logical bob wrote:I'm just trying to tease out where you're going with this. If I'm understanding you correctly then you're saying that vegetarianism based on empathy is more significant than a lifestyle choice because empathy is automatic/involuntary (though a cursory glance through a newspaper might call that into question) and because it might be hard to be immoral through acting on empathy. Is that about right?

I notice that you assume that once we accept that humans are part of the animal kingdom it follows that we should treat animals with a degree of the regard once reserved for humans. Why is that more valid than saying that humans eating are acting as naturally as animals eating meat? Again, the evolutionary justification is two-edged.

It's circular, but we cast it in terms of lifestyle choices, which is quintessential moral language. There's recollecting, and imagining you might have done things differently. The time to imagine is before we act. So we might stop eating other animals if we anticipate we will regret it later. Later, we change our minds and start eating meat again. The other way of dealing with it is to talk oneself out of regret. We might still fail to act morally (from our own perspective), but we can keep trying, to see if we can figure out what works better. After long years here at RS, the notion of adopting and 'rationally justifying' a stated position like this seems silly to me, but I think some people get it beaten into them. It might be a nice exercise, if one has no other way to feel rational, but it's a dead end in terms of self-validation, unless you're content with your personal rationale.

Blip wrote:Can you imagine a case where empathy would be bad? I suppose one might get a bad outcome with uninformed empathy, but that would make the action - or inaction - misguided rather than unethical.

In the (misguided) case, empathy is consequently only self-serving. Is that bad? Or just not worth the cost? Empathy is always conceived as being for someone else's good rather than for one's own. When you encounter a mortally-injured animal on the road, the kindest thing you can do, if you abhor suffering, is to kill it the rest of the way. If you don't know that the damage is fatal, and you can't get it to a vet in time, why are you deliberating? The damage is fatal. You can't still think there's a reason for suffering unless the damage can be repaired or unless deliberating pointlessly ennobles one. There's a lot of leftovers and too much caring about what other people might think in supposedly secular contemplation of morality.

logical bob wrote:I'm just trying to tease out where you're going with this. If I'm understanding you correctly then you're saying that vegetarianism based on empathy is more significant than a lifestyle choice because empathy is automatic/involuntary (though a cursory glance through a newspaper might call that into question) and because it might be hard to be immoral through acting on empathy. Is that about right?

I notice that you assume that once we accept that humans are part of the animal kingdom it follows that we should treat animals with a degree of the regard once reserved for humans. Why is that more valid than saying that humans eating are acting as naturally as animals eating meat? Again, the evolutionary justification is two-edged.

Clearly not everyone experiences empathy to the extent that, for whatever reason, seems natural to me (and here, at your implied invitation, I'm going beyond the topic by considering man's inhumanity to man as well) but equally clearly, many people do. My thoughts are indeed that it must be difficult, if not impossible, to be immoral when acting on empathy and moreover, in that case, the primary motive isn't self-serving, consciously or otherwise.

As for your second point, yes, our species evolved eating the flesh of other animals and yes, there are many other carnivores. I doubt, though, that my paleolithic forebears were able to be choosy about their diets; for them it was a matter of survival. Those of us lucky enough to have a vast array of foodstuffs available have the means to make choices that reflect our newly-informed understanding of animals' shared experiences of discomfort, pain and fear.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Blip wrote:Can you imagine a case where empathy would be bad? I suppose one might get a bad outcome with uninformed empathy, but that would make the action - or inaction - misguided rather than unethical.

In the (misguided) case, empathy is consequently only self-serving. Is that bad? Or just not worth the cost? Empathy is always conceived as being for someone else's good rather than for one's own. When you encounter a mortally-injured animal on the road, the kindest thing you can do, if you abhor suffering, is to kill it the rest of the way. If you don't know that the damage is fatal, and you can't get it to a vet in time, why are you deliberating? The damage is fatal. You can't still think there's a reason for suffering unless the damage can be repaired or unless deliberating pointlessly ennobles one. There's a lot of leftovers and too much caring about what other people might think in supposedly secular contemplation of morality.

Yes: when I spoke of a bad outcome from uninformed empathy, reluctance to euthanise in the case of untreatable illness or injury was in my mind. ETA for human animals too, lest there be doubt.

Blip wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Blip wrote:Can you imagine a case where empathy would be bad? I suppose one might get a bad outcome with uninformed empathy, but that would make the action - or inaction - misguided rather than unethical.

In the (misguided) case, empathy is consequently only self-serving. Is that bad? Or just not worth the cost? Empathy is always conceived as being for someone else's good rather than for one's own. When you encounter a mortally-injured animal on the road, the kindest thing you can do, if you abhor suffering, is to kill it the rest of the way. If you don't know that the damage is fatal, and you can't get it to a vet in time, why are you deliberating? The damage is fatal. You can't still think there's a reason for suffering unless the damage can be repaired or unless deliberating pointlessly ennobles one. There's a lot of leftovers and too much caring about what other people might think in supposedly secular contemplation of morality.

Yes: when I spoke of a bad outcome from uninformed empathy, reluctance to euthanise in the case of untreatable illness or injury was in my mind. ETA for human animals too, lest there be doubt.

Who's going to inform us? It would be nice to have a better poetics, but all we have are other people to inform us. Science tells us something about what's going on at the molecular, cell, tissue, organ, etc. level, but that doesn't inform our empathy. It might give us a rationale. I already mentioned this bit about striving to justify our opinions to others. Can we have some muscle over here, please? Google it if you don't get the reference.

No, we can't entirely give up trying to influence politics, but be careful what you wish for. Thus you're doing it to feel right. Laklak and I advise folks to give it up for their own peace of mind. Sometimes, there's no peace of mind to be found (Holland-Dozier-Holland).

Blip wrote:
Clearly not everyone experiences empathy to the extent that, for whatever reason, seems natural to me (and here, at your implied invitation, I'm going beyond the topic by considering man's inhumanity to man as well) but equally clearly, many people do. My thoughts are indeed that it must be difficult, if not impossible, to be immoral when acting on empathy and moreover, in that case, the primary motive isn't self-serving, consciously or otherwise.

I've noted your failure to differentiate between how extensively one feels empathy and how broadly one empathizes. I don't think it was your intent to fail to make this differentiation. I don't think it should be assumed that someone who doesn't empathize with a duck as much as you do doesn't empathize as deeply as you do in cases where you agree regarding subjects to feel empathy for. While two people might feel empathy for another human being, it should not follow that those same two people should feel empathy for a duck, and there is no rational reason for any person to feel empathy for a duck. I'm right there with you empathizing with ducks. I grew up with pet ducks. But I also recognize them as sufficiently non-human that not everyone will agree that they're something to feel empathy for- or at least not to the extent that you and I do.

Blip wrote:Clearly not everyone experiences empathy to the extent that, for whatever reason, seems natural to me (and here, at your implied invitation, I'm going beyond the topic by considering man's inhumanity to man as well) but equally clearly, many people do. My thoughts are indeed that it must be difficult, if not impossible, to be immoral when acting on empathy and moreover, in that case, the primary motive isn't self-serving, consciously or otherwise.

As for your second point, yes, our species evolved eating the flesh of other animals and yes, there are many other carnivores. I doubt, though, that my paleolithic forebears were able to be choosy about their diets; for them it was a matter of survival. Those of us lucky enough to have a vast array of foodstuffs available have the means to make choices that reflect our newly-informed understanding of animals' shared experiences of discomfort, pain and fear.

I don't know... as a fellow veggie I want to agree, but does all this add up to much? Empathy is universal (except when it isn't), part of our evolutionary heritage (along with things it's ethical to outgrow) and morally important because you can't be immoral through empathy (which is just circular).

Cito di Pense wrote:After long years here at RS, the notion of adopting and 'rationally justifying' a stated position like this seems silly to me, but I think some people get it beaten into them. It might be a nice exercise, if one has no other way to feel rational, but it's a dead end in terms of self-validation, unless you're content with your personal rationale.

I think that's the thing. The funny thing about ethics is the way choices are supposed to represent universal principles. I'm trying to understand why my abstaining from meat has more to do with your diet than my choice of shirt has to do with your wardrobe.

logical bob wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:After long years here at RS, the notion of adopting and 'rationally justifying' a stated position like this seems silly to me, but I think some people get it beaten into them. It might be a nice exercise, if one has no other way to feel rational, but it's a dead end in terms of self-validation, unless you're content with your personal rationale.

I think that's the thing. The funny thing about ethics is the way choices are supposed to represent universal principles. I'm trying to understand why my abstaining from meat has more to do with your diet than my choice of shirt has to do with your wardrobe.

However you start out, for example, by concluding that using solar (or nuclear) energy is more ethical than using hydrocarbons because the environment is deteriorating from carbon emissions (and production of solar or nuclear energy has fewer side effects), there's still a missing step involving an assertion of what ethical is about. Oh, you say, it's about sustainability. Why not just say we support solar energy because it makes energy production more sustainable? I like sustainability because I think the story is intrinsically interesting and want it to continue. Some people don't find the story interesting unless it has a moral. This probably has to do with spending too much time around people who go to church, but we can't avoid that.

What does 'ethical' add to the mix? It's merely practice for arguing stuff that really does have assumptions and conclusions, but with nothing at stake. This is what hackenslash used to say in motivating why to do philosophy at all. What's at stake in ethics? My inviolable principles, as igorfrankensteen would have it? No. I'm like Inspector Renaud in Casablanca. It's the actions of other people that give me my ethics. If they behave like shits, do I want to be 'better' than they, just so I can say I'm better than they? I just want my relationships to be sustainable, but my patience has limits with someone like Little Idiot. I'm just trying to keep from getting bored while waiting for death.

Can't argue with any of that, really. Demonstrably, not everyone cares about non-human animals to the same extent, ScholasticSpastic.

I might point out, logical bob, that certain choices of clothing do involve suffering: given conditions in some factories, of human animals too in some cases. I'd view that as a matter of ethics as well, obviously.

As for justifying my opinions to others, Cito di Pense: no, I don't typically make the attempt. I'm here only because I considered myself invited by logical bob and Thommo; I'm nothing if not polite

Blip wrote:Can't argue with any of that, really. Demonstrably, not everyone cares about non-human animals to the same extent, ScholasticSpastic.

I might point out, logical bob, that certain choices of clothing do involve suffering: given conditions in some factories, of human animals too in some cases. I'd view that as a matter of ethics as well, obviously.

As for justifying my opinions to others, Cito di Pense: no, I don't typically make the attempt. I'm here only because I considered myself invited by logical bob and Thommo; I'm nothing if not polite

This still ends up in circularity. Suffering is bad because, well, someone thinks it is, and finds some texts that give the same opinion. But in fact, pain is a by-product of natural selection and violence is a by-product of biological competition. So we conceive of something called 'needless suffering'. Goes right along with 'unrivaled inconvenience'.

Imagining that there's a more advanced phase of this, where competition is reined in, is part and parcel of ethics, and without dignifying it by making it a branch of philosophy, it's not quite ready for primetime. We don't know if ethics works or not in, you know, the grand scheme of things. The evidence is that it produces a world with too many fucking people in it, all competing. When someone (by accident of birth) ends up in a place where much is given almost for free, due to the competitive successes of people in the past, it's discretionary to use the opportunity to indulge one's feelings about violence. Is it not enough that such a setting excuses one from violence if one chooses, something for which one can simply be grateful, but to whom? It's not like it's generally a minority position in such circumstances, and one can go as far with it as one is able.

Me, I'm not here to make amends for the past and I don't crave human sustainability in order to find the human project interesting.

I take your point about the utility of pain - and indeed fear - but that does not lead me to inflict either on others gratuitously.

What texts were you thinking of when you wrote 'Suffering is bad because, well, someone thinks it is, and finds some texts that give the same opinion'? I would use a word like 'unpleasant' or 'distressing' rather than 'bad'. Of course there are certain religionists who relish suffering - even their own in some cases - but I suspect that need not detain us right now.

I shan't argue with your second paragraph.

Blip wrote:I take your point about the utility of pain - and indeed fear - but that does not lead me to inflict either on others gratuitously.

What texts were you thinking of when you wrote 'Suffering is bad because, well, someone thinks it is, and finds some texts that give the same opinion'? I would use a word like 'unpleasant' or 'distressing' rather than 'bad'. Of course there are certain religionists who relish suffering - even their own in some cases - but I suspect that need not detain us right now.

I shan't argue with your second paragraph.

'Gratuitously' is already a judgement call.

I relish suffering, non-religiously, because it instructs me to try something else. I frankly admit that there may not be a solution, but that does not diminish my relish in the slightest. I don't recognize anything gratuitous about it.

If we can't find any texts that say suffering is bad, then we can't. I'm not trying to say suffering is bad. If somebody's saying I'm inflicting gratuitous suffering on them, I'll take it under consideration, but there's not an automatic judgement in store.

Trying to figure out what someone is saying when they're not saying anything is too full of woo for me.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Blip wrote:I take your point about the utility of pain - and indeed fear - but that does not lead me to inflict either on others gratuitously.

What texts were you thinking of when you wrote 'Suffering is bad because, well, someone thinks it is, and finds some texts that give the same opinion'? I would use a word like 'unpleasant' or 'distressing' rather than 'bad'. Of course there are certain religionists who relish suffering - even their own in some cases - but I suspect that need not detain us right now.

I shan't argue with your second paragraph.

'Gratuitously' is already a judgement call.

I relish suffering, non-religiously, because it instructs me to try something else. I frankly admit that there may not be a solution, but that does not diminish my relish in the slightest. I don't recognize anything gratuitous about it.

If we can't find any texts that say suffering is bad, then we can't. I'm not trying to say suffering is bad. If somebody's saying I'm inflicting gratuitous suffering on them, I'll take it under consideration, but there's not an automatic judgement in store.

Trying to figure out what someone is saying when they're not saying anything is too full of woo for me.

You really relish suffering? What is your opinion on euthanasia?

Blip wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Blip wrote:I take your point about the utility of pain - and indeed fear - but that does not lead me to inflict either on others gratuitously.

What texts were you thinking of when you wrote 'Suffering is bad because, well, someone thinks it is, and finds some texts that give the same opinion'? I would use a word like 'unpleasant' or 'distressing' rather than 'bad'. Of course there are certain religionists who relish suffering - even their own in some cases - but I suspect that need not detain us right now.

I shan't argue with your second paragraph.

'Gratuitously' is already a judgement call.

I relish suffering, non-religiously, because it instructs me to try something else. I frankly admit that there may not be a solution, but that does not diminish my relish in the slightest. I don't recognize anything gratuitous about it.

If we can't find any texts that say suffering is bad, then we can't. I'm not trying to say suffering is bad. If somebody's saying I'm inflicting gratuitous suffering on them, I'll take it under consideration, but there's not an automatic judgement in store.

Trying to figure out what someone is saying when they're not saying anything is too full of woo for me.

You really relish suffering? What is your opinion on euthanasia?

Depends on whether you think all suffering is gratuitous and not in part self-generated due to lack of relish. Yes, I think euthanasia is acceptable when there's no recourse from suffering due to a disease whose course is sure and it's chosen by the one involved. It's still up to the individual, who usually relishes experience more than rejecting suffering, but a lot of people are too influenced by what other people think about their decision to check out, to which opinion they won't have access after checking out.

There is of course nothing to stop anybody deciding that they might in a small way make the world a slightly better place by doing a small thing, whether it's abstaining from meat, supporting a charity or visiting the elderly. Cito will point out that "better" is a value judgement and suddenly this poor sap has to answer for the whole enterprise of rational morality, if not Project Humanity in its entirety. In the last thread on vegetarianism, by the end of page 1 we were already hypocrites if our lives had the least contact with motorised transport. I forget why, I think they might use an animal product in making tyres or something. I don't buy this all or nothing approach, it's as absolute as evangelical veganism and less much less helpful.

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just trying to keep from getting bored while waiting for death.

Now that's a First World Problem, but also profoundly depressing.

logical bob wrote:There is of course nothing to stop anybody deciding that they might in a small way make the world a slightly better place by doing a small thing, whether it's abstaining from meat, supporting a charity or visiting the elderly. Cito will point out that "better" is a value judgement and suddenly this poor sap has to answer for the whole enterprise of rational morality, if not Project Humanity in its entirety. In the last thread on vegetarianism, by the end of page 1 we were already hypocrites if our lives had the least contact with motorised transport. I forget why, I think they might use an animal product in making tyres or something. I don't buy this all or nothing approach, it's as absolute as evangelical veganism and less much less helpful.

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm just trying to keep from getting bored while waiting for death.

Now that's a First World Problem, but also profoundly depressing.

I have no problem with someone making the world a better place according to them. If I learn about it, you know what to expect. Making the world a better place is a cheap thrill. It's too fucking easy if all it involves is being kind to animals.

Imagine visiting the elderly if I'm one of them. Not so easy any more, is it?

Cito di Pense wrote:
Imagine visiting the elderly if I'm one of them. Not so easy any more, is it?

Cranky old people can be very entertaining. I'd still visit.

I love the elderly.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Imagine visiting the elderly if I'm one of them. Not so easy any more, is it?

Cranky old people can be very entertaining. I'd still visit.

I don't know that thrill. Enlighten me.

Cito di Pense wrote:Imagine visiting the elderly if I'm one of them. Not so easy any more, is it?

I believe the term is "peer support."

Cito di Pense wrote:
Imagine visiting the elderly if I'm one of them. Not so easy any more, is it?

Class