Socialism and also ethics discussion thread

[Prince EWS]

These discussions are digressions in a way.

The whole topic is a digression tbf. This thread was meant to be about socialism.

 

[Ikki]

FTR I like the discussion and the digression, I'm just saying we've skipped over a fundamental point of the discussion.

 

[hendrix]

that's because you're reasonably consistent though. it's ****ing great watching them do back flips when they get on the front foot over cows or horses or whatever only to defend having their cat or dog that "chooses to be with them"

one thing that no one has picked up on though that i find disquietening about your views, and veganism in general, is you'd choose mosquitos over a more conscious, feeling, emotional creature like a cat. this is partly bias on my part sure, and im happy with that, but choosing the extinction of a creature that can experience more over that of a robotic instinctive murder bug is something i can't get behind.

i understand why you think that way, i just could never call it moral because i find it instinctively wrong on a level well beyond the usual social debates. i can't help but wonder that as a human im programmed to empathise with animals that are closer to me, a fellow thinking and feeling mammal, than i am to empathising with a bug.

edit - i don't mean to paint you as the great satan here, because lord knows you probably have the same instinctive reaction to a farm kid who grew up surrounded by hundreds of domesticated animals of various species, i just think its an interesting distinction between the deep rooted value systems of two humans

I think you're slightly misunderstanding me here - FTR I definitely empathise far more with cats than I do mosquitoes, and I don't think there's anything wrong with caring more about "higher" animals than "lower" animals, and having more compassion for those animals that have higher capacity for feeling and emotion. I agree with that value.

I would just prefer domesticated animals to live in the wild (or in case of cats at least with their own dignity and freedom) than as pets. And maybe pet animals might "die out" in the same way that domesticated sheep and chickens and cows might die out - if there was no place in the wild for them and we can't find enclosures for them and (say in New Zealand) they cause extensive damage to the native wildlife...yeah I think them dying out would be a solution. Doesn't mean I don't empathise with them.

Also, I don't have any instinctive reaction towards you. I have done plenty of things in my life that I consider immoral now, and probably will continue doing some bad things. Most of my life I've eaten meat. I'm not gonna jump on a high horse (lol) about it.

 

[hendrix]

These discussions are digressions in a way. I've brought it up several times only to be ignored by hendrix. Compassion for animals is pretty inconsistent for him really, and all of us really. The crux of the matter is through creating towns, cities, etc, deforesting and clearing land, we have killed many animals and whole species. We have fundamentally changed their environment. We will also continue to do so.

So now that we have done that, debating over whether we are allowing them to roam free to hunt for themselves or to not breed them for pets in order to be compassionate seems really contradictory. It could be even argued because we have civilisation and have interrupted their natural habitation that we have a duty to take care of them in that way.

This is simply not the kind of argument you can call someone else uncompassionate by your own viewpoint which is why I don't take a lot of vegans seriously and it comes down to virtue signalling for those who are very militant about it. It makes no sense to "gotcha" a meat-eater or a pet owner because our collective hands are dirty in the broadest and probably most important sense if we are talking about compassion for animals.

I think you're finally understanding my POV.

I agree with most of this post but I don't agree with the meaning you're drawing from it (obviously)

"we have killed many animals and whole species. We have fundamentally changed their environment. We will also continue to do so."

YES! We have! and we should try to reduce this as much as possible! The same way we should try to reduce human-induced global warming as much as possible!

Millions of people die from starvation every year - should we just give up, and stop caring about them, too? No. We should do our best with what we can. This is not a perfect world but it can be as good as we let it be.

My view is very consistent.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, having dirty hands is not a good rationale for deciding on what should be done going forward. Irrespective of stupid vegan gotcha arguments. That is a defensive approach.

All discussion of ethics is a form of virtue signalling. So I don't why that's limited to the vegans. Let's just stop the name calling because all of us are trying to figure out our personal ethics and this form of "eh I am not a virtue signaler like you" doesn't help anyone.

 

[Ikki]

"As much as possible" is a vague and indeterminable aim. If you want to reduce our harm to them as much as possible, we have to go back to living as tribal nomads. Therefore the balancing act of this is subjective.

You call out people for eating meat when you are an even worse transgressor just by virtue of living in a city that will continue to grow. You can't call out others for considering animals for utility when you do it too. You're contradicting your own point.

 

[hendrix]

"
You call out people for eating meat when you are an even worse transgressor just by virtue of living in a city that will continue to grow. .

Completely in utterly nonsensical.

 

[Ikki]

Completely in utterly nonsensical.

it's a fact mate. We compete with animals for resources - particularly land and what comes with it.

 

[StephenZA]

"As much as possible" is a vague and indeterminable aim. If you want to reduce our harm to them as much as possible, we have to go back to living as tribal nomads. Therefore the balancing act of this is subjective.

You call out people for eating meat when you are an even worse transgressor just by virtue of living in a city that will continue to grow. You can't call out others for considering animals for our utility when you do it too. You're contradicting your own point.

No he is not contradicting his point... all he is saying is that just because something is, does not mean we can not strive to make it better; being pragmatic does not mean you can not still have ideals to strive for.

Poor arguments are those that say, "well that is always how it has been" or "well that is how it was done in the past" or "a solution did not work perfectly so therefore we must stop looking for new ones or improve on the ones we have"..... that is defeatist and pointless for a society who have, on the whole, always, ideally, strived for improvement.

 

[Ikki]

No he is not contradicting his point... all he is saying is that just because something is, does not mean we can not strive to make it better; being pragmatic does not mean you you can not still have ideals to strive for.

Poor arguments are those that say, "well that is always how it has been" or "well that is how it was done in the past" or "a solution did not work perfectly so therefore we must stop looking for new ones or improve on the ones we have"..... that is defeatist and pointless for a society who have, on the whole, always, ideally, strived for improvement.

His pragmatism is contradictory in the same way my pragmatism is contradictory. He just doesn't like my version, that's the only distinction that needs to be made. We've already settled amongst all of us that animal lives mean less than human lives by our actions if not our words. If compassion is not killing them to not eat them, it is also not living in cities to not wipe out their ecosystems and consequently the species of animals. Ironically, at least breeding them for consumption keeps their species alive.

And again, the bolded assertion and those like it are meaningless. Better compared to what and who considers what is better? His whole premise is so contradictory it's laughable.

 

[hendrix]

it's a fact mate. We compete with animals for resources - particularly land and what comes with it.

Yes, it's a fact that we compete with animals for resources. I'm not stupid, I know that.

Your point though, is completely in utterly nonsensical.

 

[StephenZA]

His pragmatism is contradictory in the same way my pragmatism is contradictory. He just doesn't like my version, that's the only distinction that needs to be made. We've already settled amongst all of us that animal lives mean less than human lives by our actions if not our words. If compassion is not killing them to not eat them, it is also not living in cities to not wipe our their ecosystems and consequently the species of animals. Ironically, at least harvesting them for eating them keeps their species alive.

And again, the bolded assertion and those like it are meaningless. Better as to compared to what and who considers what is better?

No his pragmatism is not contradictory... you could argue his idealism is contradictory to his the pragmatic way he has to live his life; but Hendrix at least try's while still living his life. He has never said he is perfect.

He does not like your ideals because your ideals are about keeping status quo or regression to what is a 'better' time. You do not want to argue the merits of what improvement can be made for the future of society and the human race, to try improve the way we function and interact whether with other humans or animals.

And you last statement shows my point, you do not want to construct an argument regarding differing peoples beliefs to improvement, and the merits or failures thereof but avoid that discussion altogether.

 

[Flem274*]

Ikki, seriously not trolling here, do you have any doubts in your world view? You seem very certain on everything.

Probably a decent question for Hendo as well even though he isn't very ideologically pure, though back in the day I felt like his monogamy thread was him convincing himself/thinking out loud more than anything.

 

[Ausage]

Pragmatic would be banning live exports to countries that mistreat animals or better messaging around what constitutes a "free range" chicken. Veganism/vegetarianism falls into that category too but abolishing dog ownership and maintaining a reserve for them is not even remotely pragmatic in material (would be insanely expensive/disruptive) or ethical (the majority of domesticated house pets would be killed in a matter of weeks) terms.

It's very clearly an ideological stance. If you're willing to completely abolish dog ownership, "how far are you willing to go in your idealism?" becomes a very fair question.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, it's a fact that we compete with animals for resources. I'm not stupid, I know that.

Your point though, is completely in utterly nonsensical.

No, it's just straightforward logic. Someone who doesn't care if whole species are wiped out does not get to lecture someone else about not eating animals because of compassion.

No his pragmatism is not contradictory... you could argue his idealism is contradictory to his the pragmatic way he has to live his life; but Hendrix at least try's while still living his life. He has never said he is perfect.

He does not like your ideals because your ideals are about keeping status quo or regression to what is a 'better' time. You do not want to argue the merits of what improvement can be made for the future of society and the human race, to try improve the way we function and interact whether with other humans or animals.

And you last statement shows my point, you do not want to construct an argument regarding differing peoples beliefs to improvement, and the merits or failures thereof but avoid that discussion altogether.

His pragmatism is contradictory because his reasoning is based on compassion for animal lives. You can't call out utility as bad when in essence his pragmatism is also based on utility. He obviously doesn't object to technology and living in cities, so what makes him compassionate is just his arbitrary barometer which conveniently leaves out his own uncompassionate lifestyle.

What's better? Keeping their species alive, even if we eat them, or killing them off altogether by altering their habitats? This is not something you can simply wipe your hands of and there is no defined aim to go towards. If my position is keeping the status quo, so is his.

You haven't answered my question either: Better compared to what and who considers what is better?

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, seriously not trolling here, do you have any doubts in your world view? You seem very certain on everything.

Probably a decent question for Hendo as well even though he isn't very ideologically pure, though back in the day I felt like his monogamy thread was him convincing himself/thinking out loud more than anything.

What do you think is my world view? I doubt you appreciate or understand it because you've shown me as much through our discussions.

I strive to be honest and live in reality. That's my overarching worldview. It helps me be consistent and not lie to myself or anyone else. Not that I am perfect but keeping yourself accountable is the best way to be as consistent as possible.

What I'm willing to own in this discussion about animals is something everyone else has to own: that we don't care about animals over human beings. And if keeping them alive is compassionate then eating them is probably not even the highest concern. It's fruitful for us individually to consider what we can do to lessen this harm but it's misplaced to lecture others when all of our starting points allow coercion against animals.

 

[Flem274*]

i disagree with hendrix but if he was given the keys to the castle im doubtful he would begin his reign as gareth morgan 12 beers in

as an end point, of course he would. but even on the topic of animal issues there are far more pressing concerns than livestock and house pets right now like the long list of endangered species and the animals on the street with no family, animal or human.

 

[StephenZA]

Better compared to what and who considers what is better?

E.g.: Since we have advanced technology, the fact we no longer even need to eat meat, the awareness that because something is an animal does not mean we can not improve those animals live and consider if we should continue to behave in the manner we have always behaved.... there is many arguments for changing many societal issues/ideas, won't be done overnight and there is merits and counter arguments.

"But this is the way it is" is not a counter argument to any attempt to improve society, it is an acceptance of current life without thought to improve or move forward as a society, it is a non- and lack of thought.

 

[Flem274*]

What do you think is my world view? I doubt you appreciate or understand it.

I strive to be honest and live in reality. That's my overarching worldview. It helps me be consistent and not lie to myself or anyone else. Not that I am perfect but keeping yourself accountable is the best way to be as consistent as possible.

cheers mate

 

[hendrix]

Pragmatic would be banning live exports to countries that mistreat animals or better messaging around what constitutes a "free range" chicken. Veganism/vegetarianism falls into that category too but abolishing dog ownership and maintaining a reserve for them is not even remotely pragmatic in material (would be insanely expensive/disruptive) or ethical (the majority of domesticated house pets would be killed in a matter of weeks) terms.

It's very clearly an ideological stance. If you're willing to completely abolish dog ownership, "how far are you willing to go in your idealism?" becomes a very fair question.

What, do you think I'm saying this should happen overnight? Don't be ridiculous. It's obviously a gradual process that happens over years of phasing out.