Zarm

Karma: 17

Zarm 7 Jul 2017 14:47 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

I have sharp sticks for that

That’s my point. You’re cheating now. Lions don’t cheat.

over the fire.

Carnivores can eat raw meat.

I can assure my canines function perfectly well in that role

Nah they work better for plant foods. They aren’t even very sharp. Also, other herbivores have canines but whatever.

Regardless of this bs^ doesn’t matter whether we have canines or not or whether they are useful or not and we both know that. I don’t need to explain the natural fallacy to you.

Coherent, you’re not.

But you don’t have to fit into my notions of coherency :-)

You’re a fuck lol. I responded so nicely acknowledging I screwed up there, whatever.

In the interest of fair disclosure let me point out that I’m not really representative of the LW community.

Good.

Zarm 7 Jul 2017 3:32 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

And canines, yep, I have some, they are sharp & pointy.

Go take down an antelope with only your teeth ;)

What are my other choices in morality besides subjective and objective?

I don’t know. I was really trying to stray away from people arguing how there are no objective morals so killing and everything else is fine. I didn’t want to argue about how there are no objective morals. There aren’t objective morals, so I wanted to talk to people who actually had morals and would be willing to talk of them.

You don’t have to fit into my false dichotomy. You do you.

Zarm 7 Jul 2017 3:18 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
I don’t kill humans for the same reason you do though. I could possibly be persuaded, but I’m not exactly sure what it would be. I think it would be something of the sort following: You would either have to convince me killing sleeping (I’m just gonna use sleep as equivalent to cruelty free for convenience sake) humans is ethically fine OR that cows are different in some way other than logistically speaking (I wouldn’t say that the fact that cows can’t kill you is morals, that’s more practicality; so something other than the two (redemption killing or treatise) things you just named). Or to convince me that cows should not have the right to live on their lives all the way through. Something along these lines, and if you’re going to go with how you were talking about different patterns of thought you’d have to be more specific.

You would possibly have to attack my underlying ethics since I don’t kill sleeping humans for other reasons as we’ve discuss and that would be harder to change my opinion on.

If this is unclear, just ask me to rephrase. I’ll just try to rephrase it below.

1) Killing humans without cruelty is ethical (I don’t know you want to convince me of this one) 2) Humans and cows are different in some way other than treatise or redemption killing so that cows don’t have the right to life 3) Or to change my view of “While a world where one’s life and death is one’s own choice is a good world in my view, I can’t find myself getting axiomatically worked up over others acting on my behalf. I’m willing to make acausial deals- for example,”

Arguments that will not convince me is that “cows are not out kind, they are too far away from us, they are not human.”

I also reread your post above.

I do not believe we are obliged to create entities (be they humans, cows, insects, or any other category) but we are not obliged not to do so. I think we are obliged to avoid creating entities that would prefer not to have been created. That still leaves us the option of creating entities that would prefer to have been created if we want to- for example, nobody is obliged to have children, but if they want to have children they can as long as they reasonably suspect those children would want to have existed. If I want cows to exist, I can morally cause that to happen as long as I take reasonable precautions to make sure they prefer existing. As you say, they might well not want to exist if that existence is being locked in a box and hurt. As I say, they probably do want to exist if that existence is wandering around a green pasture with the herd.

I agree with this. I think that beings can be created. My problem is ending already existing ones once they are created.

And like you continued on. I agree that their existence doesn’t have to be perfect. We should just make it not horrible. Again, my problem is the force ending.

I’m gonna add in one more thing. I think this is an emotional appeal, but I think its true regardless. Do you think that your opinion would change if you interacted with other animals like cows on a more personal level more often (or possibly at all) and actually saw them as individuals rather than an idealized “cow.” And if you have interacted a lots with cows on a personal level (such as farming), I’d like to hear your opinion as well.

Zarm 5 Jul 2017 18:27 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
How do you justify when you don’t eat ‘cruelty free’ meat? Those animals are suffering during their.

My other question would be, I don’t understand why you don’t care over the logic of the first paragraph to cows?

I do get what you’re saying with creating beings that do have a decent life.

Zarm 4 Jul 2017 1:49 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
Being perfectly honest, I actually don’t understand what’s wrong with starting with those words. Maybe this is a failure of communication on my part. I do understand that I shouldn’t have said ‘so surprised’ and some of the other stuff, but what’s wrong with asking, “Can I get your guys’ perspectives on veganism?”

“I’m a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!”

I’d rather debate things coherently as that’s what rationalism is about. I think I’m done here at this point though because not much is getting through on either side. Some of the replies I’m getting are typical (plant, “natural,” comparing animals to rocks), even fallacious, which is probably why I give off an irritated vibe, which doesn’t help either party when trying to find the truth.

Zarm 3 Jul 2017 13:44 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
I’d like to hear the argument about why trees lives are worth antthing. Sure, they’re worth instrumental value, but thats not what we’re talking about. I’m arguing that trees are worth 0 and that animals are comparable to humans. Trees aren’t conscious. Many animals are.

Zarm 3 Jul 2017 1:13 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Elo’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
All aspiring rationalists are equally correct, but some are more equally correct than others ;)

Zarm 2 Jul 2017 22:32 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
Anything specific? That’s not really a crux… yet you criticize me for mine.

Zarm 2 Jul 2017 4:34 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

What I consider “preserving my life” is weird enough that it could probably be its own conversation though :)

Sure, I could be interested in hearing this as a different topic.

Zarm 2 Jul 2017 4:26 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
Thank you for linking the crux. I’ll try to explain my morality as well.

I’m using the word “suboptimal” to mean a state of affairs that is less than the highest standard. For example, I have a crick in my neck from looking down at my laptop right now, and there is not a fruit smoothie in my hand even though I want one. My life would be closer to optimal if I did not have a crick in my neck and did have a smoothie. My life would also be suboptimal if I was intense chronic pain. Suboptimal is a very broad term, I agree, but I think my usage of it is correct. How do you define that word?

So basically I don’t care as much about positive utility compared to negative utility. I’ll get on to that.

Alright so your crux could possibly be addressed by the below; it isn’t really about the fact that the majority of humans prefer nonexisting as you say, its more explaining why there would be a ‘preference’ in non existence versus an existence of suffering, but I think it addresses your first point nonetheless:

If you’re interested in a double crux, here’s my half; if a majority of humans preferred not existing in the first place vs existing and having their lives cut short, then I would update strongly away from wanting farm animals being properly (that is, given enough space and exercise and food before being humanely killed) raised for meat.

I think you may find this a very interesting read: https://foundational-research.org/the-case-for-suffering-focused-ethics/

One of the main points in it is this: “Intuitions like “Making people happy rather than making happy people” are linked to the view that non-existence does not constitute a deplorable state. Proponents of this view reason as follows: The suffering and/or frustrated preferences of a being constitute a real, tangible problem for that being. By contrast, non-existence is free of moral predicaments for any evaluating agent, given that per definitionem no such agent exists. Why, then, might we be tempted to consider non-existence a problem? Non-existence may seem unsettling to us, because from the perspective of existing beings, no-longer-existing is a daunting prospect. Importantly however, death or no-longer-existing differs fundamentally from never having been born, in that it is typically preceded and accompanied by suffering and/or frustrated preferences. Ultimately, any uneasiness about never having been born can only be explained by attitudes of those who do already live.”

This is basically my view on abortion, nonhuman animal ethics, etc. I find a key distinction between painlessly killing a being that is already existing versus a being never existing at all. In other words, I think beings are worthy of moral consideration once they become conscious, even if they become unconscious for a time after that. However I do not find any beings that have never been conscious worthy of any consideration. The above article also notes the empathy gap, which I think is of key importance when talking about suffering.

So as you guessed it, I’m not a pure utilitarian. The best I would describe it besides the above part (which explains a majority of my view) would be I think that that having choice, or autonomy, gives life meaning (I don’t think the only meaning) to conscious beings. This is why I’m against a robot reprogramming humans so they enjoy mindlessly picking up a boulder. I think that all conscious beings should have the right to themselves because if they don’t have a right the right to themselves what do they have? This means that their life (and death) is their choice. Other people acting for them is acting in an authoritarian way against their choices. It is inherently authoritarian to kill any conscious being as you are taking away their autonomy of life. Conscious beings, when not suffering, enjoy life and have an interest in further living. This is why I wouldn’t want them killed, even painlessly.

Just wondering, why do you think its wrong to kill sleeping humans?

Zarm 1 Jul 2017 19:11 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gilch’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

You give the benefit of the doubt to even bugs based on weak evidence.

No I don’t. I never said anything close to that. In fact, I don’t even think there’s enough evidence to warrant me from not eating honey.

but are morally opposed to eating other brainless things like bivalves.

Again, not opposed to this. I never said anything about this either. Stop assuming positions.

Zarm 1 Jul 2017 18:06 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gilch’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
Me being vegan isn’t my only course of action. I convince others (on a micro level and I plan to do it on a macro level), I plan to donate to things, and push for actions like the one you said, but not really focused on school. I’m just getting into effective altruism, so obviously I’m more into consequentialist actions.

Part of me being vegan is so that I can convince others, not just the physical amount of meat I forego. You can’t really convince others on a micro, macro, or institutional level if you yourself aren’t following it.

Zarm 1 Jul 2017 18:01 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
Well yes it would still be wrong. I’m talking about the act itself. You would be doing better than the majority of other people because you saved a bunch but then you’re stilling doing something wrong.

For instance, if you saved 100 people, its still wrong to kill one.

I think that’s what you were saying? If not, could you rephrase, because I don’t think I understood you perfectly.

Also, could you explain what information you have to get to change your mind?

Zarm 1 Jul 2017 16:11 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
I’d like to hear the information what a lot of you would require for your minds to be changed as well!

So the crux of the matter for me is the consciousness of mammals and birds and some other nonhuman animals. As you go down the ‘complexity scale’ the consciousness of certain beings gets more debatable. It is less known and likely that fish are conscious compared to mammals. And it is less known and likely that insects are conscious compared to fish. However, there is quite the amount of evidence supporting consciousness in all mammals, birds, and some others based off evolution, physiology, and behavior.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

One of the following would have to be proven for me to change my opinion:

1) That mammals and birds are not conscious, ie they do not feel subjectively nor can they suffer, or that their consciousness doesn’t mean anything in any meaningful way. Or maybe convincing me that if the N (N being how many animals are equal to a human) is an extremely large number, nonhuman animals should not be considered

2) That consciousness shouldn’t be a determining factor over moral consideration (I doubt this will change as this is my baseline morality).

I would continue being vegan for other reasons, but I would not try to convince others, unless the following were proven:

1) That factory farming does not actually contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases

2) That meat production could be more sustainable compared to plant farming to feed a growing population (I personally think food should be given to people, but that gets into a different political issue)

3) Along with 2), that meat consumption wasn’t contributing so highly to water scarcity

4) That it was perfectly healthy in average portions (This may already be proven)

Zarm 1 Jul 2017 15:59 UTC
0 points
in reply to: username2’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
Yes it does. I’m just arguing that they are comparable.

Zarm 1 Jul 2017 15:51 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gilch’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

Is it some deontological objection to killing living things?

Nope

Vegetables are also alive.

And?

To killing animals in particular?

Yes, all mammals, birds, and more are conscious. Many more are self aware. Pigs are of similar intelligence to dogs, so it could be highly likely they are self aware just like dogs are.

I thought we were over this “soul” thing.

Stop being so condescending please.

Commercial vegetable farming kills animals! Pesticides kill insects with nerve gas. If they’re conscious, that’s a horrible way to die. But that wasn’t your true objection. It cuts short future experiences.

Trophic levels.

In that case, why not eat them?

If they aren’t conscious, I’m not against it. However, we don’t know enough right now on insect consciousness; the subject is very hazy.

You can’t eliminate your harm to animals.

Strawman. No vegan has ever said that. Vegans are constantly correcting people saying how its about minimizing suffering, not eliminating.

Try to improve the system.

I’m doing both. I’m an effective altruist and anti-speciesist.

Fund science to determine where the threshold of consciousness is, so you can target your interventions appropriately.

There’s more information on this than you seem to say.

Fund charities that change meat in school lunch from chicken to beef.

I get what you’re saying here, but that’s silly. I’d push for plant foods.

Take this seriously or you’re just signaling.

I do. This isn’t signalling. I’ve thought about every single question you’ve asked here at prior times. These aren’t new to me.

I think I’ve laid out a pretty good case for why Veganism makes no sense

Not really. You seem extremely opposed to it.

I’m sure you’ll come up with some rationalization I haven’t thought of in order to avoid changing your mind.

Because there’s no possible way I could be right, right? It’d have to be rationalizing, lol.

Zarm 1 Jul 2017 15:42 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gilch’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

Animistic cultures feel may feel empathy for sacred objects, like boulders or trees, or dead ancestors, or even imaginary deities with no physical form.

Ya.. I’m not buying this here—that’s a giant false equivalency. You’re comparing inanimate objects to conscious beings; you’re also comparing religion and spiritual cultures to scientific arguments.

Where do we draw that line? Is it only a matter of degree, not kind? How much uncertainty do we tolerate before changing the category? If you take the precautionary principle, so that something is morally important if there’s even a small chance it could be, aren’t you the same as the rock worshipers neglecting their fellow humans?

I’m not saying this is black and white, but its not nearly as gray as you’re making it out to be. You can pick solid, semi-non arbitrary places to put the line. To start, biocentricity is never actually followed; no one cares about bacteria. Anthromocentricity is based on a marginal cases argument and speciesism. Sentiocentricity is based on the fact that these other beings feel things like ourselves and experience the world subjectively. That’s why I pick sentiocentricity. Sentient beings can suffer, and I inherently think suffering is wrong. If you don’t think suffering is wrong, there’s nothing to say here.

Why do you believe animals can suffer? No, we can’t take this as a settled axiom. Many people do not believe this. But I’ll try to steelman. My thoughts are that generally humans can suffer. Humans are a type of animal, thus there exists a type of animal that can suffer. We are related to other species in almost exactly the same sense that we are related to our grandparents (and thereby our cousins), just more generations back. Perhaps whatever makes us morally relevant evolved before we were human, or even appeared more than once through convergent evolution. Not every organism need have this. You are related to vegetables in the evolutionary sense. That’s why they’re biochemically similar enough to ourselves that we can eat them. You’re willing to eat vegetables, so mere relation isn’t enough for moral weight.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

You’re really bringing up the plant argument? Even if plants were morally considerable, which they aren’t because they can’t suffer, it would be more altruistic to eat plants because of the way trophic levels work.

Consider the Mimosa pudica, a plant that recoils to touch. Is it morally acceptable to farm and kill such a plant? That’s just an obvious case.

Aversive behaviors is not indicative of suffering. Plants don’t even have a central nervous system.

But again, you’re fine with eating plants.

You say I’m fine with eating plants, as if this isn’t a problem to you. If you care so much about plants, become a jain.

I think it is a near certainty that the simplest of animals

Based off what evidence? I’m not saying something either way for animals like jellyfish, but you can’t just say “near-certain” with no backing.

I also think there’s a significant chance that animals as advanced as gorillas are not conscious in any morally relevant way.

Where are you getting this? You have nothing backing this. You can say you think this, but you can’t randomly say there’s a “significant chance.”

I am morally opposed to farming and eating animals that can pass the mirror test.

See, this gets more nuanced than you probably originally thought. When it comes to the mirror test, its not as a black and white as you may think. Not all animals use sight as their primary sense. Just learning this piece of information calls for a revamp of the test; its not as if this test was the most fool proof to begin with. I bring this up because dogs were recently found to be self-aware based on smell rather than sight; dogs primarily use sound and smell. Many other animals use other senses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Look at criticisms of the test^

What about humans too young to pass the mirror test? Is it morally acceptable to kill them?

That’s a question you gotta ask for your own moral framework. You’re the one wanting to kill non-self aware beings.

Are vegans as a subculture generally pro life, or pro choice?

This is irrelevant. Most vegans are pro choice because pro life is based on very little actual evidence while pro life is.

Lower animals may have some analogue to our pain response, but that doesn’t mean it hurts.

What does lower animals mean? And sure it does, mammals and birds are conscious so it isn’t just a pain response. It isn’t just noiception.

If a wild animal attacks your human friend, you shoot it dead. If a dog attacks you while you’re unarmed you pin it to the ground and gouge out its brains through its eye socket before it rips your guts out. It’s the right thing to do.

Rhetorical appeal haha?

if you had a pet cat, would you feed it a vegan diet? Even though it’s an obligate carnivore, and would probably suffer terribly from malnutrition? Do carnivores get a pass? Do carnivores have a right to exist? Is it okay to eat them instead? Is it wrong to keep pets? Only if they’re carnivores? Why such prejudice against omnivores, like humans? Meat is also a natural part of our diet. Despite your biased vegan friends telling you that meat is unhealthy, it’s not. Most humans struggle getting adequate nutrition as it is. A strict prohibition on animal products makes that worse.

I have answers for all of these, but you asked so many loaded questions. I don’t have a pet cat, but if I did, I would preferable feed said cat lab meat. Do carnivores get a pass? They don’t get a pass, but for now they do require meat. I’m in favor of minimizing wild animal suffering and there are different strategies for that, being genetic engineering, lab meat for carnivores, etc. This is too far in the future because we don’t have control of the biosphere, so the environment will have to do for now. Is it wrong to keep pets? No, as long as they aren’t treated as property and so they are treated as family. Meat is also a natural part of our diet? Wait, so something being natural makes it right? Nope. Despite your biased vegan friends telling you that meat is unhealthy, it’s not. Thanks for being condescending, but no I’ve done the research myself. It can be more healthy. High doses of processed meat is unhealthy; I can link sources.

But maybe you think farm animals are more innocent than indifferent. They’re more domesticated. Not to mention herbivores. Cows have certainly been know to kill humans though. Pigs even kill human children. Maybe cows are not very nice people.

This is low, especially for a rationalists. We both know that had nothing to do with anything and was only a rhetorical appeal. Its not like many humans are nice people: murder, wars, etc etc.

All I’m seeing here is a whole ton of sophisticated arguing and a whole lack of actual knowledge on the subject. You wrongly assume that vegans are hippies who act on their feelings and there’s no factual basis behind it. You sure its not that you just really want to keep eating your tasty bacon and steak?

You say you’re against killing self aware beings. If pigs were proven to be self aware, would you quit eating them?

Zarm 30 Jun 2017 23:17 UTC
0 points
in reply to: username2’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

It’s not that a chicken, pig, or cow’s life is worth some minimal but comparable amount. Because even then there would be some threshold were N chickens, pigs, or cow happiness-meters (for some suitably large N) would be worth 1 human’s.

I’m arguing they are comparable. See, I don’t think the N is that large.

is not obviously relevant to whether it is moral for humans to eat them.

Sure it is. That’s the crux of the matter.

Zarm 30 Jun 2017 20:09 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017

A question. Would you rather be born and live for thirty years and then be executed, or never be born at all?

I would personally rather have been born, but I am not everyone. I have an excellent life that I’m very grateful for. Like you yourself say though, I think the majority disagrees with me on this. This [the fact that most would prefer to not exist than a hellish life] is partially, only partially, why I think its wrong to kill the animals either way.

(I am planning to make extraordinary efforts to prolong my life, but what that means to me is a little odd.)

I’m curious, have you acted on this? Even this requires lots of day-to-day effort in keeping healthy.

If it’s not about utilitarian ethics, what is it about? Why is it wrong to kill a human in their sleep? For me, killing humans is wrong because then other humans might kill me (Kantian reasons basically, with a bit of Hobbes thrown in =P) as well as because they are like me and will probably enjoy living (utilitarian reasons) and because “thou shalt not kill” is a really good deontological rule that helps people live together. Oh, and I’d probably get arrested and sent to jail. Of those, all of them protect a baby or a severely mentally disabled person, and the only one that protects a cow is the utilitarian reason. Cows aren’t going to try and get vengeance for their fallen brother, and no judge will convict me of the murder.

Pure utilitarianism leads to claims that I personally find absurd: taking people off the street for their organs, AI tinkering with our mind so we enjoy what we would call meaningless behavior now (picking up a rock and setting it down forever), repugnant conclusion, etc. I would argue that two of your points aren’t really talking about whether its wrong to kill humans. The fear that other humans will kill you isn’t really morality, its just logistics so that you yourself don’t know. Obviously its against the law to kill humans, but I don’t really want to talk about that. The point I’m making is the ethics and the laws surrounding them should be changed to include other animals; the current system has little relevance. I think the “thou shalt not kill” is archaic and there is no reasoning behind it. I think what you were trying to say there is that it would help prevent chaos to have that rule, which I agree with. Now the reason that I think its wrong to kill a sleep human is because they both would enjoy living on (utilitarian ethics) and I think they have a right to own themselves. They own their mind and body as its them. By killing them, you are acting authoritatively and you are taking away their freedom; their freedom to live or die that is. I apply this same rule to the other animals.

Cows aren’t going to try and get vengeance for their fallen brother

Yes, but just because you can get away with something doesn’t make it moral; I thought we were talking morals here.

no judge will convict me of the murder

Again, I wasn’t talking about the legality. I’m challenging eating meat as an unethical practice.

Now if you’re going to use the word suboptimal to describe both your life and a factory farmed cow’s life, I think your definition much too vague to be meaningful in this discussion. Your life is nothing like that of a factory farmed cow’s.

(Of course, if you would prefer no life to a life cut short, or if you believe there is literally no farm that gives its livestock lives worth living, then we may be at an impasse. I am curious at what makes a life worth living to you, since few lives indeed are optimal.)

Probably not being stuck in a box and getting beat your whole life. The only reason I’d ever want to have a shitty life is the hope of living on to a better time. The thing with these animals, they don’t have that hope. They die at the end.

Zarm 30 Jun 2017 13:57 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Elo’s comment on: Open thread, June 26 - July 2, 2017
Very true. Thanks for catching me. I need to work on my communication skills.