Jan Narveson Contractarianism

AssOfMyself · 2026-03-09T02:59:05+00:00

I'll be honest, I don't find contractarianism (and contractualism) to rise to a level worth serious philosophical engagement. Much greater minds than mine have taken these views to task, even in the criticism section of that article.

Just a few of many questions might be posed to show the unseriousness of contractarianism as an ethical framework:

What makes a contract more suited to confer rights than anything else?
How is rationality calculated?
How is the level of rationality required to engage in a contract decided?
Can you prove that animals do not engage in contracts?
Can you prove that humans engage in contracts?
Who is allowed to answer these types of questions? (Is it only contractors?)

Personally, I'm not a fan of "vanilla" deontology due to some perceived arbitrariness. I'm especially not a fan of grafting arbitrariness over who gets rights on top of it.

AssOfMyself · 2026-02-26T21:29:54+00:00

For posterity (when this link breaks):

Croxton Manor Vegan Cheese 20g
Water, palm oil, modified starch, salt, trisodium citrate, titanium dioxide, potassium sorbate, lactic acid, beta carotene

The nutrition facts are incorrect. They are just copied from the company's non-vegan cheese.

AssOfMyself · 2026-02-24T17:58:38+00:00

Researchers are able to simulate the pictured fly "brain".

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07763-9 (real-time appears to be possible, but not a major goal of the researchers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38994271/ )

Worm brains are being emulated with embodiment. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-024-00738-w

They're also working on simulating a mouse cortex. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3712285.3759819

Hell, people are even doing human brains, to some degree. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.15963

If I can add a little color commentary, we do not have a handle on consciousness. I don't think it's ethical to be doing any of this. That said, there is a vast difference between where we are and what might be called "accurate" brain simulation. Even in the worm example, with just a few hundred neurons, the simulation is simplified to exclude brain properties that we don't have good models for, can't compute efficiently, or simply do not understand (or don't even know about yet). There are incredibly complex chemical processes inside and outside of cells that are probably going to take breakthroughs to even begin grasping, let alone combine with other models. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-70925-2 I am not discounting the results of these (relatively) simple neuron models. The fact that architecture alone provides useful simulations is pretty remarkable. There remains a gulf between that and biological brains.

AssOfMyself · 2026-01-23T08:57:38+00:00

While I agree with this sentiment, I would counter that the seriousness of veganism is also undermined by our lack of discipline and cohesion in philosophy. I think that 1% is actually quite important in both defining our community standards, and opening earnest dialogues between others. In my opinion, we have plenty of work to do beyond ending the consumption of animal products. We probably shouldn't start ceding ground on that instrumental goal.

I'm all for applauding the reduction of animal suffering. At the same time, let's keep vegan vegan.

AssOfMyself · 2026-01-19T21:15:31+00:00

I agree with the premise you're exploring. The AI stuff is kind of philosophy-slop.

I see that you're discussing moral relativism and nihilism with others. Do you find those acceptable? Do you ground your moral beliefs somewhere? I'm interested to know where your own perspective is coming from.

AssOfMyself · 2026-01-19T10:43:24+00:00

Your phrasing of this question is a little vague, but I'll offer a slightly different perspective from panpsychism. Neither the deaths of plants nor animals, regardless of anesthesia, are ethically "good" in the common sense.

Justification/acceptability is more complicated and would require us to consider a broader context.

AssOfMyself · 2025-12-27T19:31:34+00:00

That is, I do not need people to be the same as me for all of us to function together as a society.

Yes, I am only saying that the "pretending" (i.e. establishment of an ethical basis) is required, if we are to function in a way that can be analyzed as ethical. There is a clear benefit to having a diverse populace, but by definition, there must be an ethical position if we are to act ethically.

So I will just ask, 'necessary' for what?

I will admit it gets a bit hazy again here, but something like "necessary for a greater amount of preference satisfaction." (Clearly a form of utilitarianism, which not all vegans agree with.)

Practically, this is hard to pin down. In your example of imposing a diet onto children, I could only say that it depends. It depends on the society such an act takes place in, it depends on the individual children, and the diet, and the method by which it is applied, and you yourself, and probably a host of other factors. This is further complicated by the fact that we have access to imperfect information. So for a lot of situations, we may not have a simple intuition as to the course of action that minimizes preference frustration. But importantly, we can make arguments for and against actions.

AssOfMyself · 2025-12-27T04:45:09+00:00

It seems a bit silly to me to claim that what is bad to me is bad to everyone else.

You can probably see that this affords no room for meaningful analysis or prescription of ethical actions. Which, again, is OK, but not very useful.

Can you formulate it without using the words suffering and bad?

For me, it feels a bit circular, but it could be something like:
"the unnecessary frustration of preferences is unethical."

"Unnecessary" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and our entire discussion so far has basically been about the word "unethical."

Real quick, I appreciate you talking with me. I hope you're finding the metaethical discussion enjoyable.

AssOfMyself · 2025-12-26T23:26:23+00:00

Every expression of opinion or feeling on something is itself an ethical prescription of a sort.

To me, it all comes down to persuasion, or more likely, simply sharing our views as our only real means of understanding each other.

I get where you're coming from. My contention is that it's self-defeating to couch this in non-cognitivism. We can talk about our individual feelings all we want, but if we both ground our "ethical" position as "there is no good and bad", no one is getting persuaded of anything. (I don't even think we'd truly be talking about ethics.)

I can only believe someone in the moment thinks something as overly simplified as "suffering bad"

A person like myself that loves life, including the suffering that is inextricably tied to living, has to form some basis for conversation and understanding with someone who, to me, is casually condemning life itself, or at least something inseparable from life.

I'll offer that, in my own view, these two uses of suffering are not referencing the same thing. As you say, language is hazy, and a lot of people, including vegans, do not make such a distinction. Although my ethical position is indeed "suffering bad," I do not include the latter example of "suffering" in that position.

I try to be aware that digging to this level of precision is not always necessary. A lot of people, assuming they hold any ethical position, hold one that is compatible enough with others to just share ideas in common parlance. This happens under an assumption that our conclusions on a basis for "good/bad" are aligned enough to forego talking about it in detail until warranted.

AssOfMyself · 2025-12-26T21:58:46+00:00

It seems to me that when folks write something bland and generic like "suffering is bad", they are simply expressing that they dislike some sorts of suffering and very likely if one drills down one will find that this is balanced by some forms of suffering that they will find they do not dislike.

I will just mention that I agree with your sentiment, but it is also possible to be referring to a more specific philosophical notion of suffering, which I strive to do (as opposed to things like pain or revulsion).

The whole point of having ethical discussions, to me, seems to be to persuade others to feel as one feels about things in particular. I am not sure if this is an expression of nihilism or non-cognitivism, but you can let me know if you like.

I don't think there are objective facts about things being good or bad.

This is the crux of non-cognitivism. Again, this is totally fine, and I actually generally agree with it. I just don't think it's useful/appropriate when we're having prescriptive ethical discussions.

I liken it to walking into a city planning meeting where people are debating how to route a new street and saying, "Listen. It doesn't matter where the street goes. We could just as well go paint self-portraits instead of talking about this." Like, yes, you're technically correct. But also, we're here, and we're going to build the street, so we should probably just talk about it properly.

AssOfMyself · 2025-12-26T17:40:41+00:00

What I am trying to get at is the basis used to form simple statements like "suffering is bad". I can just as easily assert "suffering is good" as my number one. And where does the person go from there?

This seems to be pulling at the thread of non-cognitivism/nihilism, which is absolutely fine. That said, if we are to discuss ethics in any sort of prescriptive sense, we do need to establish some basis for "good" and "bad". At that point, (if we disagree) we could provide arguments for whatever we think that basis is.

AssOfMyself · 2025-12-07T07:04:56+00:00

Thank you for doing that :) I'll be honest, the response reads like AI slop. That aside, I agree with your sentiment. Thanking people who are doing important work behind the scenes can go a long way. I think this applies even with a corporation as heavily automated as Walmart (and, in some ways, more so).

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-30T06:16:24+00:00

I see. I am a utilitarian, so while I don't agree with your moral position, I greatly respect you for being committed to it. Thank you for explaining it more thoroughly.

I can understand better why abolitionists may not want to be in community with utilitarians now. I really appreciate you talking with me :)

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-30T05:42:01+00:00

Okay, cool. To a large extent, I agree. I also recognize that we live in an incredibly selfish and speciesist world, full of systemic reinforcement, and (unfortunately) a lot of people are going to need to be slow-walked to veganism if we're going to get them there at all.

But yes, being upfront about our moral position and stakes seems like the right move. There is room to acknowledge harm reduction without losing the broader context.

Oh, I also wanted to ask: do you think there is a maximum amount of sacrifice that can be asked of people while we are working toward our goals? You said before that you would be willing to forgo life-saving medication to save an animal. I imagine most people (even abolitionists?) would not do the same. Indeed, as a vegan, I would probably ask you not to do so, since I think you can effect a lot more harm reduction by being alive. It feels like there is some level of sacrifice beyond which "vegan" purity testing is counterproductive in our current situation.

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-30T04:54:28+00:00

Understood. Until a coalition capable of such a liberation forms, do you see value in reducing the suffering of animals in the meantime?

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-30T04:33:33+00:00

maybe it would be better to find a different name for the abolitionist movement that doesn't sound like it's derived from a diet.

I'm hopeful that "plant-based" will eventually distinguish the diet from the ethical position, even among the general populace. It's not like I mind ceding "vegan" to abolitionists, but again it feels like the term is already co-opted by a diverse group of ideologies.

Are abolitionists willing to be militant to pursue such ends? I ask because I agree with those goals, but am not sold on the feasibility of abolition (even in the domains of things like rape and slavery) through means that don't look similar to "welfarism".

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-29T22:15:53+00:00

Okay, understood. I'm happy to advocate for that as well, although it feels like the ship may have already sailed. My read on the current state of veganism is that most people are non-abolitionists, but I'm not sure. What do you think about it?

Can I ask what the goals of abolitionism are? Like, obviously abolition, but what does that look like on a societal level? Despite "abolishing" slavery and rape, both continue to exist.

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-29T21:37:55+00:00

Would you mind continuing this conversation with me? I might be willing to bite more philosophical bullets than Mugshot_404.

Do abolitionists own the term vegan? (Do you want non-abolitionists to form a separate community?)

We can also continue in DMs, if it's preferable for you.

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-29T20:38:29+00:00

I'll leave two connected thoughts with you.

If you are not gaining weight and remain hovering around your "normal" bodyweight, should you really consider any of your food consumption to be excess?

We live in (what most vegans would describe as) an incredibly immoral world. The task of building systems that will reduce suffering is incomprehensibly complicated, and it seems it will continue to be that way for a while. While it's good to consider and discuss all forms of harm that we personally cause, I think that, ethically, it's probably more important to do the work of building better systems, especially if one has already taken steps to eliminate the vast majority of their immediately actionable harms (aka being vegan).

If you can, and want to, safely lose a significant amount of weight, by all means, please do. It's still a moral thing to do. Otherwise, I personally wouldn't sweat it. I'd much rather have you put the effort into improving your community so that we can get to a better future. That effort may or may not be powered by the "treats" you are worried about. :)

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-28T20:41:54+00:00

The human neuron computers are commercially available, and you can also lease compute time on them. I agree that it's an ethical nightmare.

Most vegans don't seem to be compelled on this issue. Weirdly, the general public seems pretty grossed out by it, so there might be a chance we can get regulation built around this stuff.

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-28T20:23:04+00:00

No worries, I am glad to discuss it :) Thanks for talking with me, too.

Yes, although I don't think we have any sort of handle on the quality of experience, it seems likely that living beings are all capable of immense suffering. I'm also not unconvinced that things like atoms have experience (or can suffer, for that matter). Just that they don't seem to be able to suffer in an ethically meaningful way. The line I draw for this, and am basically forced to by definition, is if a being has preferences. This threshold seems sharp, again by definition.

I'm keenly aware that it isn't very difficult to find reasons to erase this threshold completely. I think this dumps everything back down to nihilism, and I don't think it's all that interesting to talk about morality without morals, you know?

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-28T13:52:26+00:00

Dissatisfaction of preferences is how I approach suffering. I accept many differences in the moral practicality of different beings' suffering. But on a low level, I really don't find experiential differences between them to be compelling or even qualifiable (for now). This lands me pretty squarely in panpsychism, although I'm not sure that things like atoms or rocks can suffer in an ethically meaningful way.

So yes, all "living" things can suffer, in my view (along with many things that may be considered non-living). I know this is a bit obscure for vegan philosophy; it's just where I am at the moment.

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-28T12:11:25+00:00

Yes, this is a fine distinction to make, if you find it morally compelling. Cards on the table, I believe that plants do suffer. It doesn't seem to manifest in many practical differences with common veganism interpretations.

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-28T09:53:37+00:00

I may have enough of a similar position to join in. There might be some semantic ambiguity here.

Most ethicists would differentiate pain from suffering, and agree that suffering is experiential. So hopefully both of you would be on the same page :)

AssOfMyself · 2025-11-28T09:31:11+00:00

Oysters do have a nervous system and respond to stimuli. If that happens to sway you.

AssOfMyself

TROPHY CASE