Vegan vs. Carnivore Debate on Ethics (Gone wild)

[Buck Edwards]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Moral subjectivity does exist you should look up the term

You have an idiosyncratic definition for morality that excludes subjetivits and thats why you have a problem grappling with the term 'moral subjectivity'.

Just because the term exists, it doesn't carry much meaning especially in the context of objectivity. 

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Just because the term exists, it doesn't carry much meaning especially in the context of objectivity.

What you are saying doesn't make much sense and you are making kind of a category error there. Its like someone gives a definition for gravity and you say "but that definition doesn't carry much meaning in the context of colors". - well it doesn't suppose to carry any  meaning there.

If you accept the subject - object divide you shouldn't have problem grasping the meaning between an objectivits and a subjectivist.

[CosmicExplorer]

"The Far Out Initiative is a Public Benefit Biotechnology Company focused on developing technological solutions to the problem of involuntary suffering in human and non-human animals"

"In 2019, scientists discovered a woman with a new form of congenital pain insensitivity that left her virtually immune not only to physical pain but to psychological pain as well.

Unlike other forms of congenital pain insensitivity, her condition left her blissfully unaffected by fear, sadness, anger, anxiety, and grief"

"On May 24th, 2023, University College London released its landmark paper investigating the molecular basis of this strange new pain insensitivity syndrome titled "Molecular Basis of FAAH-Out Associated Pain Insensitivity," in which it was revealed that this "Feel Good Syndrome" was caused by two simple genetic mutations affecting the FAAH"

"This "Feel Good Syndrome" could be replicated using gene editing technologies like CRISPR in humans and livestock animals"

That would be insane if they can do that. If we genetically engineer cows, chickens... With 10x the anandamide levels, I think it's very moral thing to do. The amount of suffering in the world that can potentialy be prevented by that mutation is insane.

https://faroutinitiative.com/

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, zurew said:

You are conflating certain terms with meanings that are differently used in the context of a subjectivist. The moral language in the context of a subjectivist mean different than what those mean to an objectivist.

Good just means - aligns with my preferences

Wrong just means - doesn't align with my preferences.

Your hypothetical subjectivist is full of shit.

You are ignoring the normative aspect of morality. No one who is passionately advocating for policy believes it is just his personal preferences. It is believed to be normative and anyone who disagrees is wrong, shameful, and ought to be defeated in battle.

Quote

Yes, no one knows all the logical entailments of their actions and all the logical entailments of their beliefs, but the ones that you  are aware of are the ones you can decide to do something about. 

There is action X that I have the choice to do or to not do. Okay I am aware, that action X produces Y outcome and Y isn't aligned with my preferences therefore I won't do action X. 

You are aware that driving automobiles kills bugs and creates pollution. Will you stop driving automobiles?

Will you also stop consuming products driven to you by automobiles?

Edited May 23, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Buck Edwards]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

What you are saying doesn't make much sense and you are making kind of a category error there. Its like someone gives a definition for gravity and you say "but that definition doesn't carry much meaning in the context of colors". - well it doesn't suppose to carry any  meaning there.

If you accept the subject - object divide you shouldn't have problem grasping the meaning between an objectivits and a subjectivist.

The problem with morality is that it's grounded in perceived objectivity. So there's no subjectivity to begin with. You're creating a construct that doesn't exist for an objectivist. You could even say there are infinite genders. 

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No one who is passionately advocating for policy believes it is just his personal preferences. It is believed to be normative and anyone who disagrees is wrong and shameful.

Yes thats right, but from that doesn't follow that they believe that their preferences are objective. You can have multiple people with the same preferences regarding specific things and all of that is coherent. You can have multiple people have a preference for vanilla over chocolate , but from that doesn't follow that their preference is objective.

So yes, people who advocate for certain actions and are subjectivits have a belief that other people share some of their preferences as well.

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are aware that driving automobiles kills bugs and creates pollution. Will you stop driving automobiles?

Will you also stop consuming products driven to you by automobiles?

Again this comes back to the point about how much of those logical entailments are you aware of and how well you can evaluate that action according to your preferences. There will be times when it is more foggy, cause you don't see all the second , third ... order effects of your actions, but there will be other times when it is more clear and more direct so that you can make a clear decision about it.

Answering your question - Im not sure, because I haven't done an evaluation yet, but yes it might be the case that after evaluation I come to the conclusion that I should stop driving automobiles, but it is not straightforward at all, because not driving automobilies also have its own consequences.

Regarding the "will I stop consuming products that are driven to me by automobiles", Im not sure how I could completely dodge that one given the set of circumstances I have right now.

 

Now lets get to the more fun questioning process, where you give your own moral reasons why you are okay with eating meat.

Edited May 23, 2024 by zurew

[Buck Edwards]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Now lets get to the more fun questioning process, where you give your own moral reasons why you are okay with eating meat.

Meat is beneficial for health. We're omnivorous. 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Now lets get to the more fun questioning process, where you give your own moral reasons why you are okay with eating meat.

I would prefer not to eat meat but I am selfish. I am not going to cloak my selfishness in moral fictions.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I would prefer not to eat meat but I am selfish. I am not going to cloak my selfishness in moral finctions.

Oh shit Leo is afraid to self-reflect on his own values deep enough, cause he might discover that he needs to change some of his actions.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yes thats right, but from that doesn't follow that they believe that their preferences are objective. You can have multiple people with the same preferences regarding specific things and all of that is coherent. You can have multiple people have a preference for vanilla over chocolate , but from that doesn't follow that their preference is objective.

So yes, people who advocate for certain actions and are subjectivits have a belief that other people share some of their preferences as well.

You paint far too charitable of view of these "subjectivists". I claim that such people don't exist even if they say they do. Because they have not thought deeply enough about the existential and epistemic foundations of these issues. What you call "subjectivists" are really just Stage Green types who don't think too hard.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Oh shit Leo is afraid to self-reflect on his own values deep enough, cause he might discover that he needs to change some of his actions.

I have reflected on it. But my personal health situation is such that I cannot live well on a zero meat diet. I have tried zero meat diets and they are not good for me. And no hippie fantasies will change that.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I have reflected on it. But my personal health situation is such that I cannot live well on a zero meat diet.

Now, assuming that is actually true ( I mean you actually truly need to eat some meat) , that would be a justification that most vegans would probably accept.

 

[Buck Edwards]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

Oh shit Leo is afraid to self-reflect on his own values deep enough, cause he might discover that he needs to change some of his actions.

Almost every food and health industry comes with some exploitation or problem. Even the chocolate you eat. The so called subjectivists must be munching on chocolates right now. 

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Now, assuming that is actually true ( I mean you actually truly need to eat some meat) , that would be a justification that most vegans would probably accept.

 

But my position is far more radical than that. What I'm saying is that even if I had no health reasons, and just ate meat purely out of selfishness, that too would be okay. Because where you draw the line of your selfishness is subjective.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But my position is far more radical than that. What I'm saying is that even if I had no health reasons, and just ate meat purely out of selfishness, that too would be okay. Because where you draw the line of your selfishness is subjective.

Yes, but that 'selfishness' is reflective of your preferences, and you don't seem to be able to consciously overwrite some of your deepest preferences. 

And for most people  one preference that cant really be overwritten is the caring about other sentient beings or that murder is wrong.

 

Edited May 23, 2024 by zurew

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Almost every food and health industry comes with some exploitation or problem. Even the chocolate you eat. The so called subjectivists must be munching on chocolates right now.

and yet, you probably still wouldn't be okay with hunting humans for their meat.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

And for most people one preference that cant really be overwritten is the not caring about other sentient beings.

Fixed it for you

Don't bullshit yourself. The number of beings you don't care about is a million times larger than the ones you care about.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Buck Edwards]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

and yet, you probably still wouldn't be okay with hunting humans for their meat.

And you're completely okay wearing clothes that involved slave labor in a sweat shop. How do you explain that? 

[zurew]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Fixed it for you

We can play this game of having the need to dive deeper into the semantics, but a more straightforward example would be the preference that murder is wrong.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

straightforward example would be the preference that murder is wrong.

That's NOT just a preference for most people.

You are misusing that term.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Leo Gura