Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The AntiChris · 03-31-2002, 04:16 AM

Pompous Bastard:

Quote:

2) It is impossible (irrational?) to argue that meat-eating is immoral for others.

Not impossible, but very, very difficult. Usually, a subjectivist eats meat because the pleaseure and nutrition (s)he derives from it outweighs any negative consequences (s)he may incur by doing so, such as empathic discomfort at the animal's pain. In general, you'd have to demonstrate either that eating meat has negative consequences that the subjectivist in question was previously unaware of (maybe it's really bad for us, maybe meat farming fouls the environment beyond belief), or else show that the values (pleasure and nutrition) that cause the subjectivist to eat meat somehow contradict other values the(s)he holds and, therefore, ought not be held. You'd have a very difficult time showing any subjectivist that (s)he ought not enjoy pleasurable tastes or that (s)he ought not value nutrition, so you're probably better off taking the ither path and demonstrating some significant negative consequence of meat eating.

So, in order to make such a case, I would need to know what knowledge "others" have and what values "others" subscribe to.

Whilst this is theoretically possible when making the case that an individual subjectivist may be acting immorally, is it not, for all practical intents and purposes, impossible to make the case for all "others"?

tronvillain:

Quote:

Those towards whom this thread is directed tend to not be moral subjectivists.

I'm sure you're right. So would I be correct in thinking that this thread is essentially a subjectivist/objectivist debate, and the issue of vegetarianism is largely irrelevant?

What I'm getting at here is that the topic of this thread appears to effectively exclude any sensible contribution from a subjectivist vegetarian thereby rendering it merely another objectivist/subjectivist debate.

Apologies if I'm stating the obvious, but I'm still trying to get my head round this stuff.

Chris

tronvillain · 03-31-2002, 04:59 AM

This is sort of a one note forum: objectivism versus subjectivism. Of course, it's theoretically possible to analyze arguments without arguing for one of the positions.

The only reasonable contributions by a subjectivist ethical vegitarian would seem to be:

1)I consider it immoral to eat meat myself, but it is not necessarily immoral for others to eat meat.

2)I consider it immoral for both myself and others to eat meat, immoral enough to justify some degree of coercion under certain conditions.

Now, position two could obviously vary widely, from simply stating "It is wrong to eat meat" to actively attempting to prevent or reduce meat eating.

Detached9 · 03-31-2002, 05:01 AM

What I'm getting at here is that the topic of this thread appears to effectively exclude any sensible contribution from a subjectivist vegetarian thereby rendering it merely another objectivist/subjectivist debate.

I'm a subjectivist, and a vegetarian, but it seems people are more likely to spot the more extreme militant vegetarians than the casual one. I've explained my position. Two members here have stated why they eat meat (please correct me if I'm wrong here):

Usually, a subjectivist eats meat because the pleasure and nutrition (s)he derives from it outweighs any negative consequences (s)he may incur by doing so, such as empathic discomfort at the animal's pain. (PompousBastard)

TronVillain also said something similar, that the pleasure he obtains from eating meat is more than the empathy he has for the animals he is eating. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent TronVillain?

Both of them leave room for how a subjectivist could be a vegetarian. I have more empathy for animals than I do the pleasure/nutrition from eating them.

tronvillain · 03-31-2002, 05:06 AM

The AntiChris:

Quote:

Whilst this is theoretically possible when making the case that an individual subjectivist may be acting immorally, is it not, for all practical intents and purposes, impossible to make the case for all "others"?

It is easy to make the case that something is immoral for everyone from a given subjective perspective, but this is not the same as saying that something is immoral from everyone's perspective. For someone to behave immorally from their own perspective requires them to either be irrational to some degree or lack certain relevant information.

Detached9 · 03-31-2002, 05:28 AM

This is sort of on a tangent, but it's a question regarding subjectivism, since I'm not well-read on the topic. I'm not entirely sure how to word this.

From a subjective viewpoint, how do you convince others to accept some of your morals? I'm guessing you would ask about what they value, and see if what you want them to accept would fit in with what they value, whereas if they don't accept your moral, then they are being contradictory.

I apologize if that sounded obscure. Hopefully someone here understands what I meant?

tronvillain · 03-31-2002, 05:39 AM

Sounds like a pretty good strategy, though often what we care about is behavior rather than acceptance of certain morals.

The AntiChris · 03-31-2002, 05:56 AM

tronvillain:

Quote:

The only reasonable contributions by a subjectivist ethical vegitarian would seem to be:

1)I consider it immoral to eat meat myself, but it is not necessarily immoral for others to eat meat.

2)I consider it immoral for both myself and others to eat meat, immoral enough to justify some degree of coercion under certain conditions.

I may be wrong, but my assumption is that Bill Snedden is seeking responses from people who consider it "immoral" for others to eat meat. Option 1 would not therefore be a valid response on this thread.

I've attempted to demonstrate (see my response to Pompous Bastard above) that "for all practical intents and purposes" option 2 is impossible to justify for a moral subjectivist.

If you agree with me, then the only valid responses agreeing with the original proposition can come from moral objectivists?

I fully accept I may be taking too narrow a view of moral subjectivism.

Chris

Tom Piper · 03-31-2002, 06:29 AM

This may not be the best place to post the following question, but I would like to maximize the response to it. I will post it to other threads as well, and perhaps discussion will converge on one of those.

The question is 'What is the difference between what people here are calling "moral subjectivism" and no morality at all? Be as specific and as concrete as you can?'

Tom

tronvillain · 03-31-2002, 08:07 AM

I think you may be confused about exactly what option two is saying. It says that "I consider it immoral for both myself and others to eat meat." It doesn't say that other people will consider it immoral to eat meat, simply that I consider it immoral for them to do so.

On the other hand, you may not be confused about exactly wwat option two is saying at all, and may instead be confused about subjectivism itself.

Bree · 03-31-2002, 08:45 AM

An off-shoot of this conversation:

Can anyone give me physiological reasons why a meatless diet is better than one that includes meat?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2002, 04:59 AM	#12
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	This is sort of a one note forum: objectivism versus subjectivism. Of course, it's theoretically possible to analyze arguments without arguing for one of the positions. The only reasonable contributions by a subjectivist ethical vegitarian would seem to be: 1)I consider it immoral to eat meat myself, but it is not necessarily immoral for others to eat meat. 2)I consider it immoral for both myself and others to eat meat, immoral enough to justify some degree of coercion under certain conditions. Now, position two could obviously vary widely, from simply stating "It is wrong to eat meat" to actively attempting to prevent or reduce meat eating.

03-31-2002, 05:01 AM	#13
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	What I'm getting at here is that the topic of this thread appears to effectively exclude any sensible contribution from a subjectivist vegetarian thereby rendering it merely another objectivist/subjectivist debate. I'm a subjectivist, and a vegetarian, but it seems people are more likely to spot the more extreme militant vegetarians than the casual one. I've explained my position. Two members here have stated why they eat meat (please correct me if I'm wrong here): Usually, a subjectivist eats meat because the pleasure and nutrition (s)he derives from it outweighs any negative consequences (s)he may incur by doing so, such as empathic discomfort at the animal's pain. (PompousBastard) TronVillain also said something similar, that the pleasure he obtains from eating meat is more than the empathy he has for the animals he is eating. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent TronVillain? Both of them leave room for how a subjectivist could be a vegetarian. I have more empathy for animals than I do the pleasure/nutrition from eating them.

03-31-2002, 05:28 AM	#15
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	This is sort of on a tangent, but it's a question regarding subjectivism, since I'm not well-read on the topic. I'm not entirely sure how to word this. From a subjective viewpoint, how do you convince others to accept some of your morals? I'm guessing you would ask about what they value, and see if what you want them to accept would fit in with what they value, whereas if they don't accept your moral, then they are being contradictory. I apologize if that sounded obscure. Hopefully someone here understands what I meant?

03-31-2002, 05:39 AM	#16
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Sounds like a pretty good strategy, though often what we care about is behavior rather than acceptance of certain morals.

03-31-2002, 06:29 AM	#18
Tom Piper Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 78	This may not be the best place to post the following question, but I would like to maximize the response to it. I will post it to other threads as well, and perhaps discussion will converge on one of those. The question is 'What is the difference between what people here are calling "moral subjectivism" and no morality at all? Be as specific and as concrete as you can?' Tom

03-31-2002, 08:07 AM	#19
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I think you may be confused about exactly what option two is saying. It says that "I consider it immoral for both myself and others to eat meat." It doesn't say that other people will consider it immoral to eat meat, simply that I consider it immoral for them to do so. On the other hand, you may not be confused about exactly wwat option two is saying at all, and may instead be confused about subjectivism itself.

03-31-2002, 08:45 AM	#20
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	An off-shoot of this conversation: Can anyone give me physiological reasons why a meatless diet is better than one that includes meat?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.