Materialist Ethics? Vegan Materialists?

[Nous]

Are there any self-identifying materialists here who try to avoid causing innocent creatures to suffer unnecessarily, such as is the goal of veganism? If so, why? What is the basis or rationale for a materialist to have moral concerns and to conduct his/her behavior according to such ethical purposes?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Plenty of people who aren't materialists don't believe morality or meta-ethical systems are arrived at by divine command. I imagine for post people, regardless of their stance on materialism, arrive at morals and ethical systems by their experiences, personality and decisions which steer their goals towards something like veganism.
Mine loosely align with utilitarian consequentialism, available to materialists and non-materialists, and has to do with reducing unnecessary suffering. I'm not vegan myself, but it has more to do with health reasons than ethical reasons.

 

[Valjean]

What about us vegans whose ontology is more complicated than materialist vs idealist?

 

[George-ananda]

I am not a materialist myself, but I can see how a materialist could be swayed by the same arguments for veganism that a spiritualist could be swayed by.

Both worldviews almost universally like to reduce the suffering of living creatures. The materialist arguments for humanism (which include reducing suffering) can be extended a little further to include animals.

 

[Laika]

If so, why? What is the basis or rationale for a materialist to have moral concerns and to conduct his/her behavior according to such ethical purposes?

Materialism treats the Mind as material. So Ethical concerns are not simply concerns of the "mind" but are a product and reflection of matter. On the one hand, there are those biological elements which determine ethical behaviour such as humanity's evolved ability for empathy as social animals or to simply experience pain and pleasure as an indicator for what may be "right" and "wrong" for a person's well-being. On the other, there are those elements which are environmentally conditioned and much more abstract. Our social relations are material relationships and are governed by material laws. "Thou Shall not steal" reflects the need to organise production based on property. So recognising the nature of these laws is a basis for materialist ethics.

The basic ideas are easy to grasp but it gets much harder to understand when you are dealing with really abstract questions. Materialism is a revolutionary assault on thousands of years of philosophy and religion and so thinking about what are materialist ethics does mean learning to deal with those preconceptions.

p.s. Karl Kautsky's "Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History" may be an easy read to show that materialist ethics are possible and how. It is low on details however.

Are there any self-identifying materialists here who try to avoid causing innocent creatures to suffer unnecessarily, such as is the goal of veganism? If so, why?

Not a Vegan really, but the main reason as a materialist I would not want to cause harm is the same as anyone else: it feels wrong. The difference is in how these pangs of conscience are understood. Emotions are there for a reason. We evolved them as part of our survival, so it is generally not a good idea to ignore them. Our emotions are "material"/biochemical processes that are a response to stimuli. To some extent they are conditioned (such as how we feel when listening to a piece of music). But emotions- as a basis for moral understanding- are material and can be a basis for materialist ethics. If anything I trust my emotions more as a materialist because it is the "animal" side of my behaviour and that should take precedence over the "abstract" capacity for reasoning that is more unique to humans.

Personally, Animal rights and veganism are subjects that I have deliberately ignored. I like meat and if I really thought about it I think it would become problematic, so it is better for me to stay ignorant on this one until I am ready to make larger lifestyle changes and really think about what meaningful things I can do on the subject.

 

[Jumi]

Materialist vegans who I've spoken to wanted to avoid causing pain and suffering to animals.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are there any self-identifying materialists here who try to avoid causing innocent creatures to suffer unnecessarily, such as is the goal of veganism? If so, why? What is the basis or rationale for a materialist to have moral concerns and to conduct his/her behavior according to such ethical purposes?

I don't care about the term "materialist." I do believe that all life processes, human or otherwise, are derived and made capable through the physical material of the universe, and without it, there would be no life processes. Consciousness stands on the shoulders of the physical brain and all that. If that makes me "materialist" in someone's eyes, fine.

I am also vegan, and, indeed, mostly for ethical reasons. I know what it is like to feel pain in my physical body, and I wish that on no one and no thing. Why would I 'cause harm just to fulfill a desire I had for "more/richer/specific flavor?" Can you imagine how shallow and conceited that would make me? I do not intend to project those things into the world, because I have a distinct distaste for the personality types that do. It's the golden rule, for the most part. Why does this seem in conflict with believing everything is made up of the material?

 

[Nous]

Mine loosely align with utilitarian consequentialism, available to materialists and non-materialists, and has to do with reducing unnecessary suffering.

My question is: why do you choose to align your behavior according to the ethical purpose of "reducing unnecessary suffering"? What's wrong with causing unnecessary suffering? How does the materialist justify that moral precept--that there is something not good about causing unnecessary suffering?

For anyone to choose to conform their behavior according to moral precepts not only raises the issue of causally efficacious consciousness and willful acts but also the issue of objective moral facts. If there are no objective moral facts (such as the precept that there is something bad about causing unnecessary suffering), then how does one justify conducting one's behavior as though there are?

Frankly, in more than one way, I cannot think of anything more inconsistent with the thesis of materialism than for a self-avowed materialist to choose to conduct his/her behavior according to ethical precepts such as that there is something wrong or bad with causing unnecessary suffering. No?

 

[Nous]

Because materialism is not incompatible with most vegan arguments?

Yes, so it seems, in more than one way. Conducting one's behavior according to the precepts of veganism not only raises the issue of the ability to choose one's behavior but also the issue of objective moral facts, such as that it is somehow bad or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering.

These issue arose in my mind when reading one of physicist Henry Stapp's papers where he responded the philosopher Jaegwon Kim and the issues of physicalism that Kim has dealt with for decades. Stapp notes:

Before turning to the details of the quantum mechanical treatment of the relationship between mind and brain I shall make a few comments on Kim’s attempted resolution of the difficulties confronting the classical physicalist approach. The essential problem is the mind-body problem. Kim divides this problem into two parts, the problem of mental causation and the problem of consciousness. The problem of mental causation is: “How can the mind exert its causal powers in a world that is fundamentally physical?” The problem of consciousness is: “How can a thing such as consciousness exist in a physical world, a world consisting ultimately of nothing but bits of matter distributed over space-time in accordance with the laws of physics.”

The physicalist assumption has apparently led, after 50 years of development, to conclusions that are far from ideal. These conclusions fail to explain either why our conscious experiences should exist at all in a world that is dynamically and logically complete at the physical level of description, or how they can be physical properties that do not entail the existence of the experiential “feel” that characterize them. These longstanding difficulties arise directly from accepting the classical conception of the nature and properties of the physically described aspects of our description of the world. They are resolved in a natural way by accepting the quantum mechanical conception of the nature and properties of the aspects of the world that are described in physical terms: i.e., in terms of properties specified by assigning mathematically properties to space-time regions.​

Again, I cannot think of anything more inconsistent with the thesis of materialism/physicalism than for the materialist/physicalist to acknowledge his/her voluntary behavior in which s/he abides by moral precepts such as that there is something wrong or bad about causing unnecessary suffering.

 

[Nous]

What about us vegans whose ontology is more complicated than materialist vs idealist?

I certainly didn't suggest dividing metaphysics or ontology into a dichotomy of "materialist vs. idealist".

If "your" ontology poses no logical inconsistency with a person's ability to choose to conduct his/her behavior according according to certain moral precepts, then you have no issue here. If, on the other hand, "your" ontology does pose such a logical inconsistency with either the issue of willful behavior and/or the existence of objective moral facts, then I'm asking for an explanation. How do you resolve such logical inconsistency?

 

[Nous]

I am not a materialist myself, but I can see how a materialist could be swayed by the same arguments for veganism that a spiritualist could be swayed by.

Both worldviews almost universally like to reduce the suffering of living creatures. The materialist arguments for humanism (which include reducing suffering) can be extended a little further to include animals.

As noted, there seem to me to be two logical inconsistencies in a self-avowed materialist acknowledging that s/he chooses to conduct his behavior according to moral precepts such as that it's somehow bad or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. How can the materialist resolve these logical inconsistencies?

 

[Nous]

On the one hand, there are those biological elements which determine ethical behaviour

What "biological elements which determine ethical behavior" are you referring to? Cite those studies that have tested and found such biological elements.

If there were "biological elements" that determine that a person will follow a vegan lifestyle, then we need an explanation as to how and why the vast majority of humans are not obeying these biological elements.

As noted, there seem to me to be two logical inconsistencies in a self-avowed materialist acknowledging that s/he chooses to conduct his behavior according to moral precepts such as that it's somehow bad or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. How can the materialist resolve these logical inconsistencies?

p.s. Karl Kautsky's "Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History" may be an easy read to show that materialist ethics are possible and how. It is low on details however.

I'll take a look. Does Kautsky resolve what I have pointed to as the 2 logical inconsistencies?

Not a Vegan really, but the main reason as a materialist I would not want to cause harm is the same as anyone else: it feels wrong.

What exactly "feels wrong"?

Apparently it doesn't feel so very wrong to a hell of a lot of modern people for cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and other animals to endure the eternal Treblinka of a factory farm. Moreover, look at what the ancient Romans did with big noble creatures in their circuses. For that matter, look at people who organize and participate in dog-fighting and cock-fighting as a sport. Queen Elizabeth I said that watching bear-baiting was her favorite pastime.

The difference is in how these pangs of conscience are understood. Emotions are there for a reason. We evolved them as part of our survival, so it is generally not a good idea to ignore them.

You need to explain and cite the evidence for this alleged "survival" claim rather than just asserting it. Other animals survive just fine without conforming their behavior according to moral precepts such as that it is somehow wrong or bad to cause unnecessary suffering.

Personally, Animal rights and veganism are subjects that I have deliberately ignored. I like meat and if I really thought about it I think it would become problematic

So you are choosing to engage in behavior that goes against certain unnamed "biological elements" and that is contrary to our "survival"?

If the thesis of materialism were true, why isn't wrong or feel bad to smash up an old car or throw a working computer off the roof of a building?

 

[Nous]

Materialist vegans who I've spoken to wanted to avoid causing pain and suffering to animals.

Do you ask these "materialist vegans" how they justify (1) the idea that they can choose their behavior, and (2) the idea that there is some rational reason to "avoid causing pain and suffering to animals"?

If you haven't asked these questions of "materialist vegans," how about doing so and reporting to us their answers?

 

[George-ananda]

As noted, there seem to me to be two logical inconsistencies in a self-avowed materialist acknowledging that s/he chooses to conduct his behavior according to moral precepts such as that it's somehow bad or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. How can the materialist resolve these logical inconsistencies?

I don't see any inconsistency. Materialists do not doubt that they and other living things experience suffering. Actually the Golden Rule still makes sense to materialists.

Yes, in day-to-day living they assume free-will but also believe that free will is ultimately an illusion, but only in their most philosophical moments..

 

[Nous]

I do believe that all life processes, human or otherwise, are derived and made capable through the physical material of the universe, and without it, there would be no life processes. Consciousness stands on the shoulders of the physical brain and all that. If that makes me "materialist" in someone's eyes, fine.

If what you believe creates a logical inconsistency with a person's ability to choose his/her behavior and, moreover, to conform his/her behavior to certain ethical precepts (objective moral facts) such as that there is something wrong or bad about causing unnecessary suffering, then how do you resolve either or both of those logical inconsistencies?

 

[Nous]

Actually the Golden Rule still makes sense to materialists.

How does an objective moral fact or "rule" or precept such as the Golden Rule "make sense to materialists"?

If you begin a thread suggesting the existence of objective moral facts (such as that it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering), you will get a bunch of people poo-pooing that suggestion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If what you believe creates a logical inconsistency with a person's ability to choose his/her behavior and, moreover, to conform his/her behavior to certain ethical precepts (objective moral facts) such as that there is something wrong or bad about causing unnecessary suffering, then how do you resolve either or both of those logical inconsistencies?

Can you tell me exactly what you find logically inconsistent about taking into account the fact that another being has nerves and experiences pain as you do before you act? I don't need any "objective moral fact" (as if there were such a thing) or to label something "wrong" to extend knowledge of myself to another (even an animal) and therefore empathize. I need only ask the question "knowing what I know of pain and the desire/instinct to survive, would I want someone doing those things (imprisoning, physical/emotional torture, slaughter) to me?" If the answer is "no", then I need to contemplate whether those things are things I want the world to see me doing... whether I want the world to believe that those things are "okay" in my book. The moment you DO let the world know that, then you cannot be surprised when the world comes knocking at your door expecting to involve you in those same things. The moment you find yourself surprised, having partaken in those same activities yourself, is the moment you must also admit your own abject idiocy.

 

[Nous]

Can you tell me exactly what you find logically inconsistent about taking into account the fact that another being has nerves and experiences pain as you do?

Nothing whatsoever. Straw man. As noted the logical inconsistencies with materialism are these: (1) a person's ability to choose his/her behavior, and (2) conforming his/her behavior to certain ethical precepts (objective moral facts) such as that there is something wrong or bad about causing unnecessary suffering.

 

[George-ananda]

How does an objective moral fact or "rule" or precept such as the Golden Rule "make sense to materialists"?

If you begin a thread suggesting the existence of objective moral facts (such as that it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering), you will get a bunch of people poo-pooing that suggestion.

Perhaps they do not look at is an 'objective moral fact' but as a best choice for all to follow the Golden Rule. Yes, materialists and spiritualists act pretty much the same on a day-to-day level. They both assume free will at the everyday level.

These questions of materialism versus spiritualism only come up for the occasional philosophical speculating.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Nothing whatsoever. Straw man. As noted the logical inconsistencies with materialism are these: (1) a person's ability to choose his/her behavior, and (2) conforming his/her behavior to certain ethical precepts (objective moral facts) such as that there is something wrong or bad about causing unnecessary suffering.

(1) I don't care whether or not we are able to choose our own behavior. I experience the world as it stands, within which we are at least given the illusion of choice. That is, honestly, good enough for me. If the issue is that criminals and people we sentence to death/imprisonment/etc. couldn't make any other choices... then the argument also stands that our punishing them in any given way is also due to our inability to make other choices on those matters. It's moot. The "excuse" works both ways, and when that is true an argument on the topic is a zero sum game.

(2) As I already stated, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with hurting an animal to understand its suffering in your own terms. There don't even have to be "ethical precepts". Your understanding, and a desire not to act like a fool by thinking yourself beyond reproach or thinking "this will never happen to me" while you execute something of a particular nastiness (as you, yourself would perceive it if it were happening to you, obviously) on another being is all that is necessary to "keep you in line." And if that doesn't work, then you likely aren't thinking about things before you act. If those tendencies and understanding lead me to seem like I "conform [my] behavior to certain ethical precepts" - oh well. It doesn't mean I care any more or less that you think such ethical precepts exist independently of man himself.

I desire my freedom, likely as a biological/evolutionary imperative. I also desire to be smart about the things I do and the choices I make. Is the truer issue here that you want to know where THAT drive comes from? It's not from any "objective" reality of "right" and "wrong", I can tell you that much. At a certain point it is simply what calls to me, but I am sure it is still rooted in some need to be the master of some particular domain. To be the "alpha" in some aspect of existence. Taking out all other external aspects that are not under my control, I am left with myself... and so I go about the business of figuring out what the best methods of control are, what the best ends and means are. Within that search I find things that make sense, things that don't make as much sense. Things I desire to emulate, and things I find deplorable.