3 ms·

The fact that a clear line doesn't exist is used too many times as an excuse to continue doing what is obviously wrong. Logically, you could take it the other w

The fact that a clear line doesn't exist is used too many times as an excuse to continue doing what is obviously wrong. Logically, you could take it the other way to the extreme and say that since there is no clear line, then there isn't an obvious reason not to raise certain humans for their meat either. The fact that life is not black and white but a lot of grey levels does not imply that there is no such thing as black or white. If one's moral compass and integrity are still intact, then even knowing the constraints, one would usually try to make the grey a little brighter.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
white-flame 9y ago
How can you both agree that a clear line doesn't exist, while in the same sentence saying "obviously wrong"? If you mean obvious to your specific sensibilities that's fine; but if you mean global consensus or objectively, then that's self-contradictory. Plenty of people genuinely don't care about the treatment of food animals, or even of humans outside their perceived tribe. It's just as "obvious" and consistent within those entire groups that there's no concern there. "Moral compass and integrity" are less about intact or unintact, and more about "similar to mine". This is why pure moral arguments don't change anything, because people don't share morals. Now, some do have broader subscription, like not murdering people, and there you can defer to the shared moral. But others (like animal rights) are observably divided, so rallying on violation of local moralisms has no meaning to those outside that moral locality. It's exactly the same as religions yelling at non-adherents for acting in violation to the religion's tenets.
- placebo 9y ago
  > How can you both agree that a clear line doesn't exist, while in the same sentence saying "obviously wrong"? Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox) Regarding moral relativism, I don't buy it, but that's not something we can argue about in an HN thread... You are right that pure moral arguments don't change anything, but I don't think the reason is that people don't share morals, but rather have to do with people being extremely good at rationalizing away the immorality, or never questioning it in the first place. Of course, if you think ethics is a relative concept then this reply won't convince you but the argument that might convince you would not fit this format.
  - white-flame 9y ago
    > Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox) But that's not the situation here. You're saying that there is some scale at which something is "obviously wrong" implying a convergent consensus of observance. Tying it to sorites, it would be like you claiming that there's a fuzziness beyond which the heap should be considered "obviously too big" by everyone, while to others there's no such concept as a heap that's too big (or even merely disagree that you've entered "too big" territory yet). You can't argue that it's too big, without pulling in something external that they might share. > Regarding moral relativism, I don't buy it It's not that morals are "relative", and I agree that's a terrible label, but more that morals are held as axiomatic. There is no and cannot be justification of morals themselves, they simply are held (or are not held) by a person as the foundational root clauses from which all their other justifications are derived. So there's no possible way to argue or justify root morals to others who simply don't share them. You'd need to link them to morals that the other does hold for there to be any worthwhile concept conveyed at all. Otherwise it's just yelling that others are not following your particular flying spaghetti monster. If one fundamentally believes that animal suffering matters, and another fundamentally believes that it does not, what possible justification or persuasion would cross that boundary? > You are right that pure moral arguments don't change anything, but I don't think the reason is that people don't share morals, but rather have to do with people being extremely good at rationalizing away the immorality, or never questioning it in the first place. Re-read what you said, and consider it in the initial discussion of animal rights. You're saying that there is a morality held in a person that is invoked in an observed situation that is being rationalized away, implying that they fundamentally subscribe to the same morals as you. I think this convergence (and I'd simply call it a projection) is an extreme claim, going against the observed variety among cultures & schools of thought around the world and throughout history. That's simply not an accurate picture of humanity. In particular, sensitivity and callousness to specific situations of harm are very trained, and degrees of harm in varied directions exist in absolutely everything, all the way down to entropy. Just look at governmental overreach to see how the concept of "harm" can be all encompassing, bringing a justification for involvement wherever they may choose, from economics to surveillance.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

white-flame 9y ago

How can you both agree that a clear line doesn't exist, while in the same sentence saying "obviously wrong"? If you mean obvious to your specific sensibilities that's fine; but if you mean global consensus or objectively, then that's self-contradictory. Plenty of people genuinely don't care about the treatment of food animals, or even of humans outside their perceived tribe. It's just as "obvious" and consistent within those entire groups that there's no concern there. "Moral compass and integrity" are less about intact or unintact, and more about "similar to mine". This is why pure moral arguments don't change anything, because people don't share morals. Now, some do have broader subscription, like not murdering people, and there you can defer to the shared moral. But others (like animal rights) are observably divided, so rallying on violation of local moralisms has no meaning to those outside that moral locality. It's exactly the same as religions yelling at non-adherents for acting in violation to the religion's tenets.

placebo 9y ago
> How can you both agree that a clear line doesn't exist, while in the same sentence saying "obviously wrong"? Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox) Regarding moral relativism, I don't buy it, but that's not something we can argue about in an HN thread... You are right that pure moral arguments don't change anything, but I don't think the reason is that people don't share morals, but rather have to do with people being extremely good at rationalizing away the immorality, or never questioning it in the first place. Of course, if you think ethics is a relative concept then this reply won't convince you but the argument that might convince you would not fit this format.
- white-flame 9y ago
  > Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox) But that's not the situation here. You're saying that there is some scale at which something is "obviously wrong" implying a convergent consensus of observance. Tying it to sorites, it would be like you claiming that there's a fuzziness beyond which the heap should be considered "obviously too big" by everyone, while to others there's no such concept as a heap that's too big (or even merely disagree that you've entered "too big" territory yet). You can't argue that it's too big, without pulling in something external that they might share. > Regarding moral relativism, I don't buy it It's not that morals are "relative", and I agree that's a terrible label, but more that morals are held as axiomatic. There is no and cannot be justification of morals themselves, they simply are held (or are not held) by a person as the foundational root clauses from which all their other justifications are derived. So there's no possible way to argue or justify root morals to others who simply don't share them. You'd need to link them to morals that the other does hold for there to be any worthwhile concept conveyed at all. Otherwise it's just yelling that others are not following your particular flying spaghetti monster. If one fundamentally believes that animal suffering matters, and another fundamentally believes that it does not, what possible justification or persuasion would cross that boundary? > You are right that pure moral arguments don't change anything, but I don't think the reason is that people don't share morals, but rather have to do with people being extremely good at rationalizing away the immorality, or never questioning it in the first place. Re-read what you said, and consider it in the initial discussion of animal rights. You're saying that there is a morality held in a person that is invoked in an observed situation that is being rationalized away, implying that they fundamentally subscribe to the same morals as you. I think this convergence (and I'd simply call it a projection) is an extreme claim, going against the observed variety among cultures & schools of thought around the world and throughout history. That's simply not an accurate picture of humanity. In particular, sensitivity and callousness to specific situations of harm are very trained, and degrees of harm in varied directions exist in absolutely everything, all the way down to entropy. Just look at governmental overreach to see how the concept of "harm" can be all encompassing, bringing a justification for involvement wherever they may choose, from economics to surveillance.