Gray Sloth response to PV on #namethetrait

[vdofthegoodkind]

Most (if not all) 1st world countries do give out a significant amount of foreign aid, paid for by taxes. What are you getting at?

In develloped western countries we take care of ALL our mentally disabled people, irrespective of how much of our own money and extra luxuries we have to sacrifice in taxes. The amount of money we put towards helping other countries with starving people doesnt even scratch the surface of helping all those people in need. Hence my examples of $4800 in aid + a $200 buspass in favor of a 5000$ car and the like...


But this is of course kind of me getting side-tracked illuminating that secretly we already all believe that the retard holocaust is morally permissible
Should've probably rather complained about how we provide funds for taking care of mentally disabled people, but not set aside an equal amount of funds to find and take care of a subset of animals and provide them with similar luxuries.

[brimstoneSalad]

Lol ok, so when I am discussing the logic of veganism I will merely point out to the person with whom I am talking the extremely basic logic that should have been learnt in primary school, that "if I am of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between myself and you, then you are equally of moral value. (duh).. And of course, in the same light, if you are of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between yourself and an animal, then that animal is also of moral value"..

Sounds good.

It's also VERY useful to make a couple obvious statements like that, and ask them to agree. Of course they will agree to the first, and it gets them in a pattern of saying "yes", and when they have to break that pattern to disagree with the conclusion (they won't want to break the pattern) they'll be thrown off a little and may be more open to doubting their answers when you challenge them.

It's a common tactic in debates and persuasion (and sales).

Also, watch some Anthony Magnabosco.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCocP40a_UvRkUAPLD5ezLIQ

It's extremely useful to ask questions, but also ask people their % of confidence. People won't want to answer 100% no doubt, because that indicates closed mindedness, and by answering less than that it helps get them to open their minds to be consistent with their answer (probably more so than had you not asked, an unstated belief is subject to change at any time).

Perhaps this can be an introduction, for perhaps when talking with people who eat animals they actually don't understand this (even though everyone understands this unless they are a psychopath)... Said person will of course most likely say, "well, there are morally relevant differences between humans and animals".. To which I would reply, "interesting you should say that.." Then ask them to NTT that is morally relevant, and hence the argument can be used to highlight the lack of morally relevant differences between human animals and all other animals. Logical?

Yes. It is logically valid if you do it that way.

As I mentioned earlier, I do want to point out that you're mainly talking about intrinsic moral value here. You may want to limit the argument to that. It will make the argument much stronger.

Instrumental value is more complicated (like value to other people, to society) and does not favor non-humans in the same way.
If somebody starts discussing instrumental value by talking about how we operate in society or how it would hurt our family, then you may want to step back and get agreement on intrinsic value first.

EDIT:
Also, vd is right about the inconsistency here, except about the bold part:

What I did was show how you, AY, and all vegans are inconsistent with regards to the NTT argument in a way, by means of the mentally disabled people thing and the driving thing.

There are vegans who take very seriously wild animal suffering, but most of them just realize that's not pragmatic at this point.
Once we're all vegan (animal agriculture being low hanging fruit which is counter-productive to human flourishing anyway), and we've eliminated human suffering (which is more important) we can start devoting funds to help wild animals.

The easiest way to do that will be to eradicate pests and parasites so they don't trouble macrofauna anymore (no more biting insects, ear mites, etc.), and to vaccinate against diseases to eradicate them.
More far out suggestions are to genetically engineer predators to be vegetarian so the lion can at last lie down with the lamb (that I don't necessarily agree with).

We don't like talking about those things for obvious reasons. Most people think "it's natural therefore right", and they think it seems silly to want to reduce violence and suffering in the wild, or even wrong to meddle in God's work.
But if you were a deer suffering from ear mites, wouldn't you rather some god-like beings (humans) help you out a bit if they could?
It's a criticism of God that it allows so much suffering on Earth when it could help. Do we seriously want to be such big hypocrites to not help out others once we're able? Rhetorical question.

It's not worth discussing at this point, but the point of the inconsistency in the behavior and answers of some vegans is a correct observation. Daz, you might want to be mindful of that in debate.

[vdofthegoodkind]

The bold part is correct. Like I said... the driving and mentally disabled people thing were 2 examples of many, MANY ways I could name that lead to an inconsistency with respect to the NTT argument.
Present me with a vegan and full knowledge of all his behaviors and I pretty much guarantee you I will find you an inconsistency with respect to NTT.
At the very least I would be willing to bet my right testicle (that's the good one) on the fact that I could do so for at least 99.999% of all vegans. Which for all practical purposes means ALL vegans.

[Daz]

Haha ok perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying, or we are getting our wires crossed somewhere. Break it down for me clearly, what are you trying to say here? Are you attempting to show an inconsistency in the NTT argument? If so please explain...

Cliffnotes of everything that happened so far:

What I did was show how you, AY, and all vegans are inconsistent with regards to the NTT argument in a way, by means of the mentally disabled people thing and the driving thing.

What you then did was try to straw man and special plead your way out of the mentally disabled thing while never even addressing the driving thing.

What I then did was highlight your straw man and special pleading concerning the mentally disabled thing.

What you then did was start talking about how the way you're inconsistent with respect to NTT (condemning leaving mentally disabled people in the wild, but not animals) is different from meat-eaters' way of being inconsistent (condemning direct murder of humans but not animals). Ofcourse they're different types of inconsistencies, but they're still both inconsistencies with respect to name the trait.
If you're gonna accept being inconsistent with respect to name the trait in one way, but not another way, you have to give a reason WHY. Just saying "murder is worse than letting someone die by not helping them" is just special pleading. Both are still morally wrong according to your own beliefs.

It's just like how a meat eater cannot justify his murder of animals by saying "yeah but there are rapists and murderers who eat meat and ALSO rape and murder people, so it's ok for me to eat meat because Im not as bad as them".

Ok so lets take a step back, where exactly did you show me how I am inconsistent with regards to NTT?
Also, just to point out, healthy free animals in their natural habitat are in no way analogous to mentally disabled and retarded people from a pragmatic sense. Not sure why you keep making this comparison, unless you are specifically talking about an analogy relating to cognitive intellect from an anthropocentric viewpoint..

[Daz]

In develloped western countries we take care of ALL our mentally disabled people, irrespective of how much of our own money and extra luxuries we have to sacrifice in taxes. The amount of money we put towards helping other countries with starving people doesnt even scratch the surface of helping all those people in need. Hence my examples of $4800 in aid + a $200 buspass in favor of a 5000$ car and the like...

But this is of course kind of me getting side-tracked illuminating that secretly we already all believe that the retard holocaust is morally permissible
Should've probably rather complained about how we provide funds for taking care of mentally disabled people, but not set aside an equal amount of funds to find and take care of a subset of animals and provide them with similar luxuries.

You think western countries were doing that 300 - 5000 + years ago when life was a lot more hand to mouth, and a lot more skewed wealth distribution? We do it because we are in the position to right now, but as mentioned before, if everything crashed and we went back to a hand to mouth type scenario, how many people do you think would be going out of their way and dedicating their time to looking after and caring for the millions of mentally disabled and retarded people? In reality it simply wouldn't happen.
In the same light, if we have other means of survival in terms of food and nourishment (which we do), it is morally wrong to directly kill, exploit, torture, abuse, raise in captivity, otherwise healthy, innocent animals that just want to live freely on their own accord in their own environment. However it is not morally wrong to "put down" or put out of its misery, a terminally sick or extremely injured and suffering animal. If there is no help or resources to help an animal in this position to survive and arise out of the suffering, it could be argued that it is a moral obligation to put this animal down, similar to the euthanasia argument. Where is the inconsistency in my thinking here?
And we don't have any moral obligation to help every single person in need that we possibly can, unless we are literally omnipotent. Why do you think NTT leads to such conclusions?

[Daz]

EDIT:
Also, vd is right about the inconsistency here, except about the bold part:

What I did was show how you, AY, and all vegans are inconsistent with regards to the NTT argument in a way, by means of the mentally disabled people thing and the driving thing.

There are vegans who take very seriously wild animal suffering, but most of them just realize that's not pragmatic at this point.
Once we're all vegan (animal agriculture being low hanging fruit which is counter-productive to human flourishing anyway), and we've eliminated human suffering (which is more important) we can start devoting funds to help wild animals.

How is vd right about the inconsistency? Can you please specify exactly what you are referring to when you say he has shown me and AY that we are inconsistent with regards to the NTT argument? I mean, what is it that you are thinking he has proven about the "mentally disabled people thing and the driving thing" that shows inconsistency? I'm curious...

[vdofthegoodkind]

Ok so lets take a step back, where exactly did you show me how I am inconsistent with regards to NTT?

With the mentally handicapped and driving examples that you tried to subvert by using nothing but special pleading. I literally stated that in that post...

Also, just to point out, healthy free animals in their natural habitat are in no way analogous to mentally disabled and retarded people from a pragmatic sense.

Why? Because you're the king of special pleading and it suits your agenda to special plead in this way?

Not sure why you keep making this comparison, unless you are specifically talking about an analogy relating to cognitive intellect from an anthropocentric viewpoint..

Because you claim we have a moral obligation to provide mentally disabled people with free luxuries when they would do "just fine" in the wild, and you dont claim we have such a moral obligation when it comes to other animals, all the while failing to name a relevant trait that separates the two and still pointing fingers at meat eaters when they fail to name the trait in another context (aka direct murder).

[vdofthegoodkind]

You think western countries were doing that 300 - 5000 + years ago when life was a lot more hand to mouth, and a lot more skewed wealth distribution? We do it because we are in the position to right now, but as mentioned before, if everything crashed and we went back to a hand to mouth type scenario, how many people do you think would be going out of their way and dedicating their time to looking after and caring for the millions of mentally disabled and retarded people? In reality it simply wouldn't happen.
In the same light, if we have other means of survival in terms of food and nourishment (which we do), it is morally wrong to directly kill, exploit, torture, abuse, raise in captivity, otherwise healthy, innocent animals that just want to live freely on their own accord in their own environment. However it is not morally wrong to "put down" or put out of its misery, a terminally sick or extremely injured and suffering animal. If there is no help or resources to help an animal in this position to survive and arise out of the suffering, it could be argued that it is a moral obligation to put this animal down, similar to the euthanasia argument. Where is the inconsistency in my thinking here?
And we don't have any moral obligation to help every single person in need that we possibly can, unless we are literally omnipotent. Why do you think NTT leads to such conclusions?

Again same thing as a meat eater using the "on a desert island you vegans would eat a pig" to justify it outside of a survival context. It's totally irrelevant what other societies who lived in shitty conditions that are not present anymore today did or did not believe was a moral imperative. Total red herring to deflect from naming the trait that separates mentally disabled people from animals which justifies not giving the luxuries we give to retarded people to random animals aswell.

[brimstoneSalad]

How is vd right about the inconsistency? Can you please specify exactly what you are referring to when you say he has shown me and AY that we are inconsistent with regards to the NTT argument? I mean, what is it that you are thinking he has proven about the "mentally disabled people thing and the driving thing" that shows inconsistency? I'm curious...

We do not usually need to eat meat, and doing so is harmful.
We do not usually need to drive, and doing so is harmful.
Ditto for most of the things we do from day to day.

If we are not also against driving in any instance where it's not strictly necessary, then being against eating any meat in any non-survival circumstances is arguably inconsistent.

The question is weighing varying degrees of inconvenience against varying degrees of harm. Some inconveniences are larger than others, some harms larger than others.

The equation looks something like this:

Justifiability = inconvenience / harm

As it turns out, not driving tends to be more inconvenient than not eating meat for most people, and for most people eating meat is going to cause more harm than driving. Thus driving has a higher degree of justifiability than eating meat.

As a question of pragmatic priority, advocating veganism as a heuristic which is usually true is useful. However, that doesn't mean we can or should stop at veganism, or that veganism is something equally accessible for all people.

In the past I've proposed cases of people doing aid work in developing countries who "need" to eat meat because vegan food is not accessible. They do this in order to do the greater good of helping a lot of people [something I've seen discussed before], and in order to be vegan too they would have to carry around a lot of food which would be of such an inconvenience as to impact their efficacy. These people could just go home and go vegan, working an ordinary job; it's a choice to do international aid and eat meat, and there's a good case to be made that they're making the right choice morally to help more people at the expense of a few non-human animals despite it not being a life-or-death situation for them (and it technically being possible).

At the very least I would be willing to bet my right testicle (that's the good one) on the fact that I could do so for at least 99.999% of all vegans. Which for all practical purposes means ALL vegans.

A significant number of effective altruists are vegans, and there's no contradiction there.
There's a tendency to recognize the selfishness and moral failing of e.g. going to a movie instead of giving that $20 to charity.
There's also a tendency to be a lot less dogmatic about veganism being the ONLY way to reduce harm, which means you'll probably run into a lot fewer effective altruist vegans rigidly advocating for veganism, or using anything like a NTT argument.
They may just be an invisible minority to you. I would not be surprised if they made up roughly 5% of vegans though, they're just a lot less likely to waste time arguing about it online
From effective altruists, instead of arguments like NTT you'll see arguments for reducing harm generally and how animal agriculture is empirically one of the worst offenders so it makes sense to address it higher up the list (rather than putting in more effort to reduce less harm by focusing on something more benign).

[Daz]

Ok so lets take a step back, where exactly did you show me how I am inconsistent with regards to NTT?

With the mentally handicapped and driving examples that you tried to subvert by using nothing but special pleading. I literally stated that in that post...

Also, just to point out, healthy free animals in their natural habitat are in no way analogous to mentally disabled and retarded people from a pragmatic sense.

Why? Because you're the king of special pleading and it suits your agenda to special plead in this way?

Not sure why you keep making this comparison, unless you are specifically talking about an analogy relating to cognitive intellect from an anthropocentric viewpoint..

Because you claim we have a moral obligation to provide mentally disabled people with free luxuries when they would do "just fine" in the wild, and you dont claim we have such a moral obligation when it comes to other animals, all the while failing to name a relevant trait that separates the two and still pointing fingers at meat eaters when they fail to name the trait in another context (aka direct murder).

You're so confused mate. Just accusing me of special pleading doesn't make your argument any stronger. I DO NOT think that looking after mentally handicapped people is in any way morally comparative to killing another human for pleasure (or killing another animal for pleasure). If you do think that you are a strange individual. I would sooner leave disabled people to their own devices. No special pleading here.
The driving example is a complete red herring. Everytime I get on the road I am taking a risk with my own life directly relating to driving, I am willing to take this risk. If I die on the road from an accident, so be it. I know the risk before I jump in the car. Same goes for everyone else. No special pleading there.
I never claimed to have a moral obligation to provide mentally disabled people with care lol where did you get that idea?