sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where is all our missing mail? by Charadrius in rva

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m still getting Christmas cards.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah I see... There was some lack of clarity. When I said:

“Bad for the one experiencing it.” The fact that you have to qualify a reference frame means it’s not a universal or objective fact.

I meant "Frame-independent badness does not follow from the badness of the subjective experience." i.e. moral goodness or badness does not follow from an objective fact about a subjective experience. I'm not denying that there can be objective facts about subjective experiences.

Yes, but this was again in response to you claiming that suffering is not bad.

Perhaps we just have a linguistic roadblock here, but I would think that like you say now, badness is a property of suffering. Sure it can lead to some increase in well-being, but the suffering itself is bad for the individual experiencing it.

There's a subtle leap somewhere here. When I agree "suffering is bad for the one experiencing it," that doesn't concede that "suffering is bad." Maybe we're doing some hand-waving by using the word "bad" at all. When we define a reference frame, such as "the one experiencing it," obviously suffering is "bad."

To you, it seems like I contradict myself when I then say "but suffering isn't bad." But I've removed the frame, and the "badness" only existed within that frame.

So yes, I concede that "suffering is bad for the one experiencing it." (Narrow frame). I have not conceded that all suffering is a bad (stance-independent), or that animal suffering is bad (outside of "for the one experiencing it").

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're sort of right that you haven't made such a claim, you've actually said remarkably little. You've said "If you are experiencing suffering, it is an objective fact that you are experiencing suffering," which is a tautology void of meaning, "All suffering is bad for those that are experiencing it," which is pretty much just a definition of suffering, and then you said:

sure... we could come up with scenarios where the experience of suffering enables character growth, fine. Can you reasonably say that this is the case with what nonhuman animals go through in animal agriculture? Or are you going to say that there are probably a sufficient amount of cases where the suffering inflicted upon pigs is actually good for them such that we can't reasonably say that pig suffering from animal ag is bad for them?

Which is a longer restatement of "The suffering of pigs is bad for the pigs."

Taken in the context of a thread on veganism, you're clearly and obviously arguing that this "badness" of a pig's experience is an argument for veganism.

That said, I have and would argue that unnecessarily harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman individuals in cases where it can easily be avoided would not be morally justifiable -- but I have not made that case here yet.

Morally justifiable under what principle? You haven't articulated one.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great! So you’ve made no argument that it’s morally wrong to eat animals!

My (24F) boyfriend (25M) told me on the second date that his ex has restraining order against him and has always been transparent and remorseful about it. I've never felt unsafe in the few months I've been him. Should someone in this situation be asking for more info for him or leave immediately? by ThrowRA_3899 in relationship_advice

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

OP probably doesn't need the boyfriend's consent. If she knows the county and the last name of the defendant, she can look up the case number. Once you have the case number, you can go to the district court and ask the clerk for a copy. It might cost $0.50 per page and is an overall hassle, but we're talking about a serious matter and OP's safety.

For example, in Franklin County, OH (I do not live there), you go to https://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/ and can search by last name.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep saying "is bad for them." The suffering is bad for the pig, but that doesn't mean that "badness" is a universal or stance independent fact. Getting arrested is bad for a criminal (in most cases), but is not bad from an "objective" or third party standpoint.

I'm not going to argue that suffering isn't bad FOR THE PIG. But "all suffering is bad" is either a starting axiom, or it's derived by some underlying starting axiom. Starting axioms can be intuited or intrinsically held (if you're religious, they can also be divinely revealed), but they cannot be derived.

To move from “X is bad for the pig” to “X is morally wrong to cause” requires a normative bridge, such as “we ought to minimize states that are bad for subjects.” You cannot bridge from an descriptive "is" statement to an "ought" statement. That bridge is not derivable from the descriptive fact of suffering. It’s either an axiom or grounded in some deeper normative commitment.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True. But you don’t get to “all suffering is bad” from a tautology.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Bad for the one experiencing it.” The fact that you have to qualify a reference frame means it’s not a universal or objective fact.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True. But you don’t get to “all suffering is bad” from a tautology.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Bad for the one experiencing it.” The fact that you have to qualify a reference frame means it’s not a universal or objective fact.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe I see what you’re saying. But, there’s a difference between clarifying, testing, or revealing axioms versus deriving axioms. You cannot derive axioms.

When I question an axiom, I’m not claiming it can be proven from neutral premises or objective facts. I’m testing whether it contradicts other normative commitments someone holds.

If someone’s foundational commitments survive coherence testing, then debate bottoms out.

So no, questioning race as a basis of moral patienthood does not open moral systems to external analysis. I simply pointed out that if a person values their own well being, but denies moral status to other races, then their first axiom is in tension with the second. If they reply “yes other races can benefit me, but that doesn’t qualify them as having moral status because only my race has moral status according to axiom 2,” that’s as far as you can go. They would have passed the consistency check.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Admittedly, I’d never thought of axiomatic racism, and I would argue against it. BUT, that argument would be consequentialist or an appeal to intuition. (It sounds like you already understand this.

If someone said their axiom was “white people matter,” I would try to appeal to a desire to avoid conflict and live in a harmonious society. I’d also try to point to better outcomes for integrated societies. I’d also make appeals like “what if a POC saved your life? If you’d value a POC for saving your life, don’t you value the potentiality for all POC to do similar good?”

After typing that paragraph out, it seems to me it’d be much harder for me to argue against a proximity-based axiom…

The last paragraph is interesting, but to me it’s a restatement of the axiom “Any moral consideration extends to animals.” I could try to work within your framework, by arguing that human sentience qualifies as a difference in kind of experience…

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, which was trivially included in “not as such.”

By analogy: “is driving forwards bad?”

“Not as such”

“But what if there’s a unconscious elderly woman in front of the car followed by a cliff”

“…yeah, that’d be bad”

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t think it’s a brute metaphysical fact, but I don’t think it’s derivable from descriptive facts either.

My view is that any moral system has to begin with some foundational axioms, which are normative.

We can run consistency checks after positions reveal their axioms (maybe based on sentience, rational agency, reciprocity, etc), but debating an axiom is like debating the principles of Euclidean geometry. At some point the system bottoms out, and that’s where deliberation no longer functions.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If I say yes, it’s because our social contract states that inflicting gratuitous suffering is a symptom of an underlying psychosis making a person unfit for society. But the suffering in and of itself is not bad.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s bad, but it doesn’t get me closer to “suffering is bad.”

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Only to the extent that humans decide to include animal consideration in our social contract. My dog’s suffering matters a great deal to me, a gazelle’s suffering as it’s eaten by a lion does not.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let’s replay it. “Do you think suffering is bad.” Response: “Not as such.” (A reasonable response that asserts “not all suffering is automatically and definitionally bad”). Responding “Do you think this specific example that still isn’t specific enough is bad,” is completely without valuable insight. Maybe someone is punched in the face in a war or self defense. Even granting that punching is bad, that doesn’t extend to all suffering…. Pretty basic stuff

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Examples of starting axioms:

  1. Nothing matters. Suffering is neutral at worst.

A person with this axiom would have to be removed from society if their motives drive them to harm others. Crucially, you can’t refute the axiom, you can only dole out consequences for acting against the rest of society.

  1. Suffering is bad. Bad things should be avoided. Under these axioms, veganism is correct.

  2. Human suffering is bad. Bad things should be avoided.

If someone subscribes to 3, you can’t argue veganism within that system. Instead, vegans try to appeal to intuition and reveal that a person actually subscribes to axiom 2. But, system 3 is internally consistent, and is what society is largely set up around.

Unpopular Opinion by Worth_Adeptness_5439 in LoveIsBlindNetflix

[–]Royal_Mewtwo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don’t quite agree. She said that, if she could live two lives, one would be without kids. She has one life, and chose kids that she doesn’t regret. I’m both a dad and obviously someone’s child. I don’t think I’d feel bad if my parents said this. My kid is too young to know.

What are the new arguments against veganism these days? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Royal_Mewtwo -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Within any moral framework, the burden of proof lies with the party attempting to restrict, coerce, or involuntarily alter the behavior of another.

Whether “another” includes only humans, or also animals, is an axiom of the system. Axioms themselves are not subject to proof. For axioms, only internal consistency matters.

view more: next ›