How do we know that other peoples moral reasoning is not more correct than our own? My thought process and my sense of right/wrong are not infallible.
With an issue like animal rights I can reason it something like, “I think the way we treat animals is wrong and I can resolve that immorality in my life by not eating meat, because the consequences of me somehow being wrong about the morality of the issues would not further harm animals”. But there are plenty of issues on which I disagree with the crowd(s) for reasons I have deeply considered but, were my reasoning wrong, would result in immoral actions on my part.
I think a lot of atrocities are morally rationalized by the people who commit them. So how can one trust that thinking hard about morality is actually a valid way to avoid doing horrible things?
I disagree with this for similar, but not quite the same, reasons as Shrimp Feelings. Yes, sometimes people don't conform to society's moral expectations and do good! But they also often don't conform to society's moral expectations and do harm (to themselves or others)! And I don't think it's just because they aren't trying to do good, but because their beliefs are wrong.
I think this is a bit uncharitable. I would wager that most people eat meat because they do not think the interests of animals are morally significant. I think you can fairly easily talk people into saying things they don't believe. This happens all the time when I teach undergraduates; they will be quick to endorse a crude moral relativism if you ask all kinds of abstract questions about morality. But they are most certainly not relativists. So even if in conversation you corner someone into conceding that animal interests matter, it doesn't follow that their reasons for eating meat are thereafter conformist. It seems more plausible to me that they retain their speciesism and run the modus tollens on whatever argument you've given them. Of course, this is to say nothing about the merits of speciesism or the rationality of rejecting the evidence you provide. I'm only concerned the push back against the charge of weak character implied by the conformist interpretation you offer.
I didn't say that was why most people ate meat. I said that was why most people who think meat eating is wrong eat meat, even when they're otherwise responsive to moral reasons.
Fair point! I suppose the point still stands, though. I would be surprised if most people that continue to eat meat when presented with such moral reasons really do believe that it's wrong. Especially when there's not a lot of pressure to eat meat from others.
This is super off base, people aren't vegan even after learning of factory farming because they don't have to experience factory farming to continue eating meat.
I think if for some reason you had to go to a factory farm each time to pick up your meat, see how the meat is made, every time, there would be a lot more vegans, and a much stronger movement to end factory farming.
I also note that personally going vegan is very low impact, I assume donating to effective animal welfare charities is something that has much better odds of ending factory farming.
It's relevant because I really doubt it's conformism that makes people not be vegan, I think it's what I said instead. I think it's unreasonable to expect people to significantly alter their lifestyle because of something they never experienced.
> If you want to avoid doing horrible things, you will have to think hard about morality.
If failing to consider soil nematode suffering as more intrinsically important than anything humans experience is “doing horrible things,” then I don’t want to avoid doing horrible things.
> So why do decent people keep knowingly doing horrendously evil things?
They don’t care. Aldo, doesn’t this contradict your point above. If you concede that people will still behave immorally even if they think really hard about morality, then clearly thinking hard is insufficient.
> otherwise your decision-making hinges on completely ridiculous things
Question: Would it be more intrinsically preferable to torture 500 children to death, or reduce insect suffering by 0.00001%.
> Most people wouldn’t cheat on their spouse even if they could get away with it and would enjoy it.
This just means that most people aren’t shortsighted hedonists.
> Even if torturing dogs would benefit you by more than giving up meat would cost you, you wouldn’t do it.
I’m confused. I’m pretty sure I already do the equivalent of this every day when I eat meat. You say this in the opening of the post. So why are you now contending that it’s unthinkable?
> So your behavior really is like that of a puppet on a string—jerked around by whatever your neighbors happen to think.
If it would benefit you, would you torture 500 children to death in order to reduce soil nematode suffering’s expected value by 0.00001%?
How do we know that other peoples moral reasoning is not more correct than our own? My thought process and my sense of right/wrong are not infallible.
With an issue like animal rights I can reason it something like, “I think the way we treat animals is wrong and I can resolve that immorality in my life by not eating meat, because the consequences of me somehow being wrong about the morality of the issues would not further harm animals”. But there are plenty of issues on which I disagree with the crowd(s) for reasons I have deeply considered but, were my reasoning wrong, would result in immoral actions on my part.
I think a lot of atrocities are morally rationalized by the people who commit them. So how can one trust that thinking hard about morality is actually a valid way to avoid doing horrible things?
I disagree with this for similar, but not quite the same, reasons as Shrimp Feelings. Yes, sometimes people don't conform to society's moral expectations and do good! But they also often don't conform to society's moral expectations and do harm (to themselves or others)! And I don't think it's just because they aren't trying to do good, but because their beliefs are wrong.
"The answer is that most people are conformists."
I think this is a bit uncharitable. I would wager that most people eat meat because they do not think the interests of animals are morally significant. I think you can fairly easily talk people into saying things they don't believe. This happens all the time when I teach undergraduates; they will be quick to endorse a crude moral relativism if you ask all kinds of abstract questions about morality. But they are most certainly not relativists. So even if in conversation you corner someone into conceding that animal interests matter, it doesn't follow that their reasons for eating meat are thereafter conformist. It seems more plausible to me that they retain their speciesism and run the modus tollens on whatever argument you've given them. Of course, this is to say nothing about the merits of speciesism or the rationality of rejecting the evidence you provide. I'm only concerned the push back against the charge of weak character implied by the conformist interpretation you offer.
I didn't say that was why most people ate meat. I said that was why most people who think meat eating is wrong eat meat, even when they're otherwise responsive to moral reasons.
Fair point! I suppose the point still stands, though. I would be surprised if most people that continue to eat meat when presented with such moral reasons really do believe that it's wrong. Especially when there's not a lot of pressure to eat meat from others.
This is super off base, people aren't vegan even after learning of factory farming because they don't have to experience factory farming to continue eating meat.
I think if for some reason you had to go to a factory farm each time to pick up your meat, see how the meat is made, every time, there would be a lot more vegans, and a much stronger movement to end factory farming.
I also note that personally going vegan is very low impact, I assume donating to effective animal welfare charities is something that has much better odds of ending factory farming.
How is that at all relevant to what I was saying? There might be multiple causes of non-veganism in people who think it's wrong to eat meat.
It's relevant because I really doubt it's conformism that makes people not be vegan, I think it's what I said instead. I think it's unreasonable to expect people to significantly alter their lifestyle because of something they never experienced.
Things can have multiple causes.
> If you want to avoid doing horrible things, you will have to think hard about morality.
If failing to consider soil nematode suffering as more intrinsically important than anything humans experience is “doing horrible things,” then I don’t want to avoid doing horrible things.
> So why do decent people keep knowingly doing horrendously evil things?
They don’t care. Aldo, doesn’t this contradict your point above. If you concede that people will still behave immorally even if they think really hard about morality, then clearly thinking hard is insufficient.
> otherwise your decision-making hinges on completely ridiculous things
Question: Would it be more intrinsically preferable to torture 500 children to death, or reduce insect suffering by 0.00001%.
> Most people wouldn’t cheat on their spouse even if they could get away with it and would enjoy it.
This just means that most people aren’t shortsighted hedonists.
> Even if torturing dogs would benefit you by more than giving up meat would cost you, you wouldn’t do it.
I’m confused. I’m pretty sure I already do the equivalent of this every day when I eat meat. You say this in the opening of the post. So why are you now contending that it’s unthinkable?
> So your behavior really is like that of a puppet on a string—jerked around by whatever your neighbors happen to think.
If it would benefit you, would you torture 500 children to death in order to reduce soil nematode suffering’s expected value by 0.00001%?