is unable to find any justification that sounds like “ethics”
I think that is the issue. “Sounds like ethics” when you go back to Kant, comes from Christian universalism. Aristotle etc. were less universal.
has anyone made a substantial argument against Singerian ethics?
Is Singer even serious? He made the argument that if I find eating humans wrong, I should find eating animals also wrong because they are not very different. I mean, how isn’t it OBVIOUS that would not be an argument against eating animals but an argument for eating humans? Because unethical behavior is the default and ethical is the special case. Take away speciality and it is back to the jungle. To me it is so obvious I hardly even think it needs much discussion… ethics is that thing you do in the special rare cases when you don’t do what you want to do, but what you feel you ought to. Non-special ethics is not ethics, unless you are a saint.
I see no reason to doubt that he means exactly what he says.
I mean, how isn’t it OBVIOUS that would not be an argument against eating animals but an argument for eating humans?
Modus ponens, or modus tollens? White and gold, or blue and black?
Because unethical behavior is the default and ethical is the special case. Take away speciality and it is back to the jungle.
On the whole, we observe that people naturally care for their children, including those who still live in jungles. There is an obvious evolutionary argument that this is not because this has been drummed into them by ethical preaching without which their natural inclination would be to eat them.
To me it is so obvious I hardly even think it needs much discussion...
To be a little Chestertonian, the obvious needs discussion precisely because it is obvious. Also a theme of Socrates. Some things are justifiably obvious: one can clearly see the reasons for a thing being true. For others, “obvious” just means “I’m not even aware I believe this.” As Eliezer put it:
The way a belief feels from inside, is that you seem to be looking straight at reality. When it actually seems that you’re looking at a belief, as such, you are really experiencing a belief about belief.
Most people who are against eating human children would also be against eating human children grown in such a way as to not have brains. Yet clearly, few of the ethical arguments apply to eating human children without brains. So the default isn’t “ethical behavior”, it’s “some arbitrary set of rules that may happen to include ethical behavior at times”.
I think that is the issue. “Sounds like ethics” when you go back to Kant, comes from Christian universalism. Aristotle etc. were less universal.
Is Singer even serious? He made the argument that if I find eating humans wrong, I should find eating animals also wrong because they are not very different. I mean, how isn’t it OBVIOUS that would not be an argument against eating animals but an argument for eating humans? Because unethical behavior is the default and ethical is the special case. Take away speciality and it is back to the jungle. To me it is so obvious I hardly even think it needs much discussion… ethics is that thing you do in the special rare cases when you don’t do what you want to do, but what you feel you ought to. Non-special ethics is not ethics, unless you are a saint.
I see no reason to doubt that he means exactly what he says.
Modus ponens, or modus tollens? White and gold, or blue and black?
On the whole, we observe that people naturally care for their children, including those who still live in jungles. There is an obvious evolutionary argument that this is not because this has been drummed into them by ethical preaching without which their natural inclination would be to eat them.
To be a little Chestertonian, the obvious needs discussion precisely because it is obvious. Also a theme of Socrates. Some things are justifiably obvious: one can clearly see the reasons for a thing being true. For others, “obvious” just means “I’m not even aware I believe this.” As Eliezer put it:
Most people who are against eating human children would also be against eating human children grown in such a way as to not have brains. Yet clearly, few of the ethical arguments apply to eating human children without brains. So the default isn’t “ethical behavior”, it’s “some arbitrary set of rules that may happen to include ethical behavior at times”.