You don’t understand that you are software running on a modular brain, with different modules evolved at different times, and with different goals? And that one, newer, module may decide to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle while another, older one, may still miss meat? Do you understand the concept of internal conflict?
This sort of sounds a little condescending, but I don’t mean it that way—I am genuinely flabbergasted here. I don’t know how far back the first disagreement is. If a Catholic decided not to have sex before marriage, do you think they wouldn’t want to have sex sometimes anyways?
Do you understand the concept of internal conflict?
Sure. So do you claim that vegetarians live in a permanent state of internal conflict?
If a Catholic decided not to have sex before marriage, do you think they wouldn’t want to have sex sometimes anyways?
Y’know, if that Catholic had a habit of doing little skits imitating sex, in particular tried to get as close to the look-and-feel (the qualia :-D) of sex without actually doing it, well, I probably wouldn’t call him a good Catholic and I don’t think his priest would approve either.
So do you claim that vegetarians live in a permanent state of internal conflict?
I claim that it is not very surprising that someone who decided to be a vegetarian nevertheless misses the taste or feel of meat. Similarly to how someone who decided to be celibate might miss sex, and decide to masturbate, or someone who decided to stop smoking might miss the act of smoking, and opt for e-cigarettes, or nicotine patches.
And yes, I claim internal conflict is normal human condition, for everyone, every day.
I probably wouldn’t call him a good Catholic and I don’t think his priest would approve either.
The issue is not what the views of the Roman Catholic church are on masturbation, but whether it is surprising that people who abstain from sex masturbate. The issue is not whether vegetarians who opt for mock meat are “good vegetarians,” but whether it is surprising that they do.
I claim that it is not very surprising that someone who decided to be a vegetarian nevertheless misses the taste or feel of meat.
Still is to me.
I think I roughly divide self-imposed constraints into “external” (because of social norms, peer pressure, status seeking, etc.) and “internal” (basically, “because I really want to”). It does not surprise me that “externally” motivated vegetarians pretend to eat meat. It surprises me that “internally” motivated vegetarians pretend to eat meat.
How is it surprising that an individual’s ethical code sometimes prevents them from maximizing their utility function? If this was never the case, ethics would be redundant, because there would never be a need for ethical constraints on choice.
Humans evolved to have utility functions that value the taste of meat. This fact does not prevent us from reaching the ethical conclusion that killing an animal for consumption is wrong. The best way to maximize the utility function under this constraint, may be to find a close substitute for meat.
How is it surprising that an individual’s ethical code sometimes prevents them from maximizing their utility function?
That’s what I would call “external” motivation.
Humans evolved to have utility functions that value the taste of meat.
I don’t know about that. I really don’t think most vegetarians want the taste of meat and it’s just the force of will that keeps them away from it. Out of the vegetarians I know a few are insistent that they would just be physically ill if someone tries to force-feed them meat. It’s pretty clear the taste of meat is not in their utility function any more.
the ethical conclusion that killing an animal for consumption is wrong
What percentage of vegetarians are vegetarians for this reason?
I was vegetarian for twelve years for ethical reasons: both to avoid killing sentient beings, and because I was concerned about the environmental externalities associated with meat production. My utility function definitely always valued the taste of meat very strongly.
Maybe I incorrectly extrapolated too much from myself in my model of other vegetarians, but I always assumed that most of them had similar reasons. I think it is likely that a lot of them lie to themselves about not liking meat, in order to make it easier to live within their ethical constraints. There is a widespread belief among vegetarians that, after several years of not eating meat, your body adapts such that eating meat may make you physically ill. I don’t know whether this is true, it certainly never happened to me, and I suspect it may be a meme that is retained because it helps keep people in the fold.
I think it is likely that a lot of them lie to themselves about not liking meat
It’s pretty clear there is variation :-) I know some non-vegetarians who don’t like meat. Their ethics are perfectly fine with eating meat and they actually do eat it once every couple of weeks or so, but, again, it does not seem that the taste of meat is ’in their utility function”.
Again, the point isn’t how many pederasts there are in the Catholic church. Nor is the point that a pederast priest is a bad priest, and a bad person. The point is, is it surprising that, given the ethos of the Catholic Church, some priests are pederasts.
I am trying to figure out what other completely mundane facts you are surprised by. Are you surprised that some members of AA revert to alcoholism? Are you surprised that recovered junkies miss crack? Are you surprised people can’t stick to a diet? Are you surprised some husbands love their wives one day, and beat them the next? I envy you, because being surprised is one of the best feelings in the world, and you must feel surprised all the time.
The point is, is it surprising that, given the ethos of the Catholic Church, some priests are pederasts.
No, that’s not surprising at all.
I feel that at some point in this discussion the original point has subtly mutated. Or maybe I didn’t express my point sufficiently clear. Let me try to do this again.
I am confused by vegetarians eating play-pretend meat. This has two aspects. The first is the difference between what I called “external” and “internal” motivations. That’s not really the best terminology so I’d like to amend it. Let me call one motivation need-to motivation and the other one want-to motivation (which correspond to the “external” for the former and “internal” for the latter).
Given this, I would expect the need-to vegetarians to continue to crave meat and to cook stuff to pretend it’s meat. That’s fine. But I do NOT expect the want-to vegetarians to do this.
The second aspect is social norms. It is entirely acceptable in vegetarian circles to post fake-meat recipes and discuss how to make food more meat-like. I am confused by that. In the Catholic Church analogy this corresponds to priests discussing how to make their sex dolls be more life-like. In the AA analogy this corresponds to alcoholics discussing how to emulate getting drunk while drinking non-alcoholic beer. Notice how the social norms of the RCC or AA, um, frown on such activities.
I am trying to figure out what other completely mundane facts you are surprised by.
Oh, how cute! Are you trying to call me naive? :-D
Ok—so you are confused because you think there might be “want-to” vegetarians who like mock meat. Do you know anyone like that? I once dated someone who was vegetarian since a very young age, for cultural reasons, and if I remember correctly, she couldn’t stand meat-like veg dishes.
If vegetarian social circles consist of both need-to and want-to vegetarians, I am not sure what is there to be confused about—it’s just regular old tolerance.
I am unhappy about the need/want distinction, because it smacks of Freud. There are generally more than two things going on.
Ok—so you are confused because you think there might be “want-to” vegetarians who like mock meat. Do you know anyone like that?
Hm. Probably not personally. Are you saying such people do not exist?
I am unhappy about the need/want distinction, because it smacks of Freud. There are generally more than two things going on.
Of course there are more things going on. It’s only a model, to quote Monty Python, and as I said it’s a rough approximation.
However I think it’s a useful rough model. Anders_H who commented in this thread is a good example of a need-to vegetarian—he actually craves meat but doesn’t eat it for animal-suffering and environmental-consequences reasons.
You don’t understand that you are software running on a modular brain, with different modules evolved at different times, and with different goals? And that one, newer, module may decide to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle while another, older one, may still miss meat? Do you understand the concept of internal conflict?
This sort of sounds a little condescending, but I don’t mean it that way—I am genuinely flabbergasted here. I don’t know how far back the first disagreement is. If a Catholic decided not to have sex before marriage, do you think they wouldn’t want to have sex sometimes anyways?
Sure. So do you claim that vegetarians live in a permanent state of internal conflict?
Y’know, if that Catholic had a habit of doing little skits imitating sex, in particular tried to get as close to the look-and-feel (the qualia :-D) of sex without actually doing it, well, I probably wouldn’t call him a good Catholic and I don’t think his priest would approve either.
I claim that it is not very surprising that someone who decided to be a vegetarian nevertheless misses the taste or feel of meat. Similarly to how someone who decided to be celibate might miss sex, and decide to masturbate, or someone who decided to stop smoking might miss the act of smoking, and opt for e-cigarettes, or nicotine patches.
And yes, I claim internal conflict is normal human condition, for everyone, every day.
The issue is not what the views of the Roman Catholic church are on masturbation, but whether it is surprising that people who abstain from sex masturbate. The issue is not whether vegetarians who opt for mock meat are “good vegetarians,” but whether it is surprising that they do.
Still is to me.
I think I roughly divide self-imposed constraints into “external” (because of social norms, peer pressure, status seeking, etc.) and “internal” (basically, “because I really want to”). It does not surprise me that “externally” motivated vegetarians pretend to eat meat. It surprises me that “internally” motivated vegetarians pretend to eat meat.
How is it surprising that an individual’s ethical code sometimes prevents them from maximizing their utility function? If this was never the case, ethics would be redundant, because there would never be a need for ethical constraints on choice.
Humans evolved to have utility functions that value the taste of meat. This fact does not prevent us from reaching the ethical conclusion that killing an animal for consumption is wrong. The best way to maximize the utility function under this constraint, may be to find a close substitute for meat.
That’s what I would call “external” motivation.
I don’t know about that. I really don’t think most vegetarians want the taste of meat and it’s just the force of will that keeps them away from it. Out of the vegetarians I know a few are insistent that they would just be physically ill if someone tries to force-feed them meat. It’s pretty clear the taste of meat is not in their utility function any more.
What percentage of vegetarians are vegetarians for this reason?
I was vegetarian for twelve years for ethical reasons: both to avoid killing sentient beings, and because I was concerned about the environmental externalities associated with meat production. My utility function definitely always valued the taste of meat very strongly.
Maybe I incorrectly extrapolated too much from myself in my model of other vegetarians, but I always assumed that most of them had similar reasons. I think it is likely that a lot of them lie to themselves about not liking meat, in order to make it easier to live within their ethical constraints. There is a widespread belief among vegetarians that, after several years of not eating meat, your body adapts such that eating meat may make you physically ill. I don’t know whether this is true, it certainly never happened to me, and I suspect it may be a meme that is retained because it helps keep people in the fold.
It’s pretty clear there is variation :-) I know some non-vegetarians who don’t like meat. Their ethics are perfectly fine with eating meat and they actually do eat it once every couple of weeks or so, but, again, it does not seem that the taste of meat is ’in their utility function”.
Do you think it is surprising there are so many pederasts among the ranks of the Catholic clergy?
How many are there and compared to what?
I have a vague recollection that statistical data about pedofilia didn’t exactly match the media frenzy about the RCC priests...
Again, the point isn’t how many pederasts there are in the Catholic church. Nor is the point that a pederast priest is a bad priest, and a bad person. The point is, is it surprising that, given the ethos of the Catholic Church, some priests are pederasts.
I am trying to figure out what other completely mundane facts you are surprised by. Are you surprised that some members of AA revert to alcoholism? Are you surprised that recovered junkies miss crack? Are you surprised people can’t stick to a diet? Are you surprised some husbands love their wives one day, and beat them the next? I envy you, because being surprised is one of the best feelings in the world, and you must feel surprised all the time.
No, that’s not surprising at all.
I feel that at some point in this discussion the original point has subtly mutated. Or maybe I didn’t express my point sufficiently clear. Let me try to do this again.
I am confused by vegetarians eating play-pretend meat. This has two aspects. The first is the difference between what I called “external” and “internal” motivations. That’s not really the best terminology so I’d like to amend it. Let me call one motivation need-to motivation and the other one want-to motivation (which correspond to the “external” for the former and “internal” for the latter).
Given this, I would expect the need-to vegetarians to continue to crave meat and to cook stuff to pretend it’s meat. That’s fine. But I do NOT expect the want-to vegetarians to do this.
The second aspect is social norms. It is entirely acceptable in vegetarian circles to post fake-meat recipes and discuss how to make food more meat-like. I am confused by that. In the Catholic Church analogy this corresponds to priests discussing how to make their sex dolls be more life-like. In the AA analogy this corresponds to alcoholics discussing how to emulate getting drunk while drinking non-alcoholic beer. Notice how the social norms of the RCC or AA, um, frown on such activities.
Oh, how cute! Are you trying to call me naive? :-D
Ok—so you are confused because you think there might be “want-to” vegetarians who like mock meat. Do you know anyone like that? I once dated someone who was vegetarian since a very young age, for cultural reasons, and if I remember correctly, she couldn’t stand meat-like veg dishes.
If vegetarian social circles consist of both need-to and want-to vegetarians, I am not sure what is there to be confused about—it’s just regular old tolerance.
I am unhappy about the need/want distinction, because it smacks of Freud. There are generally more than two things going on.
Hm. Probably not personally. Are you saying such people do not exist?
Of course there are more things going on. It’s only a model, to quote Monty Python, and as I said it’s a rough approximation.
However I think it’s a useful rough model. Anders_H who commented in this thread is a good example of a need-to vegetarian—he actually craves meat but doesn’t eat it for animal-suffering and environmental-consequences reasons.
Are there?
Don’t we all? I start most of my days with internal conflict between my desire to stay in bed, and my desire for having a regular income.
OK, OK, extra internal conflict in addition to everything non-vegetarians have :-)