UPB and animal rights

[TDB]

One of the things I like about UPB is the way that it deals with the boundary between moral agents and others. As children mature, they develop their ability to reason and debate and "opt in" to moral agency. Dead people opt out.

 

Infants cannot debate, so they have not "opted in" to the norms of debate upon which UPB is built. Someday they will develop the capacity for moral thought, opt in, and become moral agents. Until then, others must both protect the infant from harm, and protect others from somehow being harmed by the infant. We should not treat them as if we owned them.

 

Animals cannot debate. Does UPB treat them as moral agents who refuse to observe UPB, and their status is a result of their inability to restrain themselves? Or does it treat them as comparable to infants, except we can own them and eat them? Could a gorilla that knows sign language opt in to UPB? Certainly a space alien could.

[fractional slacker]

Stef has recently argued animals do not have rights because they have no capacity to exercise free will. They only operate by instinct and through incentives. Therefore they are not moral agents.

Mr. E. also has an interesting go at this topic.

[fulop78]

they have no capacity to exercise free will

 

What does it mean? How can one rationally and empirically measure such a thing?

 

Also I do not understand why non-aggression principle does not apply to human behavior towards animals.

Why does UPB require a moral agent on both sides for an action to be considered (im)moral?

 

But yeah, I agree that violence towards children is a much more important issue.

[PatrickC]

What does it mean? How can one rationally and empirically measure such a thing?

 

Also I do not understand why non-aggression principle does not apply to human behavior towards animals.

Why does UPB require a moral agent on both sides for an action to be considered (im)moral?

 

But yeah, I agree that violence towards children is a much more important issue.

 

Well the first thing regarding UPB is not to muddle it up with the NAP. They are distinct from each other, philosophically speaking.

 

As far as UPB is concerned, the part that can effect our behaviour towards animals would be APA (aesthetically preferred actions). So for instance being cruel to animals would fall under a negative APA action. Which would likely follow through with negative consequencies for the person doing it. It can still be considered repulsive by people, just not violating UPB.

 

UPB requires a moral agent for their ability to think morally about their own actions. Animals simply cannot and will not think at this kind of level.

[fulop78]

Well the first thing regarding UPB is not to muddle it up with the NAP. They are distinct from each other, philosophically speaking.

 

As far as UPB is concerned, the part that can effect our behaviour towards animals would be APA (aesthetically preferred actions). So for instance being cruel to animals would fall under a negative APA action. Which would likely follow through with negative consequencies for the person doing it. It can still be considered repulsive by people, just not violating UPB.

 

UPB requires a moral agent for their ability to think morally about their own actions. Animals simply cannot and will not think at this kind of level.

 

I understand UPB and NAP are distinct. I apologize for mixing the two.

 

Can you explain why would killing an animal other than self defense be only aesthetically negative and not evil?

[neeeel]

 

 

UPB requires a moral agent for their ability to think morally about their own actions. Animals simply cannot and will not think at this kind of level.

 

It appears that most humans simply cannot and will not think at this kind of level. Does that mean we can eat them?

[PatrickC]

You both understand that I've already explained the philosophical principle to you in the post that you've both quoted. It was further explained in Fractional Slacker's post too regarding 'free will'. You'll need to be more specific, if you want me to extrapolate any further for you.

[neeeel]

But your prinicple seems to be "They dont think at that level, therefore its ok to eat them"

I dont think you can derive some sort of conclusion from "They dont think at that level". And, if you do, then the conclusion applies to all things that cant think at that level.

Otherwise, there is some other hidden premise that is being used to derive the conclusion.

[PatrickC]

But your prinicple seems to be "They dont think at that level, therefore its ok to eat them"

I dont think you can derive some sort of conclusion from "They dont think at that level". And, if you do, then the conclusion applies to all things that cant think at that level.

Otherwise, there is some other hidden premise that is being used to derive the conclusion.

 

It's not an opinion. Animals cannot think as moral agents. Just a fact.

 

People are free to offer their ethical opinion on the matter. But in terms of UPB, it's not immoral.

[neeeel]

"animals cannot think as moral agents" is a fact, yes.

 

"animals cannot think as moral agents, therefore its ok to eat them" is an opinion, and the conclusion in no way follows from the premises.

 

But perhaps thats not what you are saying? I am maybe misunderstanding what your point is.

[PatrickC]

"animals cannot think as moral agents" is a fact, yes.

 

"animals cannot think as moral agents, therefore its ok to eat them" is an opinion, and the conclusion in no way follows from the premises.

 

Where have I once discussed the rights and wrongs about eating animals?

 

I really suggest that you read the book. There is little more that I can say in this regard that can't be better expalined in the book.

[fulop78]

You both understand that I've already explained the philosophical principle to you in the post that you've both quoted. It was further explained in Fractional Slacker's post too regarding 'free will'. You'll need to be more specific, if you want me to extrapolate any further for you.

 

You have explained. And I'm not arguing whether or not animals are moral agents. Let's say that I accept that they are not. I still don't understand what difference it makes towards judging the human behavior.

[PatrickC]

You have explained. And I'm not arguing whether or not animals are moral agents. Let's say that I accept that they are not. I still don't understand what difference it makes towards judging the human behavior.

 

UPB requires that both actors are moral agents. We cannot hold a lion morally culpable for the killing of an antelope (or even ourselves) and then in turn hold ourselves to a higher standard, as the lion posseses no free will. This is not how UPB works.

 

Our ethical preferences may be many and varied and indeed they can often be quite reasonable too. If enough people hold the same values then the person that breaks those values can still face significant sanctions as a result (take a drunk driver for instance). However, if they aren't enforceable by UPB standards they then come under the auspices of APA (philosophically speaking) as I earlier explained. UPB isn't interested in our preferences, only universal principles and whether they are enforeceable or not.

 

To better understand APA I suggest reading the chapters that refer to them in the book, as there are many categories for them, which are better explained in the book than on this forum.

[trout007]

If you truely beleive animals have rights then the first thing you would do is go and hunt down all of the predatory animals and either kill or capture them. Just like people you have the right to act in someone's place for self defense.

 

If you don't it would be equivalent to having open murderers walking around society. Now once you capture them you couldn't feed them meat and since they can't digest plants they would soon die. Same goes for the ocean.

[James Dean]

You have explained. And I'm not arguing whether or not animals are moral agents. Let's say that I accept that they are not. I still don't understand what difference it makes towards judging the human behavior.

Both (or more accurately all) parties must be moral agents for UPB to be applicable because otherwise you violate the "U" in "UPB." if it's not immoral for an animal to kill me, and we know this is true because they lack conceptual cognition from which they could make moral decisions, then it is not immoral for me to kill that animal. Claiming so would be exactly like saying its immoral for me to steal, but not for the government to collect taxes, it's a logical contradiction and cannot be sustained.

 

Hope that helps. Remember, it's all about universality .

[Justin K.]

Whatever the reason that non aggression is preferable must be applied to animals. If not, then what we are saying is the only reason not to initiate aggression upon a person is because you want them to reciprocate. Regardless of whether or not animals are "moral agents" most of the animals we eat are herbivore and aren't showing us any aggression. Does it matter why a person isn't showing you aggression for you not to aggress upon them? Without a fundamental core empathy not to harm it cause suffering, NAP is devoid of any power as a principle. It is simply saying that if you can get away with it, do it. Why don't we test on the developmentally disabled population, or people with dementia? Many of them aren't moral agents either. How can we claim to know the difference between right and wrong while imprisoning, slaughtering, and in many instances torturing sentient creatures just because they don't speak our language? Forge the word "rights". That isn't the point. How about actions? They'll say, well a lion can't be held responsible for killing a gazelle. What does that have to do with you treating cows, pigs, & hens horrifically? What did that chicken do to you? What could it do to you even if it wanted to? Before thinking about who you should or shouldn't initiate force upon, ask why initiating force is wrong. Whatever the reason you come up with, it does not follow logically that you would have any reason not to apply it to animals. Arguing whether animals can know right from wrong (which, as an aside, I can prove they can) is utterly irrelevant. It is called universally preferable BEHAVIOR, not U.P. Reasoning skills. Moral agency has never been and will never, can never be a sufficient answer to this question.

[guitarstring87]

I listed to the podcast about animal rights. The thing Stephan said that struck me wrong is that animals arent covered under the NAP because they dont understand it.... Well... Babies. Babies cannot understand NAP. So what about them? Given a baby shouldn't be held morally responsible for not dialing 911 if its mother was choking to death... but the converse it true.
Dont get me wrong... I am a hunter and a ravenous meat eater.... but i dont think that argument can jive.

[James Dean]

Whatever the reason that non aggression is preferable must be applied to animals. If not, then what we are saying is the only reason not to initiate aggression upon a person is because you want them to reciprocate.

No, the reason you don't initiate aggression against another moral agent is because you cannot logically sustain that it is universally preferable to do so. UPB has nothing to do with actions, this is stated quite clearly in the book. UPB can only evaluate theories around preferable behavior. I know this is a bit of a brain teaser, but it's probably simpler than you think. I.e. UPB cannot evaluate a particular murder, only theories concerning murder.

 

. Does it matter why a person isn't showing you aggression for you not to aggress upon them? Without a fundamental core empathy not to harm it cause suffering, NAP is devoid of any power as a principle..

This isnt true at all. The NAP is valid as a principal because it is logical. The validity of a proposition has nothing in particular to do with the mental state of one human being. It would be like saying, "without a firm commitment to rationality, 2+2=4 is devoid of any power as a principal." it's true that a commitment to logic and rationality is important, but it has no bearing on any truth claim in particular. The NAP is a fact, and like other facts, it's truth is independent and objective.

 

Why don't we test on the developmentally disabled population, or people with dementia? Many of them aren't moral agents either.

This is a false dichotomy that gets used in a lot of these animal rights threads. Just because an individual human being's cognitive capacity is diminished, does not remove their moral agency. Human intelligence is a bell curve ranging from very smart to very not-so-smart, with everything clustering around a mean. Now granted I have had limited contact with people with developmental disabilities, but I greatly doubt there are people so cognitively impaired that they have reached parity with animals.

 

But even on a more conceptual level it would be completely irrational to not distinguish between a deviation from a norm and an entirely different norm. The mentally handicapped had the capacity for conceptual reasoning, but deviated from the norm, for a variety of reason. Animals on the other had have no possibility of developing this. The two categories should not be conflated.

 

Before thinking about who you should or shouldn't initiate force upon, ask why initiating force is wrong. Whatever the reason you come up with, it does not follow logically that you would have any reason not to apply it to animals. Arguing whether animals can know right from wrong (which, as an aside, I can prove they can) is utterly irrelevant. It is called universally preferable BEHAVIOR, not U.P. Reasoning skills. Moral agency has never been and will never, can never be a sufficient answer to this question.

If its true that you can prove animals "know right from wrong" you shouldn't be on the fdr boards, you should be presenting your research findings to the Nobel laureate board. Seeing as how you are in fact on the fdr boards, I'm going to assume you have no such proof.

 

It actually does follow logically that you would not apply it to animals because behavioral norms are totally innaplicable to beings without the capacity to make choices. Try explaining to a cat that it should or shouldn't do something. A cat doesn't give a flying fuck about your normative propositions. Animals will do what they're biologically inclined to do at any given moment, there is no possibility of them "choosing" to do something else. This is not because they lack language, but because they lack the fundemental prerequisite for language, conceptual reasoning. for this reason they are not moral agents, they cannot be included in universal norms because those norms would no longer be universal! If it's immoral for me to kill a cow its immoral for a cow to kill me. Since suggesting that a cow could be held responsible for killing me is INSANE, the converse must also be true.

 

It's not called universally prefered "reasoning skills" because ethical theories dont make normative statements about reasoning skills, they make statements about behaviors. Since it is impossible for an animal to "behave" in the same way a human can behave (with free will) we can conclude that "behavior" understood I'm that context is, for the moment, uniquely human.

[PatrickC]

The major issue here is between our preferences and philosophical universality. I've had to let some of my own ethical preferences stand distinct from UPB. However, this doesn't mean that I don't consider some non UPB violations as ethically wrong. Some of my own ethical preferences would be:

1 - I consider a drunk driver responsible for whom they kill or injure whilst driving inebriated.

2 - I consider a 30+ year old man or woman responsible for the developmental future of a teenager they had sex with. This even when consent was given by both parties.

 

3 - I consider a perrson responsible for passing by a serious motor accident which they weren't responsible for and did nothing to help.

 

In all cases I cannot say these people violated UPB. Some of the actions above may already be considered by the majority as wrong, others less so.  I can try and convince people that my opinion is right, by making arguments for why I consider these actions as wrong. I can use a wide variety of tools to do this from statistics, science to argument, but I cannot universalise them in UPB terms.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

That said, perhaps one day we can universalise some of our ethical preferences that don't fall under the auspices of UPB. In which case we may need to throw out UPB altogether (or update it), in favour of a different formula that can test a wider range of moral theories better.

 

However, any future formula would need to be as philosophically rigourous and consistent (if not more so) as UPB. For now at least UPB remains the most rigouous philosophical test for universal morality we have to date.

 

Stefan discusses some of this (re animal welfare and UPB/NAP) in a recent call in show. It's the first caller.

 

FDR 2918 - If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls

[Justin K.]

James Dean. I've spent nine years working with the disabled population and my entire life with many types of animals and indeed there are people with mental impairments below animals. I have seen cats eat a portion of the food I leave out, & then guard the remainder & even chase the neighbors cat away from it only to leave it for both a raccoon and also a baby possum. The cat has no fear of either one and at other times will eat right next to it. He leaves it for the other animal so that this animal will know he did so and return the favor later, which shows foresight & the ability to delay gratification. Chimpanzees have very complex social rules. I have an African Grey parrot who doesn't just repeat words. I know this because if you put several items in front of him, Scooter not only can identify them but if you ask him to identify something not present, he will reply "no green block" meaning he even recognizes the absence of something. I have cats that were once ferrel who now sleep next to and cuddle with hamsters and pet mice. None of my cats are held captive. They have all come from come & go as you please scenarios. I have taught them through language what "good guy" means. First they were members of our family/pack. Today if an outdoor mouse gets in the house I have 3 cats in particular who will catch them and bring them outside without hurting them. The first time I told Blizzard, "Blizz, he's a good guy too, don't hurt him" when he caught the mouse he brought him to me & dropped him in a Tupperware container. They have learned to have affection for creatures which in nature would be prey. People don't understand animals at all. The reason I am not seeking to be a Nobel Laurette as you mentioned is because there are many books written on the subject already. "Unlikely Friendships" is a simple pictorial showing several animals, like a turtle & a snake, chicken & fox, etc. who formed bonds that had nothing to do with pragmatism, & some others that did. I have videos of my handling wild birds that you can watch fly away & come back.

 

None of this however, the fact that animals are in fact capable of reasoning and the ability to spontaneously act far outside of their instinctual behavior, has anything to do with our right to kill & eat them.

The disability question comes up a lot in animal threads because it is a complete logical contradiction. What you are basically saying is that moral agency doesn't apply to individuals but the species in general if you make an exclusion for special needs. Why?

Also, your behavior isn't Universally Preferable to the animals. You are saying their feeling is irrelevant because they can't articulate your language. But a chicken isn't initiating aggression toward you, what reason can you have to do it to them? There was a time the same argument was made about other races. It was as wrong there as it is here.

Pythagoras, Plato & Aristotle as well as several Neo-Platonists agree with me. Not an appeal to irrelevant authority, just a point of fact - & the authority is quite relevant as Ayn Rand shares much with Aristotle.

There is a reason why the founders of almost every world religion, as well as major philosophers & people like Emerson & Thoreau didn't eat animals or gave it up. It is wrong.

Not to mention, and I'm not picking on Stefan because I love Stef and the show, but I've seen in another place where he says it makes his blood boil to see people abuse animals. In this context he meant like kicking a dog - something like that. But why then would it be okay to kill a cow? It can not be only because you want to eat it. You don't need to eat it. To harm something is either inherently wrong, or it isn't. The reason behind why you initiate force against something not doing it to you is irrelevant, as is their capacity to understand your morality. If it isn't wrong in one instance, then why is dog fighting illegal? You can eat a dog. Why is one thing considered barbaric & not the other. We can talk about the difference between animals & humans all we want, but that argument falls apart when you are discussing the difference between one type of animal & another. Pigs are smarter than dogs and cats. None of this speciesism makes any logical sense.

[Justin K.]

The slaughterhouse having glass walls was not on YouTube or I couldn't find it. But when listening to it here, Stef tap dances a bit. When the alien question came up, he says that if they were more intelligent than us that they wouldn't enslave us. This implies we ought not to, or with increased intelligence we wouldn't, but he doesn't answer whether or not they would be in their rights to do so, which is conspicuously absent as it is so obvious that it means we are wrong to do so, as would the aliens be. Instead he talks about how complicated and un actionable it is to prevent or at least not cause unnecessary suffering. No, not complicated. I just don't eat animals. Because the whole world does something, does this mean it is moral, or right, or that we should? And then all these redutio ad absurdum arguments, "if your daughter is drowning next to a mouse"? -who cares? Your daughter isn't. How about just the mouse is drowning, better still - to really be accurate, the question is, because you would save your daughter over a drowning mouse, should you go around killing mice unnecessarily? C'mon...

[labmath2]

During the call in show about animal rights, i was nervous which affected my covnitive capacity. If i could go back a redo the conversation, i would ask two things. 1, what is the meaning of conceptual language and how does it demostrate a persons capacity to understand certain concepts? 2, what about humans that are not capable of conceptual language?

[PatrickC]

I don't think either of you have read or understood UBP. Which is quite frustrating when trying to approach this topic philosophically. It's literally like asking a blind man to see.

 

Regarding the issue of cognitive awareness which keeps cropping up on this thread, you should check out the section on the 'coma test'.

[J. D. Stembal]

Consuming animals isn't a right, nor is it a question of morality. It's an aesthetically preferable behavior. Without the caloric density of hunted or raised animals, humans would never have evolved past the intellectual capacity of the great apes. We would not be having this conversation about ethics if it were not for our omnivorous habits, and social behavior.

 

If someone cannot countenance eating anything with a face that happens to look vaguely human, free will dictates that he can choose what he eats, and he may choose not to eat animals. I choose not to eat grains or legumes, and prefer to eat animal products on a daily basis. In doing so, no person or property is being violated, therefore it is not an ethical matter for UPB.

 

For the sake of definition, animals are not people, but people are animals.

[labmath2]

I don't think either of you have read or understood UBP. Which is quite frustrating when trying to approach this topic philosophically. It's literally like asking a blind man to see.

 

Regarding the issue of cognitive awareness which keeps cropping up on this thread, you should check out the section on the 'coma test'.

To the extent that i undrstood UPB, i assumed it could be applied to all rational actors. The difference between APB and UPB is about effect of our actions on others. Though i could be wrong.

[AncapFTW]

James Dean. I've spent nine years working with the disabled population and my entire life with many types of animals and indeed there are people with mental impairments below animals. I have seen cats eat a portion of the food I leave out, & then guard the remainder & even chase the neighbors cat away from it only to leave it for both a raccoon and also a baby possum. The cat has no fear of either one and at other times will eat right next to it. He leaves it for the other animal so that this animal will know he did so and return the favor later, which shows foresight & the ability to delay gratification. Chimpanzees have very complex social rules. I have an African Grey parrot who doesn't just repeat words. I know this because if you put several items in front of him, Scooter not only can identify them but if you ask him to identify something not present, he will reply "no green block" meaning he even recognizes the absence of something. I have cats that were once ferrel who now sleep next to and cuddle with hamsters and pet mice. None of my cats are held captive. They have all come from come & go as you please scenarios. I have taught them through language what "good guy" means. First they were members of our family/pack. Today if an outdoor mouse gets in the house I have 3 cats in particular who will catch them and bring them outside without hurting them. The first time I told Blizzard, "Blizz, he's a good guy too, don't hurt him" when he caught the mouse he brought him to me & dropped him in a Tupperware container. They have learned to have affection for creatures which in nature would be prey. People don't understand animals at all. The reason I am not seeking to be a Nobel Laurette as you mentioned is because there are many books written on the subject already. "Unlikely Friendships" is a simple pictorial showing several animals, like a turtle & a snake, chicken & fox, etc. who formed bonds that had nothing to do with pragmatism, & some others that did. I have videos of my handling wild birds that you can watch fly away & come back.

 

None of this however, the fact that animals are in fact capable of reasoning and the ability to spontaneously act far outside of their instinctual behavior, has anything to do with our right to kill & eat them.

The disability question comes up a lot in animal threads because it is a complete logical contradiction. What you are basically saying is that moral agency doesn't apply to individuals but the species in general if you make an exclusion for special needs. Why?

Also, your behavior isn't Universally Preferable to the animals. You are saying their feeling is irrelevant because they can't articulate your language. But a chicken isn't initiating aggression toward you, what reason can you have to do it to them? There was a time the same argument was made about other races. It was as wrong there as it is here.

Pythagoras, Plato & Aristotle as well as several Neo-Platonists agree with me. Not an appeal to irrelevant authority, just a point of fact - & the authority is quite relevant as Ayn Rand shares much with Aristotle.

There is a reason why the founders of almost every world religion, as well as major philosophers & people like Emerson & Thoreau didn't eat animals or gave it up. It is wrong.

Not to mention, and I'm not picking on Stefan because I love Stef and the show, but I've seen in another place where he says it makes his blood boil to see people abuse animals. In this context he meant like kicking a dog - something like that. But why then would it be okay to kill a cow? It can not be only because you want to eat it. You don't need to eat it. To harm something is either inherently wrong, or it isn't. The reason behind why you initiate force against something not doing it to you is irrelevant, as is their capacity to understand your morality. If it isn't wrong in one instance, then why is dog fighting illegal? You can eat a dog. Why is one thing considered barbaric & not the other. We can talk about the difference between animals & humans all we want, but that argument falls apart when you are discussing the difference between one type of animal & another. Pigs are smarter than dogs and cats. None of this speciesism makes any logical sense.

How does the fact that it's a particularly well trained animal prove that it can reason?  You train a parrot to say "no green block" under certain situations.  That doesn't show a reasoning ability, but an ability to realize that something is missing, something which it already instinctually knows how to do, as it would need to know if one it's eggs is missing or something disturbed its nest.  Being able to train your cat to follow the wishes of its pack leader doesn't prove anything either.

 

I've seen videos of Ravens waiting for a "walk" symbol at a cross walk before they cross the road.  Does this mean they reasoned out the meaning of the symbol and know it represents a person walking?  No.  They just know it's far more dangerous to cross when the sign isn't lit than when it is.  THat makes them intelligent, but not rational.

 

The human brain works differently than the brain of other animals.  To put it in psychological terms, animals have an ID and an Ego, but not a Superego.  They know what they want, and understand the consequences of their actions, but they can't understand a concept like morality.  That's just not a part of their brains.  Similarly, a computer can know what it's supposed to do in a given situation, but it can't understand the concept of "is this good or evil."

 

The vast majority of humans will eventually develop that ability, which makes them our equal, and capable of operating on equal terms with us.  Animals can't develop the ability to understand morality, therefore they can't operate on that level.  If it can't operate on that level, then someone who can has to make moral calls on its behalf.  The only ways I know of to decide who makes that call without resorting to violence is property rights and homesteading rights.  Therefore, humans have to treat animals as property or a natural resource. 

 

You can choose to do whatever you want with your animals, but you can't choose what I can do with mine.  It's not a moral choice of "should we eat animals or not", it's a choice of the pros and cons of treating animals different ways.  Humans need a lot of protein and fat in their diets to function properly, therefore there is a huge pro to eating animals.  If you don't want them to do that, then either make the pro less important through competition or make the cons greater through "animal rights" activities.

[Justin K.]

Labmath,

Thank you for bringing it up. You may not be happy with your performance but you brought up the right questions & Stef didn't answer them. You did fine. I don't believe Stefan actually wants to be on the wrong side of history, but he's pragmatic & neither wants to alienate his audience nor back off from previous comments. If he was proud of your exchange they'd put it on YouTube. He doesn't want anything to do with this topic because it is either A) bad for business or B) bad for philosophy & credibility.

They have no moral leg to stand on.

 

Should Stef & I ever have this discussion, I've been a stage actor, a crisis management trainer, & currently an elite sales manager. I don't get nervous. I've seen how he tries to escape in these exchanges, I do it all day every day. On this topic, I would annihilate this nonsense. I just don't want to do it to him because I know what he's trying to do. He doesn't believe this crap.

 

It is simple, there is no special interest free discussion. Everyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground is a psychographic marketer. They know their audience. It is disappointing, but not surprising.

 

The onus is on the people doing the killing. It is NOT my job to prove that animals have the capacity for this or that. The burden of proof rests on the people who are murdering them to explain an ethical reason why this is acceptable. That they do not have the capacity to reason in the way we do is... no other word for it "PATHETIC!" Primarily. IT MAKES NO SENSE. Absurd 2nd, disgraceful 3rd, absent in common sense 4th. I'm here because like you (& I want to thank you again for calling in) I recognize the problem isn't as much with Stef as the audience. If more people got it, maybe he'd have the balls. but the idea we don't "understand UPB"

Or was it UBP??? (Sigh) is preposterous. Grow a set & then talk to me about UP/B

There is no morality in selfish, gluttonous, senseless murder. Dress it up however you want.

Why is aggression wrong in the 1st place?

Why is aggression wrong in the 1st place?

Why is aggression wrong in the 1st place?

Why is aggression wrong in the 1st place?

 

Why is it okay to kill things that don't want to die UNNECESSARILY - ever?

 

They have no sufficient answer. Just lofty abstractions, red herrings, but no answer.

We can kill anything we want. But unless we can explain why it there is a moral reason to do so, it isn't philosophy, & why Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, as well as Darwin, Tesla, Newton, Franklin, Edison, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Gandhi, Emerson, Thoreau, & DaVinci (just to name a few) didn't. & what?

[Justin K.]

AncapFTW

 

Who cares? Let's say I grant you are right for a moment. Animals understand torture & ending their life isn't something they enjoy. Why is it okay for you to do this to them? It isn't up to me to prove what animals are capable in the first place. It is up to the people causing them agony to explain why this is a acceptable. Moral agency isn't a strong reason. In fact it isn't a reason at all. The whole premise is deeply flawed.

[PatrickC]

I would annihilate this nonsense.

 

Is this how you approach someone that has taken the time to think philosophicaly in a logical and consistent manner for several years on the topic. Who has given us a book to read on the topic of ethics. A book it seems that you haven't read or don't understand.

 

The trouble with your argument, is that philosophicaly it allows just about any tinpot dictator to arbitralily decide what is good and bad for everyone. You're so caught up in your desire that your preferences be found morally true, that you've lost sight of the broader picture.

 

Rather than making baseless assertions about UPB, Stefan or his audience (for which one of them is you btw). Provide us a philosophical argument without syllogisms. Just saying it is so, does not and WILL NOT make it so.

To the extent that i undrstood UPB, i assumed it could be applied to all rational actors. The difference between APB and UPB is about effect of our actions on others. Though i could be wrong.

 

Yes it does need rational actors, which animals don't fall under (in UPB terms). APA would be the approach I would take towards ethical preferences. Albeit different preferences may have different consequences of course. It's probably the more useful part to understand in the book in this regard, if UPB isn't your main sticking point.

[WasatchMan]

If UPB only applies to your behavior around rational actors, then killing people with severe mental illness would become an aesthetic issue.  If this is true, UPB is not a very good ethical system.  However I do not believe that UPB would classify killing people with sever mental illness as an aesthetic issue, because you yourself are a rational actor with the ability to empathize with others who do not have the rational capacity.  In other words, behaviour does not need two rational actors in order to be true.

[AncapFTW]

AncapFTW

 

Who cares? Let's say I grant you are right for a moment. Animals understand torture & ending their life isn't something they enjoy. Why is it okay for you to do this to them? It isn't up to me to prove what animals are capable in the first place. It is up to the people causing them agony to explain why this is a acceptable. Moral agency isn't a strong reason. In fact it isn't a reason at all. The whole premise is deeply flawed.

You are trying to restrict what I can do.  It is therefore up to you to prove that I am doing something wrong.  Otherwise, you are just hurting me for your own personal preference.  Which is called violence.

 

Also, at no point did I say that torturing animals or saying that "causing them agony" is ok.  I just said that eating them is ok, and that you needed to show me why it was wrong to kill and eat an animal.  You couldn't do that, and instead chose to insinuate that I thought torturing animals was ok.

 

Let me put it this way:  Humans are different than the other animals.  Because of our ability to do something mentally that they can't, we have a way of interacting with each other that they don't have and can't learn.  This mental ability can be considered "morals" or "Logic", but animals aren't capable of it, and therefore there actions can't be bound to it.  If we interact with animals, our actions towards them might be considered in light of "morals" or "Logic", but they cannot be considered equal to us in that context for the same reason that they can't be considered our equals in general.

 

Some people choose to interact with animals in a way you object with, killing them for meat.  Now, show us how that is either immoral or illogical, as you can't show us why we shouldn't do it on any level an animal can understand.

If the UPB only applies to your behavior around rational actors, than killing people with sever mental illness would become an aesthetic issue.  If this is true, UPB is not a very good ethical system.  However I do not believe that UPB would classify killing people with sever mental illness as an aesthetic issue, because you yourself are a rational actor with the ability to empathize with others who do not have the rational capacity.

What do you mean by "rational actor"?  Even a severely mentally handicaped person's brain functions significantly differently than an animal's brain. 

[PatrickC]

If UPB only applies to your behavior around rational actors, then killing people with sever mental illness would become an aesthetic issue.  If this is true, UPB is not a very good ethical system.  However I do not believe that UPB would classify killing people with sever mental illness as an aesthetic issue, because you yourself are a rational actor with the ability to empathize with others who do not have the rational capacity.

 

Refer to the 'coma test' for your exceptions.

 

I hope this thread encourages people to actually read and understand UPB, rather than just react to comments like someone laid down the law. meh!

[WasatchMan]

What do you mean by "rational actor"?  Even a severely mentally handicaped person's brain functions significantly differently than an animal's brain. 

 

Typically, when talking about rational actor in context to ethics, you are talking about an actor with the ability to understand ethics.

[Justin K.]

AncapFTW

I'm not trying to restrict what you are doing. I am pointing out that you have no ethical reason to do so. What irony. You are paying others to imprison sentient creatures but are concerned with "being restricted". Telling you, that your action of killing and torturing (which is 99% of all meat sold today as it is factory farmed) animals is violence on my part? I don't know if people think about how ridiculous they sound. Animals don't have to be our equals. You still have no right to kill and eat them. You are allowed to by law - but you aren't a philosopher with any kind of moral code if the best you can come up with is animals aren't moral agents. It is the most circular and ridiculous notion.

I know right from wrong so I don't have to act right and should be allowed to kill things that don't think like me and do not cause me any harm, because I know right from wrong. Lunacy. Most people just say I don't care I like how they taste. This moral agency, philosophical rationale to do it is 100 times more offensive.

[WasatchMan]

Refer to the 'coma test' for your exceptions.

 

I hope this thread encourages people to actually read and understand UPB, rather than just react to comments like someone laid down the law. meh!

 

I don't see how the coma test applies to the ethical nature of killing non rational actors, and whether this should be considered a aesthetic or moral issue.

 

Also, thanks for your implication that I have not read or understood UPB.  That is just a wonderful slew of passive aggression.