|
It seems totally possible to have an objection to something without it being a moral objection. There's plenty of stuff I don't want to do, or see done, or in some cases even have done at all, that I don't think is necessarily immoral. We can probably afford to have an irrational attachment to cute animals to the point of making laws to protect them, because it doesn't seriously impact our own quality of life. But if we were in a situation where humans would be severely negatively impacted by that attachment, I don't think it would last very long.
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
DrBox posted:I agree you can br opposed to all sorts of things without it being an ethical or moral issue. The question of whether or not to save a historic building downtown is not a moral one. Sure, of course. I understand it's a moral question for many people. I just don't think having a preference for some animals over others is necessarily a moral inconsistency, if your objection to some animals being killed and other animals being spared is a cultural one and not a moral one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Oh I see what you're getting at. It may not be a moral inconsistency if you can articulate the morally relevant difference between animals we can kill and animals we should not. If the only difference is "I like these ones" that is not a reasonable justification because we can show how your preference is likely socially or culturally influenced and culture is not a good way to determine what is right and wrong. It can only tell us social norms. Let me put it another way. I like living in a society where we don't kill and eat dogs and cats, but that doesn't mean I think societies that do eat dogs and cats are immoral for doing so. I don't think having a cultural bias is morally inconsistent, unless you're trying to push that cultural bias into being a moral issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Do you think dogs and cats should be protected under law where you live? Why do you give preferential treatment to them when cows pigs and chickens are capable of the same range of emotions and depth of suffering? What is the difference beyond just "I like them"? There has to be some features to point to when we're justifying harm to other animals based on that difference. I don't think there does have to be a meaningful difference other than "we like them". Not all laws are based in morality. I think laws reinforcing an arbitrary social preference are entirely valid, and I think we have plenty of those on the books already.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
DrBox posted:If you cannot quantify why what characteristic gives them moral consideration then it's hard to have a conversation on the ethics of exploiting them. I'm not talking about jaywalking. This is harming sentient beings for culture, tradition, and taste. The issue is that this is begging the question. Of course if you define harming sentient beings as inherently unethical then everything else in your argument follows logically from that. I don't define harming sentient beings as inherently unethical, so the rest of your argument is unconvincing to me. We lack the ability to convince each other, because the disagreement flows from a different moral foundation. Just like how I can't convince someone who thinks that human beings are worthy of moral consideration from the moment of conception of anything related to that, and he can't convince me of anything related to that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Harm alone is not inherently unethical. Unjustified harm is. There are justifications for harm such as life saving surgery on a child too young to comprehend why you're doing it, but that's still ethical because you have a justification for doing the harm and it's in their interest despite the short term suffering. I suppose causing a certain level of unjustified harm to a human being currently capable of feeling sentience. There's a bunch of grey areas there about things like advanced non-human beings like theoretical aliens or AI, and exactly how much responsibility do we have to avoid causing harm to future humans that don't exist yet, but I'm pretty satisfied that humans as a category are sufficiently different from any known animal species as a category that it's a solid enough distinction there. Content to Hover posted:It is fair to say that if you don't share the presupposition "harming sentient beings (for consumption) is unethical" then arguments that follow from that are not going to be particularly compelling. Yeah, absolutely. The environmental benefits of the world going vegan is very compelling. However, me personally going vegan has approximately zero impact on that so I don't feel any particular compulsion to do so. I don't think anyone has a responsibility to massively impact their own life as a symbolic gesture. I do support laws to reduce the consumption of animals, because that would have a measurable impact.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
DrBox posted:If causing unjustified harm to humans is bad but causing unjustified harm to animals is not, why? That is broad enough that would seem to permit torture of animals and I don't think that is what you mean. Because of a foundational moral preference. At a certain point we have to pick something to value. I pick human life, you pick sentience. I don't think we can get any more fundamental than that. For what it's worth, I don't think you're wrong to hold your preference. But I don't think I'm wrong to hold mine either. quote:Do we have any obligation to live by our values? Whether or not I litter or burn garbage in my backyard has a negligible impact on the overall environment but I would not do that out of principle. I think this supports my point, not yours. We have laws against littering or burning garbage, which has a measurable impact on the world because we collectively participate. If we didn't have those laws and it was expected behavior to litter or burn garbage then my doing it or not wouldn't make a difference to the world and I wouldn't feel any particular compulsion to not do those things, if not doing them had a notable cost to myself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
DrBox posted:I don't think it's bad to hold your preference if you can articulate why you hold it beyond "I like this". If the preference you hold results in harm then we should be able to justify why beyond a surface level gut feeling. If someone is torturing cats we do not simply accept that they have a preference for dogs and carry on. I don't think there's any one trait that makes humans special, rather it's a whole host of traits that combine to make humans special as a category. And humans clearly are very different in a great many ways than any known animal species. quote:Is the only thing holding you back from participating in an activity that you otherwise find objectionable a law? If you're visiting a country with no law against littering would you start throwing your trash on the ground? Animal protection laws vary by country. If you're visiting a country that has no protections for dogs would that make you more likely to kick or kill one? I wouldn't start kicking or killing dogs, no. But I have a strong cultural bias in favor of dogs. Like I've said before, I think it's entirely valid to have a preference that isn't based in morality. But if I went to a country where everyone littered, I'm wading through piles of garbage when I walk anywhere, I look around me and the people I'm with are all littering, I'm carrying a sticky soda can and the nearest garbage can is a twenty minute walk away... then sure, I think I probably litter. And I don't think I feel bad about doing it. It's not on me to make a meaningless sacrifice in the face of an overwhelming social problem. That's on society as a whole to fix.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
DrBox posted:That tells me how you are putting individuals in those categories but you are not telling me why that difference justifies the difference in treatment. Why does the fact that animals and non human animals are different justify treating animals as property to be placed in horrible conditions and killed for food when we are not in a survival situation or dependant on doing this? The fact that they're human. Like I said, I think this is a foundational principle. You being able to point to sentience as the thing that grants moral consideration may be a simpler answer, but I don't find it any less arbitrary or any more compelling. quote:What would you tell someone who does not share your preference in order to convince them to stop torturing dogs? Under what context? In our society I'd probably tell them that they're going to get in legal trouble for it. In another society that was totally fine with it I probably wouldn't make any argument because it seems like a pointless thing to do, but theoretically I'd make an argument that torturing things for fun probably does damage to your own mental health and isn't providing any benefit in return. quote:Ok so there are extreme circumstances where you would litter but it does not sound like as soon as you're in a place without a lawn prohibiting something you change your behavior instantly when the law is removed. I do not think law or likelihood of getting caught should dictate all our actions when there is a victim involved as the is with animal agriculture. Remember that my stance doesn't come from there being a victim. It comes from society as a whole collectively partaking in animal agriculture creating a collective harm to humanity, and the fact that my participation has no meaningful impact on that collective harm. Content to Hover posted:The idea that a problem is too big for personal actions to impact it has come up a few times. While I agree, there are other factors to consider. Firstly, despite it's many issues even capitilist society does change due to public demand. Secondly most people feel happier about themselves if their actions reflect their beliefs. Yeah I've said that I support laws to reduce or eliminate animal agriculture. I suspect society will probably come to a point where there is enough public demand to pass laws like those, and I'm fine with that. As for the matching actions and values... I don't think I feel any pressure to personally make a sacrifice to make an ineffective gesture about a global problem. But maybe I actually do, or will some day. I'll keep thinking about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Human is a category. What about humans make you against their suffering, but ok with deliberate human orchestrated animal suffering? How much DNA or cognitive capacity needs to change for you to be ok with farming them? Would Neanderthals count? Chimpanzees or Bonobos? I'll be honest that I don't know enough about Neanderthals to answer that properly, but from my vague impression of them they're probably humanlike enough to count? Chimps probably not. I certainly have a strong cultural bias against it, but if we could gain some immense benefit to humanity out of farming chimps then I'd probably overcome that instinctive revulsion to it. If we lived in a world where if we farmed chimps we could end world hunger and global warming would you really say we shouldn't do it anyway because it's morally wrong? quote:So in a country with no animal protection laws or social pressure against torturing dogs you just shrug your shoulders and have no moral argument to convince them to stop? You just walk past someone beating a dog in the street? I think someone who grew up in a country where torturing dogs for fun is totally acceptable comes from a sufficiently different framework to me that we lack any ability to convince each other of anything at all on the subject. I don't think you'd have any luck making a moral argument about it to them either. I think a practical argument about needless waste and mental harm is much more likely to do something, but I'm probably not going to accost strangers on the street with it either in practice. quote:But it's not a moral concern so your support for eliminating animal agriculture is strictly environmental? If those new mega hog farms in China were sustainable net zero operations you would be perfectly happy with confining pigs in pens where they cannot turn around for their lives and where they are mutilated without anesthetic? I certainly find it icky. And I like it when we as a society sacrifice some efficiency in order to alleviate icky feelings. But I don't think I can say it's morally abhorrent, and if a country either doesn't experience those icky feelings, or doesn't care enough about them to legislate against them, then I can't really condemn them for it. If they were net zero emissions then I suppose I'd mostly be okay with it. quote:I appreciate you being honest and replying. I'm glad you're open to giving it more thought. Yup for sure. I appreciate the discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
crazyvanman posted:I don't want to derail the thread too much, and I don't want to go too 'woo', but I actually think I do need to morally consider plants and that it is possible to have a meaningful relationship with them. That might be a bit to out there for this thread, but at least consider it this way: if I'm out for a run and I notice too late that I'm about to step on either a stone with one foot or a plant with another, I'd obviously choose the stone (granted, the stone is unlikely to be damaged anyway, but hopefully the point still carries!). While this is probably true, couldn't it just be the fact that having plants growing is a pleasant thing and you'd like to avoid damaging pleasant things if possible? If given a choice between damaging a dandelion, and damaging a neighbor's ornamental rock garden I'd definitely damage the plant in that scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 22:46
|
|