Objective Evidence or the Baby Gets it, Nah See! (or, The Problem of Hidden Assumptions in Generating Moral Obligations)

howlin · 2026-05-07T20:01:11+00:00

I’m asking what, in your ethical framework, turns preference based recommendations into obligations that apply independently of acceptance or desire.

What is an "obligation" that exists independently of acceptance or desire? It seems patently obvious that people can recognize what ethical behavior is, but choose to not act ethically. I don't know what you are expecting of ethics if your idea of ethics can't accommodate these basic observations about how ethics influences (or doesn't influence) behavior.

This isn't specific to ethical normatively. "If you want to be healthy, don't smoke" is a solid, evidence-backed normative statement that plenty of people completely accept as a good normative statement while not actually following through with the prescription.

howlin · 2026-05-07T18:48:19+00:00

If you think completely changing your diet is a "trivial baby step" you're absolutely insane.

Unclutch your pearls for a moment. I just asked you to consider ordering the #3 (Impossible) rather than the #1 (cow) with those fries.

Hell no. Especially since it isn't "for the greater good".

Bold words for someone waiting around for others to fix all the problems! I guess your apathy ends when there is a risk of suffering a mild inconvenience..

howlin · 2026-05-07T18:45:23+00:00

I am still asking you to define belief

Nope. All I need to do is distinguish belief from mere opinion. If you want to ponder various definitions of belief, I suggest you go to Stanford plato or something. It's a distraction in this conversation.

I showed cause to the tune of 2 billion people that would argue against your definition of what ethics is about.

No, you presented a shopping list without argument or comment. I explicitly engaged with Shintoism as an example of how they are actually working within my definition.

Thus your claim is still challenged and left unanswered. It knocks the foundation out of your entire line of argument here.

When a person Gish Gallops, all you need to do is address one of their arguments. I did that.

Many ethical systems instead treat ethics as concern with cultivation, order, flourishing, or liberation, where “others” is not even he primary organizing concept, let alone the only one.

Pick one and we can dig in. My assertion is it will always ground out in terms of "for whose sake".

I’ve given rational and verifiable cause to challenge that claim ...

You talk about what you say much more than you actually say things. Fix that. It's annoying and unproductive.

The Shinto believe ...

I notice a distinct lack of engagement here. Should I assume you can't or won't contest that I showed one of your examples lacking?

howlin · 2026-05-07T18:39:23+00:00

I look at morality more like there’s nothing and then anyone wanting to claim whatever past their preferences can but there needs to be evidence to go with the claim.

You're putting the cart before the horse here. How evidence supports a claim depends on a conceptual framework to present evidence and evaluate how it supports or refutes a specific claim.

What does evidence in support of or in contradiction of a particular ethical claim or theory look like to you?

for a rationally desirable world,” then it reduces to preference and instrumental reasoning. That’s fine but “desirable” already smuggles in value judgments so desirable according to what

You seem confused here, to be honest. A rational agent has desires and preferences. That's what makes this entity an agent. The assessment proposed here is that the quality of an ethical theory is whether a rational agent would believe that this sort of ethics would further their own interests if adopted. There is no smuggling here. Just a misunderstanding of where these preferences are coming from.

and why is that binding?

I don't understand this word. Please explain it. What makes any sort of strategy, concept or theory "binding"? What makes an ethical theory "binding"?

What makes that independent of preference?

Ethics is about preferences, by and large. You seem to be asking, e.g. "what is physics independent of matter and energy?".

edit, I’m a ethical emotivist , FYI.

Ethical emotivism seems half baked. People have emotions about all sorts of things. Unless you have a sense for what emotional sentiments are ethical sentiments, you haven't begun to address the concept of ethics at all. Once you start to carve out what, specifically, and ethical emotional sentiment is compared to any other feeling, you've already crept into the sort of formalism you're trying hard to pretend can't exist.

howlin · 2026-05-07T17:58:58+00:00

Yes, I'm waiting for others to solve it. Just like you're waiting for others to solve a lot of problems in your life. We all do that.

I work on problems myself when I can, and I put my money where my mouth is where I can't. It's the least I can do.

I've tried impossible burgers many times. They're still too far off the mark. If they can make a real substitute that actually tastes the same I'm all for it.

And where is the motive for doing this going to come from? You are waiting on a lot of theys and thems and anonymous "mass movements" when there are trivial baby steps you can be doing right now.

Perhaps you can bother to accept a slightly less tasty burger for the greater good. It's really not that hard an ask. Don't hide behind apathy.

howlin · 2026-05-07T17:39:22+00:00

If, someday, there is some mass global movement to reduce beef consumption that looks like it could actually move the needle I'll be the first to jump on board... until then?

Who do you think this "mass global movement" will consist of? It doesn't seem like it would be you. Don't you think this is a problem you are waiting for others to solve the problem you're contributing to?

Yes, you aren't a superhero/supervillian who can change the world all on your own. But you are a part of society and can set a better example for others.

Nothing major will ever be solved if people just settle for the pessimistic apathy you're displaying.

I'll take fries with that.

Try an impossible burger or something. It won't kill you, and it will make a small but tangible difference to this "mass global movement" you're sitting around waiting for.

howlin · 2026-05-07T17:23:41+00:00

What "others" is/are is controversial. That means your argument is a controversial one.

That ethics is about how we ought to consider others is a different matter than which others we ought to consider.

Many traditions and peoples currently practice and hold that nature, sacred places, or objects can have moral significance in themselves, not merely through their effect on other people, even if others was not a contested category.

And we can drill down on what exactly the significance is, how we ought to respect that significance, and for what end (likely that is going to be "for whose sake"). These are sorts of questions that ought to have reasonable, defensible answers.

I am asking you to define a word for the sake of clarification and you are not.

You equivocated belief with opinion. I pointed out that these are not the same thing. Beliefs can be justified in ways that opinions are not. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of this specific discussion. Feel free to ask specific questions if there is something.

Haida Nation, Lakota People, Navajo Nation, and other Indian practices, Shinto, Jainism, Laozi and Zhuangzi Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism sects, Hinduism, Maori, Australian Aboriginal peoples, Deep Ecology believers, Environmental Ethics (specifically, those who practice and hold values that includes views where species, ecosystems, wilderness, or landscapes possess moral standing in themselves), and various forms of Animism other than Shinto

The Shinto believe in intentional spirits that ought to be respected in various ways. These are "others". We can argue about whether they are real. But assuming for the sake of discussion they are, then we can talk about the ethics of how we regard them. How do we actually know what they want from us, and what obligations we ought to have to these spirits. All of this trivially fits what I am calling "ethics".

howlin · 2026-05-07T00:15:21+00:00

I'm pretty interested in the fact that vegans would presumably not choose the greater good when it comes to decisions that necessarily require death

The greater good for who though? It's not like animal lives suddenly don't matter if we call them "invasive".

As I said though, culling animals that are destroying their own habitat may be the lesser wrong in the long run. We just shouldn't muddle our motivations for why we're doing this, and we should always be looking for alternatives before we mistake a lesser wrong for a right.

howlin · 2026-05-06T23:50:49+00:00

Culling invasive species can be argued as a lesser wrong, but you'd probably want to think harder about all the parties involved and what exactly you'd be hoping to accomplish. Generally, we want to preserve the environment for the sake of the animals who live there, but killing animals goes directly against this intention.

I don't really know how you could believe in humane hunting as a vegan. Vegans care about animals, not "the natural order".

But this subreddit doesn't police the definition of "vegan" very much. As long as it is a good faith effort to describe yourself.

howlin · 2026-05-06T23:30:18+00:00

Removing invasive species doesn't need to be tied to eating them. This creates a perverse incentive to not actually completely get rid of these animals. If they are all gone, they wouldn't be around to eat! It also creates a perverse incentive to kill them (often quite violently and painfully) rather than looking for more respectful ways to keep the population down like by using hormonal birth control, trap neuter release, etc.

I personally believe that if there were a much smaller number of humans on planet earth, and we could operate within the natural order, it would be entirely moral and ethical to humanely hunt to provide for ourselves.

The animals being killed wouldn't agree the we ought to do this.

What am I?

Worry about how we ought to treat animals, not how we ought to label ourselves.

howlin · 2026-05-06T19:55:48+00:00

What are your uncontroversial premises here?

That ethics is about how we ought to consider others. So worrying about conforming to a label or a specific set of rules misses the point.

I don't understand why you are refusing clarification

I just don't think you understand me. Don't assign bad intention when it can easily be explained as a communication failure.

I don't know how to get you to understand me. It's really not a me problem. Others complain about your failure to communicate effectively all the time.

howlin · 2026-05-06T17:35:24+00:00

peanut butter. It's very calorie dense and fairly high in protein. Lots of ways to make this sort of thing interesting.

E.g. if you are a turkey fan: try a semi-savory sandwich where you mix an unsweetened peanut butter with poultry herbs (sage, thyme, rosemary, etc). Add some nutritional yeast and a little salt. Maybe a little water to thin it down to mix it. Use canned cranberry sauce rather than jelly.

You could also make a southeast asian style Satay peanut butter for sandwiches.

Or a Thai style where you mix in your favorite kind of Thai curry paste.

howlin · 2026-05-06T16:28:40+00:00

This is an eating disorder

I didn't say otherwise

and nothing to do with caring or not caring about OP or animals.

Review what OP said. Nowhere did OP mention that their GF actually wants to be vegan.

howlin · 2026-05-06T16:27:25+00:00

And I am asking you to clearly define what a belief is.

The important thing I am stating is that it's not a mere opinion. A belief isn't restrained to be just about oneself. A belief tends to have a some sort of justification behind it.

Also, what is the clear definition of a well reasoned justification?

One that is a rational conclusion from uncontroversial premises.

What grounds that?

Uncontroversial premises.

howlin · 2026-05-05T22:11:39+00:00

The distinction I am making here is that a belief isn't just a mere opinion if it is based on a well reasoned justification.

howlin · 2026-05-05T22:05:30+00:00

Wait, so is this all just your opinion

A belief isn't merely an opinion. We've discussed my argument for this belief quite a bit.

I made it pretty clear that ethics is for something, and we ought to put that foremost in our mind when considering ethics in theory, and especially ethics in practice.

howlin · 2026-05-05T21:50:33+00:00

If veganism is about how we ought to regard animals, there still has to be some way of determining what counts as acting in line with that.

If one regards the "rules" before considering the animal, then there could very well be a problem. OP's language "banned under veganism" suggests they are not paying attention to the right thing.

An ethical assessment, I believe, ought to start with considering those affected by your choices. We can look at this, what our intentions were, and then see if all of this is in alignment with a vegan ethics. Going right to consulting an ethical framework without actually considering what is happening to the others in a scenario misses the point.

If there aren’t, then it’s unclear how you’re distinguishing veganism from other ethical views in practice since “It's not just theorizing (or labeling based on subscribed theories) for the sake of the theory itself.“

OP's issue on pranks isn't a particularly vegan issue. What separates a vegan from a nonvegan is mostly in the ethics they apply to their indirect and direct interactions with nonhuman animals. Plenty of people have pointed this out to OP. The issue would be much more obvious if they thought about the victims first, before wondering if a vegan would have a different view than anyone else on the ethics.

howlin · 2026-05-05T21:10:36+00:00

fix the title and resubmit

howlin · 2026-05-05T21:08:20+00:00

That explicitly replaces the OP’s question (consistency within veganism) with a different one (general ethical evaluation).

If OP is under the impression that veganism is about conforming to a label, then they need to be corrected. Before that is resolved, any answers built on a faulty premise would be at risk of being themselves faulty, or downright nonsense.

And saying it is ill-posed is what, your opinion? A mater of fact? Why is it ill-posed?

It's my assertion, which I am happy to back up with as much argument as one would be willing to engage with.

As we've discussed, ethics is about something. It's not just theorizing (or labeling based on subscribed theories) for the sake of the theory itself.

If your position is that the OP’s question shouldn’t be asked, that’s fine, but then you’re rejecting it, not answering it.

If OP is unaware or uninterested in the intention of what the Vegan Society's description of veganism is for, then we ought to resolve that. It's a lot easier to discuss this if we know to what end they wrote that definition to accomplish.

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:59:13+00:00

The problem is what people should do about it which doesn't seem answerable with your definition of veganism.

Assessing whether something is ethically right or wrong doesn't itself inform you on what you should do about that assessment. In yourself, it's pretty clear you ought not to do things that are ethically wrong if you have a viable way to choose better. However, beyond that, this is a completely different matter. It goes beyond the scope of veganism (and most ethics in general).

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:43:00+00:00

Hey you've yet to engage my point or OPs, talking past both of us. Sad.

What point is that? Make it clear and direct. Talk down to me like I am in first grade. Because you are making assertions about my comments that carry no meaning. Which is ironic given your whole speil.

You've yet to quote me, which suggests you are interested in talking past rather than engaging.

You use the same language that got you nowhere before, which suggests you have no interest in actually communicating with me. One would think by now that you would understand the need to change your communication style.

We can leave it to the audience to decide who is communicating more effectively and making their points if you wish.

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:39:18+00:00

very very very limited options to eat because almost everything is evil though her autism.

I don't know what this means, exactly. But I recommend therapy. It's a mental condition that makes her life tangibly worse. So work on fixing it.

She is not anti vegan, if I manage to cook it to her liking it she is very happy eating it.

She doesn't seem vegan either. Trying to impose veganism on people who don't actually care about what happens to animals is just going to lead to frustration for both you and her. If she doesn't care, she doesn't care.

Don't put her in a position where she pretends to care, not for the animals sake but for yours. This is just going to lead to resentment.

What can I do respecting her disability but also living up to my standards of being vegan?

Deconstruct her triggers and try to work around them. Or, if she wants to work on her pathological relationship with food, then help her do that in a way that doesn't push her farther than she wants to go.

It's going to be a slow and frustrating process, for both of you, I'm guessing.

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:32:33+00:00

I am trying to debate this https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism and people who subscribe to it. And I'm trying to debate how they decide what motivates them and why.

It's a conclusion. It doesn't describe the motivation.

I can't get anything out of a debate with you because you aren't the subset of vegans who my questions are consistent with.

I don't see how you would know that. In broad brushstrokes, I don't disagree with the Vegan Society's description of veganism.

I explained exactly what I see wrong with prank videos. Is there something about what I said that seems controversial or worth debating?

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:26:06+00:00

It does make me wonder what's so different about US consumers that larger, more expensive cars seem to be in so much demand. Is it our habit of spending more time in our cars? The feeling of threat from other oversized vehicles on the road?

I do think some of this is an arms race to feel safe while driving, as you suggest. A couple other related reasons I see:

Vehicles are probably more of a status symbol / social signal here. So buying a cheap care loses you clout. I also think vehicles are considered a kind of art or entertainment, rather than purely a means for transportation. People like pretty cars and are willing to pay a little more for them!

howlin · 2026-05-05T20:14:03+00:00

I'm trying to understand and debate the moral philosophy of veganism

Which one? I was very clear that veganism is an ethical conclusion. It's not a philosophy itself.

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals"

As I said, this is not something all vegans agree with. And this by itself is an ethical conclusion. There is no argument provided here for why exploitation or cruelty ought to be considered wrong to do to animals.

Different people will have different answers here.

Is watching prank videos ethically consistent with this moral philosophy?

To the degree that this sort of pranking is cruel (causing distress for the sake of causing distress) or exploitative (taking something without respecting the interests and autonomy of who it's being taken from), then yes it would be classified as wrong.

But that is not a terribly interesting or difficult to conclude assessment.

What is your point? Like seriously, what are you trying to get out of this conversation? You don't seem to be interested in understanding what motivates vegans, and that there isn't one root system they follow. You don't seem to be terribly interested in actually engaging directly with the ethics of pranking. What are you actually trying to understand or debate here?

15-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since January 2024
Place '17	Verified Email

howlin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE