4 ms·

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 th

by 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.

by eloff 7y ago

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.