The philosophy thread general discussion

Well, I would say while the basic premise itself is simple, everything else really isn't...but I don't have the logical/philosophical capacity to fully explain the specifics. XP

That's basically what my book's about.

...You published a book?

Still writing it.

Daaaaayum. I wish you all the best!

Speaking of books, started reading Hitler, a two-volume biography of Adolf Hitler by Ian Kershaw and Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton.

By the time I'm done with those, I can probably say with certainty that I'm pretty well knowledgeable about fascism.

In fact, I'm actually starting my Ph.D in English literature - probably on American modernism, at that - this year and might even write my dissertation about fascism and the 20th century America.

"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is one of my all time favorite works of nonfiction.

God, I should really finish that book already. In addition to that and Ian Kershaw's Hitler, my "Nazi Germany/Fascism Reading list" also includes Richard J. Evans' The Third Reich Trilogy.

Speaking of reading, I'm almost finished with the Book 1 out of 2 of A History of Western Thought, by Gunnar Skirbekk and Nils Gilje.

The section about Thomas Hobbes reminded me of the post I made in this thread a couple months ago:

And now I must confess that I never actually thought Hobbes - along with other several other influential English philsophers such as Bacon, Locke, and Hume - as being materialist.

Even more than a decade ago, I already knew Hobbes' basic ideas such as social contract as well as state of nature & Bellum omnium contra omnes/The war of all against all.

But I never thought about how Hobbes' proposition/analyses basically reduce God and religion to a material function, specifically social cohesion and order.

I find it pretty interesting, to say the least.

You should read some Spinoza. It's right up your alley.

I think Veganism is an interesting idea to think about. I know for veganism, it looks a lot more high stakes than that. To vegans, it probably sounds like I just said "abolitionism is interesting idea to think about". For right now I'm not going to talk about whether the premise of Veganism is correct or not. That is almost guaranteed to turn heated.

I was thinking about an anti-vegan argument that I've been hearing recently. It is that some plants also have a sense of pain. I've always found that argument annoying because it is just a gotcha. It seems to be meant to say that "if I'm guilty, so are you, so shut it". It does raise an interesting question for ethical Veganism. What actual characteristic is "animal" standing in for? And how can they try to be more certain about what is on which side of the line?

Right now I'm not questioning how important the line is just where it is. I think for ethical vegan purposes sponges and jellyfish shouldn't count at least if plant don't. To be clear, I think the line has to do with something presumably having subjective experiences like happiness and suffering. I feel a least as safe that jellyfish aren't sentient as a do about plants. If any vegans disagree feel free to explain what you think the line is about.

Where do you suppose the line is? What do you think scientists should be looking for or what evidence would convince you about something be probably sentient or not?

Speaking for myself, I think if we can understand the hows and whys of what neurological processes seem to have subjective content in humans, this could generalize. If the idea says that mammals, birds, Cephalopods and termite colonies (not individual termites) are sentient; that would lend credibility that it generalizes and isn't just about being human like.

What would you all think of a discovery like that? Would you take it seriously as a test for sentience, and how much would depend of what species it said pass?

My stance on veganism is that animals don't have ethical concerns about eating other animals, so the whole debate is utterly ridiculous. Humans are omnivores. We can eat anything. Food chain for the win. One of my cats killed a mouse the other day and he wasn't concerned about its ability to experience pain.

If you want to do it for health reasons, that's fine, knock yourself out (and don't forget your amino acid supplements).

If you want to do it for environmental reasons, that's at least logically consistent. (As an aside, free-range livestock are worse for the environment per calorie than factory livestock, so there's another ethical dilemma to add to our plates.)

My answer to the dilemma can be attributed to Ron White: "What are you doing about the [cow problem], Ron?" "I'm eating the cows."

(Disclosure: I often seek out vegan baked goods because I'm intolerant to milk protein, and it's the easiest way to ensure that someone hasn't used milk in a cake recipe.)

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2024 at 10:28:13 AM

Cattle require a ton of arable land in order to raise crops to feed them. Something which is becoming more and more valuable as the climate changes as desertification accelerates. It doesn't make much sense from either an ethical OR economic perspective to continue the same level of consumption of red meat products. That's the reason I stopped eating meat (except fish for special dietary reasons).

I also always thought the argument about respect for life was a bit inconsistent, mainly because plants are alive too? And they do feel pain, in their own way. Edit: which I see someone else here already pointed out .

I occasionally will eat red meat if there is no other option, or if it's from hunted animals and not farm raised ones. I don't see this as necessarily inconsistent. For a lot of people ceasing eating meat is a bit ask. It's much more important , and probably easier, to encourage people to reduce meat consumption. Like instead of eating meat every day, maybe only eat meat on the weekend?

Edited by Xopher001 on Apr 19th 2024 at 7:46:20 AM

Okay, that is something I was avoiding because it could easily turn into a flame war. I think Vegans are casting the circle of concern too broadly, but it is an understandable mistake. A lot of the arguments I see are also very low effort.

Humans having a choice in the matter is an argument for Veganism not against it. It'd be hard to call it an obligation if we were carnivores and and it wouldn't be an issue if we were herbivores.

It's easy to say "food chain for the win" when you are firmly on top. If there was something that could consistently get away with hunting us, I think there would be far fewer fans.

Since humans have the capacity for advanced theory of mind and abstract reasoning, we have obligations other animals don't. Most animals can't be morally culpable for much of anything because they lack even basic understanding.

Social contract theories of morality arguably exclude other animals because they can not engage. On the other hand Utilitarianism pretty clearly says that we should be concerned about sentient animals.

Edit: So anyways, how do you think the line for sentience can be worked out?

Edited by EvansVerres on Apr 19th 2024 at 8:02:49 AM

Again, if you want to choose veganism, nobody's stopping you. As with any lifestyle choice, you're entitled to it, but it's not something that you can or should try to impose on others.

Livestock are definitely a problem as far as pollution and emissions are concerned, and finding alternative ways to generate edible protein is a valuable area of research. Once we have vat beef that's as cheap and tasty as "natural" beef, I'll be happy to switch. I've tried Impossible Burgers and they're pretty good, but I haven't made them a staple of my diet.

You won't persuade billions of people to give up their meat. It's simply not happening. This isn't an ethical or moral problem; it's a social problem.

Edit: Sentience is often confused with sapience. Sentience is merely the ability to feel things. Sapience is the ability to reason and understand.

Fish are sentient. They can experience pain. But I'm not going to feel any qualms about eating one. Insects are sentient. They can experience pain. But I'm not going to feel any qualms about squishing one.

Humans are sapient. They can experience pain, but they can also reason and understand (allegedly). I don't kill and/or eat my fellow humans because my morality says I shouldn't.

The line of what animals are considered sapient is one that we've had a lot of trouble drawing, and if we extend moral value to intelligence as a general principle, pigs should be well above cows on the list of animals we refuse to eat. But bacon is just too tasty, so... sorry, pigs.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2024 at 11:07:36 AM

"Animals do x" is generally not a great argument, considering a fair lot of animals do really screwed up shit that'd land any human in jail, and rightfully so.

That's the thing. I'm not vegan. I think they are wrong. But, a weak argument is still weak even if it is pointing at the right conclusion.

Some of the lines we draw are fairly arbitrary, I'll grant. After all, some societies consider dogs to be food, but here in the West we regard that as animal cruelty. Then again, when the automobile came around, an awful lot of horses became glue and other consumer products. Practicality rules.

Broadly speaking, we should avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering, but that's a hard rule to follow when it comes into conflict with other priorities. For example, I mentioned above that factory-raised livestock are better for the environment than free-range livestock. They consume fewer resources and create less emissions per calorie. But factory farming is also crueler than free-range. So which takes priority?

A lot of humans depend on cheap food for their sustenance. If we make meat and dairy products more expensive by adding additional rules for raising livestock, we might cause starvation in poorer human populations. Is that ethical too?

Heck, most domesticated livestock either can't survive in the wild or would be invasive species if released. If we stopped all meat, milk, and egg production today, there would be an environmental apocalypse as billions of animals died and/or ravaged the landscape.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2024 at 1:28:49 PM

The idea that plants feel pain is pretty dubious, and relies quite a bit on anthropomorphism.

They have some biochemical responses to damage, but it's a pretty big stretch to say that this is an analog for pain and that they experience suffering from it.

Plants lack a central nervous system, and their actions are seemingly purely reflexive (not even instinctual, reflexive).

Another thing worth noting is also that the primary purpose of pain is so that you'll avoid damage and learn from the experience. A plant doesn't really have any way of doing either.

I'm not myself any kind of vegan, but the "plants feel pain too" argument is kind of silly.

With veganism:

I think the "animals eat other animals" argument holds water. Predation is, well "natural" is always a dubious term but we don't think of predators as evil for eating their prey. I'd say that this is because eating animals is not morally wrong, and we're simply acting out the role of predator here.

I'd argue that meat and dairy are a good source of nutrients. In addition, livestock animals are useful for turning vegetation that we can't eat into meat that we can.

In fairness, I'd say that animals do have some moral worth, and there are environmental concerns regarding the use of livestock. For example, the cattle industry destroys quite a bit of the rainforest.

That depends a lot on how non-sapient but sentient lives factor in. I think most animals don't have enough of a concept of self continuance to place value on it. And if they don't we don't have to act like they do. I think suffering is a bigger issue because it is presumably more common in the animal kingdom.

Lions aren't moral agents. Being evil isn't applicable to them.

Edited by EvansVerres on Apr 19th 2024 at 8:34:23 AM

If animals don't place value on their lives, how come they get scared when it is endangered, try to escape, fight desperately, or even cut their own limbs to preserve it?

Edited by jawal on Apr 19th 2024 at 7:43:55 PM

All living things attempt to grow, stay alive, and reproduce, but these are not matters of conscious choice, merely programmed/instinctive behaviors. A creature that does not "desire to stay alive" would be less evolutionarily fit than one that does, hence the trait would self-eliminate.

As human beings, we often rationalize our survival reflexes as based on conscious moral choice rather than instinct, but that very badly fails a bullshit test. One of the reasons that first responders, police, and soldiers go through so much training is to condition useful behaviors when they go into fight-or-flight mode. Higher brain functions shut down in such situations.

I would say that we are exceptional in being one of the few, if not only species whose individuals may consciously chose not to survive or procreate for reasons other than defense of a family/tribe or serious illness. (It is speculated that sick cetaceans may beach themselves to reduce their burden on the society and/or avoid infecting others.)

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2024 at 3:06:46 PM

Yes. At the low end, bacteria definite don't know what they are doing. Their behavior is correlated with survival, but it isn't intention based. Animals also aren't trying to maximize their inclusive gene fitness. They don't know what that is. We know what it is and almost no one is going around donating to every sperm bank.

The point though is that "animals don't place any value on their lives, so it is fine to kill them" is not a logical statement.

Animals, by instinct, do place value on their lives and are driven to survive and avoid pain and suffering, just like any human.

The difference is that we are smart enough to realize that we are "programmed", and can explain it with words, books and scientific papers (well, at least some of us)

.................

It is like someone who knows that Earth is moving through space, and another who doesn't. The result is the same: both men are moving through space and have limited control over it; the only difference is that the first man can explain it.

Edited by jawal on Apr 19th 2024 at 8:30:30 PM

Animals do not "value" things. They respond to stimuli via instinctive and learned behavior. Saying that they have values, in the sense that you or I value beauty or democracy, is placing undue moral weight on these behaviors.

Honestly, if anything my belief is that humans are closer to animals than vice versa, meaning that a lot of what we think of as reasoned behavior based on moral values is little more than post-hoc rationalization. We talk a good game, but when push comes to shove we revert to programming.

To take a specific example, my cat loves me - I don't doubt that. That affection is a regression to kitten-like behavior, with the human as the mother-substitute. We encourage this in our cats because it keeps them docile and makes them good companions. But the cats are not exercising conscious volition; they aren't deciding, "Hey, this human wants me to regard it as my mother, guess I'll go along because of the easy access to food."

We project such anthropomorphic thoughts onto them, but they aren't literally happening that way.

"The mouse desires not to be killed," doesn't change moral value based on whether it's my cat or me doing the killing. Obviously, we do it for different reasons, so there are differences there, but to the mouse it's all the same.

ETA: Killing for food is a reason shared by all members of the animal kingdom (and a healthy helping of plants and fungi). It carries no inherent moral value. We may be the only species on the planet that adds such value, but it's all in our heads. It's not tangibly present in the world.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 19th 2024 at 4:08:10 AM

I think what trips me up with the idea that it's "Natural" for humans to eat animals, and I apologize that I don't have the intellectual accumen to describe this properly, is that one of humanity's core natural traits is our intelligence, right? So wouldn't anything that we concoct as the result of our intellect also be "natural". So, the ability to create morality is natural. The ability to empathize with and anthropomorphize animals is natural. The ability to come up with something like Veganism in general is natural.

Like, if we can use our ingenuity to live without meat, then how is that not natural in its own way?

I don't mean words. I mean that I don't think most animals have a concept for death the way they have one for threat.