6 ms·

> Scarily if the public moral compass gets warped enough, then you can be evil in public and get away with it because according to the public you're not doing e

> Scarily if the public moral compass gets warped enough, then you can be evil in public and get away with it because according to the public you're not doing evil. The definition of evil itself changes. Luckily their social superset, the rest of the world, saw them as evil. Makes you wonder, what are we currently doing that is evil but the entire world supports it? China's treatment of Hong Kong and minorities comes to mind. And all the wars and massacres going on that have the full support of the first world and its media.

eloff 7y ago
Yeah, and it constantly changes. Like slavery in recent history, or discrimination by race or sexual orientation. I also wonder what I just take for granted that future generations will see as evil. Probably eating meat, and not being responsible for negative externalities (burning hydrocarbons).
- chillacy 7y ago
  PG has a pretty good essay on this: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html?viewfullsite=1 http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html?viewfullsite=1
- koolba 7y ago
  The evolution of society to eliminate slavery and discrimination can be boiled down to a fundamental equality across all of mankind. I don’t see eating meat ever getting to that level. It’d take the elevation of the rest of animal world to our level.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    I think that as we automate more things we can comfortably afford to model more beings as being worthy of our consideration. People of the past divided humanity into subcategories they could more easily rationalise the exploitation of. We do the same to other parts of the biosphere. I'm not saying the two things are of equal ugliness, but I think they exist on the same continuum.
  - senderista 7y ago
    I recommend Peter Singer’s writings about widening circles of empathy as a description of moral progress.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    > It’d take the elevation of the rest of animal world to our level. In my estimation they're already there. I'd be interested to here how you measure the level upon which you gain the right not to be killed for food, as we obviously measure it differently. Seriously, how would it be measured?
    - 0db532a0 7y ago
      Rights are not a priori truths. They are a human creation, a game of language. Just like gods, reincarnation, gender pronouns and mythology. What makes you so sure that you and your dog have a right not to be killed for food?
      - brigandish 7y ago
        Who suggested that rights were a priori truths? I certainly didn't. Who suggested that rights aren't a human creation? I certainly didn't. I wouldn't put rights - those things based on reasoning and experience, much like the rest of the vast body of law - into a category with gods, reincarnation, gender pronouns and mythology, but that's just me.
        0db532a0 7y ago
        The reasoning also necessarily falls back on experience. Personal experience is all we have. You’re admitting that your estimation is subjective. Why are you so worried about others eating animals, then? Because a lot of other people now are too?
        brigandish 7y ago
        > The reasoning also necessarily falls back on experience. Personal experience is all we have. Thanks, as a Buddhist I'm glad to hear that there are others catching up with Nagarjuna's insights, though you've still a long way to go. > You’re admitting that your estimation is subjective. All objectivity exists within subjectivity, I don't need to admit something I've not claimed to be otherwise. > Why are you so worried about others eating animals, then? There's no then, you've provided a non-sequitur, plenty of proponents of schools of thought that say all things are subjective - including us poor nominalists, the Buddhists, though not only us - find it actually strengthens our moral arguments, not obviates them. > Because a lot of other people now are too? Do you eat meat to be popular? Please. That kind of jibe is low grade and not for HN. There are animals, they suffer, humans have agency, we can do better, and I care to do better. I do not act simply because I can, and I do not lack consideration for others - especially those less powerful than me - simply because those around me think it's okay. Which is ironic given your jibe about wanting to be popular, meat eaters are the majority.
intenex 7y ago
^^ Eating animals. Firmly convinced we're on the wrong side of history on this one - when the world finally stops doing it en mass, either because clean lab grown meat has become economically more viable or environmental concerns are too overwhelming, etc., very convinced we'll look back on it as a horrific practice just as we might slavery today. Aside: this thread escalated quickly from scamming Apple gift cards on reddit
- ikt 7y ago
  > Firmly convinced we're on the wrong side of history on this one We're omnivores, we eat meat and plants, meat is thought to have been what gave us our big brains. https://paleoleap.com/human-brains-evolved-meat/ https://paleoleap.com/human-brains-evolved-meat/ Hardcore vegans already think it's a horrific practice, but for most people it will just be a diet of the time, especially if future people are eating imitation meat.
  - wldlyinaccurate 7y ago
    I don't think many vegetarians or vegans would disagree that meat was historically important for human survival and development. Meat was (and still is in many parts of the world) one of the easiest ways to attain calories and important nutrients. The difference for you and I -and everyone else reading this- is that we now have easy access to meat-free alternatives. Plant proteins and mycoprotein are readily available in most developed countries. Machine pressed oils give us cheap access to plant-based fatty acids. Today we can easily get all of our calories and important nutrients without factory farming and/or slaughtering animals.
    - mattmanser 7y ago
      What I always find odd about this argument is that almost all of those animals wouldn't even have existed if we weren't going to eat them. If you believe in sentience, and the value of it, given their low awareness, either you support never even letting them live or what? I can understand supporting low suffering, but non-existence seems even worse somehow? Easy to wrap yourself in weird arguments and end up in the absurd, a la Douglas Adams Restaurant at the end of the Universe.
chrisweekly 7y ago
Trees / old-growth forest. It's unconscionable.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chachachoney 7y ago
>> Makes you wonder, what are we currently doing that is evil but the entire world supports it? Nearly everything.

eloff 7y ago

Yeah, and it constantly changes. Like slavery in recent history, or discrimination by race or sexual orientation. I also wonder what I just take for granted that future generations will see as evil. Probably eating meat, and not being responsible for negative externalities (burning hydrocarbons).

chillacy 7y ago
PG has a pretty good essay on this: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html?viewfullsite=1 http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html?viewfullsite=1
koolba 7y ago
The evolution of society to eliminate slavery and discrimination can be boiled down to a fundamental equality across all of mankind. I don’t see eating meat ever getting to that level. It’d take the elevation of the rest of animal world to our level.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  I think that as we automate more things we can comfortably afford to model more beings as being worthy of our consideration. People of the past divided humanity into subcategories they could more easily rationalise the exploitation of. We do the same to other parts of the biosphere. I'm not saying the two things are of equal ugliness, but I think they exist on the same continuum.
- senderista 7y ago
  I recommend Peter Singer’s writings about widening circles of empathy as a description of moral progress.
- brigandish 7y ago
  > It’d take the elevation of the rest of animal world to our level. In my estimation they're already there. I'd be interested to here how you measure the level upon which you gain the right not to be killed for food, as we obviously measure it differently. Seriously, how would it be measured?
  - 0db532a0 7y ago
    Rights are not a priori truths. They are a human creation, a game of language. Just like gods, reincarnation, gender pronouns and mythology. What makes you so sure that you and your dog have a right not to be killed for food?
    - brigandish 7y ago
      Who suggested that rights were a priori truths? I certainly didn't. Who suggested that rights aren't a human creation? I certainly didn't. I wouldn't put rights - those things based on reasoning and experience, much like the rest of the vast body of law - into a category with gods, reincarnation, gender pronouns and mythology, but that's just me.
      - 0db532a0 7y ago
        The reasoning also necessarily falls back on experience. Personal experience is all we have. You’re admitting that your estimation is subjective. Why are you so worried about others eating animals, then? Because a lot of other people now are too?
        brigandish 7y ago
        > The reasoning also necessarily falls back on experience. Personal experience is all we have. Thanks, as a Buddhist I'm glad to hear that there are others catching up with Nagarjuna's insights, though you've still a long way to go. > You’re admitting that your estimation is subjective. All objectivity exists within subjectivity, I don't need to admit something I've not claimed to be otherwise. > Why are you so worried about others eating animals, then? There's no then, you've provided a non-sequitur, plenty of proponents of schools of thought that say all things are subjective - including us poor nominalists, the Buddhists, though not only us - find it actually strengthens our moral arguments, not obviates them. > Because a lot of other people now are too? Do you eat meat to be popular? Please. That kind of jibe is low grade and not for HN. There are animals, they suffer, humans have agency, we can do better, and I care to do better. I do not act simply because I can, and I do not lack consideration for others - especially those less powerful than me - simply because those around me think it's okay. Which is ironic given your jibe about wanting to be popular, meat eaters are the majority.

intenex 7y ago

^^ Eating animals. Firmly convinced we're on the wrong side of history on this one - when the world finally stops doing it en mass, either because clean lab grown meat has become economically more viable or environmental concerns are too overwhelming, etc., very convinced we'll look back on it as a horrific practice just as we might slavery today. Aside: this thread escalated quickly from scamming Apple gift cards on reddit

ikt 7y ago
> Firmly convinced we're on the wrong side of history on this one We're omnivores, we eat meat and plants, meat is thought to have been what gave us our big brains. https://paleoleap.com/human-brains-evolved-meat/ https://paleoleap.com/human-brains-evolved-meat/ Hardcore vegans already think it's a horrific practice, but for most people it will just be a diet of the time, especially if future people are eating imitation meat.
- wldlyinaccurate 7y ago
  I don't think many vegetarians or vegans would disagree that meat was historically important for human survival and development. Meat was (and still is in many parts of the world) one of the easiest ways to attain calories and important nutrients. The difference for you and I -and everyone else reading this- is that we now have easy access to meat-free alternatives. Plant proteins and mycoprotein are readily available in most developed countries. Machine pressed oils give us cheap access to plant-based fatty acids. Today we can easily get all of our calories and important nutrients without factory farming and/or slaughtering animals.
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    What I always find odd about this argument is that almost all of those animals wouldn't even have existed if we weren't going to eat them. If you believe in sentience, and the value of it, given their low awareness, either you support never even letting them live or what? I can understand supporting low suffering, but non-existence seems even worse somehow? Easy to wrap yourself in weird arguments and end up in the absurd, a la Douglas Adams Restaurant at the end of the Universe.

chrisweekly 7y ago

Trees / old-growth forest. It's unconscionable.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

chachachoney 7y ago

>> Makes you wonder, what are we currently doing that is evil but the entire world supports it? Nearly everything.