Materialist Ethics? Vegan Materialists?

[Nous]

Empathy.

the definition of empathy

the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.​

And why does the materialist believe it is better to conform his/her behavior in accordance with his/her "psychological identification" with certain things or creatures rather than behaving otherwise? S/he doesn't have empathy with the envelope that he gets in the mail, rips open and throws in the garbage can. He doesn't have empathy with the carrot that he kills by pulling out of the ground and eating. Right?

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

the definition of available

2. readily obtainable; accessible:
available resources.​

 

[Nous]

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

Moral realism is the term that denotes the thesis that there are objective moral facts. Moral realism is justified on the proposition that there are objective moral facts.

 

[George-ananda]

computers do choose their behavior.

No, humans completely determine their activity. There is nothing there I would call choice in the computer.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

I don't have a doctrine, or a thesis. Haven't needed one. Indeed, I am not ashamed to admit I cherry-pick from anywhere and everywhere, assimilating what "makes sense", rejecting or relegating to a "back seat" what doesn't. Perhaps, then, I am not even qualified to answer your question. I do believe that everything is based on the material of the universe, and that there is no immaterial in the way that a lot of people like to believe (again - souls, magic, "enlightenment", God/gods), but I have no justification other than what I have posited, which you seem hell-bent on accepting only as "no justification." Fine by me. It doesn't matter what the answer is to your question... I will STILL have my moral principles intact, still adhere to them, still go on using my understanding and ability to empathize. Question it all you like... your questions can't change the realities.

 

[Nous]

I don't have a doctrine, or a thesis.

So you do not adhere to the metaphysical thesis of materialism. Good for you. Therefore you should understand the two logical inconsistencies for the very concept of "materialist ethics" pointed out here: (1) the fact that the materialist would believe that it is better to conform his/her behavior according to certain moral precepts, and (2) the proposition that it is possible for a person to choose to conform his/her behavior according to those moral precepts.

 

[Nous]

No, humans completely determine their activity. There is nothing there I would call choice in the computer.

Completely agree. If computers were choosing their behavior, then something should be regularly happening with my computer that I'm not directing to happen.

 

[Jumi]

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?

I can try to answer that, though I'm not a materialist or vegan:

1) they think suffering is bad and have empathy towards animals
2) through explaining that the animals are suffering needlessly

 

[Nous]

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?

I can try to answer that, though I'm not a materialist or vegan:

1) they think suffering is bad and have empathy towards animals

Doesn't your statement (1) merely imply an objective moral fact? How does the materialist justify the proposition that causing needless suffering is "bad"? How did such a thing become "bad"?

2) through explaining that the animals are suffering needlessly

What the materialist needs to explain is why s/he believes it is possible to choose his/her behavior. How do aggregates of matter choose the red M&M rather than the blue one?

 

[George-ananda]

Completely agree. If computers were choosing their behavior, then something should be regularly happening with my computer that I'm not directing to happen.

There is something not as predictable in brains. I believe it is real and non-physical and called Consciousness. That is the great mystery for materialist science at this time. A mouse has it, the smartest super-computer does not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There is something not as predictable in brains. I believe it is real and non-physical and called Consciousness. That is the great mystery for materialist science at this time. A mouse has it, the smartest super-computer does not.

Wishful thinking.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sounds like you'e not talking about materialism at all. Sounds like you'e talking about the belief in objective moral standards and their opposite. Not all non-materialists belover in objective moral standards, not all materialists don't (they just don't believe objectivity is arrived at by divine command)
Your question seems to really be why does someone without belief in objective moral standads make veganism an objective moral standard. The answer is they don't. It's a preference that their experience, personality and upbringing leads them to. No more a quandary than why someone without moral objectivity might say chocolate is better than vanilla. They'e stating a preference rising from experience, culture and maybe some biology.

 

[George-ananda]

Wishful thinking.

More than that. It comes from my considered study of the paranormal and the advanced teachers of eastern (Hindu) and western esoteric wisdom traditions. It is to me clearly the most reasonable belief all considered (including materialism).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

More than that. It comes from my considered study of the paranormal and the advanced teachers of eastern (Hindu) and western esoteric wisdom traditions. It is to me clearly the most reasonable belief all considered (including materialism).

Yes we'e been through that. The same sort which boldly claim computers will never achieve the complexity of the brain because computers can't play chess. Now that computers can beat even the most sophisticated chess players, they've had to change goals to more and more abstract 'ceilings' computers will never reach. The woo corners of parapseudoscience creating ambiguous and vague attachments to consciousness as the current favorite, excepting perhaps quantum physics, another favorite hiding spot for woo.

 

[Koldo]

the definition of empathy

the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.​

And why does the materialist believe it is better to conform his/her behavior in accordance with his/her "psychological identification" with certain things or creatures rather than behaving otherwise?

He doesn't have to believe in that.
Empathy assigns value to actions, and therefore compels people to behave in certain ways.

S/he doesn't have empathy with the envelope that he gets in the mail, rips open and throws in the garbage can. He doesn't have empathy with the carrot that he kills by pulling out of the ground and eating. Right?

Right, but so what ?
People feel empathy towards certain things but not others.
Generally, perceiving someone as being able to experience feelings such as pain is quite significant.

the definition of available

2. readily obtainable; accessible:
available resources.​

As I have told you before, dictionaries are often lacking when it comes down to philosophy.
Had I wanted not to type this reply to your post, I wouldn't. But since I did want, then I did type it.
Is this sufficient to establish that I had more than one 'available' alternative ?
Because a materialist can agree to this without any issue.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes we'e been through that. The same sort which boldly claim computers will never achieve the complexity of the brain because computers can't play chess. Now that computers can beat even the most sophisticated chess players, they've had to change goals to more and more abstract 'ceilings' computers will never reach. The woo corners of parapseudoscience creating ambiguous and vague attachments to consciousness as the current favorite, excepting perhaps quantum physics, another favorite hiding spot for woo.

Yes, we’ve been through this before, but you started it this time?

Now, there can be no doubt computers can outperform the brain on any task that involves something that can be reduced to mechanical computation. But can a computer truly FEEL the joy of beating a good opponent at chess? A living being is fundamentally something more than a computer in my view.

 

[Koldo]

No, humans completely determine their activity. There is nothing there I would call choice in the computer.

I disagree with the first sentence, and I have no qualms with the second one.
As I have said, it depends on how you define 'choice'.

 

[Koldo]

Moral realism is the term that denotes the thesis that there are objective moral facts. Moral realism is justified on the proposition that there are objective moral facts.

But you can't substantiate that there are objective moral facts beyond a shadow of doubt, can you ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, we’ve been through this before, but you started it this time?

Now, there can be no doubt computers can outperform the brain on any task that involves something that can be reduced to mechanical computation. But can a computer truly FEEL the joy of beating a good opponent at chess? A living being is fundamentally something more than a computer in my view.

Beating someone at chess involves more than computation. It involves abstract thinking and strategery that many people believed computers would never obtain.
Not now=/=Not ever.

 

[George-ananda]

I disagree with the first sentence, and I have no qualms with the second one.
As I have said, it depends on how you define 'choice'.

I may have poorly worded that first sentence: No, humans completely determine their activity. What I meant was: No, humans completely determine the computer's activity.

 

[George-ananda]

Beating someone at chess involves more than computation. It involves abstract thinking and strategery that many people believed computers would never obtain.
Not now=/=Not ever.

But that thinking and strategy process must still be reducible to just mechanical steps for a computer to be able to perform it.

FEELING emotions is something a computer is not capable of is my point. It is just a collection of individual parts performing mechanically (no soul?).