AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmExcept I haven't made any arbitrary claims. When I said that it's not ok to kill humans for food, what I mean is that such an act is just not my personal preference.
Then it is "OK", as you wouldn't condemn or judge others for doing it, you just don't prefer it. Like if you preferred vanilla to chocolate. Doesn't mean chocolate isn't OK as a preference, it just isn't your personal preference.
You can say it's OK for others, just not OK for you. Saying just that it's "not OK" implies it's not OK for anybody. That implies an arbitrary moral judgement.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmI would rather eat chicken instead of a human being. If a person likes to eat humans, that's their preference too, although it would be strange to do so considering it's not part of the norm that I grew up seeing, and I might even feel anger.
You recognize that such anger is as irrational as somebody getting upset at another for preferring chocolate instead of vanilla, right?
If you think the anger is rationally justified, that's where you have a problem and are making an implicit claim ("it's justified because that's morally wrong"). If you admit it's irrational, and that you just get angry at things for no good reason because you don't personally like them and you don't like it when other people have different preferences, that's perhaps logically consistent, but it also implies you have some kind of emotional problem.
Anybody who gets angry at people for liking chocolate instead of vanilla, just because they personally prefer vanilla, needs professional psychiatric help.
In your case, if you recognize killing humans as the same kind of personal preference, then if you would get angry at people for that, likewise you need help.
A nihilist/moral relativist has no basis for such outrage. That's pretty much the only benefit of nihilists; they tend not to be bothered by other people's actions. Pure libertarians, in a way. It helps avoid ideological warfare. I don't regard this as a benefit overall, because there are drawbacks that outweigh that, but you've basically combined all of the bad parts of nihilism with all of the bad parts of angry fundamentalists.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmIn the case of Hannibal Lecter, you said his morality is incorrect. Why?
If he holds something he regards as a moral system, then he is incorrect. That system would be arbitrary or inconsistent.
If he is simply uninterested in morality, then you could say he is amoral. As long as he made no claims to having a moral system, then he is not factually incorrect on that point.
As to why:
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmThanks for the further explanation. Yes, this certainly clears things up. However, I do not look at the subject matter from a mathematical perspective, so I have to reject your mathematical claims as I do not perceive them to be reasonable enough to conclude an objective morality.
Do you have any actual arguments against my explanation?
Or do you just not like it, so reject it for no reason other than whim?
If that's the case, then you are not a rational person.
A rational person
is compelled to accept sound argumentation.
If you can present a logical argument against what I have explained, please do. If not, then you have to accept the argument. Or you can admit you have no interest in rational/logical discussion.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmIt's important to note also that I do not see these matters as a "win/lose" scenario.
You need to study game theory to understand what these mean.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmIf you like to live your moral life under the guidance of mathematical equations in order to be on the winning side, that's simply your preference.
You could say it is a preference to be moral, instead of immoral or amoral.
You have provided no argument against mine with respect to objective morality.
If you prefer to be amoral or even immoral, that's up to you.
We can not be compelled to do the right thing, we can only reason what the right thing is and then make a choice.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmI just don't see any logical basis from which you're asserting other than it's a mere preference, regardless of how many ways you can make sense out of it (including science, neuropsychology or mathematics).
My explanation to that end was to how it is non-arbitrary.
If you're taking a math test, and you come upon the question: 2+2=
You can, based on your preference, answer 4, 5, cucumber, or anything else, or leave it blank, or eat the test.
Only 4 is the mathematically correct answer, though. And in terms of morality, we can determine which courses of action are morally correct. You can disregard that and choose to do the wrong thing anyway. Morality is only compulsion for those who choose to be moral people.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pmI assure you that I'm not being cheeky and yes I understood your comment about values vs. bricks. It only sounded to me as if you were speaking about "moral objective system" in the same way Christians speak of their God; in other words, adhere to a moral code and obey at all times. And what of this "objective moral standard"? Is it written in the universe? Is it set in stone? Is it something we are required to obey?
There is no god, or heaven and hell, compelling you to obey.
You only need to abide by morality (or make a good effort at it) IF you want to be a moral person.
If you want to be a maximally evil person, then do the opposite of what morality recommends.
If you want to be amoral, you can ignore it entirely.
Do you want to be a good person? No? Then there's probably nothing I can say to convince you to value morality. I would be happy to
try, if you can agree on the other points.
However, if you're like most people and you want to be a good person, I can explain what a consistent and objective standard of morality looks like, and show you what you should do in order to achieve that goal. If you are a rational person, you will agree with my arguments (or show where they are flawed).
A rational person who wants to be moral is the only kind of person who can be compelled to moral action by rational argument about morality.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pm
This is a very broad statement. Can you give me an example?
I gave the mosquito example earlier, and also the trolley problem.
In consequentialism, we weigh the expected consequences of our actions. Imagine a scale, where we put all of the harm on one side, and all of the good stuff on the other. We also have to look at different possible solutions; just because something does more good than harm doesn't mean it's the right action.
With the mosquito, you can swat the mosquito killing it, you can let it bite you (possibly spreading disease), or spray yourself with insect repellent, or even perhaps you can go find where they're breeding and get rid of the stagnant puddle so you don't have to kill them or deal with the consequences of the diseases they're spreading.
There are frequently many options, and usually one that that helps head off future harm.
I have advocated eradicating mosquitoes through genetic modification (which doesn't require killing any, they're just made all male and they die off at the end of their natural lives).
Technology can also open up more options.
In the past, it was farm animals and eat animal products, or die. In that case, the former was a better option. It wasn't good, but it was the lesser evil.
Now we have another option since the discovery of B-12 and creation of supplements, as well as general advancement of nutritional science and agriculture that allows us to be healthy on vegan diets (actually, healthier, which is what makes it Win-win along with other consequences).
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pm
How can you say eating meat doesn't benefit humanity? Clearly it does by satisfying their hunger enabling them to function the next few hours and survive the next few days.
See above. You are failing to compare it to all options.
It used to benefit humanity, but now it is inferior to the other available options.
It may temporarily satisfy your hunger. Add that to the good side of the scale.
Now to the bad side add heart disease, early cognitive decline, higher risk of cancer and diabetes, accelerated climate change resulting in destabilization of world food supplies, I could go on.
The bad outweighs the good now.
When we had no other options, it was the lesser of two evils. Better that than starvation and extinction.
Now that we have more options, by comparison to the superior option which is available, eating meat is the more harmful.
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pm
As for animals not benefiting; in a way, they do benefit by helping me to survive, and they have my thanks and appreciation even beyond their death.
That is not a benefit to the animals. It's something they neither want nor know about.
It's like a fundamentalist Muslim on violent Jihad killed you, and said it benefited you because it stopped you from sinning, and you have his appreciation for helping him to reach paradise by killing a heathen and gaining Allah's favor.
Do you think that's a benefit to you?
Or is that just adding insult to injury?
AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 9:30 pm
Maybe you don't like this kind of a response and I understand if you don't.
It's not about whether I like it or not. It's not logically sound argumentation. I can't understand why you even thought that was an argument.
I mean, if you were some kind of weird Christian and thought that by eating animals you were taking their souls to heaven with you, sure, that argument would at least have some logical validity (although the premise would be false, so it wouldn't be sound). Yours just fails on every level. That's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen, and that's saying something.
Could you at least say something like "It benefits them if they live on a happy farm and enjoy many years of a good life (free to roam and protected from predators) before they are killed for food, because they got several years of a good life they would not otherwise have gotten."
That's an argument.
Don't make me make your arguments for you. It's not fun talking to myself.
As to helping you survive: Again, they don't anymore. That would be true a hundred years ago. Not today. It's actually harming you now, because you would survive longer and with better health on a well planned vegan diet with supplementation. Get all of the good without the bad.
