Submitted by phileconomicus t3_ycisnw in philosophy
Meta_Digital t1_itmisbm wrote
Reply to comment by AllanfromWales1 in Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing by phileconomicus
Our brain probably evolved through natural selection, which is a very distinct process from ethics.
Your_Trash_Daddy t1_itn9e88 wrote
But it's generally the considered consensus in evolution that our brains became large because our archaic ancestors started eating meat.
Meta_Digital t1_itnab2c wrote
I think this line of reasoning is still contentious. It might have been correlative rather than causal. It might have been coincidental or accidental. After all, plenty of pea brained animals also eat meat.
Even if it's true, it's still not a very convincing argument for meat consumption being ethical.
Your_Trash_Daddy t1_itndtb3 wrote
Is it more ethical when the animals are hunted, rather than farmed?
Meta_Digital t1_itne4l7 wrote
As I said in another reply, if you're hunting for survival then you're engaging in an activity too primordial for the preconditions for ethical behavior to even exist.
If you're killing animals just because the taste and texture of their flesh gives you pleasure, then you're going to have a hard time finding an ethical argument for doing so.
That being said, hunting is significantly better than factory farms.
Orel_T t1_itpf9rv wrote
Neuroscientist here, This line of reasoning is not contentious at all. We are the only species that in a short amount of time (evolution terms) changed so drastically and it is generally agreed upon that it is because we learned to hunt and cook meat, extracting way more calories from that. That also cleared out schedule enough to be more social and inventive.
No other animal cooks meat.
After thousands of years of evolution eating meat and relying on it for many vitamins and minerals it is not so simple to remove it entirely without consequences. Plant protein, and some vitamins and minerals do net get absorbed efficiently. Studies have shown the possibilities of health issues. That sound like a moral argument to me. harm to animals Vs. harm to self.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmixs3 wrote
But without that process, there would be no ability to understand and consider ethics.
Meta_Digital t1_itmjbga wrote
So is your point that because evolution brought us to the point where we can consider things ethically that we should not consider things ethically and instead just appeal only to evolution?
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmjxoz wrote
No, my point is that the ethics we choose should make allowance for who we are and where we come from. The idea that there is some absolute ethics imposed from above is anathema to me.
Meta_Digital t1_itmllzy wrote
Well, sure, I agree that an externally imposed ethics isn't the best. At the same time, this doesn't excuse us from ethics. We still have to be able to create an ethical justification for meat consumption. I'm not aware of one, but should one emerge, then it would lend more weight to the decision to eat meat.
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmkz59 wrote
How high above are we talking? Where does objective morality come from? Are you arguing there is no objective morality?
AllanfromWales1 t1_itml7db wrote
Absolutely I'm arguing there is no objective morality unless you believe in a transcendent Deity who defines such a morality. I don't.
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmlfy0 wrote
So everything is permitted - so long as you can get away with it I suppose. Good and evil are just a matter of what's trendy.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmmfii wrote
That's very much not what I said. In my opinion, ethics should be based on the ways to act which are best for, in descending order, the social group, society at large, humanity, the biosphere and the universe as a whole. There will be competing interests here, of course, and for me that is the valid area for ethical debate.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmncmx wrote
Animals don't belong in any of those categories for ethical consideration?
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmnjfd wrote
Animals form part of the biosphere.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmnskd wrote
Yes, so, coming back to your original comment, talking about how we ought to treat them very much IS a moral issue.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmosbw wrote
Indeed, but their welfare does not trump other issues.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmphla wrote
You haven't really supported that argument either, other than simply stating your preferred hierarchy.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmqsde wrote
Again, that is my personal view of how a non-absolute morality could be derived, based on the concept of a 'common good' with expanding circles of commonality. I am sure there are alternative options, and am happy to consider them. What I'm not willing to consider is an imposed morality from 'above'.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmr96a wrote
Do you have any actual arguments to support your personal view? I agree that we needn't have a morality "from above," but when your critique of the article is that it doesn't support a moral assumption, I would assume you have something more solid and supported to counter it with.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmrtpy wrote
What I said was:
> Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position.
Now I'm not saying there isn't a moral argument to be made, just that assuming it without question is not good philosophy.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmslny wrote
Also, you're using a priori wrong.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmsd7m wrote
You already admitted that it is a moral issue. Just because you don't agree with the moral conclusion the author makes doesn't mean it's suddenly not a moral issue.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmstiq wrote
Just because I think it's a moral issue doesn't mean that it can be assumed without question. Also, the paper treats it as a moral imperative, which is something else entirely.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmt30y wrote
I doubt you make that claim when an article makes the case against human trafficking.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmtxry wrote
Doubt on.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmu33d wrote
So I guessed right.
Edit to add: You're setting a bar for this article that we obviously don't set for a multitude of other issues, simply because you disagree with it. That's bad faith right there.
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmpg9q wrote
Sure but there is no objective morality so all morality is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing real about morality, it's just that a mode of behaviour is more or less trendy within the "social group, society at large, humanity," and so on. You didn't have to explicitly state that was the case, it follows from your assertion that it must be the case. If there is no objective good then good is whatever I say it is and I can do whatever I like so long as I have the power to do so (e.g., "the state of nature"). It's actually a pretty rational take on things if you don't believe in objective morality. The Romans weren't wrong to the Romans. The Nazis weren't wrong to 9/10 Germans. Whether Alexander was great or terrible depends on where you lived. It's not a novelty.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmq4oy wrote
You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, which isn't this. The concept of the 'common good' is a perfectly valid basis for a moral perspective. The issue is around what counts as 'common', who (or what) is in the community. What you are suggesting is no morality at all. I think that's a stupid position to adopt.
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmu73j wrote
Why do you consider there to be "no morality" rather than 8 billion people with their own subjective take on morality? If my moral compass allows me to kill you then certainly I'm still moral by my own measure, you just don't like my measure. Well, I don't like yours so we're even.
I'm simply trying to illustrate what's permissible without objective morality (i.e., everything). If there is no objective morality then morality isn't a "real" thing that exists. If "murder is wrong" doesn't exist objectively somewhere out there then it doesn't actually exist at all. We avoid murdering because we don't happen to find it trendy (it has been before) or because we don't have the power to actualize our will to commit murder (people have before).
I think what you're imagining is a scenario where you and some other people get together to decide among yourselves a version of morality you can force upon the world. So long as everyone is obeying your group's subjective morality it's as though an objective morality actually exists, but what makes YOUR moral code the correct one? You decide that it's because it satisfies conditions A, B, C but you just decided that those conditions had to be satisfied. I could decide that morality needs to satisfy X, Y, Z instead and conclude an entirely different system of morality that opposes yours completely. What's wrong for you, of course may be right for me. You can get the allies behind you, I'll get the axis behind me and the result is whoever is more powerful decides which subjective moral system survives. This isn't unlike the world today (sovereigns are still in the state of nature).
AllanfromWales1 t1_itmuow1 wrote
You really don't understand at all what I've been saying. I've tried enough, if you won't or can't understand so be it. But just for my interest, where do you believe objective morality comes from?
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itmwu4d wrote
Who said I believed in objective morality? If there is an objective morality of the universe then the universe must have a design, right? Then there must be a designer which imbued the universe with that objective moral truth, right? This is the line one would have to argue.
I found the "so is it good because God says so or is God simply the messenger of what is good?" argument to be pretty good at discrediting the objective moral goodness of God until I heard an argument that went something like "Goodness is an essential element of the concept of God" (Craig). I'll paste a quote about this below.
Either way, you don't have to believe in objective morality to recognize that without it morality is not actually "real." It would be up to everyone to decide for themselves, even if that includes rape and murder.
"You state your fundamental question as follows: How do we know that God is good?Now at one level, as I explained in last week’s Question #294, that question is easy to answer: it is conceptually necessary that God be good. That is to say, goodness belongs to the very concept of God, just as being unmarried belongs to the concept of a bachelor. For (i) by definition God is a being worthy of worship, and only a being which is perfectly good would be worthy of worship; and (ii) as the greatest conceivable being God must be morally perfect, since it is better to be morally perfect than morally flawed."
That's from this page: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/on-the-goodness-of-god
AllanfromWales1 t1_itnaoga wrote
For what it's worth, that argument only really applies if God is transcendent. If God is purely immanent, it makes little sense.
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itni931 wrote
Please, go on. I've not heard this criticism before.
AllanfromWales1 t1_itp0uxd wrote
A copypasta (with minor modifications) from elsewhere on Reddit:
>Immanent vs Transcendent Deity
> For me, the key issue is the distinction between a transcendent deity and an immanent deity. YHWH is a transcendent deity - He exists outside of the world, created it, rules over it, and judges us for the extent to which we obey him. For me Deity is immanent rather than transcendent - it is in and of the world, not an external creator, but rather a manifestation of Nature itself. In other words, it doesn't rule over the world, it is the world. It is certainly not judgemental. The only incentive to worship it is the joy and inner peace you can get from being close to nature.
SuperSirVexSmasher t1_itprw47 wrote
God is supposed to be the first cause so it should always be transcendent, or it isn't God, but I imagine it's also of this world since it's supposed to be omnipresent.
Explain why the argument doesn't work if it's immanent. Is the idea that if God is all things of reality then God is also in all evil things? I've considered this before. Is this what you mean?
AllanfromWales1 t1_itq1zpt wrote
Not a great believer in the good/evil dichotomy. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw', so if my Deity is immanent in nature, it includes that side of things. I don't accept that is evil, though.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments