9 ms·

> Do we, in practice? Can you go into more detail? Treating diseases, reducing violence, caring about the rights of the disenfranchised, sitting here on HN tal

> Do we, in practice? Can you go into more detail? Treating diseases, reducing violence, caring about the rights of the disenfranchised, sitting here on HN talking about how we treat animals. > There is no objective reason to consider 'most people agree on x' as some kind of objective moral imperative. I didn't say "most people agree" to imply that something is "objectively" true because most people agree with it. I said it because the definition of suffering as evil is fairly common sense, because it's an experience that anything conscious shares (given a developed enough nervous system), and nothing conscious wants, tautologically due to the definition of the word. Morality is derived from subjective wants and non-wants, there's literally nothing else to derive it from. > You're saying that eating meat (at least meat that necessitates the killing of animals) is morally wrong. You're saying this because you want to persuade me and the rest of your audience that eating meat is morally wrong. I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not trying to convince you in particular of anything. My beliefs on eating meat and moral wrongs are more complex than that and my conclusions are far more negative.

Amezarak 10y ago
> Treating diseases, reducing violence, caring about the rights of the disenfranchised, sitting here on HN talking about how we treat animals. Diseases are not regarded as a moral problem; violence considering morally acceptable in pursuit of the right socially-approved causes, the 'rights of the disenfranchised' have nothing to do with the intersection of morality and biological reality, and the same for HN. > I didn't say "most people agree" to imply that something is "objectively" true because most people agree with it. I said it because the definition of suffering as evil is fairly common sense, because it's an experience that anything conscious shares (given a developed enough nervous system), and nothing conscious wants, tautologically due to the definition of the word. It isn't tautologically true at all. Anyone can look around and see plenty of people that want to suffer. There are different reasons; some, to punish themselves, some, in pursuit of some other interest, some, for the sake of their religion, and so on and so forth. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone alive who was not inflicting on themselves some amount of suffering for some reason.
- projektir 10y ago
  Diseases are very much a moral problem relative to biology. We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very contrary to evolution's preference for everyone just being disposable fodder to make better and better organisms. If violence needs the right socially-approved causes, that is further evidence that we really don't like it at the end of the day. Rights of the disenfranchised has nothing to do with it? It's related the same way diseases are - the disenfranchised should be mistreated and thrown out according to evolution. We seem to continually decide otherwise. Discussions on HN relate to what people are considering and thinking. In a properly naturalistic society, nobody would ever worry about the feelings of animals, we would think this entire discussion is silly. > It isn't tautologically true at all. Anyone can look around and see plenty of people that want to suffer. Your examples and arguments here are so shallow I'm skeptical that you're actually arguing in good faith. Surely there's a difference between someone undergoing a painful medical treatment that they believe will help them in the long run vs someone being tortured for another's enjoyment? And for the case of one undergoing painful medical treatment, is it really _wanting_ to suffer if they'd much rather have a non-painful version of the same treatment? Or is it more that they weren't really given a choice?
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    You're confusing 'biological reality' with naturalism. I am not advocating naturalism, nor am I claiming that one or the other is moral. I am claiming that amorality is reality, and our 'morality' is whatever the fashionable social norms of the day consist of. For example: > We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very contrary to evolution's preference for everyone just being disposable fodder to make better and better organisms. Keeping their own alive, even the weaker members, is something many social animals do. The 'naturalism' position might be that we should engage in some kind of eugenics. The biological reality is that evolution doesn't care how strong individual members of the herd are. There's nothing "anti-evolution" about protecting the weak. > Rights of the disenfranchised has nothing to do with it? It's related the same way diseases are - the disenfranchised should be mistreated and thrown out according to evolution. We seem to continually decide otherwise. This is, again, nothing to do with 'biological reality' but with the straw-man of naturalism. And it couldn't be any other way. Everything we do is 'according to evolution', ergo the disenfranchised being accorded rights is 'according to evolution,' not somehow contra to it. We are animals, not gods. > Surely there's a difference between someone undergoing a painful medical treatment that they believe will help them in the long run vs someone being tortured for another's enjoyment? Maybe, but we have moved the goalposts from 'suffering is evil' to 'suffering for another's enjoyment is evil.' And yet there are people who allow themselves to be subjected to physical pain gladly for the enjoyment of others, and in older times, even tortured and killed.

Amezarak 10y ago

> Treating diseases, reducing violence, caring about the rights of the disenfranchised, sitting here on HN talking about how we treat animals. Diseases are not regarded as a moral problem; violence considering morally acceptable in pursuit of the right socially-approved causes, the 'rights of the disenfranchised' have nothing to do with the intersection of morality and biological reality, and the same for HN. > I didn't say "most people agree" to imply that something is "objectively" true because most people agree with it. I said it because the definition of suffering as evil is fairly common sense, because it's an experience that anything conscious shares (given a developed enough nervous system), and nothing conscious wants, tautologically due to the definition of the word. It isn't tautologically true at all. Anyone can look around and see plenty of people that want to suffer. There are different reasons; some, to punish themselves, some, in pursuit of some other interest, some, for the sake of their religion, and so on and so forth. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone alive who was not inflicting on themselves some amount of suffering for some reason.

projektir 10y ago
Diseases are very much a moral problem relative to biology. We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very contrary to evolution's preference for everyone just being disposable fodder to make better and better organisms. If violence needs the right socially-approved causes, that is further evidence that we really don't like it at the end of the day. Rights of the disenfranchised has nothing to do with it? It's related the same way diseases are - the disenfranchised should be mistreated and thrown out according to evolution. We seem to continually decide otherwise. Discussions on HN relate to what people are considering and thinking. In a properly naturalistic society, nobody would ever worry about the feelings of animals, we would think this entire discussion is silly. > It isn't tautologically true at all. Anyone can look around and see plenty of people that want to suffer. Your examples and arguments here are so shallow I'm skeptical that you're actually arguing in good faith. Surely there's a difference between someone undergoing a painful medical treatment that they believe will help them in the long run vs someone being tortured for another's enjoyment? And for the case of one undergoing painful medical treatment, is it really _wanting_ to suffer if they'd much rather have a non-painful version of the same treatment? Or is it more that they weren't really given a choice?
- Amezarak 10y ago
  You're confusing 'biological reality' with naturalism. I am not advocating naturalism, nor am I claiming that one or the other is moral. I am claiming that amorality is reality, and our 'morality' is whatever the fashionable social norms of the day consist of. For example: > We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very contrary to evolution's preference for everyone just being disposable fodder to make better and better organisms. Keeping their own alive, even the weaker members, is something many social animals do. The 'naturalism' position might be that we should engage in some kind of eugenics. The biological reality is that evolution doesn't care how strong individual members of the herd are. There's nothing "anti-evolution" about protecting the weak. > Rights of the disenfranchised has nothing to do with it? It's related the same way diseases are - the disenfranchised should be mistreated and thrown out according to evolution. We seem to continually decide otherwise. This is, again, nothing to do with 'biological reality' but with the straw-man of naturalism. And it couldn't be any other way. Everything we do is 'according to evolution', ergo the disenfranchised being accorded rights is 'according to evolution,' not somehow contra to it. We are animals, not gods. > Surely there's a difference between someone undergoing a painful medical treatment that they believe will help them in the long run vs someone being tortured for another's enjoyment? Maybe, but we have moved the goalposts from 'suffering is evil' to 'suffering for another's enjoyment is evil.' And yet there are people who allow themselves to be subjected to physical pain gladly for the enjoyment of others, and in older times, even tortured and killed.