That's why I hate the trolley problem (and by extension every other binary choice philosophical problem).

Life is almost never binary.

Democracy IS the main check and balance.

Unlimited democracy is a theoretical construct.
Democracy is always "limited". There is always some "merit" bar for voting. There is always a limited agenda of what one can vote for (and get it too). One can experiment with the constraints and see what results one gets. Some experiments can be frightening, but as long as the basic principle remains (that you can attempt to repair the damage next time you vote), thats fine.

Levels of democracy (limits by "merit" and agenda or candidate availability) vary to an incredible extent among countries which on the surface look similar or even within one country.

Noocracy on the other hand proposes to find geniuses and let them loose. I am against that. Same with philosophers (that one is really funny), and technocrats (and their robots and AI).

Perfect government - humans dont need perfect day care centres. Humans need motivation to live. AI or aliens ruling us would be very depressing.

In specialised fields meritocratic peer reviewed groups work reasonably well if they are constantly renewed, and political parties can be like that for periods of time. But meritocratic peer review breaks down with political power, populism, bribery, backstabbing, nepotism and the rest of politics. Parties usually seem well organised when they are in opposition. When in government, things (people) start falling apart.

Granted there are countries where governments are democratically elected yet stable for decades and appear to be working as a meritocratic peer reviewed system. They are just lucky I guess.

Maybe if the noo tried harder they could achieve that?

@SDGundamX, first up, it was a throwaway line, you're reading way too much into it.

I'm not going to go over Jim Jeffries joke (it's been discussed to death already), except to say that, yeah, I got what he was trying to do and no, it still wasn't that funny or clever.

Besides, I wasn't trying to compare the two. Mine was a throwaway line, his was an extended sketch by a touring professional comedian. My point was simply that taste is in the eye of the beholder.

And would you please do me the courtesy of not telling me what I'm thinking. I'm not angry about ignorance, I'm angry about woolly thinking (specifically, lack of critical thinking).

If you're ignorant, then you just need to be taught. I'm not angry at ignorant people, I'm sorry for them and I want to help them.

My problem is with people (like the guy in the video) who have been presented with evidence, but ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

200 years ago, if you believed that disease was a result of demonic possession, that's unfortunate. If you believe that today, you're deliberately ignoring knowledge.

As far as viewing people who reject evidence as a dangerous "other", I'm ok with that. As I've said before, I don't believe in "tolerance" as a virtue. If someone isn't bothering me, or someone is doing something I don't like, but it doesn't harm anyone, then I'm fine with them; I have no need to "tolerate" them.

But if people are doing something that causes harm (racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc), I don't tolerate that at all, and will speak out against it.


As for your torture example, it is flawed. You're saying that you wouldn't reconsider the ethics of torture, even if evidence of its efficacy was available. Do you see the problem?

You proposition was that torture is unethical, and your hypothetical evidence states that it is effective. The two are orthogonal properties. It is possible to be both effective and unethical.

Besides, I didn't say you had to change your position, I said you had to reconsider. If someone presented you with a philosophical argument arguing for the ethics of torture, are you saying you wouldn't even hear it out?

I hold positions like that myself. Despite everything, I believe that one day, people will overcome their petty differences and venture out into the stars. That doesn't mean I don't question it..

Doesn't look very well executed, but is certainly philosophically-inclined.

Wow. That's unlucky. I get those all the time, I probably pull down 15-20 nests a year around my house and garage, and I've never been stung by them.....yet. Granted, I do it at night or early in the morning so they're asleep/cold and can't react, and often just use a hose to spray them down from the overhangs, but they have seemed to be far less aggressive than even my bees, and almost domesticated compared to hornets.

PS: Is it possible your hippy neighbor gets upset not because of what you're poisoning, but because you're poisoning, period? Maybe he would be happy if you just squashed them or hosed the nests down? Many people are hyper sensitive to poisons, some for medical reasons, some for philosophical or ecological reasons. I grow a lot of my own produce at home, so I would be pretty upset if my neighbor started spraying poison on the fence line, because it would get all over my crops, and most insect poisons that cause instant death are not designed to wash off or be human safe. Just a thought.

@newtboy Uh..dude, "humanist" and "individualist" are already philosophical schools of thought that have determined meanings that aren't anywhere near the realm of feminism (eg, an activist movement for equal rights).

I mean, unless you're trying to stretch humanist to not mean, essentially, secular thought distancing from the dogma of the church and individualist as not the idea of the individual has more weight than collective good or the state. But.. you might have to contend with the fact those aren't the definitions of things you believe you came up with.

The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.

Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.

It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.


Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.


I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.

I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.


Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.

@ahimsa

and now we move to stage two of the predictable vegan argument:

distinctions.


oh fuck me with a razor bladed dildo this is some tiring and facile shit.

look man,you are seriously missing my main point:
pretentious twattery and a morally and philosophically inconsistent stance.

so you can keep quoting anybody and everybody because it is apparent you really do not understand what you are quoting,and it is not adding anything to our discussion...at all.

maybe..
possibly..
just something to consider...
you approach expressing the values and benefits of being a vegan sans the self-righteousness,the pretension and condescension?

that maybe because YOU became a vegan for moral and ethical reasons,others may have come to it from other means and for other reasons,and allow those who are NOT vegan to come to their own conclusions and make their own choices?

and maybe not be so judgey mcjudgerface if they choose differently than you?

look man,we all do something that gives us the "feel goods".

some recycle obsessively,even though there is little evidence that actually makes a difference.

others drive a hybrid and feel that is their contribution,even though it is actually worse.

some will only buy organic and/or shop locally.(thats me btw)
and even though this brings some coin to the local farmers,taken on a whole it is barely a blip against the monster that is wal mart.

i have friends who do beach clean up every year,even though it gets destroyed within a month.

so we all try to do something that fits our perceptions of the world and how we can make it a better place.

and yes..if we ALL got together we could make a massive change in the current dynamics,not only locally but globally.

so i get it mate..i really do.

i guess what i am suggesting at it's core is this:
stop acting like a newly converted jehovahs witness who just wants us all to hear about your new buddy jesus.

i also think i should share that my long time girlfriend is vegan.
not your judgey,self righteous,pretenscious type vegan..but a vegan.

and that girl can't cook worth a damn.
which means that cooking falls on ME.
do i still eat meat?
yep,but not that often and rarely..raaarely red meat.
and to my girls credit she never gives me shit,i may get the upturned nose but never actual verbal shit.

red curry anyone?

1. If not for taste, then you must be doing it because you've been mislead (like I was) to think it's a nutritional requirement. There is zero nutritional reason to eat animals for the majority of people on this planet. Perhaps habit is involved, but nothing that can't be broken if you want to. 99.9% of vegans were not vegan.


2. There is no gene in the human body which specifically makes you eat meat or drink milk. The chemical reaction that makes you crave certain foods is influenced by the foods you eat. In a hypothetical survival situation, eat all of the animals you need to, but we don't live in that situation.


3. I'm a middle-class person just like the majority of the westerners. I wasn't vegan for the first 30 years or so of my life. If I can do it, I know anyone can, they simply must want to. There is no financial, professional, geographical reason for everyone apart from those living in extreme conditions in western society to not become vegan. The reason why I say western society is because not only is western society the biggest cause of this (poor countries are already plant based, using very few animal products comparatively), but because westerners have the opportunity to do it easily.
The only difficult part is finding out correct information, because animal industry groups love to create clouds of doubt by funding misleading research and advertising. But the information is now out there on the internet.


4. It's a nice thought, but until those ideal conditions are reality, we must look at what action we can take now.


5. You don't need to grow your own food, farmers do that for you, and there will be plenty of land free'd up since 70% of all farm land is currently used to feed livestock.


6. There is protein (including the 9 essential amino acids) in almost every edible plant - vegetable, grain, rice, potato, nut and fruit. That simply eating enough to not be hungry means you eat enough protein. You don't need to eat the 3 gluten sources to meet your daily protein requirements. Even if everyone apart from those with celiac disease became vegan, the impact to the planet would be immense, because it's not a common thing. (I'm guessing you must get annoyed with the current trend of hipsters avoiding gluten, when they don't have celiacs or have not had an intestinal biopsy to confirm it).

7. I think it's fair to say that there is very little risk, when the alternative is eating a well documented carcinogen (meat, especially processed meat, see the World Health Organisation). Surely not giving yourself cancer is a good reason to avoid meat?

8. We can philosophize about minute details of sentience, or something like abortion, but really that is say like we shouldn't drive cars because we don't fully understand the laws of physics. We know enough about physics to improve our way life. It's the same about veganism, we know farm animals are mistreated, we know they feel pain and misery, and they have a will to live, so lets fix that first, and then we can philosophize about sentience.


9. It's not about the people that don't have a choice, it's about the people that do, and the majority of people do have a choice, that is the point.


10. Again there is protein in everything you eat - how do you think a chicken or cow get's it's protein? From plants!

@ahimsa

seriously?
quoting to rebutt an obvious sarcastic comment?
is it that hard to even attempt to be even a tad original?
do you REALLY think i am promoting actual violence?
really?
and you respond with a level of pretentious twattery that you should be ashamed of.

are you even remotely aware you literally made my point on how some vegans lack the basic self-awareness to realize they are being massive hypocrites and tools?

you trot out those tired,and boring,self-effacing morality/ethics tropes as if they were written on mount sinai,and then have the audacity to not even own your own egocentric bullshit.

jesus..vegans are such intolerable pussies.

because YOUR vegan philosophy is egocentricism on narcissistic steroids,and you lack the basic self-awareness to even have the skills to acknowledge that you are literally smelling your own farts,and calling it wisdom.

there is another vegan on this site that i really wish would put his two cents in,because he at least is aware of the hypocrisy and is an absolute delight to engage with.

but YOU...
self-awareness may be too tall an order it seems.
as you rant and rail against the inhumanity and suffering of the agri-animal on a fucking machine that 10 yr olds assembled to put together in a country where they dont even have the most basic of necessities met.

sitting at a desk dressed in clothes that ANOTHER 8 yr old sewed together,working 18 hr days at 23 cents an hr and is beaten if she slacks,is late..or complains.

the list of human oppression,slave labor and human trafficking that YOU benefit from is legion,and your lack of your own hubris,privilege and hypocrisy is,quite frankly,offensive.

so you can sit there in your own little smug fart cloud and self-righteously condemn the rest of us for choosing to enjoy bacon and convince yourself of your own superior morality and purity of ethics,but the reality is this:

you don't give two fucks.
you are an over-privileged,over indulged little shit and is no better nor worse than the rest of who travel through this life..making our own choices and being responsible for them.

the ONLY thing you truly care about is your little habitat and how others behavior affects your tiny,precious little world.so you go ahead an be a vegan for "moral" and "ethical" reasons,because it gives you the "feel goods".

and i say this with all humanity and honesty:
if you are vegan for moral and ethical reasons,then good for you mate.you made a conscious choice and have stuck to it.bravo my friend.

but don't try to push your own little inane philosophy on the rest of us.we may be assholes for eating meat,but at least we are not hypocritical,contradictory assholes.

now if you want to discuss the benefits of a vegan diet.
great...i am down.
if you wish to share why being a vegan for YOU is a philosophy that works for YOU and is a choice YOU made...then great.i love understanding why people chose to do what they do.

but if you keep attempting to make this purely a morality and ethical dilemma,while ignoring YOUR own philosophical and moral inconsistencies.

well..then we have nothing more to speak about.
enjoy the smell of your own farts.

/cockpunched

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.

I treat movies like these (like Oldboy, Edge of Tomorrow) as basically adaptations of foreign stories to Western society. It's not at all a surprise that Western audiences will generally want a Western lead, and studio execs know this. Besides what would be the point of remaking the anime/manga verbatim (besides converting anime to live action)? The original stands by itself.

What bothers me more is the inevitable dumbing down of the material. You can bet philosophical discussion on the boundary between human and machine, dualism and emergent bandwagon will be replaced by actions, explosions and CGI.

The concept of veganism is to reduce unnecessary suffering and exploitation, no more no less. A lot of vegans don't even understand that concept. Letting nature take it's course, is not the vegan concept. If a lion jumped out and started mauling you I'd still try to save you (assuming I wasn't running way LOL), but of course I'd try to do it in a way that did as little harm to the lion as possible with weighing in the speed at which I'd have to act in order to have the least harm done to you by the lion as well.

It's not a black and white rule book, rather it's a philosophical and ethical balancing act that takes in a lot of considerations. I hope no vegans would be against the guinea worm going extinct. As far as I know (I don't know much about it) is that won't affect any other eco system if it goes extinct. It's not exactly a sentient being either. So removing it from existence as far as we are able to tell will do more good than bad. It will in that case cause less suffering.

Of course some nut job from PETA might disagree with me.

I said that if something never exists, it's not possible for it to know it isn't existing. I never said animals don't care if they get killed, they obviously do since every animal has survival instincts and mechanisms. (Actually some philosopher said that, I'm just too lazy to quote him properly lol).

It's the same reason why killing a few billion unconscious cells is called abortion, and why killing a few seconds old baby is called murder.

it's not a question of whether or not it's a living being. It's a question of personhood, which is a philosophical argument, not a biological one. Children don't have the same rights as adults, it's not that they aren't living beings, it's simply philosophical argument, children don't have the same abilities as adults, so an age was set, and viola.

sperm are living entities too, so are bacteria, don't see men getting jailed for masturbation, or people getting jailed for using anti-bacterial soap.

The right wing pro-life argument rings hollow when they show how little they care for human life after it leaves the womb.

And pro-tip, you're not going to get a rational discussion from bob. he's full of truthiness