If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: sentientism.info/groups or our biggest here on FB: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
This breath of air was made even fresher by virtue of the fact that, before tuning in, I had been listening to coverage of the U.S. presidential election.
16:10 It's not surprising at all to me that a significant number of people who have had a very low threshold of acceptance for / of unsubstantiated faith based claims would therefore not be any different even if they managed to be extracted or fell away by their own will from 1 particular branch of the tree of uncorroborated claims. That's not describing all former theists, but many that I've come across......they tend to easily accept claims or positions without sufficient justification, IMO.
I was going to comment as usual - and still will - but I just noticed the vegan "Moo is Moot" drink next to me will "summon" me "into the full buoyancy of being"! - and will bring "a daily rhapsody of renewal"! Wow! I feel better reading that, than drinking the actual stuff.😁 Packaging better than content - another defining human trait... In this case, no problem. In other cases, a huge problem... ( - think social norms... More about the norms and the normies later... I've decided normies can become elite... maybe. 🤔)
Maybe truth is important for our survival. I'm a perfect truth-seeking machine, sometimes I make mistakes, but ultimately find truth. 25:16 Persuasion happens, even when someone's denying facts. There are fundamental reasons for morality, and some of them are: The recognition of, and the protection of another consciousness. The tendency towards morality, I believe, was given to us through the evolutionary process, "from the ground up", not "from the top down". 42:25 If morality was socially reasoned (as Jesse means by the term "socially reasoned", I would use the word, controlled) then that would not be true morality, such is a perverted sense of morality, majority doesn't make right. 42:50 The central principle of morality is RESPECT, and so because "respect" is involved, this indicates that it's (morality is) about the individual. 1:06:30 Sounds like a flawed theory, I would be the opposite, maybe because I'm a truth seeker. See the change that you seek. 1:18:50 "Tapping into that latent ethic", that's right.
34:24 But there's no sufficient justification to believe morality is grounded in something external. Occam's Razor, among other tools, informs me that morality need require no external entity.
And no, not even 💯% consensus = objective morality. 💯% consensus of subjective morality = 💯% agreement by those who subjectively derive and conclude what their moral values are.
Good one! Lots of humility and lack of righteousness in Jesse's teaching method. It's valuable for people to feel they have discovered correct ethics for themselves, and then to own it, and then to keep correct ethical behavior going! But, like it or not, Jesse is another member of our ethical elite. 🫅 Maybe teach the normies who think they can never achieve our elite philosophical heights (and don't care to anyway) that there is an easy way for them! - They only need to achieve the de facto ethical behavioral heights of say, an individual cow, or rabbit, or even a bear. (And If they aspire to be, say, a behavioral lion, that's OK too but be aware that a well placed kick to the jaw by a Zebra will cause a slow painful death. Just be an ethical cow, or rabbit. It's easier. You can do it! - Or better yet, be a human (and humane) sentientist. Join that elite - or continue not to care, and remain a lowlife. - Just a simple message to the meathead normies. 😁 PS: I said the de facto behavioral ethics of an INDIVIDUAL cow, or rabbit, or bear, or lion... If we talk about AGGREGATE behavioral ethics then cows and others - and especially humans! - can be unethical as hell. Humans certainly are. Too many of even a good thing (cows and rabbits) is a bad thing. Too many of a bad thing - well, I don't need to spell it out... PPS: And as far as the fellow cell-based organisms we call trees go - Is their ethical behavior, individual or in aggregate, better than ours?
This guy has spent too long in an echo chamber. In my experience people are not compassionate at all. Forget animal farming for a moment and just examine how people treat one another. It's foolish to try to "meet people where they are" when they simply do not care. What about power dynamics just in general? If you can't answer these questions for human rights, you can't answer for animal rights. That's why the word "animal" might not show up in an ethics book. Lets step back into something objective and break down the claim "trees are more advanced than people": * They can feed themselves [through photosynthesis] - you won't find a single species of tree living in every usda zone * They live longer than humans - some do, but so what? How many moral decisions does a tree make in its lifetime? * They're magnificent - compared to human works? Develop a theory of aesthetics. * They communicate with each other - what's a podcast? I understand you're sympathetic toward this guy's views so you don't want to go too hard on him but you didn't seriously interview this guy, Jamie. Where's all the critical thinking you're gushing about? Especially the "fear of judgement" bit at 43:00. Just nodding and agreeing while social control is being pushed as a great idea. Really? This guy sucks!
Thanks for watching and for your response. A few thoughts: - Human animals can be deeply awful but compassion (even if it's often conditional and constrained) is also extremely common. Compassion and co-operation are highly adaptive. Your "Not compassionate at all" claim seems obviously unfounded? Very many other animals routinely demonstrate compassion too. - I don't think trees are "more advanced than people" either. Every living entity today is just as evolved as any other - we all fit into our ever-changing niches. I think Jesse was trying to suggest we challenge the anthropocentric "we're the peak" norm rather than seriously proposing a new hierarchy with trees at the top :) - The reason I didn't challenge Jesse on this point is because I think he's right. Bad social norms are bad. Good social norms are good. I look forward to the day when more people feel social pressure to be more universally compassionate and to ground their credences in evidence and reason. That will be a much better world - "This guy sucks" doesn't seem to be a compassionate response. It seems particularly harsh when his worldview and his work directly disproves your "not compassionate at all" claim. I'm left wondering whether you think compassion is actually a good thing?
@@Sentientism You and Jesse are right. And Jesse was not talking about what is going on here and there, but what is a source in every human being that could be used. That is how I understood him. A bit like Hume: Sympathy (what is "compassion" in our terms) is a function every human being could use; many are not always using it, quite the opposite, they neglect it, especially under certain circumstances like non-familiarity (many usually care more for one's friends than people far away, e.g.). But it could be used nevertheless, humans have this source/ function/ capability naturally.
@@anabelv4 Indeed! And most humans already extend this compassion or sympathy way beyond our own species. They just need the social context to help them put that compassion more consistently into practice. An interesting recent survey here that shows where things could be heading... x.com/JamieWoodhouse/status/1833163084636045684
@@Sentientism Yes, it seems so naturally for my to sympathise with animals instantly and it utterly pains me when I see them hurt. I think those who abuse animals have a hard blockade, but I think even they could discover to find joy in loving animals and see animals happy. Thanks for the link!
If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: sentientism.info/groups or our biggest here on FB: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
This breath of air was made even fresher by virtue of the fact that, before tuning in, I had been listening to coverage of the U.S. presidential election.
Looking forward to watching this
Such an interesting and insighful talk. I'm really glad to learn about Jesse Tandler via this episode.
Thanks Anabel - glad you enjoyed!
9:14
You're describing me
16:10
It's not surprising at all to me that a significant number of people who have had a very low threshold of acceptance for / of unsubstantiated faith based claims would therefore not be any different even if they managed to be extracted or fell away by their own will from 1 particular branch of the tree of uncorroborated claims.
That's not describing all former theists, but many that I've come across......they tend to easily accept claims or positions without sufficient justification, IMO.
15:35 The multidimensional hyper elves have entered the chat. 🖖
:)
I was going to comment as usual - and still will - but I just noticed the vegan "Moo is Moot" drink next to me will "summon" me "into the full buoyancy of being"! - and will bring "a daily rhapsody of renewal"!
Wow! I feel better reading that, than drinking the actual stuff.😁
Packaging better than content - another defining human trait... In this case, no problem. In other cases, a huge problem... ( - think social norms... More about the norms and the normies later... I've decided normies can become elite... maybe. 🤔)
FIRST! 🎉
👶
Maybe truth is important for our survival. I'm a perfect truth-seeking machine, sometimes I make mistakes, but ultimately find truth. 25:16 Persuasion happens, even when someone's denying facts. There are fundamental reasons for morality, and some of them are: The recognition of, and the protection of another consciousness. The tendency towards morality, I believe, was given to us through the evolutionary process, "from the ground up", not "from the top down". 42:25 If morality was socially reasoned (as Jesse means by the term "socially reasoned", I would use the word, controlled) then that would not be true morality, such is a perverted sense of morality, majority doesn't make right. 42:50 The central principle of morality is RESPECT, and so because "respect" is involved, this indicates that it's (morality is) about the individual. 1:06:30 Sounds like a flawed theory, I would be the opposite, maybe because I'm a truth seeker. See the change that you seek. 1:18:50 "Tapping into that latent ethic", that's right.
34:24
But there's no sufficient justification to believe morality is grounded in something external.
Occam's Razor, among other tools, informs me that morality need require no external entity.
And no, not even 💯% consensus = objective morality.
💯% consensus of subjective morality = 💯% agreement by those who subjectively derive and conclude what their moral values are.
Good one! Lots of humility and lack of righteousness in Jesse's teaching method. It's valuable for people to feel they have discovered correct ethics for themselves, and then to own it, and then to keep correct ethical behavior going!
But, like it or not, Jesse is another member of our ethical elite. 🫅
Maybe teach the normies who think they can never achieve our elite philosophical heights (and don't care to anyway) that there is an easy way for them! - They only need to achieve the de facto ethical behavioral heights of say, an individual cow, or rabbit, or even a bear. (And If they aspire to be, say, a behavioral lion, that's OK too but be aware that a well placed kick to the jaw by a Zebra will cause a slow painful death. Just be an ethical cow, or rabbit. It's easier. You can do it! - Or better yet, be a human (and humane) sentientist. Join that elite - or continue not to care, and remain a lowlife. - Just a simple message to the meathead normies. 😁
PS: I said the de facto behavioral ethics of an INDIVIDUAL cow, or rabbit, or bear, or lion... If we talk about AGGREGATE behavioral ethics then cows and others - and especially humans! - can be unethical as hell. Humans certainly are.
Too many of even a good thing (cows and rabbits) is a bad thing. Too many of a bad thing - well, I don't need to spell it out...
PPS: And as far as the fellow cell-based organisms we call trees go - Is their ethical behavior, individual or in aggregate, better than ours?
This guy has spent too long in an echo chamber. In my experience people are not compassionate at all. Forget animal farming for a moment and just examine how people treat one another. It's foolish to try to "meet people where they are" when they simply do not care. What about power dynamics just in general? If you can't answer these questions for human rights, you can't answer for animal rights. That's why the word "animal" might not show up in an ethics book.
Lets step back into something objective and break down the claim "trees are more advanced than people":
* They can feed themselves [through photosynthesis] - you won't find a single species of tree living in every usda zone
* They live longer than humans - some do, but so what? How many moral decisions does a tree make in its lifetime?
* They're magnificent - compared to human works? Develop a theory of aesthetics.
* They communicate with each other - what's a podcast?
I understand you're sympathetic toward this guy's views so you don't want to go too hard on him but you didn't seriously interview this guy, Jamie. Where's all the critical thinking you're gushing about? Especially the "fear of judgement" bit at 43:00. Just nodding and agreeing while social control is being pushed as a great idea. Really? This guy sucks!
Humans have mirror neurons which generate compassion.
Thanks for watching and for your response. A few thoughts:
- Human animals can be deeply awful but compassion (even if it's often conditional and constrained) is also extremely common. Compassion and co-operation are highly adaptive. Your "Not compassionate at all" claim seems obviously unfounded? Very many other animals routinely demonstrate compassion too.
- I don't think trees are "more advanced than people" either. Every living entity today is just as evolved as any other - we all fit into our ever-changing niches. I think Jesse was trying to suggest we challenge the anthropocentric "we're the peak" norm rather than seriously proposing a new hierarchy with trees at the top :)
- The reason I didn't challenge Jesse on this point is because I think he's right. Bad social norms are bad. Good social norms are good. I look forward to the day when more people feel social pressure to be more universally compassionate and to ground their credences in evidence and reason. That will be a much better world
- "This guy sucks" doesn't seem to be a compassionate response. It seems particularly harsh when his worldview and his work directly disproves your "not compassionate at all" claim. I'm left wondering whether you think compassion is actually a good thing?
@@Sentientism You and Jesse are right. And Jesse was not talking about what is going on here and there, but what is a source in every human being that could be used. That is how I understood him. A bit like Hume: Sympathy (what is "compassion" in our terms) is a function every human being could use; many are not always using it, quite the opposite, they neglect it, especially under certain circumstances like non-familiarity (many usually care more for one's friends than people far away, e.g.). But it could be used nevertheless, humans have this source/ function/ capability naturally.
@@anabelv4 Indeed! And most humans already extend this compassion or sympathy way beyond our own species. They just need the social context to help them put that compassion more consistently into practice. An interesting recent survey here that shows where things could be heading... x.com/JamieWoodhouse/status/1833163084636045684
@@Sentientism Yes, it seems so naturally for my to sympathise with animals instantly and it utterly pains me when I see them hurt. I think those who abuse animals have a hard blockade, but I think even they could discover to find joy in loving animals and see animals happy. Thanks for the link!