Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[Frozenwolf150]

Oh, speaking of factory farming, here's another recent story from my home state:

Chris Christie vetoes ban on pig gestation crates

Even though the ban passed the NJ state legislature and 93% of NJ voters support it. Why would he do this? (Because he's a ******* fatass who only cares about food.) Seriously though, it's because he's trying to appeal to Iowa voters, a state where the first presidential caucuses are held, and where the majority of the nation's pork is produced. So apparently he cares more about presidential politics for an election he's never going to win than he does about the will of the voters who elected him governor in the first place.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm fine with that. Just don't ask me to live by your values.

I don't see a problem with asking someone to live by one's own values. In some cases throughout history, that has been the least some of us can do.

If I were to ask someone to live by my values I might begin by asking someone to recognize why I value something. In doing so, I might convince that person that those values are worth having and maybe for good reason. For example, let's look at this next part...

All this debate is, is an appeal to emotion, anyway. Either you feel that animals of a certain category deserve good treatment of we don't. Some people refuse to kill spiders, others don't have a problem with it, etc. Someone wants to be a vegetarian or vegan, go for it. Just don't expect me to share your precise values when it comes to what we do with other species.

To say "All this debate is, is an appeal to emotion, anyway" suggests that it's all a bit silly - like the "tree huggers" and the "Bambi lovers" that Red Baron Farms sneers at - and it fails to recognize that some people may not be appealing to emotion but to reason. Or fails to recognize that appeals to emotion and appeals to reason are not mutually exclusive. For example, this is false, I think:

Just pointing out that none of us here are being really rational;

I think you should only speak for yourself in situations like this. And I think it is worth recognizing that by saying "none of us here are being really rational" you are erecting a straw version of rationality.

However, if you recognize, for example that animals suffer (as you do!) and if you argue that unnecessary suffering should be avoided (as you have done!), then it follows by dictate of reason (not from emotion) that you think unnecessary suffering of animals should be avoided.

This is an unavoidable result of applying reason (not emotion!)

After that you can analyze what you think counts as unnecessary and what does not. And others can examine your criteria for consistency and to see if you really are applying rationality or whether you are rationalizing instead.

You can do this without having to envisage bunny wabbit faces or cute looking seal pups or whatever other straw arguments and well-poisoning arguments and special pleading arguments that some proponents for animal suffering have put forward.

 

[angrysoba]

OK, so when I say "animals" when I meant "mammals" you jump on me, but when you do it I suppose it is fine??

(Unless you seriously are claiming that insects have feelings... )

http://animals.about.com/od/animal-facts/tp/animal-groups.htm

By the way, you still have not substantiated this claim from the 3rd December:

Umm... animal torturers are psychopaths. No "turning out to be" needed. You're the one making a logical error.

At this point I can only assume you have been unable to substantiate it because you completely made it up and you haven't thought up a graceful way to climb down.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What can the average consumer do though? What can I do as a voter? Sure, I could change my own shopping and diet habits, but that won't fix the corruption in the system.

Oh, speaking of factory farming, here's another recent story from my home state:

Chris Christie vetoes ban on pig gestation crates

Even though the ban passed the NJ state legislature and 93% of NJ voters support it. Why would he do this? (Because he's a ******* fatass who only cares about food.) Seriously though, it's because he's trying to appeal to Iowa voters, a state where the first presidential caucuses are held, and where the majority of the nation's pork is produced. So apparently he cares more about presidential politics for an election he's never going to win than he does about the will of the voters who elected him governor in the first place.

Yep. That kind of corruption really gets people angry. But they did it wrong IMHO. Instead of simply banning the CAFO pig barn, they went for the gestation crates. I would have simply went straight to the root of the issue. Give the pigs a decent place to live and forage instead of forcing them to live in the hog barn their entire lives, never having seen the sun ever.

As far as what could a voter do under that level of corruption as Christie displayed? Not really much choice but to round up the pitchforks and run him out of town on a rail.

The pitchforks are coming From an ethical POV, getting violent to protest violence seems self defeating.

Until then I guess the best option is grow your own food and wait for an honest politician to take charge before chaos erupts.



The type of civil disobedience shown by Ron Finley of course is far superior than a violent mob. But one way or another...........

 

[Belz...]

Because it makes little sense to attempt to justify something when you're taking a position that nothing is morally justifiable.

First of all, this doesn't follow. Second, where have I done that ?

No, it's still silly for reasons discussed earlier. Where did you learn to argue -- this forum?

And where did you learn to discuss with people like this ? Have I done some harm to you ? If not, could you tone it down a notch ?

Here you are again deliberately attempting to avoid the point

Please refrain from assigning thoughts to me that I don't have.

you're accusing others of imposing upon you

No, I am asking people to refrain from doing that. I think you are adding a lot of content to my posts that isn't in them.

simply because you choose to impose upon animals.

No, it's not the cause of my request.

Now maybe you have a super-secret, hyper-rational reason to finance animal killing, although in all the years you've chosen to bog down these threads I can't say I've ever seen it.

I suppose you think your contributions are somehow insightful ?

 

[Belz...]

I don't see a problem with asking someone to live by one's own values.

I do. It's the root cause of most of our problems.

If I were to ask someone to live by my values I might begin by asking someone to recognize why I value something. In doing so, I might convince that person that those values are worth having and maybe for good reason. For example, let's look at this next part...

Trying to convince someone is fine. That's not what I was refering to.

To say "All this debate is, is an appeal to emotion, anyway" suggests that it's all a bit silly - like the "tree huggers" and the "Bambi lovers" that Red Baron Farms sneers at - and it fails to recognize that some people may not be appealing to emotion but to reason.

No, it's exactly what I said it was: let's not pretend that this particular topic has its roots in rationality.

I think you should only speak for yourself in situations like this.

Again, don't kid yourself: moral discussions are wholly rooted in whether or not we like or tolerate a particular thing. We're not machines; all of our values are based on emotions, and unfortunately, or fortunately, we each have different perspectives. Rationalize your biases all you want, but they are not logical. No one has the moral high ground that one can just calculate with a computer, although we like to pretend that we do.

However, if you recognize, for example that animals suffer (as you do!) and if you argue that unnecessary suffering should be avoided (as you have done!), then it follows by dictate of reason (not from emotion) that you think unnecessary suffering of animals should be avoided.

Yes, and I've said so.

This is an unavoidable result of applying reason (not emotion!)

Except for the part you left out: why I recognise that it should be avoided.

 

[angrysoba]

I do. It's the root cause of most of our problems.

Please expand on this.

Trying to convince someone is fine. That's not what I was refering to.

You said this...

Just don't ask me to live by your values.

I think there is nothing wrong with doing so. In arguments over civil rights or animal welfare, there is no purpose in having a debate on such issues unless you are trying to persuade another person which ultimately boils down to asking another person to share your values.

No, it's exactly what I said it was: let's not pretend that this particular topic has its roots in rationality.

That's it? A re-assertion that it there is no rational reason to avoid cruelty to animals? I say that if you accept the existence of suffering and you accept that humans should not suffer if it can be avoided, then you it is up to you to make an argument for why we should be indifferent to animal suffering.

Again, don't kid yourself: moral discussions are wholly rooted in whether or not we like or tolerate a particular thing. We're not machines; all of our values are based on emotions, and unfortunately, or fortunately, we each have different perspectives. Rationalize your biases all you want, but they are not logical. No one has the moral high ground that one can just calculate with a computer, although we like to pretend that we do.

There may be baseline assumptions which may be driven by emotion, but I would disagree with that too.

But furthermore, I think that certain moral conclusions can be drawn from reasoning and not purely from emotion. Oh, and yes, we are machines.

Yes, and I've said so.

So now you have to do the next bit, although you have deleted that from my quote.

Except for the part you left out: why I recognise that it should be avoided.

If you think that X should be avoided, and if you think Y is equivalent to X, then it follows logically, rationally that Y should be avoided. If not then it is up to you to explain why not. I expect it is some kind of special pleading. Which is fine, of course, but then it is you who is not being rational.

 

[Meed]

I don't want to cause undue suffering to animals, just like I don't want to cut down trees needlessly. Where there's a need, however...

What need are you referring to?

Eating, testing medecine, etc.

(bolding added)

Eating animals and animal products is not a "need" for those of us in the developed world.

Of course it is, just like buying video games is a need.

You've essentially rendered the word "need" meaningless with your bizarre claim that "buying video games is a need". You may as well have said "People shouldn't cause undue suffering to animals unless they want to" (ETA: epic foreshadowing).

Speaking of causing harm, a lot of people are paid unacceptable wages in developing countries so that we can buy 5$ shirts, another thing we don't strictly need.

This strikes me as an "other products support bad things too so why worry about any of it?" argument.

Would you make the case that people should not buy shirts from these companies? If you make a compelling case I might agree with you. But you seem to be implying that buying these shirts is bad but that at the same time there is nothing wrong with buying these shirts. Because it's a "need". Not a "strict need", but a need like video games. Anyway, sweat shops and the like are probably a topic for a different thread.

People do it because it tastes good or because they were raised that way and simply don't question it and/or because they mistakenly believe it's necessary for health.

I'm not fond of the "people don't question it" argument, as it assumes that those who disagree are just uninformed. It's a way to hand-wave the opposition away.

You missed the "and/or".

"Because they want to" is good enough reason unless you can find a reason not to; just like rights, I don't need to justify why I do it, so long as I don't harm another person.

Of course you don't have to justify it, because it's legal and because the animals can't fight back. But if you choose to participate in a discussion, you should be prepared to justify your position with better arguments than simply saying you can do whatever you want.

Just pointing out that none of us here are being really rational; nor should we. Let's not pretend, however.

Says who? I'm certainly trying to be. And there's nothing irrational about factoring empathy in to moral decision making.

No. I'm saying that assuming I'm wrong simply because I disagree is not helpful in such a discussion.

I don't think I've done that.

 

[angrysoba]

Speaking of causing harm, a lot of people are paid unacceptable wages in developing countries so that we can buy 5$ shirts, another thing we don't strictly need.

Classic whataboutery, or, changing the subject to avoid the issue.

Did it occur to you that both maybe deplorable? If so, then you will realize there is no contradiction in saying X is wrong, just because Y is also wrong.

 

[Cain]

Context:

Cain: If you're going to claim ethical subjectivism, then it makes no difference if someone wants to avoid causing "undue" suffering (or needless suffering).

Belz: Why not ?

Cain: Because it makes little sense to attempt to justify something when you're taking a position that nothing is morally justifiable.

<SNIP>

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove breach.

 

[Belz...]

Please expand on this.

Wanting people to be and think like us is the cause of most of humanity's problems, historically, in my opinion. I don't want to get into a historical debate.

That's it? A re-assertion that it there is no rational reason to avoid cruelty to animals?

A re-assertion that despite our pretense, there are emotional axioms to our conclusions that others won't agree with, and it doesn't make them less logical than us.

I say that if you accept the existence of suffering and you accept that humans should not suffer if it can be avoided, then you it is up to you to make an argument for why we should be indifferent to animal suffering.

"Should be" ? We have empathy. That is a fact. There's no "should" about it. Do I think we should ignore animal suffering for those in our care ? No.

But furthermore, I think that certain moral conclusions can be drawn from reasoning and not purely from emotion. Oh, and yes, we are machines.

Not that type of machine.

So now you have to do the next bit, although you have deleted that from my quote.

What ?

If you think that X should be avoided, and if you think Y is equivalent to X, then it follows logically, rationally that Y should be avoided. If not then it is up to you to explain why not. I expect it is some kind of special pleading. Which is fine, of course, but then it is you who is not being rational.

You misunderstand, again. See my sig: "Should" is an "is" with a hidden assumption. In this case, it "should" be avoided because it makes me uncomfortable. That's an emotion, and a good one at that. Otherwise none of us would care.

 

[Belz...]

You've essentially rendered the word "need" meaningless with your bizarre claim that "buying video games is a need".

It's not a claim. It's the definition of the word. There are various types of need. If you are talking about what we need to stay alive, then you could make an argument that we should give up everything we don't strictly need. Otherwise we all decide what we "need". Look the word up.

You may as well have said "People shouldn't cause undue suffering to animals unless they want to" (ETA: epic foreshadowing).

No, that is not equivalent to what I said at all.

This strikes me as an "other products support bad things too so why worry about any of it?" argument.

That wasn't the point at all: the point is that most people tolerate this situation because the results (5$ shirts) suit them. People won't give up their meat; they'll instead lobby for better animal treatment. Vegans will have to compromise unless they somehow become a more powerful voice.

You missed the "and/or".

No, I did not.

Of course you don't have to justify it, because it's legal and because the animals can't fight back. But if you choose to participate in a discussion, you should be prepared to justify your position with better arguments than simply saying you can do whatever you want.

First of all, that's not what I said. Why are you misrepresenting me ? Second, why do you say in one sentence that I don't have to justify it, and in the other that I do ?

Says who? I'm certainly trying to be.

Entirely rational ?

I don't think I've done that.

Not you specifically.

 

[Belz...]

<SNIP>

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content and response to same.

 

[angrysoba]

Wanting people to be and think like us is the cause of most of humanity's problems, historically, in my opinion. I don't want to get into a historical debate.

Well, you know what they say about opinions and ********. And they also say that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. It seems that you are making an empirical claim that when some people ask others to share their opinions then that's when problems start. However, you make the same error that normative moral relativists always do; you claim here that everyone is entitled to their own norms and furthermore that everyone must refrain from imposing them (or even asking to share them!) on others. But that of course is a case of you demanding everyone follow your values.

Do you see the contradiction?

A re-assertion that despite our pretense, there are emotional axioms to our conclusions that others won't agree with, and it doesn't make them less logical than us.

Not necessarily. But what would you say to someone who says he is opposed to capital punishment and in favour of the electric chair for the person who murdered his wife?

Could you not point out that maybe this guy was less logical than us?

I certainly would. I would understand and sympathise with that guy but I would see it as unprincipled. On the other hand, if someone was opposed to the death penalty for everyone and even so in the case of the man who murdered his wife despite how much he hated that person, then would we not think they are being logical?

I would. That's what I mean by rational principles when it comes to morality.

"Should be" ? We have empathy. That is a fact. There's no "should" about it. Do I think we should ignore animal suffering for those in our care ? No.

What do you mean "we" have empathy and that's a fact? That's a silly blanket statement. Some people abuse or kill their own children and some people do the same for cats and dogs and other animals. Whenever my grandfather's cat had a litter of kittens he used to stick them in a sack and threw it in the river on his way to the pub. I doubt he gave it a second thought. Would it be wrong, in your opinion, to ask them to rethink their values? Or is the only thing that is universally and unequivocally wrong asking such people to rethink their values, and not only that but The Cause of Most of Humanity's Problems ^TM?

You misunderstand, again. See my sig: "Should" is an "is" with a hidden assumption. In this case, it "should" be avoided because it makes me uncomfortable.

Actually, your sig from Pixy Misa says: ""'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question."" which does not really make sense as question-begging involves putting the conclusion in the premise. If I say, "You ought to care for your pets" I am not "begging the question".

Even if it was true that something should be avoided because that something makes me uncomfortable, then you still have to explain how it is that Mr X can be against the death penalty even though he would be much happier breaking his principles to watch the murderer of his wife fry on Old Sparky.

That's an emotion, and a good one at that. Otherwise none of us would care.

Yes, I agree with you that emotion is probably necessary for moral judgements in general (although that can be disputed as above). However, you have asserted that all these arguments are appeals to emotion and "not really rational". There is no contradiction in saying that ethical arguments have to pass both the rational and the emotional test.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I agree with you that emotion is probably necessary for moral judgements in general (although that can be disputed as above). However, you have asserted that all these arguments are appeals to emotion and "not really rational". There is no contradiction in saying that ethical arguments have to pass both the rational and the emotional test.

Agreed.

Nothing follows from the mere fact that the stove is hot.
However, if I touch the stove it will result in me feeling pain.
I don't want to feel pain.
It is therefore rational not to touch the stove.

The same is true with behavior to others.
I don't want others to suffer.
Therefore it is rational to avoid behavior that cause others to suffer.

One last one.

Doctor: Your son is hemorrhaging blood, if he does not get this operation he will die.
Mother: Oh doctor, you are just appealing to consequences.
Doctor: Um, yes. The consequences of hemorrhaging blood is in fact death, if you love your son you should allow the operation.
Mother: Oh doctor, you are just appealing to my emotions.

An appeal to emotion or consequences is irrational only if emotion or consequences is used instead of evidence to justify a claim.

Quack: If you loved your son you would only treat him with homeopathic remedies.

 

[angrysoba]

Agreed.

Nothing follows from the mere fact that the stove is hot.
However, if I touch the stove it will result in me feeling pain.
I don't want to feel pain.
It is therefore rational not to touch the stove.

The same is true with behavior to others.
I don't want others to suffer.
Therefore it is rational to avoid behavior that cause others to suffer.

One last one.

Doctor: Your son is hemorrhaging blood, if he does not get this operation he will die.
Mother: Oh doctor, you are just appealing to consequences.
Doctor: Um, yes. The consequences of hemorrhaging blood is in fact death, if you love your son you should allow the operation.
Mother: Oh doctor, you are just appealing to my emotions.

An appeal to emotion or consequences is irrational only if emotion or consequences is used instead of evidence to justify a claim.

Quack: If you loved your son you would only treat him with homeopathic remedies.

Yes, and actually here is a talk by Julia Galef in which she uses the term "Straw Vulcan" to dismiss a number of false claims about what rationality is including the idea that emotion and rationality cannot co-exist.

A summary here says:

Straw Vulcan Principle #4: Being rational means not having emotions.

Rationality and emotions are often portrayed in a certain way in Straw Vulcan rationalists, such as when Spock is excited to see that Captain Kirk isn’t dead, and then quickly covers up his emotions. The simplistic Hollywood portrayal of emotions and rationality is as follows:

[See link for diagram]

Note that emotions can get in the way of taking actions on our goals. For example, anxiety causes us to overestimate risks; depression causes us to underestimate how much we will enjoy an activity; and feeling threatened or vulnerable causes us to exhibit more superstitious behavior and and likely to see patterns that don’t exist.

But emotions are also important for making the decisions themselves. Without having any emotional desires we would have no reason to have goals in the first place. You would have no motivations to choose between a calm beach and a nuclear waste site for your vacation. Emotions are necessary for forming goals; rationality is lame without them!

[Galef noted in a comment that the intended meaning is in line with “Emotions are necessary for forming goals among humans, rationality has no normative value to humans without goals.”]

Or just watch the video:



Now it may be that we have been talking past each other on some issues Belz... but this is what I mean when I disagree with your claim here:

Just pointing out that none of us here are being really rational; nor should we. Let's not pretend, however.

 

[Belz...]

And they also say that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. It seems that you are making an empirical claim that when some people ask others to share their opinions then that's when problems start.

No but it's the root cause of the problem. Asking people to think like us on a particular issue is one thing, and you can discuss that rationally. Asking them to feel like us is more problematic -- dare I say impossible.

However, you make the same error that normative moral relativists always do; you claim here that everyone is entitled to their own norms and furthermore that everyone must refrain from imposing them (or even asking to share them!) on others. But that of course is a case of you demanding everyone follow your values.

Interesting -- and true -- observation. I suppose we're all guilty of this by design.

Not necessarily. But what would you say to someone who says he is opposed to capital punishment and in favour of the electric chair for the person who murdered his wife?

I would say he is inconsistent.

Could you not point out that maybe this guy was less logical than us?

I am talking about the axioms, not the reasoning.

What do you mean "we" have empathy and that's a fact? That's a silly blanket statement.

That there are exceptions does not negate the general rule.

Would it be wrong, in your opinion, to ask them to rethink their values?

It wouldn't be wrong to ask, but we should keep in mind, especially as skeptics, or at least as people who want to call ourselves skeptics, that morals are not objective.

Actually, your sig from Pixy Misa says: ""'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question."" which does not really make sense as question-begging involves putting the conclusion in the premise. If I say, "You ought to care for your pets" I am not "begging the question".

Yes you are. You are assuming that the reason why you think they should be cared for is agreed upon. That's begging the question.

There is no contradiction in saying that ethical arguments have to pass both the rational and the emotional test.

There indeed isn't. However you won't get anything near a general agreement, and you can't demonstrate that one's emotions on a matter are "wrong".

 

[angrysoba]

No but it's the root cause of the problem. Asking people to think like us on a particular issue is one thing, and you can discuss that rationally. Asking them to feel like us is more problematic -- dare I say impossible.

But you can demonstrate that certain values are equivalent, or at least ought to be on pains of irrationality.

"Look, let's kick this dog because it is fun!"
"Yes, it is lots of fun but it also causes a lot of pain to the dog, just as it would if I kicked you. If you don't want to feel the pain of being kicked then do you suppose the dog also wants it?"
"But...but...it's fun!"
"But which is better? Not harming the dog or you having some momentary pleasure?"

I'm not saying this will always work, but you might get the idea of how we can ask people and encourage empathy.

Interesting -- and true -- observation. I suppose we're all guilty of this by design.

Which is why normative moral relativism fails as a doctrine. It's incoherent.

I would say he is inconsistent.

I am talking about the axioms, not the reasoning.

That there are exceptions does not negate the general rule.

Not really exceptions. Most of us are fine with starving people in most of the world, or, as you pointed out working as near-slaves cos we "need" T-shirts, with vast numbers of chickens having their beaks burnt off and shoved in factory farms, of geese force-fed for foie gras, or of veal calves being locked up in darkened rooms for the whole of their lives.

Further back in history, children were sent into mines or to work in dangerous factories; families had to sell children into prostitution; entertainment consisted of dog-fighting, bear-baiting, badger-baiting, cock-fights etc... and even further back entertainment would consist of watching people being tortured or executed for fun. ETA: Despite contrary opinions, these people were not all psychopaths.

Why are these things (generally) not acceptable anymore whereas (generally) they were? It cannot be, as you imply, that we are all generally empathetic to our fellow humans and even to other creatures as we can see that this consideration of others' has expanded somewhat. Presumably some cultural changes, rational understanding, and even, dare I say it, and element of coercion has expanded the circle of moral consideration by many if not most people. It stands to reason that asking people to share these values is not a bad idea at all. Empirically, we can say it is a good idea, if of course you share my view that reducing needless suffering is a good thing and that living in squalid and brutal societies full of **** are bad things. Maybe those that do not could be persuaded.

It wouldn't be wrong to ask, but we should keep in mind, especially as skeptics, or at least as people who want to call ourselves skeptics, that morals are not objective.

Ah, yes, but as skeptics we should also doubt the counsel of despair or the assumption that asking people to care is The Cause of Most of Humanity's Problems^TM.

Yes you are. You are assuming that the reason why you think they should be cared for is agreed upon. That's begging the question.

No it isn't. You can dispute that someone "should" do something, but that is not the same as question-begging. Besides you should look up what begging the question is. It refers to arguments, not statements.

There indeed isn't. However you won't get anything near a general agreement, and you can't demonstrate that one's emotions on a matter are "wrong".

Why do you now say that you won't get anything like a "general agreement"? Earlier in the post you said about "we have empathy": "That there are exceptions does not negate the general rule."

And now when I say that morals should be both rational and emotional, you say, "you won't get anything near a general agreement".

While it is unfortunately true that we cannot get everyone to agree on even factual problems it does not mean that we should give up, and there is no necessary reason why we should give up when it comes to ethical considerations, in my opinion.

 

[Belz...]

But you can demonstrate that certain values are equivalent, or at least ought to be on pains of irrationality.

"Look, let's kick this dog because it is fun!"
"Yes, it is lots of fun but it also causes a lot of pain to the dog, just as it would if I kicked you. If you don't want to feel the pain of being kicked then do you suppose the dog also wants it?"
"But...but...it's fun!"
"But which is better? Not harming the dog or you having some momentary pleasure?"

I wager you'll have some trouble convincing someone who doesn't care about spider suffering from pulling its legs off. I kill spiders whenever I find them in my home but I don't torture them.

Which is why normative moral relativism fails as a doctrine. It's incoherent.

Simply recognizing it as a fact, however, isn't.

Why are these things (generally) not acceptable anymore whereas (generally) they were? It cannot be, as you imply, that we are all generally empathetic to our fellow humans and even to other creatures as we can see that this consideration of others' has expanded somewhat.

Feelings are fickle: they aren't entirely independant from social conditioning.

Ah, yes, but as skeptics we should also doubt the counsel of despair or the assumption that asking people to care is The Cause of Most of Humanity's Problems^TM.

That is slightly disingenuous, as it's not what I said.

No it isn't. You can dispute that someone "should" do something, but that is not the same as question-begging.

Point taken. It still presumes agreement on an unmentioned previous conclusion that is taken as a premise.

Why do you now say that you won't get anything like a "general agreement"? Earlier in the post you said about "we have empathy": "That there are exceptions does not negate the general rule."

Because we don't have the same amount of empathy for the same things. It's true that we generally care about suffering, so long as we identify with the sufferer in some way.

 

[angrysoba]

I wager you'll have some trouble convincing someone who doesn't care about spider suffering from pulling its legs off. I kill spiders whenever I find them in my home but I don't torture them.

Well, that's an empirical claim. Maybe it can be put to the test. Perhaps children can be better persuaded than miserly old curmudgeons.

Simply recognizing it as a fact, however, isn't.

"Recognizing [normative moral relativism] as a fact"? That doesn't make sense. You can say that about descriptive moral relativism which is fine. But not one in which you get to prescribe that everyone ought to let everyone do what they want.

Feelings are fickle: they aren't entirely independant from social conditioning.

Feelings are now fickle? What happened to the impossibility of changing people's values?

That is slightly disingenuous, as it's not what I said.

By all means, try and explain to me again.

Point taken. It still presumes agreement on an unmentioned previous conclusion that is taken as a premise.

I think that when someone says, "We should do X!" then it is fair for someone to ask, "Why should we do X?" I suppose that people often (mis-)use* the term "beg the question" to mean it raises the question, but it rubs me up the wrong way as it is different from the academic use of the word. When talking about philosophy or argument then I think we should avoid the informal use and stick to the (IMHO) correct use of "beg the question" otherwise it leads to a lot of confusion whereby I am trying hard to see the fallacy.

Because we don't have the same amount of empathy for the same things. It's true that we generally care about suffering, so long as we identify with the sufferer in some way.

Hmmm... I am not entirely convinced that this argument works. I agree that it is easier to empathize with some people or things than it is for others, but this is why I would argue that empathy is not the sole criterion for a rational moral argument. We can still use our reason to understand that people who we do not see and will never meet and probably can't easily identify with also suffer, as do certain animals. This is something that Peter Singer has attempted to argue for throughout his career, and in his opinion at least, some changes have happened.


*Yes, I know that I often state that common usage is correct usage, but I am arguing a distinction in this case that I think is worth bearing in mind.