. A lot of people still think a CEO deserves a lot more than a bus driver... but if you look at the difference between their salaries in capitalist America, it doesn't make sense. There are only so many hours in a week, so much labor any person can put into a job (unless they have a time turner), so 373 times as much money for the average CEO is just preposterous.

In any case, yes, I interpret the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as including the basic necessities of life.

You're misusing the term paradox. It may be an interesting juxtaposition, but it is not paradoxical for two different people two have opposing worldviews. It's not even paradoxical for the same person to experience both sorrow and joy at the same time. The human mind is simply capable of looking at things from various perspectives and containing a myriad of emotions.

Saying two people having opposing worldviews is a paradox or contradictory is like saying having a white shirt and a black shirt is a paradox. Although white and black may be opposites of each other, they are not paradoxical in existence side by side. I could even have a shirt that was partly black and partly white and it would still not be a paradox. Just an aesthetically pleasing visual contrast.

This, to me, means that the world doesn't have that absolute form every philosopher seeks. — TheMadFool

Is it the Truth that the world doesn't have an absolute form, aka, the Truth? THAT claim would indeed entail a contradiction: the truth is there is no truth.... which is just silly. :rofl:

To Cry and to laugh are contraries I believe — TheMadFool

So? One person laughing and the other crying isn't paradoxical.

As Cavacava points out:

One saw the whole as a parade of miseries, the other of follies.

That's just different word views and interpretations of the human condition. It's not paradoxical that two humans would have differing opinions.

The glass can be seen as half full and half empty, because it IS both. That's not a contradiction. The contradiction would be if the glass were completely full and completely empty at the same time. But that's not what's going on here.

What could be the reason for this paradox? — TheMadFool

Dude, that's not paradoxical.

So, you see, even iur rational side must accept some paradoxes let alone our nonlogical side. — TheMadFool

Must I though? Must I? Clearly not, because mine hasn't as of yet :lol: In part, I'm just not finding your arguments or your examples very convincing.

Re: #1: Wave-particle duality is a phenomenon that has not yet been fully researched. Sure it challenges our current concepts of waves and particles, but that doesn't mean it's an actual paradox. It just seems paradoxical, because we have more to learn about how things work.

Re: #2: I'll reiterate--it's NOT a real paradox either. It's just word play. You can say all sorts of gibberish with language, but that doesn't make it an actual paradox.

There must be some value in nonsense. It shocks the brain into exploring different dimensions. — TheMadFool

Yes, well, I've already agreed to that. But that's very different from making sense out of nonsense, or understanding nonsense.

You seem to be avoiding defending your original claim: that the heart, or non-logical part of the mind, could "understand" something about paradoxes. You haven't yet explained an example of that.

Making use of the lessons from dealing with paradoxes is something the rational mind does. But that doesn't involve making sense out of the paradox per se.

Thanks :blush:

Are they indoctrinated (in some negative sense) to an individual through repetition and training? — Posty McPostface

Why would teaching people to talk coherently be negative? I mean... you could try to raise a kid without language and just let him garble at things instead of speaking...but that would be tantamount to child abuse. How's he going to get along in life? Unless you want to condemn him to live as a hermit among people, language is a must.

Rules exist foremost to help us--if everyone ran around calling a tree or car or person by other sounds and words, we'd have a very hard time getting anything done.

That being said, there are oppressive ways to manipulate language rules to exclude (jargon, class distinctions, etc.) or to keep in place/obscure (Orwellian doublespeak, i.e. "false facts" :shade: ).

I know ''current'' scientific knowledge has no room for my theory but science is a work in progress right? — TheMadFool

Mayhaps, but you should base your arguments on what you can most reasonably assume to be true. Your best bet is to go with what established science does say and not what you wish it might say someday in the distant future.

I don't mean "merit" as in "it helps us think about x," but as in your claim that "paradoxes can make "sense" even if they are illogical." You don't seem to actually have found a way to make the liar's paradox sensible, just useful--and really it's only usefulness is to show that you can say stupid stuff with language. ;)

So can you tell me a paradox you believe is sensible, or that you think the "heart" can "understand," despite being illogical?

Paraconsistent logic is, simply put, humbug. It tries to make A=~A work, which is just wrong.

I don't think you get an choice. — T Clark

I concur.
WHY is that the case? Mostly because we are large, hairless apes and apes are social animals, i.e., we evolved that way. If we had evolved from crocodiles we probably wouldn't think love was all that important. (Pocho the crocodile may be an example that proves it wouldn't be non-existent, but certainly not as center-stage to life as it is for us.) Because of it's centrality in our survival and reproduction, we depend on love and stable loving relationships for a myriad of psychological aspects of well-being.

That being said, I'm glad we have these traits. It does make life interesting and worthwhile to love and be loved. As a newcomer to this whole parental love thing myself (my gosh, has it been 5 weeks already?) it certainly makes the world seem just that much more amazing to live in. :)

In other words some paradoxes are unsolvable through logic. — TheMadFool

See my option #2--unsolvable through logic and that just means you're wrong and the paradox is wrong somehow.

Give up logic, its laws, and paradoxes vanish. — TheMadFool

Giving up logic is illogical. And that's simply a rabbit hole down which I am not willing to follow you.

But perhaps all this abstract talk would be more fruitful if you gave a specific example of a paradox you think has some merit despite it's apparent logical incongruity.

Also, I'd like to point out that per the definition of a paradox what I said above holds true: either it is only an apparent contradiction, or it is simply not true.

Yes, I think in the long run having goals is necessary for a fulfilling life.

But I don't think your goals need to be static. My teenager goals are not my young adult goals are not my grown-up goals...

It's important not to let them become your "white whales" that drive you insane.

It's important to have some goals you never reach. I can't find the origin of the quote right now, but a famous pianist once said "If I had another life to live, I might begin to learn something about the piano." I think that's a great sentiment. It sounds a bit sad, the futility of life and striving for greatness and all that. But I take it as inspiration--you're never done learning, there's always more to discover and marvel at, you can never exhaust the wonders of this world, or your own potential.

Hard to choose between classical and jazz, but jazz has more innovation. Everything else...I like plenty of other genres just fine, but would have a problem never hearing a song with more than three chords (if that) again xD

But what if there's truth in these paradoxes that some other part (non-logical) of our minds can understand? — TheMadFool

The gut feeling that there is a truth behind some apparent paradox seems to me to stem from either of two things:1) it's not actually a paradox, we just haven't figured out the logic of it yet, but when we do it will be something our rational side will be able to comprehend; 2) our gut feeling is wrong.

No. 2 could happen for logical reasons. Like there being logical reasons why I want to eat a whole tin of brownies at once (yummy fat and sugar are hardwired into my senses by evolution), but it is illogical to do so (unhealthy, and I know I will feel like heck afterwards).

Right.

I'd add: The primary difference between Hegel and Marx being that the former was an idealist, while Marx spearheaded dialectic materialism. So for Hegel it pertains primarily to the realm of ideas, while Marx saw the dialectic in real-world relations.

For example, how capitalism (thesis) can bring about socialism (synthesis) because maximum efficiency in factories most often involves bringing groups of people together, i.e. fostering social cohesion (antithesis).

I think you need to clarify in which direction you're actually arguing. The way I see it, you're making two different, juxtaposed claims:

1. We shouldn't attribute any rights to non-human animals, because all rights only belong to humans.
2. No one, not even humans have, or should be given, any rights.

I think both claims are wrong, but for the sake of the argument it would be good if you could elucidate what you actually mean.

Suffering is not inherently meaningful.
However, you may as well make the proverbial lemonade out of it if you are unlucky enough to be the recipient of great suffering. But you do have to be inclined to do so. Some people live through atrocities and never get over it, others use it to put the rest of life in perspective and find great joy in their existence. Accounts from holocaust survivors often include a sense of general joy in life since being freed, since how can the trivialities of everyday life bother you much if you've seen the absolute pits of human despair?
I also a read a good psychology article a few weeks ago that talked about the difference of perception between optimistic and pessimistic people which probably pertains to this. Basically, optimists will focus on "I survived! Lucky me!" While pessimists will dwell on "poor me, I suffered..." Which is not to condemn the latter, but it does change how well you can deal with what has happened to you.

I thought we agreed you and I had nothing left to say to each other on this subject? I'd prefer sticking to that.

Why do you why do you say "someone"? Can we not stick to talk about killing animals for food?
There are lots of reason why we a won't kill a fellow human. — Andrew4Handel

I sort of figured we'd have to sort this part out at some point. Kind of explains why we've been talking passed each other this whole time. I'm not sure what you would categorize non-human animals as, but animal rights theorists (including me) see them as persons, hence calling them "someone." They have everything one needs for personhood: intelligence, emotions, desires, fears, personalities, etc.

Being part of nature means that what we do is not unnatural. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed.
That doesn't make it right, though, or something we should do. But I don't think you and I are going to agree about that part ever, so why keep bringing it up? I'm simply not going to agree with you about the subjectivity of morality and you're not going to agree with me about the objectivity thereof. Why belabor the point?

The justification for killing an animal is because you eat hungry and want to eat it. What justification due you have for asking people to live like herbivores? — Andrew4Handel

Strictly speaking I don't ask others to be herbivores. I'm just trying to explain my view of vegan ethics that have convinced me to be herbivorous. I think it would be better if people did all go vegan, but I know it's futile to ask or tell anyone to who can't see the light.

If I did ask others to go vegan (hypothetically), I would likely justify it by citing the suffering meat eating causes, the poor labor conditions in the meat industry, the contribution to climate change, the fact that meat has to be subsidized substantially by taxes, that it contributes to world hunger, and that it is linked to various diseases including heart problems, cancer, and diabetes....and so on.

I think humans hypothetically have a lot of potential for however long they live and losing a human is a far greater loss than losing a cow. If Einstein and a cow were drowning I know who I would save first. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed. And I would save a human over a non-human as well.
However, lucky for us, that is not the scenario we have when talking about veganism. It's not about deciding what is best for humans OR other animals; it happens to be better for humans AND other animals. It's a win-win. :)

Ahem, the modern human, please and thank you.

I think the problems with our general alienation from production are both manifold and dire. Just a few things off the top of my head:

1. The general public cares little about the origins of consumer items, which includes slave labor, unethical work practices, and environmental destruction.
2. The general public does not understand the actual worth of any given item and so is more easily influenced by capitalist propaganda (or, in their words, "marketing") so that the price of fresh produce seems exorbitant, while they happily pay hundreds to use a cell-phone (not buy, just use).
3. They have forgotten the power of their role in the system as consumers.
4. They don't realize they are potential producers of goods. Fewer and fewer people are capable of making something with their own hands nowadays.

My general position is the dichotomy between Philosophy and Science has been exaggerated. — Kym

Yes. And not only because science originates in philosophy, and is (strictly speaking) a sub-discipline thereof.

Yeah, there's a misunderstanding there all right. But exactly where? — Kym

Well, for one, that a paradox cannot actually exist. It is, at best, a seeming paradox--paradoxical according to our current theories about the laws of physics, and/or what black holes are/do. We simply need to learn more and then we will figure out how it's not actually a paradox. The apparent paradoxical nature of something like a black hole is useful, though. It serves as a red flag saying "wait guys, we need to do some more research and theorizing here!"

Same reason I'm skeptical of any talk about quantum physics, btw. Someday scientists will have a reasonable explanation for the double slit experiment, but it won't be that a particle is in two absolutely separate places at the exact same time. IMO.

Has a plant ever voluntary walked into your most merely for your pleasure? — Andrew4Handel

Point taken--that wasn't a very precisely worded example on my part. But I hope you can still get the gist of what I was saying: cows don't want to be hurt, and that includes being killed.

Nothing has a choice about whether it dies or not because that is inevitable. — Andrew4Handel

True enough. But how does that justify killing someone?

We have to exploit nature to survive. As a depressed nihilist I know what it is like to be unhappy with the state of life an nature. It certainly is not Disneyland. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not sure that it's true that we have to exploit nature to survive--it's one way to survive temporarily, but clearly that's now backfiring on us. We DO have to live in symbiosis with nature, but I'm not convinced that means living off of the flesh of other sentient and intelligent beings.

If Dante had known about Disneyland, it would have been one of his levels of hell. :joke:

It is unfortunate but dead animals are part of the cycle of life and part of most organism nutrition. — Andrew4Handel

True enough. But that doesn't justify killing either. The worms can just as well munch away at a carcass after it has lived it's full life.

Isn't a "depressed nihilist" a pessimist? And many of your arguments seem more pessimistic than nihilistic, honestly.

I just stopped doing so after a certain point because they were not relevant to the points that I was making to you, and because I lost patience with trying to get you to stay on point. — Sapientia

Eh, you know what? Since you self-admittedly just ignore the arguments you don't like, and since you're also admitting to not actually being interested in the truth:

It is what it is — Sapientia

, I'm quite sure there is no longer a point to our conversation.

My way of countering your red herrings is to disregard them. — Sapientia

You cannot call my arguments red herrings if you haven't read them--either you lied previously, or you are committing an argumentum abusi fallacia (falsely calling something a fallacy, which would be the case if you just toss the fallacy's name out there without knowing it to be true).

No one anywhere on the planet, in modern times, has kept a cow for the duration if its natural lifespan? There's not a single exception? Yeah right. That would be extremely unlikely. So, why should I believe that? — Sapientia

If you actually let a cow live it's entire natural lifespan, then you can't have killed it. If humans just let cows live and die according to their own biological timeline and then feel the need to pick the flesh of off their rotting corpses, I suppose I see no ethical problem in that (although, at this point in my life, I have serious aesthetic objections).

Even if a cow were to be raised humanely and treated nicely up until a day before it's natural death, it would still be wrong to then kill it. Just like you cannot kill the elderly lady next door a day before her natural demise. To do so is murder. Murder is not defined by how nice you were before death, or how long they could have lived after, or any of that: it's the intentional killing of another sentient and intelligent being who did nothing to deserve death and does not want death.

Did I make that argument? No. So why are you asking me that? — Sapientia

Because that's where your entire argument is headed: you're arguing against veganism partially on the basis of some hypothetical scenario that is not only wrong, but also just doesn't happen in the real world. You're gonna have to find other arguments to justify your hamburger.

I don't know about him, but one of my phil profs from my undergrad program used to use that word in every class somehow. I remember classmates making a bet about whether he'd forget to someday.... anywho, off topic, back to the subject at hand.

what is the core, the central axiom, of all philosophical activity? What justifies philosophical search? What is the meaning of philosophy? — Gilliatt

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Or: it's fun and a better waste of my time than watching reality tv :joke:

Joking aside, I do actually think that expanding one's mind and training it leads to a more satisfactory and well-spent life.

As a dual citizen of Germany and America, and therefore bilingual speaker of German and English:

-Some German texts are actually easier to understand in English. Not because German is such a tough language, but because some (Kant especially) liked writing these unending sentences that are hard to follow. They would be considered run-on in English and so are broken into more digestible chunks in the translation. I love the German language, but I do not love Kant's German.

-Although translations are for the most part accurate, they can (at times) fail to fully convey all the meanings of an important word.

-Although most translators of such texts are academics themselves, they can sometimes (rarely, but it happens) misunderstand a concept and thus mistranslate it slightly.

I would never dissuade someone from learning a new language. However, in the meantime (since proficiency at the philosophical level would take years), you may just want to read the translations and perhaps supplement with some good critiques that can clarify word usage.

As a result I'm struggling with the language of this particular book. It takes me an awfully long time to get through a couple of pages as I have to reread sentences and paragraphs. I also have to Google a lot of the words. — MasterSplinger

This made me think about the Unending Conversation metaphor:

Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress. --Kenneth Burke, Philosophy of Literary Form, 110-111

I think philosophy is going to feel like that a lot most of the time for most people. You just have to stick with it and it will get easier.

Through my Kindle I noticed I have access to a lot of the Introduction to ---- books for philosophy. They might help, but I don't think they have the author you're currently reading. If you're super serious about this, take a phil 101 class at a local community college or something.

Of course the primary source is the preferred source, go to the library and read. But I find the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, though it's not as extensive as Stanford, has better, well rounded information on the subjects which it does address. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right though you may be, the person who started this thread wants something to get him started in philosophy--he's not looking for sources in a dissertation. I think Stanford is a wholly adequate place to get a good rough idea of a subject and then go from there.

I don't think Harm equals Wrong or Bad. And that kind idea was what was being attacked by G.E.Moore with his "Naturalistic Fallacy" (Although he focused on Good and Pleasure). — Andrew4Handel

I've read G.E. Moore: he was not arguing against explaining types of wrong or good, he was arguing against reducing the good or the bad to one type of thing. Along the lines of, you can say an apple is a type of fruit, but you cannot say all fruit are apples--that was Moore's argument for goodness and pleasure.

It seems we are to believe only humans harming animals is a moral evil. — Andrew4Handel

Um, no? I didn't say that. But humans harming animals is one kind of moral wrong. If you're suggesting it could be immoral for a lion to kill an antelope--lions are not moral agents and so cannot be the perpetrators of moral acts.

I was only using the term crime because you brought it up. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe. But you still argued that we ought to stop crimes--which flies in the face of your supposed moral nihilism.

You are trying to commit people to behaving in the same way in a diverse set of circumstances however. — Andrew4Handel

In some ways, yes I am: I have no qualms about admitting to wanting to commit people to not being murderers or rapists. :snicker:

But even after getting a clear advocacy or consent for keeping some one alive the medical procedures are a life or death matter and to which extent you persist in treating someone. So there have been long court cases about whether someone should be kept alive (babies/people in vegetative state etc) — Andrew4Handel

Yes, and if you had read my post more carefully, you'd know I said those are exceptions. In cases where a patient cannot make their wishes known, or is not capable of having wishes, others must make choices for them. But a cow is neither a baby nor in a vegetative state. Let a cow choose between pain and no pain, death or life--they can and will choose no pain and living. Duh. No cow voluntarily walks into a knife merely for our pleasure.

Define sentient! — charleton

"Able to perceive and feel things"

Animals are not humans. Think that through a minute! — charleton

Yes, but evolution dictates that anything and everything we are innately capable of, other animals can do as well in varying degrees (some better, some worse than us). Such as, but not limited to: suffering when being held captive.

indication of evangelism. — Sapientia

People post pics and vids on this forum all the time--it's just prop material, get over it.

"Evangelism," "proselytizing," "ideologues" etc, etc are all terms people use against animal rights when they are tired of being proven wrong and just want to cling to their own ideology without having to recognize it as such. You're debating your side, we're doing the same-- if we're evangelists or whatever, so are you. I think neither of us is: we're just debating in a forum created for that very purpose.

:wink:

That's how it's beginning to seem, and I'm getting sick and tired of it. — Sapientia

Getting so upset about what a stranger says on the internet in a philosophical debate, especially when they did not say anything personal to you, is a sign that you have lost objectivity about the subject (at least for the moment).

Now, since you have not given me the courtesy of sticking to the point, in return, I will not give you the courtesy of even reading the rest of your post, let alone giving it a considered reply. — Sapientia

Like we don't all know that actually means "I can't think of a way to counter your arguments, but I don't want to admit it." :cool:

Can, hypothetically, occasionally does... — Sapientia

Why does that change the essence of what I was saying? Even IF you could hypothetically keep a cow for it's natural lifespan (20+ years), it doesn't happen. They are killed before three years of age (dairy cows get to live a whopping 4 years before being killed). And even IF one in a million cows gets treated like a lifelong pet by some farmer who has a soft spot--how does that justify the treatment of the other 999,999? That doesn't even justify it's own killing--because it does not want to be killed.

It is not a straightforward case of asking a patient whether they want to be kept alive. There is a wide variety of medical procedures and caring strategies that effects someones longevity in hospital. — Andrew4Handel

You're comparing apples and oranges: A doctor using medications that may have harmful side-effects, uses them because s/he believes the chances are greater that they will help the patient live longer and better than going without the meds. And the doc still has to have your consent to give you the meds unless you are incapacitated in some way. The farmer/butcher kills an animal for the farmer/butcher's good and not that of the animal. The animal benefits in no way from having it's throat slit, nor is it asked for consent.

I would say the sheep were expressionless showing no specific joie de vivre. — Andrew4Handel

And what does an animal have to do in order to show joy in your book? I see animals in my backyard all the time enjoying life: sunning themselves, playing with each other, taking naps, caressing each other, etc, etc. Anyone who's had a dog knows that dogs enjoy life--especially when there is a warm lap, a yummy cookie, and an ear scratch to be had. But then, don't take it from me--take it from any actual ethologist: animals enjoy life.
Furthermore, since homo sapiens enjoy life, evolution dictates that other animals must have this capacity too.

I'm not sure you are quite understanding Dawkins' quote: the universe, being something which cannot think or act, obviously is indifferent (really not even that, since being "indifferent" implies the capacity to care, which the universe cannot). That, however, does not mean that the individuals (human and non-human) within the universe do not, or cannot care. To argue thus would be a fallacy of division.

I think crime is natural and moralising about it is pointless. I would tackle the causes of crime rather than focus on vilifying people. — Andrew4Handel

I'll ignore the contradiction in saying it's pointless to moralize, but we ought to stop crime from happening...

This means that you can identify those things that would count as crimes: which implies you do understand the difference between things one ought to do, and what one ought not to do. But we can use your lingo if you insist (even though it doesn't make a difference really; you're just giving a different name to the concept): the debate then is whether killing animals for food, when we could reasonably do otherwise, is a crime (or should be considered as one)--the answer is still yes. Taking the life of an autonomous, sentient, intelligent being without his/her consent and purely for one's own pleasure is a crime.

they tend to think that what they are doing commits them to nothing other than constructing models. — ProcastinationTomorrow

The scientific models allows for scientists to avoid absolute "commitments" because they are working with hypotheses and theories. The (good) scientist tests his/her hypotheses and upon reaching a point where it doesn't work, can go back and edit their assumptions until they find out what does work.

So, for instance, the scientist dropping an apple on the ground to test gravity assumes s/he and the apple are real--perhaps it would be difficult for the scientist to adjust a hypothesis if s/he found out his/her own existence was false :joke: but if the apple turned out not to exist, or be a helium balloon, or something like that, the scientist could, should, and hopefully would go back to the drawing board.

Of course, I'm talking about the ideal scientist--it is likely that many scientists could not be so open-minded about some of their metaphysics, especially those beliefs that we all rely on in our day to day lives.

The animals under consideration already exist. — Sapientia

So you think that all of the animals you will ever eat already exist? Or that the money you put into the meat industry by purchasing animal products does not contribute to the breeding of more animals? Some of the animals to be considered already exist, but billions and billions are going to be brought into existence if we do not change our practices. So, in fact, it is very pertinent to the discussion.

They don't live a life of agony. — Sapientia

Clearly you haven't looked at the living conditions on factory farms. The vast majority of animals bred and raised for our consumption come from such farms. Maybe you wouldn't find being mutilated, kept in spaces so small you can hardly move your entire life, force fed, artificially inseminated, having your babies stolen from you and killed, etc, etc. to be agony, but I highly doubt it.

"How can a life which ends prematurely be good for anyone?" - That question assumes a false premise, namely that for a life to be good, it must not end prematurely. — Sapientia

You claim I'm not paying attention, and then you leave out half of my statement :lol:
How can a life of agony and which (to add insult to injury) ends prematurely, be good? How can it be something we can justifiably inflict on others? Especially when we could do otherwise.

I see only two interpretations: — Sapientia

Again, you're purposefully ignoring my explanation. Talk about a lack of paying attention :rofl: You can go back and read it for yourself--I'm not going to bother anymore reiterating myself when you just insist on trying to take me out of context in order to have your strawperson.

That's a strawman. You need to pay closer attention to what myself and others say. What I said was nowhere near as general as that, nor was the original comment by another participant which you replied to. — Sapientia

and:

Oh good, so presumably you agree with the point that was made about an extended lifespan in captivity versus a shorter lifespan in nature. — Sapientia

:chin: I don't think I read that wrong. It's pretty clear, and you did not add any qualifications there. I can imagine arguments along those lines for sanctuaries or zoos, but we're talking about animals raised for consumption. And as far as that goes, they do NOT have longer lifespans.

No need to bring up old ladies. — Sapientia

There is very much a need--since it elucidates the hypocrisy of claiming x, y, or z is good for animals, while it would be heinous to seriously consider for humans.