And canines, yep, I have some, they are sharp & pointy.
Go take down an antelope with only your teeth ;)
What are my other choices in morality besides subjective and objective?
I don't know. I was really trying to stray away from people arguing how there are no objective morals so killing and everything else is fine. I didn't want to argue about how there are no objective morals. There aren't objective morals, so I wanted to talk to people who actually had morals and would be willing to talk of them.
You don't have to fit into my false dichotomy. You do you.
I don't kill humans for the same reason you do though. I could possibly be persuaded, but I'm not exactly sure what it would be. I think it would be something of the sort following: You would either have to convince me killing sleeping (I'm just gonna use sleep as equivalent to cruelty free for convenience sake) humans is ethically fine OR that cows are different in some way other than logistically speaking (I wouldn't say that the fact that cows can't kill you is morals, that's more practicality; so something other than the two (redemption killing or treatise) things you just named). Or to convince me that cows should not have the right to live on their lives all the way through. Something along these lines, and if you're going to go with how you were talking about different patterns of thought you'd have to be more specific.
You would possibly have to attack my underlying ethics since I don't kill sleeping humans for other reasons as we've discuss and that would be harder to change my opinion on.
If this is unclear, just ask me to rephrase. I'll just try to rephrase it below.
1) Killing humans without cruelty is ethical (I don't know you want to convince me of this one) 2) Humans and cows are different in some way other than treatise or redemption killing so that cows don't have the right to life 3) Or to change my view of "While a world where one's life and death is one's own choice is a good world in my view, I can't find myself getting axiomatically worked up over others acting on my behalf. I'm willing to make acausial deals- for example,"
Arguments that will not convince me is that "cows are not out kind, they are too far away from us, they are not human."
I also reread your post above.
I do not believe we are obliged to create entities (be they humans, cows, insects, or any other category) but we are not obliged not to do so. I think we are obliged to avoid creating entities that would prefer not to have been created. That still leaves us the option of creating entities that would prefer to have been created if we want to- for example, nobody is obliged to have children, but if they want to have children they can as long as they reasonably suspect those children would want to have existed. If I want cows to exist, I can morally cause that to happen as long as I take reasonable precautions to make sure they prefer existing. As you say, they might well not want to exist if that existence is being locked in a box and hurt. As I say, they probably do want to exist if that existence is wandering around a green pasture with the herd.
I agree with this. I think that beings can be created. My problem is ending already existing ones once they are created.
And like you continued on. I agree that their existence doesn't have to be perfect. We should just make it not horrible. Again, my problem is the force ending.
I'm gonna add in one more thing. I think this is an emotional appeal, but I think its true regardless. Do you think that your opinion would change if you interacted with other animals like cows on a more personal level more often (or possibly at all) and actually saw them as individuals rather than an idealized "cow." And if you have interacted a lots with cows on a personal level (such as farming), I'd like to hear your opinion as well.
How do you justify when you don't eat 'cruelty free' meat? Those animals are suffering during their.
My other question would be, I don't understand why you don't care over the logic of the first paragraph to cows?
I do get what you're saying with creating beings that do have a decent life.
Being perfectly honest, I actually don't understand what's wrong with starting with those words. Maybe this is a failure of communication on my part. I do understand that I shouldn't have said 'so surprised' and some of the other stuff, but what's wrong with asking, "Can I get your guys' perspectives on veganism?"
"I'm a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!"
I'd rather debate things coherently as that's what rationalism is about. I think I'm done here at this point though because not much is getting through on either side. Some of the replies I'm getting are typical (plant, "natural," comparing animals to rocks), even fallacious, which is probably why I give off an irritated vibe, which doesn't help either party when trying to find the truth.
I'd like to hear the argument about why trees lives are worth antthing. Sure, they're worth instrumental value, but thats not what we're talking about. I'm arguing that trees are worth 0 and that animals are comparable to humans. Trees aren't conscious. Many animals are.
All aspiring rationalists are equally correct, but some are more equally correct than others ;)
Anything specific? That's not really a crux... yet you criticize me for mine.
What I consider "preserving my life" is weird enough that it could probably be its own conversation though :)
Sure, I could be interested in hearing this as a different topic.
Thank you for linking the crux. I'll try to explain my morality as well.
I'm using the word "suboptimal" to mean a state of affairs that is less than the highest standard. For example, I have a crick in my neck from looking down at my laptop right now, and there is not a fruit smoothie in my hand even though I want one. My life would be closer to optimal if I did not have a crick in my neck and did have a smoothie. My life would also be suboptimal if I was intense chronic pain. Suboptimal is a very broad term, I agree, but I think my usage of it is correct. How do you define that word?
So basically I don't care as much about positive utility compared to negative utility. I'll get on to that.
Alright so your crux could possibly be addressed by the below; it isn't really about the fact that the majority of humans prefer nonexisting as you say, its more explaining why there would be a 'preference' in non existence versus an existence of suffering, but I think it addresses your first point nonetheless:
If you're interested in a double crux, here's my half; if a majority of humans preferred not existing in the first place vs existing and having their lives cut short, then I would update strongly away from wanting farm animals being properly (that is, given enough space and exercise and food before being humanely killed) raised for meat.
I think you may find this a very interesting read: https://foundational-research.org/the-case-for-suffering-focused-ethics/
One of the main points in it is this: "Intuitions like “Making people happy rather than making happy people” are linked to the view that non-existence does not constitute a deplorable state. Proponents of this view reason as follows: The suffering and/or frustrated preferences of a being constitute a real, tangible problem for that being. By contrast, non-existence is free of moral predicaments for any evaluating agent, given that per definitionem no such agent exists. Why, then, might we be tempted to consider non-existence a problem? Non-existence may seem unsettling to us, because from the perspective of existing beings, no-longer-existing is a daunting prospect. Importantly however, death or no-longer-existing differs fundamentally from never having been born, in that it is typically preceded and accompanied by suffering and/or frustrated preferences. Ultimately, any uneasiness about never having been born can only be explained by attitudes of those who do already live."
This is basically my view on abortion, nonhuman animal ethics, etc. I find a key distinction between painlessly killing a being that is already existing versus a being never existing at all. In other words, I think beings are worthy of moral consideration once they become conscious, even if they become unconscious for a time after that. However I do not find any beings that have never been conscious worthy of any consideration. The above article also notes the empathy gap, which I think is of key importance when talking about suffering.
So as you guessed it, I'm not a pure utilitarian. The best I would describe it besides the above part (which explains a majority of my view) would be I think that that having choice, or autonomy, gives life meaning (I don't think the only meaning) to conscious beings. This is why I'm against a robot reprogramming humans so they enjoy mindlessly picking up a boulder. I think that all conscious beings should have the right to themselves because if they don't have a right the right to themselves what do they have? This means that their life (and death) is their choice. Other people acting for them is acting in an authoritarian way against their choices. It is inherently authoritarian to kill any conscious being as you are taking away their autonomy of life. Conscious beings, when not suffering, enjoy life and have an interest in further living. This is why I wouldn't want them killed, even painlessly.
Just wondering, why do you think its wrong to kill sleeping humans?
That's my point. You're cheating now. Lions don't cheat.
Carnivores can eat raw meat.
Nah they work better for plant foods. They aren't even very sharp. Also, other herbivores have canines but whatever.
Regardless of this bs^ doesn't matter whether we have canines or not or whether they are useful or not and we both know that. I don't need to explain the natural fallacy to you.
You're a fuck lol. I responded so nicely acknowledging I screwed up there, whatever.
Good.