Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

I shall refer to you as Hanarchy Monsterarchy in the future.

[JohnDonne]

That is just the naturalist fallacy in the other direction. If you are going to attach an ethical dimension to survival, be consistent. If it is unethical to predate if it isn't strictly needed for survival, then it is ethical if it is needed.
I think it is better to remove the ethical consideration from predation entirely.

Not a contradiction, ethical amorality verse unethical amorality.

I am afraid I 100% don't understand this statement.

I was responding to your claim that I was inconsistent in attaching an ethical dimension to survival, simply because I said that an amoral action becomes unethical when it lacks necessity. You assumed that I would deny that predation can be ethical simply because I admitted that it was amoral. I am saying that there are situations where one can be amoral (there is no consideration about ethics) about an action yet the action still falls within the realm of the ethical, for example, in cases of hunting out of necessity.

Not a terribly important point, but consistency is the butter to my bread.

Perhaps it is "better" to remove ethical consideration from all kinds of activities for our own convenience but it wouldn't be the ethical thing to do.

[JohnDonne]

What are you going to do when they finally show clearly that plants are sentient as well? Just curl up in a ball and die I assume.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... e-sentient
Denying that humans are part of nature and that behaving in the manner we are constructed to behave might have a value is hubris. We cannot change what we are without expecting a blowback. Veganism has a lot in common with communism in that it's based on denying human nature.

I agree that large-scale agriculture and animal farming factories are also a kind of hubris. A different kind but also dangerous. It's on the other end of the spectrum. Vulture capitalism.

I prefer to reside somewhere in the middle.

Can we feed the entire world without mono-culture mega farms run on chemicals and animal meat factories? I don't know but I have a sneaking suspicion we might if we just placed enough value on it. We would feel a lot better as well in more ways than one.

I never denied that humans are a part of nature, in fact us being a part of nature plays into my arguments.

Neither does Veganism try to change human nature, humans have long been on a trajectory concerning the recognition of themselves as ethically considerable as well as other conscious beings. Anyway, you're really melodramatic.

Basically you're claiming that you understand what nature meant for us to do, as a religious zealot would rail that God is against vaccines and oxygen machines, absolute appeal to nature nonsense.

Your evidence for plant sentience is cute, but where's the comparable causal structures, or even a theory of a causal structure? Where's the comparable analogous behavior? Plants release hormones to one another and are a complex system, great. The presence of a complex system does not by itself indicate consciousness, anymore than a really complicated machine is going to just magically become self-aware. My stomach can digest food, my body can release hormones all over the place without my needing to be conscious.

I'm not saying we know plants are not sentient, but it's dishonest to make an evidence equivalency between plants and animal consciousness, it's not even the same ball park.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Not a contradiction, ethical amorality verse unethical amorality.

I am afraid I 100% don't understand this statement.

I was responding to your claim that I was inconsistent in attaching an ethical dimension to survival, simply because I said that an amoral action becomes unethical when it lacks necessity. You assumed that I would deny that predation can be ethical simply because I admitted that it was amoral. I am saying that there are situations where one can be amoral (there is no consideration about ethics) about an action yet the action still falls within the realm of the ethical, for example, in cases of hunting out of necessity.

Not a terribly important point, but consistency is the butter to my bread.

Perhaps it is "better" to remove ethical consideration from all kinds of activities for our own convenience but it wouldn't be the ethical thing to do.

I am not trying to be an intransigent dickhead 'bout this one, but "one can be amoral about an action" that "still falls within the realm of the ethical" does not make any sense to me.
But either way, the idea that the need to survive would be the source of either a moral dimension, or its negation, still looks like an appeal to nature, just applied in an unorthodox way. Instead of 'it is natural, so it is right,' you seem to be saying 'it is natural, so it is forgivable.'

Also, I thought you weren't supposed to eat butter.
Dry toast eating freak.

[JohnDonne]

I am afraid I 100% don't understand this statement.

I was responding to your claim that I was inconsistent in attaching an ethical dimension to survival, simply because I said that an amoral action becomes unethical when it lacks necessity. You assumed that I would deny that predation can be ethical simply because I admitted that it was amoral. I am saying that there are situations where one can be amoral (there is no consideration about ethics) about an action yet the action still falls within the realm of the ethical, for example, in cases of hunting out of necessity.

Not a terribly important point, but consistency is the butter to my bread.

Perhaps it is "better" to remove ethical consideration from all kinds of activities for our own convenience but it wouldn't be the ethical thing to do.

I am not trying to be an intransigent dickhead 'bout this one, but "one can be amoral about an action" that "still falls within the realm of the ethical" does not make any sense to me.
But either way, the idea that the need to survive would be the source of either a moral dimension, or its negation, still looks like an appeal to nature, just applied in an unorthodox way. Instead of 'it is natural, so it is right,' you seem to be saying 'it is natural, so it is forgivable.'

Also, I thought you weren't supposed to eat butter.
Dry toast eating freak.

I am saying that it's possible to be acting in accordance with ethics without being aware of or considering those same ethics. To not be considering ethics is the same as to be amoral, so those two things, ethical behavior and a state of amorality are not strictly mutually exclusive. That's all I mean.

I am not saying that survival is "natural" and that this "naturalness" makes it fall within the realm of the ethical, more that I am applying a common ethical standard by which humans are judged. It is common to say, "But he did it to survive," or "He was defending himself" in defending someone's otherwise unethical actions. Clearly necessity of survival takes precedent in determining the ethics of ones actions, and I think the reason that is probably goes back to the concept of the intrinsic value of the ability-to-value-itself-conscious mind.

And I eat vegan butter.

[Hastur]

What are you going to do when they finally show clearly that plants are sentient as well? Just curl up in a ball and die I assume.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... e-sentient
Denying that humans are part of nature and that behaving in the manner we are constructed to behave might have a value is hubris. We cannot change what we are without expecting a blowback. Veganism has a lot in common with communism in that it's based on denying human nature.

I agree that large-scale agriculture and animal farming factories are also a kind of hubris. A different kind but also dangerous. It's on the other end of the spectrum. Vulture capitalism.

I prefer to reside somewhere in the middle.

Can we feed the entire world without mono-culture mega farms run on chemicals and animal meat factories? I don't know but I have a sneaking suspicion we might if we just placed enough value on it. We would feel a lot better as well in more ways than one.

I never denied that humans are a part of nature, in fact us being a part of nature plays into my arguments.

Neither does Veganism try to change human nature, humans have long been on a trajectory concerning the recognition of themselves as ethically considerable as well as other conscious beings. Anyway, you're really melodramatic.

Basically you're claiming that you understand what nature meant for us to do, as a religious zealot would rail that God is against vaccines and oxygen machines, absolute appeal to nature nonsense.

Your evidence for plant sentience is cute, but where's the comparable causal structures, or even a theory of a causal structure? Where's the comparable analogous behavior? Plants release hormones to one another and are a complex system, great. The presence of a complex system does not by itself indicate consciousness, anymore than a really complicated machine is going to just magically become self-aware. My stomach can digest food, my body can release hormones all over the place without my needing to be conscious.

I'm not saying we know plants are not sentient, but it's dishonest to make an evidence equivalency between plants and animal consciousness, it's not even the same ball park.

You don't know that for certain. My question was a hypothetical. If a cabbage turns out to be as conscious as a lobster, which is not a high bar to cross, will you ruin the family dinner if they serve coleslaw?
There are plenty of cultures through history who considered everything living and in some cases even inanimate objects, as conscious and possessing souls. Were all those cultures unethical and evil? Of course not. The role of ethics is to help guide an individual through reality. Nature selects the individuals and groups whos rules best map reality, whose ethics if you will best aid them in thriving and reproducing. I guess that is what I meant with what you perceived as an appeal to nature. I personally don't believe veganism is a winner in the long run but I might be wrong. Only time will tell. You can argue ethics 'till the cows come home. If your philosophy doesn't work in the real world it will go the way of the Soviet Union.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I was responding to your claim that I was inconsistent in attaching an ethical dimension to survival, simply because I said that an amoral action becomes unethical when it lacks necessity. You assumed that I would deny that predation can be ethical simply because I admitted that it was amoral. I am saying that there are situations where one can be amoral (there is no consideration about ethics) about an action yet the action still falls within the realm of the ethical, for example, in cases of hunting out of necessity.

Not a terribly important point, but consistency is the butter to my bread.

Perhaps it is "better" to remove ethical consideration from all kinds of activities for our own convenience but it wouldn't be the ethical thing to do.

I am not trying to be an intransigent dickhead 'bout this one, but "one can be amoral about an action" that "still falls within the realm of the ethical" does not make any sense to me.
But either way, the idea that the need to survive would be the source of either a moral dimension, or its negation, still looks like an appeal to nature, just applied in an unorthodox way. Instead of 'it is natural, so it is right,' you seem to be saying 'it is natural, so it is forgivable.'

Also, I thought you weren't supposed to eat butter.
Dry toast eating freak.

I am saying that it's possible to be acting in accordance with ethics without being aware of or considering those same ethics. To not be considering ethics is the same as to be amoral, so those two things, ethical behavior and a state of amorality are not strictly mutually exclusive. That's all I mean.

I am not saying that survival is "natural" and that this "naturalness" makes it fall within the realm of the ethical, more that I am applying a common ethical standard by which humans are judged. It is common to say, "But he did it to survive," or "He was defending himself" in defending someone's otherwise unethical actions. Clearly necessity of survival takes precedent in determining the ethics of ones actions, and I think the reason that is probably goes back to the concept of the intrinsic value of the ability-to-value-itself-conscious mind.

And I eat vegan butter.

Ah, we are just using 'amoral' differently. I am using it to describe a situation that has no moral dimension, not ignorance or rejection of a moral dimension.

As for the rest, we seem to be at loggerheads, since "clearly necessity of survival takes precedent in determining the ethics of ones actions" reads, to me, as an explicit appeal to nature. One that allows you to forgive what would otherwise be deemed as unethical.

And you don't eat vegan butter, you eat a vegan spreadable-butter-facsimile.

[JohnDonne]

What are you going to do when they finally show clearly that plants are sentient as well? Just curl up in a ball and die I assume.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... e-sentient
Denying that humans are part of nature and that behaving in the manner we are constructed to behave might have a value is hubris. We cannot change what we are without expecting a blowback. Veganism has a lot in common with communism in that it's based on denying human nature.

I agree that large-scale agriculture and animal farming factories are also a kind of hubris. A different kind but also dangerous. It's on the other end of the spectrum. Vulture capitalism.

I prefer to reside somewhere in the middle.

Can we feed the entire world without mono-culture mega farms run on chemicals and animal meat factories? I don't know but I have a sneaking suspicion we might if we just placed enough value on it. We would feel a lot better as well in more ways than one.

I never denied that humans are a part of nature, in fact us being a part of nature plays into my arguments.

Neither does Veganism try to change human nature, humans have long been on a trajectory concerning the recognition of themselves as ethically considerable as well as other conscious beings. Anyway, you're really melodramatic.

Basically you're claiming that you understand what nature meant for us to do, as a religious zealot would rail that God is against vaccines and oxygen machines, absolute appeal to nature nonsense.

Your evidence for plant sentience is cute, but where's the comparable causal structures, or even a theory of a causal structure? Where's the comparable analogous behavior? Plants release hormones to one another and are a complex system, great. The presence of a complex system does not by itself indicate consciousness, anymore than a really complicated machine is going to just magically become self-aware. My stomach can digest food, my body can release hormones all over the place without my needing to be conscious.

I'm not saying we know plants are not sentient, but it's dishonest to make an evidence equivalency between plants and animal consciousness, it's not even the same ball park.

You don't know that for certain. My question was a hypothetical. If a cabbage turns out to be as conscious as a lobster, which is not a high bar to cross, will you ruin the family dinner if they serve coleslaw?
There are plenty of cultures through history who considered everything living and in some cases even inanimate objects, as conscious and possessing souls. Were all those cultures unethical and evil? Of course not. The role of ethics is to help guide an individual through reality. Nature selects the individuals and groups whos rules best map reality, whose ethics if you will best aid them in thriving and reproducing. I guess that is what I meant with what you perceived as an appeal to nature. I personally don't believe veganism is a winner in the long run but I might be wrong. Only time will tell. You can argue ethics 'till the cows come home. If your philosophy doesn't work in the real world it will go the way of the Soviet Union.

Aside from the insult to lobster consciousness, that’s a fair post.

And whether I ruin the family dinner depends on whether I have an ethical alternative to eating the poor cabbage. If it turned out plants and animals are conscious in the same ethically considerable way I might not ruin the dinner but rather insist that the cabbages only be purchased from special farms where theyre well cared for and can be harvested after dying of old age. (See, there’s always a solution)
But really, I think cabbages have about as much chance of having consciousness as my shoes.

[Hastur]

Don't diss shoes. They have a hard life. Show some respect.

[JohnDonne]

I am not trying to be an intransigent dickhead 'bout this one, but "one can be amoral about an action" that "still falls within the realm of the ethical" does not make any sense to me.
But either way, the idea that the need to survive would be the source of either a moral dimension, or its negation, still looks like an appeal to nature, just applied in an unorthodox way. Instead of 'it is natural, so it is right,' you seem to be saying 'it is natural, so it is forgivable.'

Also, I thought you weren't supposed to eat butter.
Dry toast eating freak.

I am saying that it's possible to be acting in accordance with ethics without being aware of or considering those same ethics. To not be considering ethics is the same as to be amoral, so those two things, ethical behavior and a state of amorality are not strictly mutually exclusive. That's all I mean.

I am not saying that survival is "natural" and that this "naturalness" makes it fall within the realm of the ethical, more that I am applying a common ethical standard by which humans are judged. It is common to say, "But he did it to survive," or "He was defending himself" in defending someone's otherwise unethical actions. Clearly necessity of survival takes precedent in determining the ethics of ones actions, and I think the reason that is probably goes back to the concept of the intrinsic value of the ability-to-value-itself-conscious mind.

And I eat vegan butter.

Ah, we are just using 'amoral' differently. I am using it to describe a situation that has no moral dimension, not ignorance or rejection of a moral dimension.

As for the rest, we seem to be at loggerheads, since "clearly necessity of survival takes precedent in determining the ethics of ones actions" reads, to me, as an explicit appeal to nature. One that allows you to forgive what would otherwise be deemed as unethical.

And you don't eat vegan butter, you eat a vegan spreadable-butter-facsimile.

What we’re digging around is really the root of ethics itself, which could be interpreted as an appeal to nature. I see it more as an ethical appeal to ethics, that tautology again. But my saving grace is I’m merely applying the rules as I observe them and bringing them to their conclusion. I am not arguing that ethics as a self perpetuating abstract concept makes abstract sense and is the way to go, just that if you want to be ethical, here’s what is consistent. If you decide consistency doesn’t matter then you admit it’s all a game and we may dispense with the pretext of moralizing about this or that, for if ethics doesn’t matter, then what does and join what basis?