Should we allow the eating of dog and cat meat?

[RelativeSpace]

I don't believe you have done this or, in fact, can.

I already gave an overview. Which parts do you have problems with? I can give more details in those areas to avoid typing pages unnecessarily.

I'll break it down into premises for you (and elaborate on a few I didn't mention):


-A 'moral system' which is not logically consistent is not legitimate (e.g. does not qualify)

This should be easy- it's simply not a coherent concept, so it doesn't get to be considered.

-A supposed morality based on self interest is not distinct from the default of human behavior, and is contrary to the definition of morality.


This should be almost as easy as the first- without delineating some outstanding behavior, the concept of morality doesn't depict anything different from the norm and is irrelevant.

Being against all common definitions (usually in direct opposition) is also prohibitive in trying to apply it to the word.


-An arbitrary, or random, morality is not inherently self defeating like an illogical one, but neither does it have any particular claim to special consideration; functionally, they cancel themselves out.

This is more complicated.

Imagine the sum of all possible arbitrary/random goals that could drive a system. None of them have a logical claim to favoritism- so either all of them must be simultaneously considered, or none of them. In either case, the end result is the same.



Eliminating the above, what is left is a concern for the other.

If all of the above are clear enough, I can go into what that means in more detail.

In the absence of that it's a bit much to claim other people are peddling woo and you have the knowledge of objective morality.

Plenty of people have knowledge of objective morality; it's usually just not justified, but assumed from language and common definitions. Some of them are wrong and fall into the pitfall of the first point I highlighted above- others into the second or third. Most people understand morality to be related to altruism.

It's in the "golden rule", and it dates back to the beginning of recorded history, making cameos in every major world religion, and pervading philosophy since the inception of ethics.

Popularity does not dictate physical fact; but it does dictate semantics.

If almost everybody says "this concept is what elephant refers to", then that concept is what elephant refers to. Providing, then, that it is logically coherent, there isn't a problem.

I think 2 reasonable people can disagree on issues of morals and ethics.

As much as two reasonable people can disagree on what "elephant" means.

If they're arguing over anything short of a legitimate ambuguity in meaning, then one of them is not reasonable.

There are moral grey areas where people can have different views on the precise application of morality, and disagree.

There are also very obvious win-win scenarios, and very obvious lose-lose scenarios that two reasonable and well informed people would not be capable of disagreeing on.

As I said before, it is these clear areas- and not the grey areas- to which I was referring.

If you can succinctly and clearly communicate how you validate your assumptions then I think it would help.

Succinctly- I can try.

If I summarize, and then you tell me where you want me to elaborate, and then I summarize the elaboration, etc. I might be able to do it in less than a book.

One of the greatest problems in explaining something is in knowing what needs to be explained, and what the other party will understand without explanation. I am extremely bad at guessing at this.

You claimed to be able to prove that meat-eating was objectively wrong using logic and reasoning

Yes.

and that anyone who disagreed with you was peddling woo, illogical and morally wrong.

No. Anybody making counter-claims is peddling woo (they can not possibly prove those claims), and is being illogical.

Those making those assertions are incorrect about morality. I don't know if I used the words "Morally wrong" to describe a whole person- if I did, then I misspoke.

I have said at least once (and I think several times) in this thread that doing one immoral thing does not make a person immoral. What makes a person good or bad is the balance of his or her actions in the world.

I'm not sure what I am supposed to take from this analogy. [...] I think I happy enough to say that if you can describe a system of morality that system exists.

That's kind of what you were supposed to take away from it; though not just 'a' system.

What that doesn't mean is that the answers you arrive at using that system are necessarily correct.

They are in the context of the system IF the system is logically consistent, and correct logical methodology has been applied in accordance with the rules of the system, and in the case of a moral calculation, if the empirical data that was used was correct.

The question of whether the system is the correct system is another matter- one which I'm working on addressing.

I can define an objective morality in which the maximisation of the number of bananas in Paraguay is the correct moral thing to do. An 'objective' system then follows from that.

See my second and third points. Internal consistency is not sufficient in itself (many systems can be internally consistent).

 

[GlennB]

Meanwhile:

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I already gave an overview. Which parts do you have problems with? I can give more details in those areas to avoid typing pages unnecessarily.

I'll break it down into premises for you (and elaborate on a few I didn't mention):

-A 'moral system' which is not logically consistent is not legitimate (e.g. does not qualify)

This should be easy- it's simply not a coherent concept, so it doesn't get to be considered.

-A supposed morality based on self interest is not distinct from the default of human behavior, and is contrary to the definition of morality.

This should be almost as easy as the first- without delineating some outstanding behavior, the concept of morality doesn't depict anything different from the norm and is irrelevant.

Being against all common definitions (usually in direct opposition) is also prohibitive in trying to apply it to the word.

-An arbitrary, or random, morality is not inherently self defeating like an illogical one, but neither does it have any particular claim to special consideration; functionally, they cancel themselves out.

This is more complicated.

Imagine the sum of all possible arbitrary/random goals that could drive a system. None of them have a logical claim to favoritism- so either all of them must be simultaneously considered, or none of them. In either case, the end result is the same.

Eliminating the above, what is left is a concern for the other.

If all of the above are clear enough, I can go into what that means in more detail.

This seems to be the guts of your post, so I will see what i make of it.

1) Logical consistency - I'll let this pass as a given although I somehow I feel like something might be sneaking in here already. On the face of it though it seems fair.

2) Self-interest - not quite convinced, though close. If for no other reason than it has not been demonstrated that self-interest doesn't result in superior outcomes. I think I know what you are getting at but I'm just not quite sold. It also seems to assume there is something unnatural about altruism or considering the wider group, which I don't think you have demonstrated yet.

3) Arbitary - well, not sold here for sure. Anything you choose as your basis is going to be arbitrary. Including 'self' or 'other'. You just shoe-horned 'other' in and assume its not arbitrary?

The other strong area of disagreement I have is with your idea of clear wins and clear losses. There just aren't any (maybe there are some theoreticals but I can't think of any). Because you have no scale to measure.

You earlier examples demonstrated this because you simply arbitrarily defined boundaries and your own subjective evaluation of cost and benefit to the situations.

Your system doesn't work.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Personally, I think the problem with attempting to create rational ethical codes is because ethics are not rational. It all boils down to Aristotle's first assumption, "all things aim at some good". That's a pretty big assumption. And even if it is true, is there a rational reason for it? Maybe those who ate good are good because they like the feeling of being good.

 

[deaman]

Isn't more like, "All things aim towards the, "best possible survival situation"?

Seems more in line with reality.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Isn't more like, "All things aim towards the, "best possible survival situation"?

Seems more in line with reality.

Except its not true. Suicide, self-sacrifice, and denial of selfish gain abound in human history and the natural world both.

 

[deaman]

Except its not true. Suicide, self-sacrifice, and denial of selfish gain abound in human history and the natural world both.

All right, then just leave the word "survival" out.

 

[TragicMonkey]

All right, then just leave the word "survival" out.

Still doesn't really help. You're just substituting "best" for "good".

 

[deaman]

I am speaking from my personal experience.

Life is not rational. It does what it does and I "roll with it". For me, that's the best possible situation for my survival.

Do most people try for less? Maybe so. What do you do?

 

[Dogdoctor]

A video on the stem cell spray gun


an article on growing meat in vitro
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15402552

 

[TragicMonkey]

I am speaking from my personal experience.

Life is not rational. It does what it does and I "roll with it". For me, that's the best possible situation for my survival.

Do most people try for less? Maybe so. What do you do?

Me? I do what I please, without concern for whether people (including myself) consider a given action good or evil. I am rather proud that I am capable of deliberately choosing to do evil without trying to convince myself that its actually good. Most people really do think of themselves as being "the good guys", no matter what mental hoops they have to jump thru to preserve the self delusion. I've never mistaken myself for being inherently good, so I save a lot of time and sleep well at nights.

 

[deaman]

Me? I do what I please, without concern for whether people (including myself) consider a given action good or evil. I am rather proud that I am capable of deliberately choosing to do evil without trying to convince myself that its actually good. Most people really do think of themselves as being "the good guys", no matter what mental hoops they have to jump thru to preserve the self delusion. I've never mistaken myself for being inherently good, so I save a lot of time and sleep well at nights.

Hey, that's awesome!

In that case I see myself in your statement, since I myself do not believe "good" or "evil" even exist, except as "blinding concepts" inside peoples heads.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hey, that's awesome!

In that case I see myself in your statement, since I myself do not believe "good" or "evil" even exist, except as "blinding concepts" inside peoples heads.

Oh, I believe in good and evil. I just don't see any reason to limit myself to only doing one. Mind you, I'm glad most other people do. If I were somebody else, Is feel pretty uncomfortable having someone like me around.

 

[RelativeSpace]

2) Self-interest - not quite convinced, though close. If for no other reason than it has not been demonstrated that self-interest doesn't result in superior outcomes.

If behavior in self-interest resulted in "superior" outcomes, we would be talking about "morally superior" outcomes in the consequentialist sense- which would mean the evaluation of those outcomes would have to come from some other principle. So, self-interest would not be the root of it (just the resultant prescription for behavior based on some other goal).

It also seems to assume there is something unnatural about altruism or considering the wider group, which I don't think you have demonstrated yet.

Nothing that exists is 'unnatural'. But any altruistic instincts evolved as a matter of evolutionary self interest for propagating those genes.

It is a side effect that those instincts help apply empathy to other species and individuals that do not benefit us to show compassion towards.

Being coldly efficiently self interested is not morality- it is the inefficiency that reaches beyond that into another value that qualifies as something more than the default and can become moral.

3) Arbitary - well, not sold here for sure. Anything you choose as your basis is going to be arbitrary. Including 'self' or 'other'. You just shoe-horned 'other' in and assume its not arbitrary?

Promoting the interest of the self is not arbitrary; it is precisely what morality can not be.

There are two clear arguments for promotion of the interests of others as non-arbitrary:

1. Simply, this is the most pervasive common definition of morality which doesn't fall apart due to logical inconsistency.

If we were talking about bananality, then you would have a good argument that maximizing bananas is a good non-arbitrary basis. But we're not talking about bananality. We're talking about Morality. A word, and concept, with a long history and a robust meaning.

Keeping the meaning in line with the meaning makes sense.

2. It's rather the opposite of self interest. Valuing the interest of others and devaluing the interest of the self.

Self-interest being non-arbitrary and the one thing which is certainly not morality (that is naturally the absence of it), its opposite is non-arbitrary.

That is, the semantic opposite; e.g. selfish vs. selfless (which means considering others interests above oneself)



Like I said, it is a semantic argument, but those two points are both very strong.

It is reasonable to accept this as a coherent and consistent definition to the word "morality"- for which the general definition was already very similar to this (just correcting for some minor logical inconsistencies in some definitions)


I could go into more detail, but I'll stop there. Let me know if you can agree with that, or what you have problems with.


That said, though:

There is not necessarily any objective reason (e.g. hellfire, etc.) to prefer Morality over Bananality (there may be, but I can't site one).

It seems that nobody is forced by reason or by anything other than their own consciences and sentiments to favor Morality over Bananality. It's a concept. It's a meme. It survives and thrives on its own momentum. Choose good or evil- you can be equally logical in either pursuit.

The other strong area of disagreement I have is with your idea of clear wins and clear losses. There just aren't any (maybe there are some theoreticals but I can't think of any). Because you have no scale to measure.

There is a scale which is very clear in the context of an individual (his or her own). It's just not always entirely clear how moral good and bad accumulates or compares between individuals.

We can say Bob hates being shocked by electricity, and loves bongo music.

That allows us to know that (ignoring outside influences), it is more moral to play bongo music for Bob than to shock him.


This is sufficiently clear.


Now, Sally loves eating mangoes, and hates bongo music.

It's also clear that it's better to give Sally mangoes than to force her to listen to bongo music.

But what if Bob and Sally are in the same room?

Is it good or bad to play bongo music for Bob, despite Sally not liking it?

Well, that depends on part on how much Sally hates it- will she have a nervous breakdown and throw herself through a window? Did she have some traumatic experience with it?

Also, what's the comparative moral value of Bob and Sally?

With humans, it's easy to guess and say they have the same value (though this is only a guess without evidence).

But what about a cow and a frog? Which has more value?


If the cow and the frog both enjoy bongo music, it's not a problem.

There's no question there; play the music and let them celebrate their enjoyment of the art of bongos together.


Win-win.

This is clear.

Lose-lose.

This is clear.


Lose-win.

This is not always clear- it requires a detailed analysis, which we probably don't have enough details to fulfill (unless the difference is extreme).



As ethics, and cognitive neuroscience, advance we may be able to narrow down those numbers more and make more sense of those conflicting situations to a higher degree of certainty.

As it stands, though, they tend to be grey areas unless it's incredibly obvious that the moral value, and degree of like/dislike, make the question absurd.


Bob is made slightly uncomfortable when he sees an Elephant, because he thinks it is strange that their noses are so long.

Kill all elephants in existence, destroy all art and cultural references to them, and execute anybody who creates an image of an Elephant to spare Bob that mild discomfort.

Good or bad?

Even with conflict, extremes yield obvious situations.

A "skepticism" which denies that is such extreme philosophical skepticism as to be incapable of making any value judgements, or claims about reality, at all.

 

[RelativeSpace]

I am rather proud that I am capable of deliberately choosing to do evil without trying to convince myself that its actually good. Most people really do think of themselves as being "the good guys", no matter what mental hoops they have to jump thru to preserve the self delusion. I've never mistaken myself for being inherently good, so I save a lot of time and sleep well at nights.

It is intellectually admirable.

A little evil, yet both consistent and honest (at least to her or himself)

 

[Piscivore]

an article on growing meat in vitro
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15402552

Very interesting. Of course, "Carniculture" has been part of sci-fi for years.


I found this part especially intriguing:
"Perhaps one of the trickiest hurdles that Prof Post and his colleagues are yet to overcome is the taste of in vitro meat. "We don't really know where the taste of meat comes from," he said. "We assume it comes from fat, but there may be other components, most of them are unknown so it's a bit of a mystery how the conditions we use during the culturing of the meat will affect the taste."

What if it turns out that what makes meat tasty is some hormone or chemical that is produced by fear and suffering?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What if it turns out that what makes meat tasty is some hormone or chemical that is produced by fear and suffering?

Good taste molecules are produced by cuteness. The cuter the animal, the better the taste. Which is why more people eat lamb than eat spiders.

There's a Greek restaurant I like that has the following legend: apparently one dining lady was most upset to learn the dish she was ordering was lamb. The owner emerged from the kitchen and calmed her down with the assurance that she was not to worry, he only cooked the ugliest lambs. She accepted his assurances and ordered the lamb and enjoyed it very much, relieved of the worry that she had contributed to the death of something actually cute.

 

[Nihilianth]

Good taste molecules are produced by cuteness. The cuter the animal, the better the taste. Which is why more people eat lamb than eat spiders.

There's a Greek restaurant I like that has the following legend: apparently one dining lady was most upset to learn the dish she was ordering was lamb. The owner emerged from the kitchen and calmed her down with the assurance that she was not to worry, he only cooked the ugliest lambs. She accepted his assurances and ordered the lamb and enjoyed it very much, relieved of the worry that she had contributed to the death of something actually cute.

haha. +1!

 

[deaman]

It is intellectually admirable.

A little evil, yet both consistent and honest (at least to her or himself)

If one "has" to spin a word-web, then I would whole-heartedly agree, humans "are" a little evil.

In fact, from my point of view "evil" and "good" can only describe "human" attributes, since I know of no other measure "of" human attributes.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Very interesting. Of course, "Carniculture" has been part of sci-fi for years.


I found this part especially intriguing:
"Perhaps one of the trickiest hurdles that Prof Post and his colleagues are yet to overcome is the taste of in vitro meat. "We don't really know where the taste of meat comes from," he said. "We assume it comes from fat, but there may be other components, most of them are unknown so it's a bit of a mystery how the conditions we use during the culturing of the meat will affect the taste."

What if it turns out that what makes meat tasty is some hormone or chemical that is produced by fear and suffering?

We would allready have an idea if that were the case. I know from other people particularly on the show "bizzare food" that more than taste, texture seems to be an issue with many people. Creating a meat with the right texture will be the true trick. I have this idea of spraying cells in layers that will probably solve that problem. Maybe not but the computerized jet sprayers that they can use to send 3 dimensional designs over telephone lines. This is where the cell spray came from. Concievably they could do something that would create meat with the right texture or perhaps they could somehow physically press layers of cells together to get them to stick and create a fake steak.