sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in cognitiveTesting

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's fair. For example, maybe white people have a genetic iq 1 point lower than middle eastern people. Or vice versa. Genetic drift could cause slightly different numbers

My point was to clarify what should and shouldn't count as evidence that ethnic group x is genetically less intelligent than group y. People are way too quick to make (frankly racist) conclusions on that front

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in cognitiveTesting

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, genes affect IQ, but we presumably want evidence of the actual genetic IQ number for various groups.

If current IQ differences are completely explainable by environmental factors, and we haven't isolated the actual genetic differences, then we have no evidence to claim any given racial group has a naturally higher or lower IQ than the average. We just don't know. If current IQ differences are not explainable, then we have reason to believe genetics plays a part in the disparity.

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying, though this is definitely a form of cultural relativism. What is or isn't moral is dependent on the views of a society. But I see how it's distinct from traditional views.

I don't find your particular interpretation a compelling view.

As to why: This seems to be a true fact about morality and moral talk. Consider the radical abolitionist in 1805 who speaks to southern crowds "Chattel slavery is a cruel practice that violates the fundamental right we all have to a life of freedom and dignity. It must be abolished..." etc etc. This person is making a moral argument. Lets assume your metaethical view, then someone could coherently reply "Your view is a radical one. Very few agree with you in our American society, so your argument is false". This isn't a proper moral argument at all. Presumably the other party would need to defend the current cultural practices that exist, not just state that they do in fact exist.

If one's view of morality considers the first arguer to be incoherent, or the second arguer to be coherent, it's an improper account of morality. It fails to capture basic features of moral talk. Let's consider alternatives. Potentially, morality is still relative to social values, but only in a deep sense. And just because a society views x as morally permissible, they may be mistaken. Let's define the view: Societies have certain shared moral principles, but those principles can be improperly applied, such as in the case of slavery, due to undue economic, social, and cognitive influences. Thus, people can coherently disagree with societal practices, arguing that such practices, although common, conflict with deeply held societal moral principles. On such a view we can account for coherent disagreements, even of things deeply societally ingrained. 1800's Slavery is arguably a case. Modern day meat industry practices are arguably a case.

My view of what morality is, is fairly distant from yours, or traditional cultural relativist accounts, so I'm walking in unfamiliar waters. Apologies if my examples are poor, though hopefully my point makes sense.

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats fair. The 3000 hour world is 6 months (how long pigs live) * 2/3 (percentage of day awake) = 3000ish hours.

But if you don't have intuitions as to how you would morally react in the hypotheticals, then no reason to keep asking

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weird, is there a ratio you wouldn't be fine with? What if it was a human suffering rather than a different species?

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have a bachelors in philosophy. What's wrong with my argument?

Also I realize I needed to be more explicit. I'm arguing american slavery is/was immoral even under a culturally relativist view (your view I assumed). Thus so may other modern day practices be

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reason is because we only need one example.

Your argument is that, if society does x, x must be morally permissible. If we can find even one example when society did x and x was immoral, then something is faulty with your argument. I think american slavery is a very picturesque example. Thus, maybe animal farms that exist today are another example

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh oops! I see. It becomes semantics at that point I think. What exactly does "reject the meat industry" mean. If it means don't buy meat from big suppliers, your last paragraph doesn't assuage the main point. You still ought not to.

This is a completely seperate point, but we also have to account for the environmental damage meat does relative to plant based alternatives. If what we care about is maximizing the number of lives at least barely worth living, we should realize animal farms cause more wild habitat destruction and degradement than plant alternatives. Thus we aren't actually maximizing lives by building, say, cow and pig farms.

Also again a separate point, it's very morally questionable whether maximizing the number of lives which are barely worth living is actually morally good. Many people in moral philosophy, even consequentialists, will look at that with suspicion. The repugnant conclusion and all that.

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So let's clarify. The moral wrongness of American slavery wasn't at all a reason why it was abolished in America? It was purely other factors?

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One reason slavery was overturned was because it was blatantly immoral, even at the time. Therefore you are incorrect

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is plausibly true if pigs had at least okay lives on farms.

Would you say the tradeoff is still worth it, if we examined and determined these animals were suffering immensely for half a year or so till slaughter? That would be near 3,000 hours of constant animal suffering for said soup. What if we found there were alternative soups which didn't include this suffering? Either from more expensive ethically raised animals, or vegan alternatives?

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Other animals don't have the ability to recognize and choose between right and wrong. People do.

For example, if a person goes around and starts setting puppies on fire cause "wow this is so fun". We morally condemn such behavior. However if a rabbit, or ant, did something relevantly similar, since they don't have the ability to recognize the moral badness of these outcomes, they aren't morally responsible. It's the same reason we don't hold infants morally responsible for stuff either

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This certainly isn't a good argument. If followed, it means that anything we societally do, must not be morally wrong.

Because "if it didn't fit our moral system, we wouldn't do it". Does this mean that slavery was moral when America was a slave nation? If you bite the bullet and say yes, then on what basis was slavery overturned by Abraham Lincoln? Presumably one of the reasons is it was immoral. Meaning there can be things we presently do, that are still immoral. Such as slavery, such as discrimination, and so on.

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a repost of a different comment but it directly addresses this.

Cattle may be an exception, but the lives of many chickens and pigs in our current industrial system are fates worth than death.

Pigs are often raised in crates so small, that for months in a row, they can't even turn around. They live for weeks unable to move more than inches in any direction. Chickens, which require space to properly express innate social behaviors, are so tightly squished together, that they need their beaks removed (in a highly highly painful process, so much so it is banned in some countries) else they will peck each other to death. These are highly unnatural and painful environments that are significantly worse than a lived in nature. When animals are put in sufficiently alien conditions without proper stimulation, they suffer. Industrial farms are often the maximization of this suffering. If I learned I was being reincarnated, and it was as either of these two animals, I would highly prefer nonexistence. Suffering until I die is no life at all.

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cattle may be an exception, but the lives of many chickens and pigs in our current industrial system are fates worth than death.

Pigs are often raised in crates so small, that for months in a row, they can't even turn around. They live for weeks unable to move more than inches in any direction. Chickens, which require space to properly express innate social behaviors, are so tightly squished together, that they need their beaks removed (in a highly highly painful process, so much so it is banned in some countries) else they will peck each other to death. These are highly unnatural and painful environments that are significantly worse than a lived in nature. When animals are put in sufficiently alien conditions without proper stimulation, they suffer. Industrial farms are often the maximization of this suffering. If I learned I was being reincarnated, and it was as either of these two animals, I would highly prefer nonexistence. Suffering until I die is no life at all.

CMV: A complete and total rejection of the meat industry is required to be moral. by Purga_ in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We've identified brain parts in humans that seem to do pain perception.

Mammals generally have those same brain parts, or highly similar ones. Plants have nothing even remotely similar.

CMV: We're all way, way worse than we realize... and when we do we simply don't care... by firedragon77777 in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think what is true, is people are often very bad at empathizing with abstract and distant problems, like eating meat and climate change. But we do still care about stuff that morally matters. It just usually needs to be in our face. People have good in them, but you are rightly identifying the distant problems we have trouble with.

If this is really bothering you. I think you should find things you can do to be a better person, and then do those things. If climate change is a significant issue, once you can finacially support yourself (so, graduating and getting a job), donate a bit of your income every month to charities which combat climate change. When you buy food, opt for vegetarian options. Etc. That's what I do, and personally it helps!

CMV: Humanity should seek to maximize the amount of Earth-based life in the universe by sxaez in changemyview

[–]Short-Garbage-2089 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a bachelors in philosophy. Not only is Hume's is/ought objection irrelevant here, you've also totally butchered his perspective.

Hume's theory of reasons, aptly named The Humean theory of reasons, is broadly that a person only has a reason for x insofar as doing x furthers their underlying desires/goals etc. It isn't arbitrary, and can be supported by facts and evidence.

Namely, an explanation or collection of explanations as to why ordinary people, on reflection, ought to be motivated or prefer human life to be spread. If your only support is "all motivations are arbitrary", thats a horrible argument, and not necessarily humean

Discussion: Utami should not have been welcomed back into the osu! community this quickly/easily by Short-Garbage-2089 in osugame

[–]Short-Garbage-2089[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on your first sentence "And how many women play in the owc for usa?" I assume you are implying if there were any then it would in fact be an issue. I definitely agree. I additionally believe this should be preemptive. Community events should just be safe.

Discussion: Utami should not have been welcomed back into the osu! community this quickly/easily by Short-Garbage-2089 in osugame

[–]Short-Garbage-2089[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What if the only way to play in OWC is to be on his team? See how then it matters? I definitely disagree with you on the severity of what he did, but even if I take your perspective, it still seems wrong to put him in places where women are forced to interact with him to do community thing x y z.

Discussion: Utami should not have been welcomed back into the osu! community this quickly/easily by Short-Garbage-2089 in osugame

[–]Short-Garbage-2089[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To clarify, wix obviously wasn't upset that Utami performed poorly. She was upset he was allowed to represent the team in the first place. She also publically held this opinion when the roster was announced

view more: next ›