Materialist Ethics? Vegan Materialists?

[Nous]

Perhaps they do not look at is an 'objective moral fact' but as a best choice for all to follow the Golden Rule.

Again, how does the materialist justify the claim that it is better to conform one's behavior to X (e.g., the precept that it is better to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and how does the materialist justify the claim that it is possible for a human to choose to conform his behavior to X?

 

[Nous]

(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.

It doesn't seem to me that you've addressed, much less answered, these two questions: How does the materialist justify the claim that it is better to conform one's behavior to X (X = e.g., the precept that it is better to avoid causing unnecessary suffering)? And how does the materialist justify the claim that it is possible for a human to choose to conform his behavior to X?

 

[Koldo]

It doesn't seem to me that you've addressed, much less answered, these two questions: How does the materialist justify the claim that it is better to conform one's behavior to X (X = e.g., the precept that it is better to avoid causing unnecessary suffering)?

In the form of: It is better to conform one's behavior to X if you want Y.

And how does the materialist justify the claim that it is possible for a human to choose to conform his behavior to X?

By not adding the extra requeriment that one must also be his own ultimate source.
A materialist doesn't have to deny choice, it suffices to deny libertarian free will.

 

[Jumi]

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"?

I think their idea was to avoid causing needless suffering to animals.

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

I haven't talked to them in twenty years.

 

[Nous]

In the form of: It is better to conform one's behavior to X if you want Y.

How does a materialist justify wanting Y (actually: wanting Y to be true)?

A materialist doesn't have to deny choice, it suffices to deny libertarian free will.

According to the materialist, how is it possible for a person to conform his/her behavior to Y? that entails choosing to act in one way rather than another.

 

[Nous]

I think their idea was to avoid causing needless suffering to animals.

All I can do is repeat my unanswered, unaddressed, questions: (1) How does the materialist justify the proposition that avoiding causing needless suffering to animals is somehow better than not avoiding causing needless suffering to animals? (2) How does the materialist justify the proposition that it is possible for a person to conform his/her behavior to that proposition?

 

[Koldo]

How does a materialist justify wanting Y (actually: wanting Y to be true)?

By not denying that 'wanting' exists.

According to the materialist, how is it possible for a person to conform his/her behavior to Y? that entails choosing to act in one way rather than another.

By not denying that people make choices.

 

[Nous]

By not denying that 'wanting' exists.

Why would a materialist want to behave according to X precept rather than not according to X precept?

By not denying that people make choices.

How does the materialist justify the proposition that people can choose to conform their behavior to precept X?

Again, all I can do is repeat my questions that have already been asked but not answered.

 

[George-ananda]

Again, how does the materialist justify the claim that it is better to conform one's behavior to X (e.g., the precept that it is better to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and how does the materialist justify the claim that it is possible for a human to choose to conform his behavior to X?

Well, there is a bit of a contradiction between their everyday life and their philosophy. It is an argument against materialism I feel.

 

[Nous]

Well, there is a bit of a contradiction between their everyday life and their philosophy. It is an argument against materialism I feel.

Yeah, a contradiction . . . I'd say it's a pretty big one.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It doesn't seem to me that you've addressed, much less answered, these two questions: How does the materialist justify the claim that it is better to conform one's behavior to X (X = e.g., the precept that it is better to avoid causing unnecessary suffering)? And how does the materialist justify the claim that it is possible for a human to choose to conform his behavior to X?

How does anyone? Isn't it a matter of some personal preference? It's not as if all of the people who believe in non-material causes for things (i.e. "soul", a supernatural order, an anthropomorphized cosmic administration, etc.) all adhere to "objective" ethical precepts. If they did, there would be no difference in their doctrines... but clearly, there are.

I have given you more than enough justification in my personal justification. I know what it feels like to experience wrong-doing done to myself, and I do not wish to put out into the world that this type of behavior is acceptable to me, because the last thing I want is to invite such behavior to my doorstep, or appear a hypocrite when I am willing to dish out, but not to receive. That last is due to my ability to comprehend abstract concepts such as hypocrisy, and, having experienced and witnessed this myself also, and having found it deplorable on quite a few occasions, I try my hardest not to be the perpetrator of such myself. Doing so would affect not only what others think of me, but more importantly what I think of myself. Why do other "materialists" (if this is, indeed, what I am) adhere to the things they adhere to? Possibly for much the same reasons... but in point of fact... I don't care why. They have their justifications. To pretend they don't is irresponsible - for I can just as easily pretend that you don't have any justification for the way you behave either.

And why isn't the blue part above good enough justification for you? I am starting to believe you aren't even reading what I write and are merely pre-disposed to pretend that NO ONE has answered your question... at least not to your liking. Can you tell me what worth you believe "your liking" has to the world at large? I can tell you mine has a basic value of zero. perhaps the issue here is your inability to admit the same?

 

[Koldo]

Why would a materialist want to behave according to X precept rather than not according to X precept?

Because X precept resonates with him in a way that Y does not.
And why does that happen to be the case ? No idea.

How does the materialist justify the proposition that it people can choose to conform their behavior to precept X?

Again, all I can do is repeat my questions that have already been asked but not answered.

Because a materialist doesn't have to deny that people can choose. That is compatible with a materialist worldview.

 

[Nous]

Because X precept resonates with him in a way that Y does.
And why does that happen to be case ? No idea.

So in other words, you are unable to answer the question as to why a materialist believes it is better to conform his/her behavior according to moral precepts.

Because a materialist doesn't have to deny that people can choose. That is compatible with a materialist worldview.

Explain how a person is able to choose to perform a particular act rather than another. How is it possible that a person can choose his/her behavior but a computer can't?

 

[Nous]

How does anyone?

Actually in the context of other metaphysical theses, it isn't difficult to account for why people wish to avoid causing needless suffering. Moral realism entails the proposition that there exist objective moral facts. One such fact can be said to be that it is immoral to needlessly cause another creature to suffer.

Additionally, other metaphysical theses at least do not entail the denial that people can act willfully, e.g., can choose to conform their behavior according to certain moral precepts.

In short, ethics does not pose such problems in the context of other metaphysical theses. The propositions that there are objective moral facts and that people can conform their behavior accordingly are problems (especially) for the self-avowed materialist.

 

[Koldo]

So in other words, you are unable to answer the question as to why a materialist believes it is better to conform his/her behavior according to moral precepts.

It is better to conform your behavior according to certain parameters if you want to achieve a certain goal.
I have already stated this.

Explain how a person is able to choose to perform a particular act rather than another. How is it possible that a person can choose his/her behavior but a computer can't?

Depending on how you define 'choice', computers do choose their behavior. It depends on whether consciousness is necessary, for instance.
If it is not, your computer is actively choosing to respond to your input in a particular way.

 

[Nous]

It is better to conform your behavior according to certain parameters if you want to achieve a certain goal.

And why would a materialist want to have the goal, say, to avoid causing needless suffering rather than the goal to cause needless suffering?

I have already stated this.

I know what you've already stated. The problem is that your assertions don't answer my questions.

Depending on how you define 'choice', computers do choose their behavior.

Then define "choose" or "choice" and show that computers have the ability to choose between available options.

 

[Koldo]

Actually in the context of other metaphysical theses, it isn't difficult to account for why people wish to avoid causing needless suffering. Moral realism entails the proposition that there exist objective moral facts. One such fact can be said to be that it is immoral to needlessly cause another creature to suffer.

Additionally, other metaphysical theses at least do not entail the denial that people can act willfully, e.g., can choose to conform their behavior according to certain moral precepts.

In short, ethics does not pose such problems in the context of other metaphysical theses. The propositions that there are objective moral facts and that people can conform their behavior accordingly are problems (especially) for the self-avowed materialist.

Not so quick. How do you substantiate the existence of the objetive moral facts from moral realism ?
If you can do that beyond a shadow of doubt, there is a nobel waiting for you.

 

[Nous]

Not so quick. How do you substantiate the existence of the objetive moral facts from moral realism ?

I didn't. I noted that "moral realism entails the proposition that there exist objective moral facts."

 

[Koldo]

And why would a materialist want to have the goal, say, to avoid causing needless suffering rather than the goal to cause needless suffering?

Empathy.

I know what you've already stated. The problem is that your assertions don't answer my questions.

Then define "choose" or "choice" and show that computers have the ability to choose between available options.

Before that, what do you mean by 'available' ?

 

[Koldo]

I didn't. I noted that "moral realism entails the proposition that there exist objective moral facts."

In other words, you can't justify moral realism.