3 ms·

Any sufficiently universal morality must include the impact our actions/inactions have on animals (or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality).

Any sufficiently universal morality must include the impact our actions/inactions have on animals (or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality). We are nowhere near such a concept, and almost assuredly never will be.

pmoriarty 5y ago
We're moving closer to it. Vegetarianism and veganism used to be much more fringe just a few decades ago than they are now. Animal right groups and laws didn't exist until relatively recently as well. Understanding and valuing ecology and every species role in it as well is relatively new (at least among non-indigenous people) and making a difference in how we treat animals as well. There's also a lot of research in to how animals view and understand the world, how they communicate, how much they understand and feel, and how they differ (or don't) from humans. That's also opening people's eyes. I'm usually pretty pessimistic, but on this issue I am cautiously optimistic that we are moving in the right direction.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  After millennia, humans still hate each other on no other basis than skin pigmentation despite our brains being hard-wired to be socially cooperative with other members of our species to boost chances of survival. I have heard arguments against animal rights where the key argument was that humans are intellectually superior and thus it is our right to treat animals however it conveniences us. As smart as some people are, most people are not very sophisticated, especially when it comes to morality, which people mainly wield as a matter of convenience to themselves. My faith in humanity has declined the more I've seen what it's capable of. Tellingly (to me), despite some non-negligible percentage of the population becoming more sensitive to the plight of animals, the scale of animal cruelty today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I see the modest gains in the population of vegetarians as a pyrrhic victory that would not have been possible with, perversely, the common knowledge of the current scale and scope of modern animal cruelty.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    > Tellingly...the scale of animal cruelty today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. "Tellingly"? What does it tell? The scale of X (for almost all X) today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I wish when people say something is telling, they'd say what it tells them, but they usually don't. (It's like saying "Of course" or "Obviously". Rhetorically effective maybe, but doesn't help communication. They are a kind of bluff.) > I see the modest gains in the population of vegetarians as a pyrrhic victory that would not have been possible with, perversely, the common knowledge of the current scale and scope of modern animal cruelty. Sorry, I really tried, but can't work out what you are trying to say here. (It feels like at least a triple-layered negative.) Could you put it more simply? Seems like you're maybe saying "If more people knew the horrors of modern animal cruelty there would be less vegetarians", but that reading makes no sense to me. It's a very confusing, unclear sentence anyway.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      I should have said "scope", because I don't mean just by pure numbers. I mean that our current treatment of billions of animals is worse than it has ever been due to factory farming. As in, it's not just the sheer number of animals, we have somehow regressed and are more cruel to each individual animal in the name of efficiency. I think the only reason there is a higher percentage of vegetarians now is how widely publicized that information is, not because the average human has evolved and can be expected to have a moral framework which incoporates non-humans. There wouldn't be as many vegetarians if some people weren't currently being so obviously needlessly cruel. And then there's the impact that our activities have on wildlife that we aren't intending to harm. We know we are causing harm, though, so much so that we regularly drive animals to extinction. We also know we are currently driving a mass extinction event but that seems to barely register on our list of concerns. I don't see any meaningful action right now towards addressing this. I honestly hear so, so little about it, even when we are discussing the impacts of climate change. I kind of forgot about it myself during this discussion. So in summary, I see us as being willfully cruel to some and fully indifferent to others and ultimately I think we have gotten worse over the years, not better. If I were an animal, I would much rather have shared the planet with humans from 1000 or even 100 years ago than with humans from today, and I believe the trend continues. Hope that clears things up.
bumby 5y ago
Why does the distinction stop with the human convention of the animal kingdom? Is it immoral to make a plant species extinct? Is morality rooted in subjective experience?
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  > or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality I pre-answered your question about the animal kingdom. When I say "must include" I imply only that it's necessary, not sufficient. My premise is simply that I have identified a necessary condition which will never be met.
  - bumby 5y ago
    I’m not trying to refute your position, just trying to clarify what it’s based upon. Why is the distinction drawn with experience? E.g., if the ultimate goal is to reduce suffering then it makes sense that experience is what matters
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      Yes, I think it's fair to say that the ultimate goal of my personal moral framework is to reduce suffering.
yboris 5y ago
Utilitarianism is almost 300 years old and includes animals in its "circle of concern". Many people care about animal rights, and once people stop eating meat (because meat alternatives will eventually win out with price) there will be a major shift in perspective - meat eaters will be looked upon as we currently look on slave owners: doing something seriously morally wrong.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  I know that individuals think this way, I'm just not convinced any society will ever get there.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Utilitarianism is orthogonal to animal rights - it analyzes and describes behavior and action with respect to some utility function, but the utility function itself is essentially arbitrary and while utilitarianism can be used to model a balance between "human utility" and "animal utility", utilitarianism itself is just as suited for a "circle of concern" that explicitly includes only the utility of humans, or perhaps even just the utility of a specific subset of humans. The utility function is not up for grabs; it has to be axiomatically assumed and utilitarianism does not state whose utility matters and how much.
  - yboris 5y ago
    It would be quite a perversion of utilitarianism to say "utility is defined as the pleasure experienced by white people". Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, advocated for animal welfare because utility is about experiences of sentient beings (which animals are). It is true there are preference utilitarians and various other flavors, but I don't think cutting out animals outside of one's moral circle of concern can really be justified under utilitarianism.
plank_time 5y ago
It depends on who defines morality, which invalidates the concept of a “universal” morality. If the definer of the morality decides that human lives are the most important and it would be immoral to hold animals and plants above humans, it would produce a completely different end result. Or they may determine that all you mention plus natural formations like lakes and mountains and rock formations deserve protection and equal protection. That’s why this entire article is a waste of time to me.
- kodah 5y ago
  My experience with morality is that it's definition varies from person to person even in like-groups. The illustration you and GP have painted is the same political struggle we've always had, just now painted inside morality instead of secular laws. It is wild to see secular people debating a new wave of American moralism, as if that time period wasn't bad enough the first go-around.
  - plank_time 5y ago
    Agreed. There will always be people splitting hairs and vehemently thinking their views are “more correct” and “more morally correct”. That’s why I think this entire article is a waste of time. The idea of “universal morality” is fiction because everyone thinks differently. The best course of action is never to try to find a single “universal” truth but to accept a plurality of “truths”. That’s the only way we can survive as a species.

pmoriarty 5y ago

We're moving closer to it. Vegetarianism and veganism used to be much more fringe just a few decades ago than they are now. Animal right groups and laws didn't exist until relatively recently as well. Understanding and valuing ecology and every species role in it as well is relatively new (at least among non-indigenous people) and making a difference in how we treat animals as well. There's also a lot of research in to how animals view and understand the world, how they communicate, how much they understand and feel, and how they differ (or don't) from humans. That's also opening people's eyes. I'm usually pretty pessimistic, but on this issue I am cautiously optimistic that we are moving in the right direction.

DangitBobby 5y ago
After millennia, humans still hate each other on no other basis than skin pigmentation despite our brains being hard-wired to be socially cooperative with other members of our species to boost chances of survival. I have heard arguments against animal rights where the key argument was that humans are intellectually superior and thus it is our right to treat animals however it conveniences us. As smart as some people are, most people are not very sophisticated, especially when it comes to morality, which people mainly wield as a matter of convenience to themselves. My faith in humanity has declined the more I've seen what it's capable of. Tellingly (to me), despite some non-negligible percentage of the population becoming more sensitive to the plight of animals, the scale of animal cruelty today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I see the modest gains in the population of vegetarians as a pyrrhic victory that would not have been possible with, perversely, the common knowledge of the current scale and scope of modern animal cruelty.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  > Tellingly...the scale of animal cruelty today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. "Tellingly"? What does it tell? The scale of X (for almost all X) today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I wish when people say something is telling, they'd say what it tells them, but they usually don't. (It's like saying "Of course" or "Obviously". Rhetorically effective maybe, but doesn't help communication. They are a kind of bluff.) > I see the modest gains in the population of vegetarians as a pyrrhic victory that would not have been possible with, perversely, the common knowledge of the current scale and scope of modern animal cruelty. Sorry, I really tried, but can't work out what you are trying to say here. (It feels like at least a triple-layered negative.) Could you put it more simply? Seems like you're maybe saying "If more people knew the horrors of modern animal cruelty there would be less vegetarians", but that reading makes no sense to me. It's a very confusing, unclear sentence anyway.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    I should have said "scope", because I don't mean just by pure numbers. I mean that our current treatment of billions of animals is worse than it has ever been due to factory farming. As in, it's not just the sheer number of animals, we have somehow regressed and are more cruel to each individual animal in the name of efficiency. I think the only reason there is a higher percentage of vegetarians now is how widely publicized that information is, not because the average human has evolved and can be expected to have a moral framework which incoporates non-humans. There wouldn't be as many vegetarians if some people weren't currently being so obviously needlessly cruel. And then there's the impact that our activities have on wildlife that we aren't intending to harm. We know we are causing harm, though, so much so that we regularly drive animals to extinction. We also know we are currently driving a mass extinction event but that seems to barely register on our list of concerns. I don't see any meaningful action right now towards addressing this. I honestly hear so, so little about it, even when we are discussing the impacts of climate change. I kind of forgot about it myself during this discussion. So in summary, I see us as being willfully cruel to some and fully indifferent to others and ultimately I think we have gotten worse over the years, not better. If I were an animal, I would much rather have shared the planet with humans from 1000 or even 100 years ago than with humans from today, and I believe the trend continues. Hope that clears things up.

bumby 5y ago

Why does the distinction stop with the human convention of the animal kingdom? Is it immoral to make a plant species extinct? Is morality rooted in subjective experience?

DangitBobby 5y ago
> or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality I pre-answered your question about the animal kingdom. When I say "must include" I imply only that it's necessary, not sufficient. My premise is simply that I have identified a necessary condition which will never be met.
- bumby 5y ago
  I’m not trying to refute your position, just trying to clarify what it’s based upon. Why is the distinction drawn with experience? E.g., if the ultimate goal is to reduce suffering then it makes sense that experience is what matters
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Yes, I think it's fair to say that the ultimate goal of my personal moral framework is to reduce suffering.

yboris 5y ago

Utilitarianism is almost 300 years old and includes animals in its "circle of concern". Many people care about animal rights, and once people stop eating meat (because meat alternatives will eventually win out with price) there will be a major shift in perspective - meat eaters will be looked upon as we currently look on slave owners: doing something seriously morally wrong.

DangitBobby 5y ago
I know that individuals think this way, I'm just not convinced any society will ever get there.
PeterisP 5y ago
Utilitarianism is orthogonal to animal rights - it analyzes and describes behavior and action with respect to some utility function, but the utility function itself is essentially arbitrary and while utilitarianism can be used to model a balance between "human utility" and "animal utility", utilitarianism itself is just as suited for a "circle of concern" that explicitly includes only the utility of humans, or perhaps even just the utility of a specific subset of humans. The utility function is not up for grabs; it has to be axiomatically assumed and utilitarianism does not state whose utility matters and how much.
- yboris 5y ago
  It would be quite a perversion of utilitarianism to say "utility is defined as the pleasure experienced by white people". Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, advocated for animal welfare because utility is about experiences of sentient beings (which animals are). It is true there are preference utilitarians and various other flavors, but I don't think cutting out animals outside of one's moral circle of concern can really be justified under utilitarianism.

plank_time 5y ago

It depends on who defines morality, which invalidates the concept of a “universal” morality. If the definer of the morality decides that human lives are the most important and it would be immoral to hold animals and plants above humans, it would produce a completely different end result. Or they may determine that all you mention plus natural formations like lakes and mountains and rock formations deserve protection and equal protection. That’s why this entire article is a waste of time to me.

kodah 5y ago
My experience with morality is that it's definition varies from person to person even in like-groups. The illustration you and GP have painted is the same political struggle we've always had, just now painted inside morality instead of secular laws. It is wild to see secular people debating a new wave of American moralism, as if that time period wasn't bad enough the first go-around.
- plank_time 5y ago
  Agreed. There will always be people splitting hairs and vehemently thinking their views are “more correct” and “more morally correct”. That’s why I think this entire article is a waste of time. The idea of “universal morality” is fiction because everyone thinks differently. The best course of action is never to try to find a single “universal” truth but to accept a plurality of “truths”. That’s the only way we can survive as a species.