I don't. Don't pretend that it doesn't end up in their best interest, in light of the consequences, in some cases, regardless of the motive. — Sapientia

It isn't in their best interest. It would be best for them not to be brought into existence. How can a life of agony, which ends prematurely, be good for anyone?

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

For one: I do not agree; I personally would rather live free and die young, than live in captivity into old age. For two: I don't know what leads you to believe that animals used for food live much longer than in the wild? They have significantly reduced lifespans: the farmer gains nothing from letting an animal live beyond peak-body mass, and in the case of veal, even younger. (And even if you don't eat veal, the dairy industry supports the veal industry.)

Says you. And it's okay if they die of natural causes, then? — Sapientia

Again: how does that argument even make sense? Of course it's okay. Just like it's okay for you to let the aging old lady next door live and die a natural death and not intervene than kill her beforehand, because you weirdly decided you'd be doing something "merciful" (and wanted to eat her flesh before too much of it wasted away).

Leaving animals to natures mercy is not clearly the most ethical thing. — Andrew4Handel

You've been watching too much Shark Week. Nature has brutal moments, and some animals kill to live, but most of a wild animal's life is not "red in tooth and claw." Perhaps you should spend some time observing animals in their natural day to day? They very much enjoy being free, alive, and unbothered by humans.

Also Doctors often cause the death of a patient by decisions about their medical care in life or death circumstances. — Andrew4Handel

A doctor killing a patient against his or her will is called murder. Exceptions apply when we cannot know the will of the patient (as with long-term comatose persons). Try hurting a pig--they will quickly let you know that they do not wish to be harmed, let alone killed. No animal willingly walks into a knife to sacrifice his or herself for the pleasures of our palate.

Just like the legal notion of mitigating circumstances. I am not saying humans cannot manage meat eating but carnivorous and omnivorous behaviour is more innate in nature than some other behaviours. — Andrew4Handel

I'll repeat myself once more: so, since rape, murder, incest, etc. occur in nature, or are "innate" as you claim, are we to excuse those who commit these crimes? The naturalness, innateness, or whichever term you want to call something in an attempt to dodge your moral culpability, of an act or impulse does not change whether it is right or wrong. It has no impact on the rightness or wrongness of the act. Since we CAN overcome our desires for flesh, and we know there are many good reasons to do so, we ought to.

Where are you getting that from? And what's the relevance to what was said in the quote that you were replying to? The point, as I understood it, was that they'll likely have a better life and a better death this way than they would in nature, and I think that that's a good point which deserves a proper answer. (And there is such a thing as a better death, and you know it). — Sapientia

You say that all animals must die anyway, and use that to justify killing them for food/our own pleasure.
a)Don't pretend we're killing the billions of cows, pigs, and chickens we eat every year for their own good.
b) Some deaths may be preferable to others, but living is preferable to either.
c) it is not for us to decide for the animal when it should die. Counter example: someone you know has cancer and will die a painful death. Are you allowed to put him/her out of his/her misery when s/he doesn't wish to die yet?

Speaking as a homosexual myself I think that finding homosexuality in nature is a positive thing for people who have faced prejudice and persecution and vilification. — Andrew4Handel

You may find it normalizing, and that's great if it helps you emotionally--but it still doesn't make it right or wrong. Ethically, the "naturalness" of homosexuality (or anything else) simply doesn't matter.

If only evolutionary natural things were good, we'd have to give up on all progress of civilization and live in caves without heating, medicine, the arts, etc, etc.

And again: rape, murder, incest, cannibalism, stealing, and so on all occur in nature. They are not good, and we should not engage in these things.

What does matter morally are arguments like: it doesn't affect anyone but the two consenting adults involved (or shouldn't); and it makes those two people happy.

I am not sure I accept the idea that an ought can never derive from an is. Let me explain. It is hard to see why an ought would follow from an objective state of affairs. But what if we take seriously the idea that subjective experience is real? — petrichor

One reason you can't derive an ought from an is, is because you really never do, even when it looks like you are. You are simply failing to put a tacit assumption into words.

For instance:
P1: Hitting hurts.
C: One ought not hit others.

Really should be formulated as such:
P1: Hitting hurts.
P2: One ought not hurt others.
C: One ought not hit others.

(I realize that there are exceptions about necessity that theoretically need to be included in a full argument for this, but you get the gist.)
In attempting to derive an ought from an is, you are almost always including tacit value judgement and ought-claims. So you really aren't deriving an ought from an is.

Subjective experience is of course real, but that does not make recognizing them as real subjective: You have a headache is an objective statement about something subjectively experienced. Almost all people share the capacities for these subjective experiences, so we can objectively make claims about what states of being are okay to evoke in others.

I agree with much of what you say in your post about meat eating and warfare, but I think you veered away from your initial questioning of the is-ought-gap. Perhaps you could explain to me more clearly why you think it is bridgeable? (Unless of course my above explanation of it's unbridgeability is satisfactory to you :)).

You can use fallacious argument if you like for pure rhetorical purposes. This is common practice. But if you want to get closer to truth, fallacies must be avoided. It doesn't matter whether you like the conclusions of a fallacious argument or find a fallacious argument useful in persuasion. If the conclusion doesn't clearly follow from the premises, the premises simply cannot be used to justify the claim. If you allow arguments where conclusions don't obviously follow from the premises, pretty much any conclusion could be claimed to be a consequence of pretty much any premise — petrichor

:up:

So invoking this fallacy helps neither side of the argument. — Andrew4Handel

It's not supposed to help either side of the argument--you're supposed to avoid trying to derive an ought from an is altogether no matter what side you're on....

So invoking this fallacy helps neither side of the argument. — Andrew4Handel

It's not supposed to help either side of the argument--you're supposed to avoid trying to derive an ought from an is altogether no matter what side you're on....

I don't agree with the concept of a naturalistic fallacy because... where else but nature can we get moral guidance from? — Andrew4Handel

We get morality from reason and empathy. Not from emulating nature. If we did, we'd be allowed to eat our own babies (like alligators do), kill our mates (like black widows), gang rape (like dolphins) and so on.

The naturalistic fallacy is a well-established logical fallacy in the discipline. You can't just dismiss it, because it's caught you in a wrong-headed argument.

These kind of points need to be subject to expert scrutiny. Where did the term hunter gatherer derive from and why do ancient cave murals depict hunting? — Andrew4Handel

That's fairly recent in human history. Before the invention of agriculture and weapons we lived much longer as herbivores and insectivores.

The idea that harming animals is wrong is also derived from nature and passing value judgement on natural occurrences. — Andrew4Handel

Nope. Again, empathy and reason. I feel bad if I step on my dog's tail; there is no moral difference between my dog and a cow; therefore I don't participate in the harming of cows. It's simple really.

An animal can (hypothetically/occasionally is) live longer in captivity and be treated nicely and then killed swiftly but I think most vegans object to just the taking of an animals life but considering there is no nice way to die in nature its seems incoherent. — Andrew4Handel

Again: so because humans must die (and death is never "nice") it is therefore okay to kill them?

I don't think you can go from people killing animals to eat them for nutrition to a comparison with torture for fun because one is innately natural. — Andrew4Handel

Two things:
1. That is called the naturalistic fallacy.
2. We only recently in history started eating larger animals--we did spend most of our existence eating grubs, termites, and ants to supplement our mainly plant-based diets. The more natural thing for us to do would be to eat insects--have fun with that.

Every animal must die.

In the wild animals either starve to death are eaten (alive) or die of disease. How do you cope with death in a nature? — Andrew4Handel

All humans must die too--does that give us the right to kill them?

Don't click on this link if you are squeamish but it is footage of a Deer being eaten alive by Komodo dragons and there are lots more videos like this on Youtube. — Andrew4Handel

What's the point of these examples? Are you implying we ought to take lizards as our moral role models? Alligators eat their own young--is that something we ought to emulate as well?

That would not be you. You're just proselytizing. — Bitter Crank

This is so clearly the statement of a person who has no logical leg to stand on, but wishes to cling to his own ideology (and hamburger). :smirk:

Having been a teaching assistant for some college classes, my take is this:

For 80% of the students, college is a waste of their parents' money. They sit there like zombies, do minimal work to just barely pass the courses, and learn as little as they possibly can. Students graduate hardly able to write a full sentence. It's not the professors' faults--they are almost all academics who care about what they teach and about the students. The administration, however, wants to maximize the number of students attending, so they admit worse and worse candidates into any given program. It doesn't take many rotten apples to spoil a whole classroom.

For 20% of students, college is an amazing experience that broadens their horizons and helps them mature into successful, intellectual adults. They use their time wisely to establish business connections and build resumes. They learn as much as they can. They participate in lively discussions in class. They are the ones that later have good careers, AND can participate in a meaningful conversation. (Not that college is the only path, but for these people it works.)

Basically, you'll get out of college what you put in.

All of your lifestyle choices, in all areas of life, have real life consequences for the rest of the world — Bitter Crank

Your point being? You're just proving me right: almost all of your choices have moral consequences and cannot simply be justified with "personal preference". That includes what you eat.

abstract morality about animals. You are an ideologue (which is not a slander) and you've staked all your arguments on morals. Other people will approach the problem differently. If you can't tolerate that, tough. — Bitter Crank

Ummm... This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Some people are here to actually talk philosophy

The fact that you are actually able to debate what kind of protein you want to consume says that me and my trigger pulling ancestors did something right; your'e welcome — Sid

You might also be here typing because of your ancestors raping others, having slaves, stealing, murdering, and so on. None of these are justifiable despite leading to your current existence. They are merely sad facts about how we got to where we are now. Facts that do not require repetition.

You seem to be saying, because there are exceptions to certain rules, that makes both the rules and the exceptions arbitrary. I don't think that is sound. You may turn right at a red stoplight, unless cars are coming, pedestrians are walking, and unless there is a sign saying otherwise. That's not arbitrary. Same with moral claims.

Exceptions in morality help us navigate situations in which two or more moral claims are at odds with another.

The food we enjoy is going to be a subjective issue no matter how you slice it. — Bitter Crank

Whether you prefer apple or blueberry pie might be subjective; I'll agree to that extent. But after that, your food choices have real life consequences for the rest of the world. How much you eat, what you eat, and where you get your food from all impact others directly and indirectly. Since eating meat directly involves the life of another being (not to mention all of the other problems with the practice), you cannot say it is just a subjective choice--not until you have proven that this other life is negligible.

I'm favorably disposed toward animals, wild or domestic, but that isn't the same as determining their moral status. — Bitter Crank

Yes, it's totally irrelevant which animals you personally like or dislike. So why even go there?

I value elephants; I may be willing to grant them moral status and the protection due intelligent beings. The problem I find is working out moral status for the rest of the animal kingdom. The moral value I see in my loving, faithful, intelligent dog I can't automatically extend to voles, moles, or rats, and gnats. — Bitter Crank

This is a more fruitful approach--the answer is that the voles, moles, and rats have all shown to be highly intelligent and sentient beings. The verdict on gnats is still out, and so the default position in cases where we are uncertain should be to leave them alone when reasonably possible.

My solution is fairly simple: assess on which basis we give humans moral value and then see which animals share those traits. Seems to me Bentham was right: the ability to suffer is the deciding factor.

As to deer overpopulation etc., it seems fallacious to claim that we have to have found all the answers to problems that arise from giving animals moral status, before recognizing we ought to give them moral status. We ought to solve world hunger, have world peace, and give all human babies loving and nurturing homes, but we haven't found perfect solutions for those either.

How can actions be wrong? Surely only statements can be right or wrong? — Purple Pond

Classic equivocation. One sense of wrong simply means false or not true, the other means morally objectionable.

Morality comes in part from evolution and from being social creatures who developed empathy as well as logic. I know many people think the evolutionary explanation is mainly utilitarian, and that is partially true--if we were acting immorally all the time, civilization likely could not have developed. But we also are programmed to care about others. If I step on my dog's tail and she yelps and whines, I do not necessarily have a practical reason for trying to make her feel better, I just feel bad about the pain I've caused her.

Is morality objective? — Purple Pond

I think you can make a case for the objective nature of morality. We all have (roughly) the same biological drives and make-ups--hunger, pain, pleasure, happiness, etc. are things we all have in common (with some "medical mystery" exceptions I suppose). Murder is wrong globally, because we all share and recognize the will to live and the value of living. We may have different definitions of what constitutes murder per se, but generally it's the same idea.

Most differences in morality between cultures are the result of religious nonsense that clouds people's judgments. The job of the ethicist is then to tease apart what specifically is universal and objective, and what is just silliness/human rights infringements.

I think the logical thing for meat eaters to do is eat less meat — Bitter Crank

You haven't given any good arguments so far for that claim.

But you ha

I was simply indicating that I knew, on a first hand basis, what it meant to kill a food animal. — Bitter Crank

I think that is a mistake you are making throughout this discussion--talking about your personal life and experiences (I'm not trying to say your life and experiences are uninteresting). Your experiences with killing and your dietary habits don't add much to the question at hand. Talking about them just makes it harder to address the issue objectively.

But it probably won't be based on the rights of animals, or their needs. — Bitter Crank

You could be wrong about that also. I haven't seen you directly address their moral status so far, but you do seem to insist they don't matter--on what basis other than you personally didn't feel qualms about killing them?

I think it is hard to defend the claim that anyone ought to do anything whether or not they can do it. — Andrew4Handel

Note that I did not say you are obligated to do all things that you in theory can do. I only said you are not obligated to do the things you cannot do. However, for the things you can do, you have to come up with other reasons why they aren't moral obligations, if that is the position you are defending. If you could learn CPR, but choose not to, what is the defense? Are there scenarios in which you could be obligated to learn it? Same thing with veganism--since almost anyone CAN abstain from eating non-human animals (especially in the industrialized parts of the world), they have to give other reasons for not doing so.

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel

Because "ought implies can" (Kant). You cannot be morally obligated to do something that you cannot do. If abstaining from flesh would result in your own death, it is plausible to argue that you cannot do so. Or at the very least, that this would be a sacrifice that would be too great to reasonably ask of anyone.

Vegans bring up that argument, however, in response to the persistent and widespread mythology in the general public that eating flesh is a necessity for life, or at least for optimal health.

veganism -- the practice of people who basically hate food — Bitter Crank

The consensus among long-term vegans is that they have eaten a greater variety of foods and flavors since becoming vegans than ever before. From the vegan perspective, the omni diet is rather bland and single-mindedly focused on animal-derived proteins and fats.

Yes, I have chopped the heads off chickens and butchered them. I've seen cows and pigs killed and butchered. It didn't dull my appetite very much. — Bitter Crank

The argument "I've done x, therefore I do not think x is a bad thing to do" is not very sound. Equally unsound "I haven't morally objected to x so far, therefore x is not a bad thing". Clearly you could have been mistaken, and could still be mistaken.

All that, plus at least one porn star being paid off and sued by our president?
...
"Nero fiddled while Rome burned."

Straw man.

I said that empathy is lacking. I did not say anything about things being "at odds". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't think my argument constitutes a strawperson, even if I'll admit to needing to rephrase that sentence--the rest of my argument still stands: scientists and those who give them credence do not lack empathy; their motivations are very often driven precisely by empathy.

Is there, or is there not, an anti-science movement made up of intellectually incompetent, sociopathic nutcases who are a grave threat to all of humanity? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

THAT sounds more like a strawperson to me--so, because I disagree with anti-vaxxers I am necessarily villainizing them? I think they need to check their facts, and I think laws need to prohibit them from exposing the vulnerable to fatal diseases, but I still am able to empathize with their reasoning.

I will admit that I think the owners of corporations like Exxon mobile are (or at least promote) anti-science and are villainous--but I do not think that they are the same, or have the same motivations as the average person who is anti-science.

Perhaps you could clarify who exactly makes all anti-science people out to be villains? When do they do this? How does it manifest itself? Are you perhaps mistaking vehemently disagreeing with someone with not being able to understand/empathize with their view?

I agree with both of you. We have not truly experienced real communism as Marx and Engels preached. Rosa Luxemburg seemed to be close to this true communism but she was assassinated.

However I can see the point from anti-Communists that what we have seen thus far around the world of what is called "Communism", isn't a good image. — René Descartes

Abe Lincoln's famous joke comes to mind: "How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg."

We've taken this discussion about as far as we can for now. — T Clark

Fine with me.

Two potential problems I see in accepting the rights other species have made for themselves:
1. They infringe upon our rights: if the aliens decided it was their right to eat us, then we'd necessarily have to try and convince them to change their view.
2. They have rights which we view as immoral: the aliens still have an institution of slavery based on nothing more than being magenta instead of turquoise.

Same thing with other cultures that exist on our own planet--I do not think we ought to accept other cultures doing things like denying women, children, or certain castes what we understand to be basic human rights.

My only caveat to my own claims: we should not react too quickly. We should make every attempt to understand first WHY they have these rules in place, before deciding that they are wrong. Sending a child to school without a shirt sounds like child abuse to me as a Westerner, but I imagine in rural schools of much warmer climates it may be seen as child abuse to force a shirt on a kid on a particularly hot day.

It's like you're looking for a fight. I said - feminist philosophy doesn't show up here much, you should start some discussions. You will get some snideness because 64.23% of the posters here have the emotional maturity of middle schoolers, even though many of them are as old, or older, that I am. You won't get snideness from me unless you are as condescending as you sometimes have been in previous posts. — T Clark

I'm unaware of any moments of condescension in any of my posts. But I have noted an aggressive tone in your posts towards me. I've told you repeatedly, I'm not interested in that, so please, just stop.

And if you do want to address something, perhaps you could finally respond to my criticism of dichotomizing reason and emotion--which I still think you do. Or at least you have not clearly explained when or how reason does come into play to establish morality?

Yes--immorality usually involves hurting others; hurting others makes me feel bad/guilty; ergo, I don't hurt people even when I can get away with it.

Real life example: I could kick my dog and cat any time I want and "get away with it," because who would know if I made sure to be careful about it? I wouldn't ever, though, because even the thought makes me feel ill.

Unless, by "get away with it" you include not having a conscience--then I probably would just do whatever benefits me the most regardless of consequences to others.

Feminist philosophy is not discussed much here except to ridicule it. — T Clark

If that is the case, then it's your loss--you'll be missing out on one of the more important philosophical movements of the past century as well as miss the origins of many ideas that are commonly accepted in the discipline to this day--such as the relinquishing of the mind/heart dualism.

But, Clark, just like with the Trolley problem, it just won't do to dismiss a concept, scenario, theory, etc. out of hand just because you don't like it--you still have the responsibility to address it. If not, I'm just going to assume you have nothing to really argue against it and that it is your way of ceding the argument. :)

On the other hand, it is not a feminist idea - Schopenhauer said this in 1840 — T Clark

Note, I never said they were the first, or the only ones--but they were the most influential and successful.

In any case, I'm waiting for you to address my actual argument.

Sure, our morality stems from feelings and empathy about other people's feelings--no argument there. I would say that claiming these are dichotomous to rationality/reason is a false dichotomy. It's this whole head or heart dualism that has sadly pervaded our thinking for too long now, even though feminist scholars have long debunked that whole idea by formulating the ethics of care. To construct a moral maxim requires both feeling and reason--I see that throwing a rock in your eye hurts you, I care about you and don't wish to hurt you, therefore I will cease throwing rocks in your eye. Perfectly rational AND based on feelings/empathy.

I believe this is a case of the pot calling the kettle snide.

I don't believe I have been snide, honestly. And I certainly haven't tried to be.

Still, waiting on your example for the lack of rationality in morality though!

"Insistent" = "Does not agree with me." Is that correct? — T Clark

Nope, more like, "Keeps on stating his opinion without explanation or even trying to address concerns raised by the person he's talking to."

I've tried to learn not to respond belligerently to, what shall we call them....unpleasant people. I look forward to more learning experiences with you. — T Clark

Not sure why we need the snide comments? It should be possible to disagree about something in theory without succumbing to verbal put-downs and getting defensive? I'm certainly not interested in that kind of discourse.

That doesn't change the fact that the basic motivations for moral behavior are not rational. — T Clark

You have not yet given me an example thereof. And the trolley problem would be a perfect place to test your theory.

None of you actually studied philosophy, am I to presume? — Kitty

My philosophy professors would agree with your sentiment privately about the limitations of a lack of formal training, but publicly shake their heads at your condescending tone towards people at least trying to get involved in interesting discussions. They might also point out to you that claiming to have superior knowledge or being right in this instance purely on the basis of your credentials without explicit reference to the actual arguments being made is a fallacy: appeal to authority. Even if you were Hume himself, that doesn't necessarily mean you're right!

The laws of nature exist with or without our understanding them. Our formulations thereof are our understanding thereof. Gravity, however, exists with or without us puny humans to formalize it. We and our scientists are simply in an ongoing process of trying to uncover and understand these rules.

You just got here.

I'm hoping you're attempting humor, because otherwise this just seems like so much territorial chest-thumping that I'm not particularly interested in.

I didn't dismiss any argument because you didn't make one, at least not related to the Trolley Problem. — T Clark

Yes I did: the Trolley problem both exemplifies and problematizes your insistent claim not to think moral decisions are primarily rational. When faced with the various scenarios of the trolley problem, we realize that we have many rational reasons for the seemingly knee-jerk reactions we have to given moral dilemmas, but that they can be at odds with each other if only a single variable is adjusted. Thus throwing in our face that we may not always be consistent about our moral reasoning. So, for instance, if I say flipping the switch to kill one instead of five is okay, it's likely because I think one small sacrifice is better than letting more people die. That's a rational conclusion. Then I'm faced with the idea of throwing the fat man on the tracks, and suddenly it seems less morally permissible, because it seems wrong to rope someone into being a sacrifice when he was never involved in the first place--also pretty rational.

A transcendence beyond the immanent reality we live in.

You could possibly argue for the supernatural on the grounds of some other kind of reality or what does it mean to exist. But since I presuppose one reality, one universe, I'll stick to all things that are in existence are "natural" in the sense that they obey the laws of nature. Natural things do not have to comply to our current understanding of the laws of nature, because we understand (or ought to) that our grasp on these is incomplete and still an area of scientific exploration. If a ghost existed, for instance, it would force us to redefine some of our laws of nature, but it would still be natural since it exists naturally in the world. Think about it, the natural course of life would be for one to be born, live, die, and part of oneself to become a ghost. It would merely be an unexplained phenomenon, not supernatural.

But that's just question-begging

Please explain how I am committing the fallacy of begging the question? I fail to see it.

As I stated, I thought clearly, I don't think moral decisions, judgments, are fundamentally rational.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I'm telling you you're wrong, though. Perhaps not clearly enough for you? And you still are seemingly conflating rational reasons for having certain moral rules and those rules being rational in themselves.

Sorry. I think it's silly, convoluted, and confusing.

Oh well, too bad for you I guess! Many very serious philosophers and philosophy teachers use it because it is so clear and illuminating. Dismissing the whole argument because you don't like the example seems not only uncharitable to me, but also an easy way out of addressing a concern you just don't want to answer.
Getting caught up in whether it works 1-to-1 in real life is just a way to evade figuring out what is theoretically right or wrong in that scenario.

Simply stating that you hate the trolley problem doesn't really help address the point I was making about the difference between rational reasons for moral rules and rational morality. Respectfully, I also disagree about it's real-world implications. It neatly portrays why we make all sorts of daily decisions. It exemplifies why we think actions are stronger than withholding action; being a member of a group lessens our sense of direct responsibility, how far can utilitarianism go, etc, etc.

I don't think of myself as a Kantian. He's not all wrong, but his theory about moral maxims is not fool-proof enough for me. I also dislike his metaphysics--the noumenal realm does not tickle me in the least. I like Kantian aesthetics, though!

You may not think you have a system of morality, or that it isn't rational, but I would hazard to guess that when in real life you come across an ethical dilemma you do more than toss a coin. I would assume you, however imperfectly (like all of us), try to apply your best reasoning to the situation at hand.