Episode 53: Solo -- On Morality and Rationality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.prepostero...
Patreon: / seanmcarroll
What does it mean to be a good person? To act ethically and morally in the world? In the old days we might appeal to the instructions we get from God, but a modern naturalist has to look elsewhere. Today I do a rare solo podcast, where I talk both about my personal views on morality, a variety of “constructivism” according to which human beings construct their ethical stances starting from basic impulses, logical reasoning, and communicating with others.
In light of this view, I consider two real-world examples of contemporary moral controversies:
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Or is there an ethical imperative to be a vegetarian? Do inequities in society stem from discrimination, or from the natural order of things? As a jumping-off point I take the loose-knit group known as the Intellectual Dark Web, which includes Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and others, and their nemeses the Social Justice Warriors (though the discussion is about broader issues, not just that group of folks). Probably everyone will agree with my takes on these issues once they listen to my eminently reasonable arguments.
Actually this is a more conversational, exploratory episode, rather than a polished, tightly-argued case from start to finish. I don’t claim to have all the final answers. The hope is to get people thinking and conversing, not to settle things once and for all. These issues are, on the one hand, very tricky, and none of us should be too certain that we have everything figured out; on the other hand, they can get very personal, and consequently emotions run high. The issues are important enough that we have to talk about them, and we can at least aspire to do so in the most reasonable way possible.
Support Mindscape on Patreon or Paypal.
I followed Sean's logic all the way through this podcast and I think he made more than a couple completely unsubstantiated claims regarding morality and the relevant social science, even a few logical fallacies. I was not satisfied and don't think he did very well with this episode. It is baffling to me how someone could be a Naturalist on one hand but then on the other seem to claim that human-constructed morals wouldn't also ultimately be physical and therefore possibly quantifiable, maybe even by traditional Science. Furthermore, his argument for "why killing is bad" is so extremely awful, I won't even take the time to say why. No moral distinction between killing and murder... Very dumb. I do still look forward to his next episodes on science topics.
I2yantheGreat agree ... u should check out “Vegan Footsoldier “ response it’s great
Couldn't agree more
"human-constructed morals wouldn't also ultimately be physical"
The rules of baseball are physical in that you can define them in physical terms and you could even someday identify the physical processes in people's brains that led to their invention. But you can't look anywhere in the universe to confirm whether the American League rules or the National League rules are the true, correct rules of baseball. So it is with morality. Any given moral conception is physical. But there is no physical basis for determining which one is correct. That is Carroll's point.
@@WumpieJr This makes no sense because morality is not just randomly invented but from a materialistic perspective a set of rules to organize humans to create or avoid certain brain states, not even how we would value this against each other would be a real question in my opinion when we get enough data about how the human experience forms. I just don´t get this whole is ought gap thing, where is the gap when our brain just gives us this feedback?
@@kingoliever1 I still don't agree. You could say that "children playing" has a set of rules: they chase each other sometimes, they wrestle sometimes, when a child cries they sometimes stop and sometimes don't, etc. But there is no hard and fast set of rules, like there is for baseball, that tells you whether a child is playing correctly. In other words, there is an "is" of children playing, but no "ought." We can also identify an "is" of human morality. But that doesn't give you any physical basis to say what human morality "ought" to be. If your belief is that human morality ought to be what we observe, then you're smuggling that in as an assumption. In fact the basis for many of history's most important social movements has been a strong dissonance between the morality that is and the morality that a person decided ought to be. So where is the physical basis for deciding who is right when we compare two different moralities? Where do we look in the universe to adjudicate disputes?
I’m no theoretical physicist but it doesn’t take a genius to know why killing animals is wrong. Please do more research on this topic
If killing animals is wrong, what are your plans for lions, scorpions, wolves and any other non-human animal that kills animals? A cull? An exemption?
Daniel Hobgen Daniel Hobgen I am a privileged human that has no need or necessity to eat the flesh of another animal. Lions and wolfs sometimes kill their own should we do so too because lions and wolves do? What’s next? Plants have feelings too? My canines? Our ancestors? What other carnies excuse do you have? At this point it’s common knowledge don’t embarrass yourself.
Daniel Hobgen animals also rape, so you’re saying rape is fine? We are just animals after all, can’t control it?
I don't think there is an "um" or hesitation anywhere here. Incredible.
I'd love to listen to you and Eric have a conversation.
I got $20 on Sean
Also Eric brought up Sean twice on the JRE podcast and stated that he was “on his mind”, perhaps they already have an episode in the works
Who is eric?
@@owencurtis7864 An imbecile
Go Debate Vegan Gains.
Vegan gains wants to have a respectful debate with you . I'd love to see it .
Your arguments are very poor atm but don't worry , most peoples are while they're still trying to justify their eating habits . You owe it to yourself to educate yourself on the topic.
It's not that the IDW 'want's differences in IQ to be out there being talked about'. That is simply incorrect. I can only speak for Sam here, because he has said this himself; all he wants is a society where the people who are responsible for discovering certain undesirable facts(like differences in IQ across populations), are not publicly shamed and have their lives ruined. It's not that he is dedicated to talking about differences in IQ, it's that he wants it to not be a career-ending move to even remotely touch on the subject.
What's the difference between the 2? One clearly leads to the other.
@Peeta Bird, do you see political implications to the conclusion that the basis for IQ differences among groups is genetic and epigenetics are mostly a non-factor? Do you think that conversation can happen in a vacuum?
Yup. The facts of the matter, if available, must be accessible if sum1 wishes to access them
@Peeta Bird, it's a tough problem. You've essentially argued that the effects of it not being siloed are not worse than the effects of a cultural requirement to exercise a certain amount of discretion in public conversation about the issue given the historical context. It's not clear to me that the moral calculation there is accurate.
@@edwinurey4927 , I think you can look at the political implications of the IQ difference from two perspectives.
The first, and the way that Sam Harris is looking it, is that say you have a segment of our society that is failing to thrive. If we're going to put policies in place that help bring that group up from poverty we first have to know exactly what's keeping that segment from thriving in the first place. Is it IQ, systemic violence, culture, some combination of multiple factors? If we're not willing to have honest conversations about the reasons people are not successful, we'll be left with politicians throwing money and effort at the issues blindly (and probably only as a way to pander to certain voters). Like Peter Joseph has said, growing up poor is a form of systemic violence that has been shown to lower IQ by ~13 points no matter the racial background. So it's quite possibly not a pure genetic IQ issue as much as it is generational poverty. But if we can't even study the problem we're effectively guessing.
The second way, and the way that most on the left are fearful of, is some supremacist group using the data to justify their misguided views and attempt to codify them using the "science" to back them up. The antidote to that hatred isn't a near-fascist response of "de-platforming" anyone who looks at the data. The antidote to bad ideas is open discussion and good ideas.
Great thoughts and discussion on the topic. I myself have learnt a lot from Jordan Peterson and learnt quite a bit from this one too. I applaud your honesty in this talk for acknowledging that you have your own starting points and biases. I think we can all understand how people can have different perspectives and priorities on these issues without necessarily downplaying or misrepresenting the other side of the argument. Would still love to see you have a conversation with Peterson, even though I know it is unlikely to happen. Thanks again, for this great, honest and informative podcast.
@Calvin Blanchard Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at University of Toronto and previously Harvard, and author of a recent bestselling book with over 3M copies and according to the New York Times, "The most influential public intellectual in the western world"... and you can find all this with a simple Google search so yeah... your ignorant and passive aggressive comment suggests you might have some underlying bias at work here, the statement, "he looks like" a propagandist, sounds like an admission that your opinion is based on bias rather than any actual study or understanding of the relevant topics. ;)
As for myself, there are no strings, I just found his psychology lectures at U of T quite fascinating.
@Calvin Blanchard Happy to help. And I'm not attacking you for it, just pointing it out so you're conscious. We all have some starting point and perspective which influences our though process as Sean pointed out, and I will admit Peterson's popularity has been bolstered by political incidents, but that does not necessarily discredit his views. If you are curious I would recommend avoiding interviews and watching his lecture series at U of T. It's all on YT and sheds a lot of light on the topics discussed here.
ruclips.net/video/kYYJlNbV1OM/видео.html
Have a great day. :)
@@pcsecuritychannel Jordan Peterson uses a whole lot of word salads and disingenuous religious arguments. I also think he'll make a bunch of descriptive claims like "men and women are different" in a context which is prescriptive (like should we reduce discrimination/socially pressure towards women STEM fields), which unfortunately makes some assume the former determines or justifies the latter. For me personally, his climate change equivocation was the worst because it felt like pure pandering to avoid backlash from his conservative audience
I don't really think Sam Harris fits in with the IDW. He disagrees with Shapiro and Peterson on virtually every major issue.
Shapiro and Peterson are the dumb mans smart man
He's cited as a "member" all the time. He's colleagues with most of them. They're all anti-left, which is the uniting force. He absolutely is.
@@cjaquilino Few people have spent as much time as Sam has criticizing Trump's lunacy, and the current derangement of the republican party. I might suggest that you listen to some of his podcasts, specifically the ones with Shapiro and Peterson, where he proceeds to makes fools out of both of them. Sam isn't anti-left, he is pro-intellectual honesty.
Aziraphale686 He's center-left and punches to his left. I get that he disagrees with Peterson and Shapiro on different things. But they're in league with each other over the anti-left thing, which is the real animating force for the IDW. They're anywhere from rightwing to center-left.
Why are we discussing a topic that is already settled ? Biologists and game theorists have long since figured out the fundamental origins of human morality. For all practical purposes, “morality” is an emergent property of interdependent social dynamics wherein self interested agents develop perfectly rational incentives to engage in cooperative pro social behavior. There are mountains of books on this and even quantitative mathematical models.
@Jeff "The Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley.
Carroll gets a lot of things wrong here. He says humans are generally against killing of other humans, this is just blatantly wrong. Almost all humans will kill a murderer to save a loved one. We're against murder, not KILLING.
Sean - intellectual dishonesty ha! You have grouped a collection of people together as IDW - people who are not part of a group (card carrying as you say) but are related by a critic who uses the term in a derogatory manor to categorize people she doesn't agree with (she didn't even coin the term, but characterized them as such) - and you have painted them all with the same brush - even though you say they represent a full spectrum of opinions. I don't know or care about Peterson, Shapiro and others you mention, but to call Sam Harris an apologist, right leaning, global warming denier, misogynist is a total joke. Have you ever listened to his podcasts? Whatever. And then to say that some guy said x so therefore all of IDW are tainted (not their term - I'm not sure these people even talk to each other) is intellectually dishonest. Granted you are careful not to judge the legitimacy of their certain opinions, but to characterize Harris in this way is bullshit. Podcast wars or something? I love your interviews, and learn so much from your content, but be careful not to fall into someone else's trap. And then I remember you plan to monatize your podcast by adding advertisements. Well.... By the way this is the first time I've ever commented on anything on the internet - you really got me going.
He said that stuff mostly for Peterson and Ben, not for Sam Harris. In fact, he implied that Sam is the smartest of IDW. He has debated Sam Harris before and knows him well.
Thank you Sean, a very good solo.
I really like your general approach to morality. But...
You criticize Jordan Peterson but I also like his general approach. Is that a conflict? Maybe yes, but the world is complex and sometimes conflicting truths are both valid.
You both have very sound arguments that I agree with, but both of you seems to create straw men of the other’s argument and disagree with things that the other one did not say.
Let me point out one example:
Jordan's argument is not that woman are in any way intellectually inferior to men. His argument is that there are on average a difference in men and women’s interests, and that results in difference in career choices resulting in big differences in average income.
You don't seem to appreciate this crucial argument of Jordan's. You argue that he argues that there are difference in intellectual ability. That’s a straw man.
At the same time you argue strongly about the real discrimination out in the real world making it difficult for women to succeed in "the male world". Jordan does not seem to appreciate this crucial argument. He also creates a straw man to argue against.
My conclusion - you are correct in pointing out the discrimination and Jordan are right in pointing out the biological differences in interests and you are both wrong in attacking the respective straw men.
+Sean Caroll I used to struggle getting my cat in the carrier until one day I just threw a few treats in there, he walked right in, and I closed the door. Works every time. #CatLifeHacks
That method might cause you to lose a limb with my cat;
mine love marmite, put pills in marmite, no problemo.
Consider inviting Andres Gomez Emilsson from Qualia Research Institute or AI researcher Joscha Bach. They both have very intriguing perspectives on the most interesting topics: self, consciousness, reality, the future, etc.
This episode was a gem! Sean is one of the clearest thinkers I've ever heard
Hi Sean, first of all thanks for doing these podcasts, I love listening to your thought process, it's very intruiging.
I do have a question for you. Basically your position on veganism boils down to speciesism: "It's moral to kill and eat a species X because they are not a part of my species".
Let me entertain you with a thought experiment.
An alien species comes to earth, they are far more technologically advanced than us, meaning that they can do what they please with us, similar to how we are superior to animals.
Now, 50% of these aliens decide to breed us and consume our body parts, justifying it with speciesism. As a speciesist yourself, you wouldn't have anything against that.
The other 50% recognise that although we are much more stupid and can't communicate with them, we also have a nervous system and a desire to live, so they fight for our rights and try to convince the other 50% to stop breeding and eating us, since they can eat plants.
With who would you agree?
@Patrick Hi Patrick :) Vegans have the lowest rates of all-cause mortality. We are opportunistic eaters, during crisis we eat what we can get. Now we live in a society of abundance. Instead of going with "what humans are" it would be probably wiser to consider medical literature and the suggestions of the largest body of nutritional scientists on the planet. That said, I can understand your skepticism. For sure though, eating meat is not sustainable on a planetary basis in the long run, which added to the health and moral arguments, really makes one consider what could be a valid argument against veganism besides mere pleasure.
@@DrZw0 the medical literature hasn't made it clear that eating only plants is healthy and sustainable in the long run......................................
Really weak arguments against vegetarianism here Sean. Your logic about relying on the government to improve environmental conditions could be extended to almost everything. Why bother recycling when BP dumps millions of barrels of oil in the ocean? Why bother paying your workers a reasonable wage when the minimum wage slated by the government is only $8?
these solo episodes are great, you should make them more often
Hey Sean, really enjoyed this podcast. I had a question while listening. I wasn't sure if you explained this in the podcast or not. This is pertaining to the "ought from is" statement.
From a naturalist standpoint, if matter gives rise to consciousness, if we are a consequence of the "is", why do we consider our experience of morality as being separate from "is"?
Does having consciousness mean our experience is considered outside of all that is "is"?
Thanks for considering my comment.
Good point, very insightful. I was wondering if morality could be seen as physical from the neural mapping of the brain that exists when we think of moral issues. I guess this boils down to the question of “are the contents of thoughts physical in nature?” It reminds me of Dawkin’s idea of memetics where social patterns can be reduced to bits and analyzed in a similar way to genetics. I wonder what Sean would have to say about this.
Morality is something which is based on human minds. Looking for an objective source of it is useless and nonsensical. We can have the same argument we've been having and get nowhere but angry, or we can come to the agreement that well-being is the only thing that could make sense to value for morality, just as health is to medicine. By doing so, we give ourselves a compass and can actually start doing the work of setting up a working moral system. As Sam Harris has said, you're expecting things out of morality that you would never expect from medicine. Can you prove that health objectively exists, or is it a value we attach to the world? You can see whether well-being is improved, just like you can with health. There would be a measurable effect on the system of the body/mind. Body parts working normally and being in good condition is indicative of good health. Having good health and not being in mental/emotional anguish or physical pain is indicative of being well. So, yeah, we can't get morality without agents to feel well or feel pain... I fail to see the problem. Is it that we have to all agree, because we largely do. If you agree that chopping someone's head off is bad for their well-being, and you have the common human trait of not wanting that to happen to others, the. congratulations, we're on the same page. Beyond that point, to bicker about its objectivity, or necessity to be objective to be useable, is the best way to miss the forest for the trees.
Also we definitely don't make up our morality. It's like language. We had systems for speaking before we had writing. People can speak a language natively and not know the writing and grammar rules of the language explicity, but follow them nonetheless. It can just "sound right". Same with morality feeling right. These are unarticulated features that exist in human minds, which do have rules, even if we can't articulate them as easily as we can with language in writing. These are evolved traits. Maybe it could seem like we create our moral values, but it's more so happening to us. I doubt nonspeaking humans sat down to create their first language. Probably one day, one of them made a noise when something happened and it stuck. Repeat until systems emerge. It could seem created, if you like, but more so it developed. We don't choose what is moral because we can't choose what we want or how things affect us. Things just do affect us in the way that they do, we want what we want, and learning what things affect us in positive and negative ways, as defined by our biology, is the info that is relevant to morality.
Does your life lose all value if you are unable to plan for the future?
On point.
Veganism starts at 35:38
Worth of animal life starts at 39:55
Veganism ends at 58:12
Thank you
@@5driedgrams No problem
Not a great analysis of animal ethics. I would recommend debating someone knowledgeable about this topic, such as Vegan Gains or Cosmic Skeptic.
Sam doesn't like to call it an axiom, which I sympathize with a bit, but it is axiomatic in function. 'The worst possible misery for everyone is bad' seems like a pretty good place to start from.
I would agree with that axiom, but it doesn't really imply much, except that we ought to prevent the worst possible misery for everyone.
But it has for example no implications for the morality of abortion or any other actual moral disagreements in society.
You can't even conclude from that axiom that it would be wrong to blow up the whole planet and kill all life, because the "worst possible misery for everyone" is something that is worse than just everyone being dead and since killing everyone could potentially prevent the worst possible misery for everyone to occur in the future, one might argue that this is what ought to be done.
"We should pretend things exist before we prove they exist. Therefore society is sexist and racist, and we should take action against it. Also, university quotas for females & minorities in classrooms don't exist even though we can prove they exist."
~Sean Carol, 1/7/2019
From 1:23:00 onward
You should have really educated yourself on this topic before you discussed it. You seem very intelligent, it won't take you long to learn.
You said the percentage of men and women in physics is nowhere near 50/50. I agree that if anyone is facing discrimination we should do what we can to prevent that. Let’s say we could magically get rid of all discrimination. Do you believe it would then be a 50/50 split? I’d assume not and I’m willing to bet you would agree. So in this hypothetical scenario if it was now a 70/30 split, what would you link this difference to? I guess my main question is...if we could remove all forms of discrimination and there is still a difference between the number of men and women in physics, would you be okay with that? If not what would you suggest doing? To me there is no more certain a sign of discrimination than a perfect 50/50 split, as there is no way that could be achieved in any meritocratic way. Ty for the interesting conversations.
I like when you tackle subjects like this. You have a thought process that is rare and uniquely reasonable. Keep up the outstanding work.
I don't think so. "Often popular choice is not the correct choice" - Michio Kaku
@@moochannel523 I am only saying I enjoy his interpretation of these kind of things. I don't see what popular choice has to do with one person's opinion.
Earthian 365 In which world is inflicting violence without a reason reasonable?
If a human can fail the hallmarks that delineate humans to not be okay to be killed I would guess for consistencys sake you would also have to fail to include a species that fullfilled all the properties. For my understanding why racism is wrong being speciest is potentially more problematic. I also think that greeks having "barbarians" (defined as people not speaking greek) as signficant moral category ethically misses the mark. When broadened to further out there cultures, I do not think that the culture is inaccessible as a sufficent criteria to conclude that the culture is worthless.
A) Chantek the orangutan could give an interview about his frustrations about his company that didn't know language when he was effectively given life in prison over a single assault. Seems sufficiently communicative to fullfill the communicative prong without being human. The funny thing is that my moral intuitions say that being locked up with no-one to talk to is comparable to cruel and unsual punishment as a kind of excessive solitary confinement but the orangutans that have not received human educations are not similarly violated.
B) Dolphin participating in LSD study ended up drowning in bathtub where there was good techical access to air. At the end of his life he was very sad, possibly depressed. Seems very plausible that he intentionally didn't take the required breaths to keep alive comitting essentially suicide. The behaviour is hard to make sense if you do not think of it in the terms that the animal was trying to prevent future life state which would require the relevant kind of apprehension for future.
Both examples to non-humans exceeding the prongs listed are from pretty smart animals but one has to take into account that the properties are so strong that they shine throught even behind a couple of complications. Less smart animals that do have the properties but not manifestly so would present a danger of being treated inappropriately.
amazing episode, thank you so much for creating such high quality content
I'm not sure if you are going to read the comments since a lot of them seem to be "not so constructive" criticism based on "youtube studies"
I really liked the part about putting more pressure on the industry instead of the consumer
But I am a little bit confused as to why you (on the topic of eating/killing animals) didn't simply say that we are going to solve the issue the same way we solve(d) most other issues in human history.
Growing "intelligence" (obviously including awareness and all the other positive traits) + science.
Hey Sean, I found your podcast through your discussion with Destiny, and its quickly become my favorite. Please never stop. C:
I found it from The Good Place! Great show.
Thank you for this podcast. I love that you lend your considerable stance to such a rather unpopular opinion.
Admittedly one I fully subscribe to but simply don't understand people not agreeing with.
I believe rape is wrong. My stance on that is not lessened by not calling that belief objective.
It's simply a recognition that there are people who disagree with that especially under various conditions and me not having any objective way of saying they are wrong.
Without being purposely accusatory I don't see many arguments for objective morality that aren't an excuse to not defend their own moral claims. Even if that isn't the overt intention of the person arguing it.
@Golden Knight I think you replied to the wrong person. I said nothing about eating meat.
Thanks, Sean. A great podcast, as always. Lovely to hear from well reasoning people in podcast land!
So the below rational feels very logical to me, unless there's a flaw in it that I'm missing:
-For me the defining issue for me is "can something suffer," and if the answer is yes, then I'm most comfortable inflicting the least possible suffering.
-Whether or not animals can fear ceasing to exist in some imagined future is there-for irrelevant, unless you happen to know of a real world method of instantly killing animals where no suffering ever occurs ("real world" in this case meaning something you can actually choose when you order your animal products).
-Laws and regulations are a great to improve society, agreed. However on a personal level, it's relatively easy to choose not to eat animal products, so one should be careful not to let "waiting for the law" to be their escape-clause on how much suffering they're willing to inflict.
-"Humane farming" seems to me to be a bit of a greenwash some people cling to to avoid personal responsibility. From what I've seen it seems there's no way you can leave a human in charge of an animal's welfare and not have desire for profit erode that welfare over time.
-As far as I can tell, and please feel free to make suggestions if you think I'm missing something Sean*, the only logical lifestyle is either a) veganism as best as you can manage it, or b) admitting that the suffering of animals doesn't really bother you (although I suspect anyone choosing B would find it hard to watch, so maybe they're leading themselves astray).
Thoughts?
(*Not so much random commenters, if that's OK.)
Hmm, many times the comments I see on Mindscape are, "cool dude, you are so smart, keep it up." These are fine but I think you can measure the success of the podcast by how engaged people are with their comments. This one elicited so many good insights by listeners, so more solos, if they meet this benchmark.
I would contend that the subject matter of each individual podcast is the true determining factor for what you are framing as success. The vast majority of the viewing base simply have no basis to fully critique a subject as deep as cutting edge physics or dark matter; Yet we all have a lifetime of experience with a subject as broad and all encompassing as morality and rationality.
I usually agree with what u say but in this one... not so much. i think u should take on a vegan on mindscape. FOR ALL Of US
Predictably a lot of weak arguments for eating others. I really wish Sean would have brought on an animal rights activist to discuss the issue.
We are animals, animals eat animals. That's all I need to know.
@@rickwyant Animals do a lot of things, luckily we have have eschewed many such natural behaviours through our systems of morals.
@fez! This isn't the place IMO. Some good points were raised in this reddit post if you're interested www.reddit.com/r/seancarroll/comments/c7xkk0/a_response_to_seans_arguments_on_vegetarianism/?st=jxlwyp1f&sh=2b9791a3
@@rickwyant Very problematic logic. Animals do a lot of things, but we are better than that. If I am just annoying you right now, forgive me. Please keep an open mind.
Sam Harris should never been spoken of in the same breath as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro.
It really paints him in an unfairly bad light
Then Sam Harris should have done several large shows around the word promoting a dialogue between he and Jordan Peterson.
Whether you like it or not, all the IDW guys you like thunk Peterson belongs in their circle.
Like Jared Diamond points out, traditional tribal humans don't see killing non tribal members as wrong, but quite normal. That changes when civilization happens due to numbers issues.
Carroll gets a lot of things wrong here. He says humans are generally against killing of other humans, this is just blatantly wrong. Humans are generally against MURDER, not KILLING. 90% of people would kill a bad guy to save a loved one from being murdered or enslaved. Sean talks like he believes it would be morally wrong to assassinate Hitler, but we all know he doesn't deep down.
To tip the balance on the abortion issue, teach the public neuroscience, when people realize that consciousness is gradually constructed rather than the sudden appearance of a soul, they will change
Oh. So at what age is consciousness constructed enough that harming someone against their will is no longer ok? Is it ok to throw a baby in a dumpster because it's not really very conscious yet? I'm not a hater, but this is a poor argument that you're making, because it leads down a very slippery slope.
This was a fucking great episode
It's odd, I don't believe in God, yet I choose to work in health care and I intentionally invent products that help people. I could make money doing other jobs. I find it ironic that I have more morals than friends of mine that do believe. I do believe there is a design to our universe. I just don't believe any God is listening to my prayers. I put my faith in Doctors.
IDW talk starts around 58.
Thnx Professor... Your perspectives give my perspectives the boost to think and tackle current daily issues... Love Mindscape... Keep it up.
I just uploaded a response to your discussion on meat consumption.
Yea, I listened to first dozen minutes of your response but stopped because you constantly mistake what Sean Carroll's says are the arguments people give and the arguments Sean Carroll makes.
8:40 You respond to Sean Carroll support of regulations relating to environmental sustainability by asking why he doesn't have the balls to do it himself. As if Sean Carroll is suppose to roam the world and enforce his rules for what he thinks is sustainable. That's ridiculous.
Vegan Footsoldier you r the best . Thank you for responding to this
@@myothersoul1953 I don't think you understood what I was saying in the video. I certainly wasn't saying he should go around enforcing anything personally. You clearly didn't understand what was said despite almost everyone else who watched it finding it a solid video
@@VeganFootsoldier I understood the words you used and their denotation. But you are right, I wasn't aware of any hidden private connotations you had in your mind.
@@myothersoul1953 lmao roast
I realize that I'm a few months late, but my take on morality is that, like all abstract concepts, it doesn't exist because it isn't required for existence. Living things make use of it as a decision making tool because we need to make choices. Unlike a star, or a rock floating in space, we make choices based on a variety of variables (no I'm not talking about free will). When faced with a choice, the correct option is not always clear and sometimes both options are equally "correct" or "incorrect". In these situations, having a robust personal moral compass is helpful because, in a moment of indecision, you can check in with the compass to help determine which option to choose.
Said another way, the universe is a complex place and we are often called upon to make singular decisions about how we operate in the universe. These decisions, no matter how benign they seem, will never be made again in the context that we make them in, which is why morality seems to fluctuate across space and time. It is basically a highly specific and unique set of answers to a highly specific and unique decision point in space and time. Since that moment in space and time will never fully repeat, the moral systems that governed that decision will also not repeat.
On a societal level, we can have situations and decisions that are so similar to previous situations that they appear to repeat. Sometimes people drive too fast down a road. Why they drive too fast and when will vary, but we can reliably predict that they will do so. We can also observe that people attempt to cross this road sometimes. It could then be a logical move to either restrict the speed of the vehicles making use of the road, or to restrict pedestrian crossings. We don't know when or how or why, but we know that eventually someone is likely to be hurt, so we can make a rule about the use of the road.
In this example, choosing to drive the speed limit or not, or choosing to cross or not, and choosing to have rules about speeding and crossing, are obviously not inherently moral choices. One could provide a number of a-moral reasons why one should or should not do any of these things. That said, they set a precedent on how seriously we might value another human life or our own, which in practice is a moral opinion that is formed by a societal rule.
A society in a different place and time might not make rules at all, and also not feel immoral about it. They would not be any more right or wrong than the society that did, rather they just see the problem of facilitating the use of a road from a different perspective.
TLDR: Morals don't come from existence. They come from the experience of being a living being that exists in a certain state, place, and time.
I agree on your point about equal opportunity. However, I would not be comforted if the Billionaires had fair gender and people color representation. That is cold comfort to have a rainbow of billionaires with such staggering inequality in the system. I think maybe raising the floor and bringing down the ceiling might be more important.
Spot on! The issue is inequality!
In my impression, the leftist assumption here is that a member of a group (let's say, a racial group) will act in favor of the group, for example, a black president will act favorably towards black communities, a woman CEO will act favorably towards women employees, etc. Which is naive and false, but that's why leftists try to push for equal representation in positions of power, but not in other areas like plumber jobs, care-taking jobs, etc.
So you characterize the left as trickle down multiculturalists. I am afraid you know little about the left.
Well it's not like the left is some united block, quite the contrary. It's a multitude of viewpoints and ideologies that are often irreconcilable. There certainly is a section of the left that's striving for institutional power, while others are striving to END institutional power.
Your fan here.~
58:18
"Tables and chairs" is an interesting example to choose because while any individual table or chair clearly exists in the real world (as clear as we can be clear that a real world exists at all), the categories "table" and "chair" are indeed a human construct just as much as morality is.
Yikes, Carroll agrees with Cheney. Nevertheless, you are forgiven. I try to think about my "Balanced Moral Scorecard". I can limit meat and other foods that accelerate forest deforestation and be a strong advocate for highlighting the many negative impacts of further deforestation caused by our palm oil needs believing there is an additive good. We cannot all have a perfect moral scorecard but, as a group, the more of us doing better with our individual scorecards, hopefully, the group results will be meaningful.(Legislation is okay too, if its well considered.)
Someone please tweet that in this episode of Mindscape, Sean Carroll:
- Obliterates
- Decimates
- Destroys
- Sublimates
- Disintegrates
- Tears down
- Demolishes
- Owns
- Dismantles
- Smashes
- Vaporizes
Sam Harris and the intellectual dark web.
I'd do it myself but I hate social media.
Hey Sean, been following your work since TTC - Dark Matter, much appreciate the openness to discussion. I think you partially mischaracterized Jordan Peterson at the end there, his objection isn't that he is forced to make an effort: it's the enforcement into law, the compelled speech. It's the incoherence of the law and enforcement mandates that creates more problems than it solves; that, and he did almost lose his career AND freedom over it recently, plus suffered personal harassment and abuse for his troubles... so it seems pretty relevent to him, personally. I would suggest rightfully so. Being forced to do something barring punishment is very different from prohibiting illegal actions lest one be punished thereafter, it comes down to freedom as a definition of terms, that's why it's such a contentious subject this Dark Intellectual crowd stir.
Same with Bret Weinstein who lost his job over this stuff. I believe the IDW is a necessary organization because the topics they discuss are becoming increasingly relevant because people are really suffering from this.
U make the argument against abortion when arguing about how the conceptualization future shows u the immorality first the future
A fetus can't conceptualize its future or speak language, which he brought up as a criterion
Danyal Kazmi but a fetus does have the potential to do so...
@@debunkthis I mean, I think it often breaks down on religious lines there. If you believe in a soul that enters at conception, then there is a hard line about its moral status. I personally am an agnostic and secular, so I just think that's a false premise
Danyal Kazmi there’s nothing about the soul involved or even a religious perspective... simply the idea that murder is wrong for only one reason... some one robbed someone else of potential future happiness. At the point of conception that unique genetic code is fundamentally the beginnings of a person who has a right to future happiness.
Danyal Kazmi also I don’t believe in a necessarily personal God
Thank you for your time and dedication.
I for one, would love to hear a conversation between you and Eric Weinstein. I watched your presentation with Sam Harris and I think that was one of your best moments on a stage. My bias is that a podcast featuring you and Eric would be wildly attractive for most of your audience. Keep it up Dr Carroll
Oh wow, I didn't know I could call myself an intellectual
So great that you did this, Sean. Physicist must use their intellectual credibility to protect the world from the current moral degradation.
I really appreciate and enjoy your podcast. Thank you!
On the IDW, I believe that at least Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson would agree with 80-90% of what you said. Nothing I have heard from them in many many hours of podcasts and lectures would lead me to believe that they don’t want a more fair and less structurally biased world. Peterson, specifically, talks endlessly about simply recognizing that while society has not yet rid itself of structural bias, the trend has overwhelmingly been in the correct direction. Where there is space between you and the IDW is they generally agree among themselves that the loudest voices in the SJW camp are often guilty of the same divisiveness of those they are “against”. For instance, by stepping beyond “all people, including all races, genders, and sexual orientations, should be treated with equal dignity and granted equal rights and opportunities” into “it is impossible to be racist against white or straight people because they are the historical oppressors” the same form of Us vs Them mentality is created, and truly positive outcomes become more difficult.
It is true that several IDW members are a bit over the top in their attacks of the “far left”, but understandable in the context of the specific histories they share. For instance, you can disagree with Peterson on the issue of whether pronouns should be legally compelled, but the response to his taking that stance would cause most to be a bit bitter.
I completely agree that Peterson’s stance on climate change is disappointing, but to be fair to him, he doesn’t deny human caused climate change, just that international cooperation by governments can/will solve it. He has questioned the “official” timeline of climate change, but not the fact of it, and has made a questionable point that dollar for dollar there are “more effective” problems to solve (like extreme poverty).
I was a bit disappointed in your analysis in that, other than climate change, your critique of the position of the IDW in regards to sex differences hinged on someone who is not a member of the IDW.
It’s not important to me that you and any of the IDW members should agree. I am only writing this because I see so much agreement between your views and various views of different members of that group.
To your excellent point near the end of this podcast, I love that there are so many great minds publicly having so many long and thoughtful conversations, and I can only hope that it grows.
Thanks again for the many great discussions so far, and I look forward to more.
Excellent! I have watched Harris and Peterson spare back and forth on religion numerous times and no one can say they ultimately agree on many foundational points, but, they are civil and seek the other's thinking. The Internet does provide access to so much information these days and Mindscape is an important contributor.
He clearly has an issue with Peterson personally. Carroll went out of his way to oversimplify Peterson's views and even outright lie.
There's suspicious activity afoot.
Just listened to it, what a gem. Thank you.
The first hour was very interesting and thought provoking. I knew that the part from 1:03:00 onward was going to be different, as I have to say that the most "preposterous" opinion of Sean Carroll I was aware of, was his opinion on women in science. So I was aware that Sean is a SJW, but I was hoping for a reasonable take on it. I have no problems with different opinions. However... it was bad. :) I think I can safely say that if Sean Carroll is not able to reasonably and honestly tackle the disagreements between SJW's and IDW's, nobody from the SJW group can. The hope is lost. I REALLY wanted to be wrong.
I will give Sean benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of deliberately misrepresenting views of the IDW, although there are probably more than 10 easily debunkable statements he made. I will instead graciously conclude that Sean simply doesn't know very well the subject he is talking about (IDW part, that is) and as such is, unfortunately, a typical SJW - not willing to listen to people with different opinions. If you are looking at NYT to get info about IDW, you are doing it wrong.
I couldn't make it past 1:33:00, I hope I didn't miss anything Earth-shattering. :)
Jeeeeez, I couldn’t imagine a blander and more conciliatory podcast than this one. And still you need a safe space? SMH
Besides, you claim that Sean made more than 10 “easily debunkable statements” and instead of pointing to one you whine for paragraphs after paragraph? SMH again.
Sean is “a typical SJW - not willing to listen to people with different opinions.” However, it’s different when I do it by not watching the whole podcast because I couldn’t make it-that’s different. Interesting...
@@CoolCat6131 I tried. I really did. But I heard it all before and it gets boring listening to same non-sense. I was expecting to hear a different take, something that would give me food for thought. Instead Sean lowered himself to the level that I was hoping someone with his credentials wasn't able to. When I wasn't sure anymore whether it's Sean talking or just reading Vox, Huffington Post or Vice "articles", it's time to switch to something else. Too little time for all the subscriptions...
Besides, I was too disappointed with the apparent lack of effort on Sean's part. Both, lack of researching the subject and rational thinking effort.
trdi I hope I’m not coming off as a douchebag, and I’m grateful for your kind reply; it sounds very reasonable... we only have so much time. However, do you think the SJWs have a different line of reasoning when they abandon watching IDW content?
Sean doesn't exist to say things that affirm your world view
I have a big surface area of agreement with you here. You should talk about this more often.
Can't ought be derived from is if you have a goal? So like if I say "I want to not be hungry" it logically follows that I ought to eat. This is because I have a goal. So when Sam argues for morals derived from universe he's arguing from a position that all humans have the goal to, in his words, avoid the greatest suffering. At the very least. So if we can say that all humans want to maximize their happiness and minimize their suffering, then we can logically say, with that goal in mind, that humans ought to do certain actions in order to achieve this. And these are moral actions.
So eating is a moral action? 😂 And what if in order to maximize my happiness I throw someone else under the bus? Am I still acting morally? 🤔
I really hope you have failed to represent Sam’s ideas correctly because otherwise his philosophy is steady like a two legged stool. 😁
@@pansepot1490 eating can be a moral action yes. Just like any action that can increase or decrease your or others well being/happiness. If you don't eat you'll die and if you dying makes others or you sad it certainly is a moral consequence. Throwing someone else under the bus can often lead to short term happiness but will come back to bite you in the ass later. This is why we can say that robbing someone is bad even from an egositic perspective. It will lead to ostricization by your society. The way to protect your well being and gain happiness is often through cooperation. This is the idea of tit for tat in game theory that we see happen throughout nature. I don't know whether or not I wholly agree with the idea that all humans want to maximize their well being and happiness or if I agree that this will certainly lead to the altruistic behavior we see in humans, but I do see how Sam Harris can use this to say morality is objective if all humans have the same goal.
@fez! I agree that that would not be a moral action, eating because you want to eat. But the Harris argument says that morals are derived from the desire of every human to increase their happiness/well being. So it logically follows from "I want to increase my well being" to "I ought to eat pizza to keep myself alive and I ought to give my starving neighbors pizza so they'll help me when I'm in need" and these are just objective facts of how to achieve our intrinsic want to increase our well being.
In a universe without God, without free will, where every possibility that obeys the Schrodinger equation exists (MWI), morality has zero meaning. Stop trying to deny it.
the problem with moral questions is they aren't that difficult until one comes knocking on your door. it's always easy to dictate to others what morality should be, but it's quite hard to impose rules on yourself that don't conflict with others.
has any decision been made about "when is a human a human" how many cells does it take before we can say "this is a human being"?.
is there "an official position" on free will, cos i thought the concensus was it doesn't exist.
i think it's immoral to kill animals for food, but i'm not complaining cos i love pork and duck. as with all things, if we can find a way to survive without killing then we can label it immoral and ban it. i also think though that it's quality of life that should take precendence, i've always wondered at the repulsion to cannibalism, insofar as if you are dead, does it matter if it's a lion eating you or a human? but what i mean is, if you have a good life in relative comfort, who cares what happens to your body when you die? if a chicken lives "a reasonably happy" life, why not eat it when it dies? and frankly i'd rather die reasonably fit than in agony or a decrepitive state.
one fly in the ointment is if david sinclair has his way and we can all live forever, do we give animals the "youth pill" and get them to live forever too?
lol QUMAD sounds like gods plan, great for someone somewhere sometime, no good for you and me at all.
anyway, if you have any questions mr carroll, i'll be happy to tell you where you are going wrong XD XD
gawd shapiro is a twat, that's the simplest way to describe him, he's one of those people who can't be explained. JP has gone off the rails by the look of it, i used to suggest theists watch all his debates because he really raised the bar for atheist and theist debate, but some of his marbles seem to have escaped. i was really hoping that eric weinstein was going to be the next einstein, i saw him in conversation with people like penrose and although "conspiracy theorist" was what popped into my head i gae him the benefit of the doubt, i'm still not sure, although his brother, bret, was suggesting that covid might be a deliberate thing - who knows when it comes to conspiracy. i'm surprised sam harris is mentioned in the same sentences, although he was rather scathing of islam a few years ago.
A truely enriching and well nuanced Statement which has Made the world a little bit more moral, bravo, Sean.
Sean I've enjoyed your Rogan appearances and really enjoyed a bunch of your podcasts, but the way you're talking about the IDW folks has this jarring propagandistic ring to it. It sounds like (hopefully) you haven't personally researched very much of their online content and are more taking the word of people you trust or something like that, or (I'm hoping against) you're deliberately misrepresenting them. I'll still keep listening though :)
Please, have any of the IDW members on your channel? You say IDW is an apologist however it can also be said about you Sir on PC/SJW.
I'm a woman in science and I have not experienced or witnessed any sexism whatsoever in my professional environment. I understand people have different experiences. But I don't see how you can claim that if you're in science, it's obvious and undeniable that women are systemically discriminated against. People always think those on the other side of the political spectrum are blind, or see things that aren't there, but don't seem to understand that the same extends to them. Because we actually don't see the same world - our personality determines our political predilection and also how we see the world, so none of us see it clearly. You could be seeing as sexism sth that actually isn't sexism at all, or failing to see the externalities resulting from your ideas arround sexism, which those on the other side might see, and you might misinterpret that as sexist or appologist (which you have done in this podcast). For example, I would agree that sexism and racism exist, but I think it's a harmful mistake to characterise our society as fundamnetally sexist and racist. There are actual externalities of this ideology when taken too far and it's by no means evident that the narrative isn't being hammered past the point where it starts causing more harm than good, and in some cases on purpose.
2:01:10 I don't think being offended has any moral virtue, so I fundamentally disagree with everything you say. However, I would like to offer up my strongest counter for you or anyone reading this: If I say the word "FUCK" and it offends you, then all I have to do is bask in the outrage myself, and we're at a deadlock - You are offended because I said "FUCK"; I am offended because you would like for me to limit my speech. I think it follows rationally that we should respect no principals that arise from potentially offending someone, and although clearly this is overshadowed by our limitations as humans and being fundamentally unable to detach ourselves from feelings like disgust, offense, and outrage; this is an ideal that we should all strive to meet.
Imagine how much better the world would be if people responsibly evaluated their negative emotions rather than feeling entitled to take them out on others. Yes, it might harm your ego that someone called you a "Dipshit fucktard," it might be incredibly disrespectful and irreverent, it might stir up murderous inclinations in you - however, there is no valid reason to back up feeling any of these ways. Being outraged, feeling offended, or wanting to cause violence are never emotions that produce positive effects in your life. Indeed, they only seem to hurt you and potentially others around you. It follows that the best resolution to having these experiences is to realize that none of it matters and to let go your negative feelings. Being called "dipshit fucktard" can literally not harm you in any way (assuming of course the person saying this doesn't want to physically harm you); you have no excuse to latch onto feelings of offense because of someone else's speech.
Does Sean believe that physicalism is the only version of naturalism? Does he consider all non-materialistic worldviews to be supernatural?
For instance, Whitehead's Process Philosophy or Bernard Kastrup's Idealism. Or, even Carlo Rovelli's Loop Quantum Gravity.
If you don't think SJW's go too far, all I can say is you've never seen Joy Anne Reid on MSNBC. I've never seen ANYONE so keen to lean into racism.
Your argument against vegetarianism - individual actions don't amount to enough to make a difference - is very weak. You didn't really defend or expand on that argument either. An obvious counterexample of individual actions making a difference is voting in elections.
They need to ask women who have had an abortion i killed my first baby it is something i will never forgive myself for it you cant get anymore evil then killing your own child and my story was my boyfriend left the condom inside me disnt tell me also he was very abusive which is why i thought i had a good reason but i didnt
Seriously thd agricultural thing to big factories are dumping, there are oil spills and not to mention the new charging cars that takes way to much energy to charge leave the farmers alone and us turning down the heat comeon
We can’t sit down with someone that speaks another language an discuss moral laws either. A freshly born human baby can conceptionalize the future. The same way an animal does. So do we eat them?? Sorry i can’t see consistent logic in that argument? Please help me understand your point of view?
I'm not even a vegetarian, but I find it disingenuous to say vegans should just casually accept meat eating. If they truly view animals as equal to humans, then that's like asking us to turn a blind eye to cannibalism. It seems extreme to us, but then our diets probably feel extreme to them.
The IDW doesn't deny the existence of discrimination, they are just saying that there are more variables that influence the gender polarity in the workplace that aren't directly discriminatory.
Campaigning for some change that would force you to change your own lifestyle without simultaneously changing your own lifestyle leaves you open to criticism and that criticism in public may inhibit the change you are attempting to make. I am recalling an activist that was campaigning for energy saving in some form but had not installed loft insulation in his own house.
I don’t know exactly how my comment here exactly fits in but we need to study and discuss differences even more when there is discrimination because when there is an underlying cause that might explain the differences we can lessen the discrimination by doing something about it. Let’s assume that the current way of explaining maths is very much oriented towards minds that are more logical/formal than visual and Let’s assume that women are more visually oriented then we can conclude that the male made education system is maintaining the disgust for science of girls by teaching them in a more boyish way that works less well. At the same time we could assume that a visual mathematician or physicist is actually more likely to make difficult discoveries because many discoveries are about topology.
Your saying “naturalist” a lot, but what does it mean? Are you afraid to call yourself a Materialist? It was all discussed 150 years ago.
An argument for vegan lifestyle is that in a mostly capitalist world the only way to improve livestock’s well being is to make a choice as a consumer to punish an industry that is mostly not considering animal suffering as part of the equation.
One could posit that morality arose from the primate need to band together for safety. To ensure the stability of that association, basic rules for conduct are necessary for survival, thus they are selected for. But this says nothing inherent about what the rules are or should be
This was a great talk. It's refreshing to hear a calm, rational take on the matter. Well done Sean!
Golden Knight what about it was difficult to understand?
You discussed abortion at conception, but you didn't even bother to discuss where naturalists would disagree as when abortion is permissible as the pregnancy progresses. Maybe you could delve into that in a future episode and how you see the issue.
My parents are Hungarian and maybe the essence of what they say about Orban is that the core of his goals is clear and aligns with the ones of Hungarians and that he follows them. To the contrary of the other Hungarian political parties that say something, do something else and don’t resonate in half of what they say with what Hungarians want.
I think that many more people would be vegetarians if they were responsible for slaughtering their own meal
Would it be fine eating human beings that doesn't have the capacity to contemplate about and comprehend their own past and future, human beings who also cannot be communicated with ?
so....have any opinions that aren't already being constantly forced onto public? disappointing
Listening to Sean's musings about maximizing quantum utility is such a mood
The most salient argument for vegetarianism is to minimize the suffering of animals. You agree that we should minimize animal suffering, yet do you realize the great suffering routinely experienced by those animals subject to modern factory farming? Factory farming is ubiquitous and accounts for 99%+ of all the animals consumed in the US. Unless you are deliberately limiting yourself to meat produced via humane farming methods then you are patronizing businesses which exploit animals at the cost of great suffering.
How delusional are you? Just him turning vegan is not gonna stop the animal suffering. Go protest in front of a government building. Instead of making these dumb statements.
I love these solo episodes.
Emy Noether, Madame Curie. These names alone should ridicule sexism for all eternity.
I think we need you to speak to an even larger audience. At least in a way that annihilates the damage people like J. Peterson are doing.
Sorry to be "that guy" but I just have this to say about veganism: this isn't so much a debate about differences in ethical views between people, but rather the contradiction that meat-eaters have with THEIR OWN moral views, that's why we get so frustrated at times, their actions are not in line with their own ethical rules
And quite frankly I think that the distinction you provided between animals and humans is incredibly arbitrary and is just here as an excuse to continue eating animal products. It really reeks of excuses
And it's not that I have an issue with meat-eaters, just as long as they don't go out of their way to find a ridiculous excuse. By your own admission this is getting comparable to humans with disabilities, so you also included "oh yeah and all human life is also sacred", I would strongly advise you to keep thinking on that matter, and I say this all with not the least bit of disrespect. I admire your work.
not true! i eat meat and also believe killing non-human naturally evolved animals and eating them is morally good and is justified. (when done so in an honorable way).
Weak argument against IDW. Unimpressed with your take.
Thank you, Sean.
Me: New Sean Carroll Podcast! Sweet...
Sean Carroll: My Problem with the IDW...
Me: Unsubscribes.
IDW: Thou shalt not be triggered by opposing ideas
Me: Re-subscribes and finishes podcast like adult.
I don't feel strongly one way or the other about veganism as a topic in itself, BUT I am fed up with being told what to do by people pretending to hold some moral high ground that they usually are convinced you can ONLY deviate from by being ignorant, this goes equally for muslims who think their rule not to depict Mr M applies to me as it does to vegans who think their rule about not eating meat applies to me, the non-believer. Don't get me wrong, I understand how it follows from simply extending the "family" until it includes animals. If you don't consider a cow to be someTHING, but somONE, roughly speaking, you end up with a rational foundation for veganism. BUT I find it misguided and wrong to divide there and essentially give human rights to animals. There has to be a limit(or limits) somewhere, vegans draw the limit of what you can exploit between plants and animals, roughly. I just happen to draw it between humans and great apes, which is absolutely an equivalently moral option. So, allow me to be ambitious about my critisism of veganism, as i find too many people are WAY too friendly to it.
Being a vegan is MORE immoral than eating meat and using animal products. This is because, when you practise veganism you are interacting with the world in a dishonest way where you are in effect deluding yourself that you are not "playing the game" that everyone else is. You are signalling to everyone that YOU are not taking part in this zero-sum game of life and nourishment and evolution, while in fact of course you are. And now everyone else has to waste their time explaining that to vegans and vegans are wasting their time preaching and something else in society will have to suffer for it. At least, to be more honest as a vegan, one would have to also stop eating plants, and rocks and breathing air and taking up space and conducting oneself in the irreversible ways of thermodynamics.
This delusion of being morally better than everyone else on the basis of veganism, leads to a bloated impression of how awesome one is and how awesome one's moral practice is and vegans, way too often, are absolutely insufferable because of it. Being deluded on a specific topic is NOT an improvement, and thus veganism IS NOT an improvement for society, if anything it is wasting our time and will cause humanity to stay "addicted to factory farming" for longer than it otherwise would. Which in turn could end up causing more animal harm in total than it prevents.
>BUT I find it misguided and wrong to divide there and essentially give human rights to animals. There has to be a limit(or limits) somewhere, vegans draw the limit of what you can exploit between plants and animals, roughly. I just happen to draw it between humans and great apes, which is absolutely an equivalently moral option
My response will be in bad faith but I can prove you wrong with just one simple question. Do you believe we should be able to beat dogs and cats, torture them, and eat them whenever we want? If you answer yes, I would push on the fact that you're not really engaging with morality; rather, you're casting it aside to maximize your personal freedom to cause evil, effectively making an immoral decision. If you answer no, then it means, clearly - there are superior and inferior places for the line affording human rights to be drawn between us and animals. My philosophy on where this line should be drawn is quite simple (although I do hold my stance to be true, speaking as a hedonist): It is morally wrong to harm any being capable of feeling pain; henceforth it is morally wrong to kill or otherwise harm any animal capable of feeling pain. Also speaking as a hedonist, I don't give a shit that my eating habits harm others - but I think it's pretty obvious that what I do is wrong.
@@DaKoopaKing it's not just one question, it's a whole bucket full depending on how you count, it certainly isn't a yes/no question. Also it askes about MY world view, which I didn't actually offer up because it isn't really relevant in the first place to what is wrong with veganism. Even if I now tell you the most ridiculous bad arguments for what I believe it wouldn't decrease the strength of the points I made before in the slightest. The answers to your "one simple question" depend, in my estimation, on the context in each case. For example at this point in time I'm in Morocco and here kicking a cat to keep it away from my plate is absolutely required at times. If however you decided to buy a dog as a rich, educated urban person you should be able to train it properly without having to resort to violence. It is more likely that you have to beat a cat because cats dont train well and sometimes you just need to adjust their behaviour, similarly you may have to use violence against a poorly trained dog, whether stray or owned by someone else. Intent matters, the word "torture" is loaded with malice, assume that's part of the "bad faith", andthe intent to cause pain. When an animal suffers pain it matters if there is an effort being made to make it less painful and it matters of the pain serves a purpose in itself or is a side effect, calling factory farming "torture" is dishonest. I also believe you are underestimating the "group rights" we should assign to animals when seen as species, for example banning cows from production will genocide those species that are living in that niche. You should see animals who live in dependency relationship to humans as symbiotic rather that parasitic, we are part of nature not in opposition to it, the urban fox, as a species, is exploiting a new niche. I view cows much the same, each cow may individually be a "victim", more so the wise the factory farming it is living in, but their species is a "winner" in the evolutionary race. And if you don't use a metric "would you rather have the life you get including the bad stuff or no life at all" you end up either morally aligned with undoing humanity because it's immoral to have children or you must also admit at least some free-range vote, somewhere, would prefer to live the life it had again if given the option... And having the ability to understand, communicate and so on. Veganisms intent is for those "happy cows" never to be born.
and what is the history of the ideas that they oppose? any better? not really
Is the scarcity of physical resources objectively real?
Yes, in the long run with the heat death of the universe all useful resources will be gone. It is even now, there is only so much energy the earth receives from the sun and from atomic decay in the earth's core. Yea there are limits.