FWIS3

Consider a hypothetical conversation.

Code: Select all

Militant vegan: "Our society takes part in the systematic murder and oppression of millions of animals. The only way to change this by fighting back violently."

Normal person: "That would involve harming people who did not wrong, which is ethically unacceptable as a political stance."

MV: "Those people absolutely did wrong. By participating in evil deeds, you make yourself evil. Anyone who is openly or tacitly involved in oppression must be considered fair game."

NP: "That's ridiculous. You can't condone murdering people as part of a political platform."

MV: "But you can condone murdering animals as part of day to day life? That's just as bad."

NP: "Animals are not human beings."

MV: "150 years ago, you might have said the same about blacks. The Nazis said the same about Jews. Etc. You're engaging in moral relativism."

NP: "So are you, if you think it's acceptable to commit murder."

MV: "Actually I'm being more consistent than you."

NP: "I still can't condone what you're saying."

MV: "Which makes you not so different from a slave owner or a Nazi."

This is an exaggeration, but not much of one; I've been party to similar conversations, and the problem is basically what you see there: violently extreme positions are often no less consistent than "normal" ones, sometimes more consistent from what I've seen. People arguing such positions don't come off as fanatics, rather they use seemingly ironclad logic to cut the ethical ground out from under your feet.

What's the best way to argue effectively against such people?

By what definition are you using the term, "ironclad logic"?

So all carnivores and omnivores must be killed then.
Best they start killing cats and dogs to get their practice in before trying something more advanced.
Little kittens and puppies would be their best bet for starting down this path.
It'll also give them all the courage and practice they need to go further to be brave little vegan warriors of the apocalypse.
Then they can film themselves doing it and put it on youtube .
Vegan heroes kill kittens and puppies to train for the epic battle of this inevitable ironclad conclusion.

Sometimes I have to wonder why you fall for this crap GJ.

First thing is to give up on moral relativism. Which is sort of like a moral judo. Most of the time what you know to be right is....right. It isn't something that can be twisted into being something wrong. For example, murdering people to get them to stop eating animals is MURDER. There is no logic that can change that fact. Moral Relativism merely rationalizes their murder as being acceptable as a means to achieve the end. It still doesn't actually make murder OK.

Second thing is stop believing their logic is irrefutable. conflating animals with blacks with being human is not irrefutable logic. Even during the 1700's and 1800's there was ample evidence that blacks were more than just animals.

Third, stop believing you are having a debate with a rational person. The majority of the time (99.9999999999%) people who take extreme positions are not doing so from a position of logic and rationale thought.

Gullible Jones wrote:This is an exaggeration, but not much of one; I've been party to similar conversations, and the problem is basically what you see there: violently extreme positions are often no less consistent than "normal" ones, sometimes more consistent from what I've seen. People arguing such positions don't come off as fanatics, rather they use seemingly ironclad logic to cut the ethical ground out from under your feet.

What's the best way to argue effectively against such people?

The best way to argue with such people - don't. No, that is not a joke, don't. You will never win, you will never change their opinion. There is an expression I like: "Don't argue with crazy people, other's can't tell the difference". Unless you want to make yourself crazy, it is pointless to argue with fanatics.

You are correct that such positions are often more consistent and more logical. Neither is a particularly good characteristic of a moral or political position; in fact, some of the most evil positions in human history were developed by logical and consistent thinking. We live in a real world; a complex real world. The world is not that black and white and not that simplistic. If they are not prepared to deal with such complexity, then there is no point to discuss things with them.

I hate fanatics, even ones with whom I generally agree, and try to avoid them at all costs. It is one of the reasons I am longer much involved with the more political parts of the environmental movement. I don't need that kind of mishegas.

@Swift: I have to grudgingly agree re logical consistency in ethics. From what I've seen, logically consistent worldviews almost always end up (very consistently) allowing mass murder under some conditions, which I can't accept as right.

OTOH, I don't want to just leave things at that, because if you can't define what's ethical at all (other than to say "I know it when I see it"), it becomes a matter of instinct, intuition, and (more or less) faith. And people working on faith and intuition have done some pretty horrible things too. It has been proven, again and again, that our preconceived notions can also be screwed up.

I realize there's no perfect formula, but there has to be something better, in practice, than mere unquestioning acceptance.

As for arguing against dangerous viewpoints, my opinion is basically that these viewpoints need to be definitively revealed as dangerous - not necessarily inconsistent, but the danger has to be made apparent, because otherwise they will gain adherents.

Arguing with vegans - can you imagine what would happen if we killed no animals? The world would become incredibly overpopulated very quickly, and thus, unlivable. I hate that this is a predator based life, but I don't know how to change that.

There's evidence that plants feels things too, but vegans don't want to hear that. Basically, it's impossible to survive in this world without killing.

I've seen some messed up arguments made by pushing the logical conclusion/consistency line but this one is neither logical nor consistent.

The justification for killing humans is when humans kill animals for food.
But killing humans is just a waste since their bodies now simply decompose. Waste of resources. Strike 1.

Why aren't they pushing for carnivores to be killed?
Because animals don't know better is the standard argument.

That means they propose only to kill animals that are aware of what they are doing.
Of course, only humans have the cognitive capacity to make that decision so lets explore that.
What do we do with a 4 year old that eats meat? Do we kill the child?
I suspect not, it isn't smart enough to know better.
What about people with reduced mental capacity?
Can't kill them either or you are not being consistent with the reasons you don't kill animals argument.
You can however force them not to eat meat which would be the logical thing to do, right?
However, the net result is that they condone only killing humans of sufficient cognitive capacity to be able to understand the vegan argument and then reject it. Because if they understand the argument and side with vegan-ism then they are no longer part of the problem.
IOW, kill those who are intelligent enough to come to a conclusion, and the conclusion they come up with doesn't fit the vegan agenda.
Let me spell that out for anyone that missed it:
It means killing people that don't agree with us and ignoring everything else.
Yeah, there's consistency there if you are a supremacist nut job, but otherwise no one sane can consider it consistent or logical.

Gullible Jones wrote:OTOH, I don't want to just leave things at that, because if you can't define what's ethical at all (other than to say "I know it when I see it"), it becomes a matter of instinct, intuition, and (more or less) faith. And people working on faith and intuition have done some pretty horrible things too. It has been proven, again and again, that our preconceived notions can also be screwed up.

First, I haven't really studied the issue (of the definition of ethical) and frankly, I don't find it an interesting issue. I figured out my morals many decades ago, to the point that I now know it when I see it (by my definition of ethical). I am unconcerned with teaching others and I am otherwise only leading by example. But ethics can be taught, both by instituions and my individuals; it is not just a matter of instinct.

I think the old "do on to others as you wish done to you" is an excellent starting point for most of it.

But I otherwise have no answers for you.

As for arguing against dangerous viewpoints, my opinion is basically that these viewpoints need to be definitively revealed as dangerous - not necessarily inconsistent, but the danger has to be made apparent, because otherwise they will gain adherents.

But that's not what I suggested. I said not to argue with the fanatic who holds the dangerous viewpoint. You will never convert them.

You made no mention of third parties, of undecided voters, so to speak. Trying to convince them is a fine idea, or at least presenting your counterarguments.

I suppose I could come up with counterarguments for the debate you presented in the OP, but it is so absurd a position, and I can't frankly drum up either the energy or the enthusiasm to come up with those.

MV: "Those people absolutely did wrong. By participating in evil deeds, you make yourself evil. Anyone who is openly or tacitly involved in oppression must be considered fair game."

Right there they have created a self-defeating position. If you participate in evil deeds, even indirectly, you are evil and should be killed. Killing or harming humans is evil. The MV is advocating killing humans, so they are evil and should be killed.

I'm sure GJ or others will immediately come back with some counter-argument, and that's fine, but as I said, I don't care all that much... so I'll fall back to my position of "I don't know".

Swift wrote:I suppose I could come up with counterarguments for the debate you presented in the OP, but it is so absurd a position, and I can't frankly drum up either the energy or the enthusiasm to come up with those.

Just couldn't help yourself, could you? lol

It is an absurd position. One that has no basis in logic or consistency, just ignorance and fanaticism.

FZR1KG wrote:

Swift wrote:I suppose I could come up with counterarguments for the debate you presented in the OP, but it is so absurd a position, and I can't frankly drum up either the energy or the enthusiasm to come up with those.

Just couldn't help yourself, could you? lol

No I couldn't, it came to me after my brain ground through the previous post. And I'm rather sorry. For one, it seems kind of rude to say one thing and then turn around and do the opposite. And two, I really don't like these kinds of debates and should try harder to stay out of them.

I don't remember where I read this, but it seems appropriate:

"Ethics is halfway between Logic and Aesthetics."

THAT should be enough for people who refuse to hide behind an ideology.

For the ones who DO hide behind an ideology, the only course of action I've seen to be effective is in the form of a Zero Sum Game.

Of course, if you really want to get into defining ethics and what makes a good moral/ethical decision you can always start with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

As a nurse I have probably had more than my share of ethics courses and seminars. At the end of the day sometimes it boils down to doing the least harm vs doing no harm. Many of the precepts that are the foundation of ethics in nursing have a lot to do with doing the least harm while respecting another persons right to autonomy. For example, we often have patients who leave against medical advice (AMA). We know that in some cases their decision to leave may result in serious health consequences including death. Yet, they have the right to autonomy. Our ethics won't allow us to forcibly restrain them and make them get the medical treatment we know they need. The "least harmful" course of action is to advise them that their decision could have serious medical consequences including death. After that we are not the ones causing harm to them. They are self-causing it.

If we determine that the patient is not capable of making a competent decision in regards to healthcare then we can restrain from the leaving. Think true psychosis or a clear and present danger to others.

By competent I mean possessing the mental and cognitive ability to make decisions for themselves regardless of how bad those decision may be. They don't have to be logical.

That sounds pretty complicated. How can you tell when someone is thinking clearly if what they're doing could lead to their death?

Well, the example I raised was exaggerated. I've yet to have any discussions with militant vegans, thankfully.

It's becoming abundantly clear though that I suck at logical debate. Probably in part because I'm a pessimist, and tend to assume by default that anyone giving me bad news must be on to something...

Edit: @SFC, I think Fisher's drawing a (fuzzy) line between treating someone responsibly, and treating them like a child. A working social model has to assume certain people showing a certain range of behaviors are more or less autonomous, otherwise it gets too complex to be workable.

(The thorny issue is figuring out which range of behaviors qualifies as "autonomous." Not causing harm to self or others is a good benchmark, but you also have to define "harm" to a certain extent. Point is, it's always going to be a heuristic approach.)

So you asked for advice on how to debate a militant thought experiment????
rofl

SciFi Chick wrote:That sounds pretty complicated. How can you tell when someone is thinking clearly if what they're doing could lead to their death?

It's challenging. For example, I had a patient who was drinking herself to death. She had lost her son, husband, and brother all in the same senseless drowning accident many year previously and had never really managed to come to terms with it. The son started to drown and husband went into save him. Husband started to flail and brother in law jumped in to save him and the nephew. They all drowned.

So, years later she is drinking herself to death. I had her sent to the hospital when I found her at home (I was a home health nurse) with bleeding ulcers and huge self neglect issues. We were able to hold her for 72 hours and a judge was forced to rule that we could not force her to stay in the hospital or be placed in a nursing home because she was still "mentally competent". We had to let her go home and continue drinking herself to death. We did work on setting up things like a part time caregiver who would fix meals and such. But, we weren't allowed to stop her from calling the delivery service and having alcohol delivered to the house.

for medical purposes being mental competent is not necessarily the same as being legally competent. If you can articulate why you don't want a medical procedure and you are an adult the right to autonomy will often trump what seems to be common sense. There are some grounds also from religious or personal belief's. For example, many people will refuse blood transfusions because of a fear of getting AIDS or hepatitis.

OTOH if she was trying to douse herself with gasoline and set herself on fire I could legally do practically anything to stop her. including having her declared insane and an immediate threat to herself. A judge would probably have agreed to let us hold her involuntarily for at least 90 days and then reevaluate.

The rules say they have to be able to make decisions and that they are entitled to autonomy even if it is potentially harmful. If you substituted obesity for the alcohol issue it sort of makes sense. I can't lock someone up for over eating even if I know that it will kill them eventually.

It boils down to immediate harm versus potential harm later.

SciFiFisher wrote:OTOH if she was trying to douse herself with gasoline and set herself on fire I could legally do practically anything to stop her. including having her declared insane and an immediate threat to herself. A judge would probably have agreed to let us hold her involuntarily for at least 90 days and then reevaluate.

The rules say they have to be able to make decisions and that they are entitled to autonomy even if it is potentially harmful. If you substituted obesity for the alcohol issue it sort of makes sense. I can't lock someone up for over eating even if I know that it will kill them eventually.

It boils down to immediate harm versus potential harm later.

That was exactly my experience as an EMT. We had patients who would make suicide attempts by swallowing a bunch of essentially harmless pills (like a handfull of baby aspirins). Though they were in no medical danger, they were held involuntarily for evaluation (for one thing, the next attempt might be more successful) because they made it clear that this was an attempt to take their own life.

I had other patients who were having serious mental health emergencies (usually because they had stopped taking their drugs), but because they were not an immediate threat to themselves or others, we could not hold them or even transport them involuntarily to a hospital for a mental health evaluation.

Suicide, by slow or fast means is a serious issue.
Because of that, we now declare that any attempted suicide is held accountable by the utmost standards of the law and is now punishable by death for the second offense and life imprisonment for the first.
We have to keep the economy going somehow.

FZR1KG wrote:Suicide, by slow or fast means is a serious issue.
Because of that, we now declare that any attempted suicide is held accountable by the utmost standards of the law and is now punishable by death for the second offense and life imprisonment for the first.
We have to keep the economy going somehow.

Don't laugh. But suicide is/was actually a crime in many states of the U.S.

In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.

— Cecil Adams

Source: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... st-the-law

You assumed I was ignorant when I posted.
Though to be honest it's also a safe bet to do so! lol

Gullible Jones wrote:Consider a hypothetical conversation.

Code: Select all

Militant vegan: "Our society takes part in the systematic murder and oppression of millions of animals. The only way to change this by fighting back violently."

Normal person: "That would involve harming people who did not wrong, which is ethically unacceptable as a political stance."

MV: "Those people absolutely did wrong. By participating in evil deeds, you make yourself evil. Anyone who is openly or tacitly involved in oppression must be considered fair game."

NP: "That's ridiculous. You can't condone murdering people as part of a political platform."

MV: "But you can condone murdering animals as part of day to day life? That's just as bad."

NP: "Animals are not human beings."

MV: "150 years ago, you might have said the same about blacks. The Nazis said the same about Jews. Etc. You're engaging in moral relativism."

NP: "So are you, if you think it's acceptable to commit murder."

MV: "Actually I'm being more consistent than you."

NP: "I still can't condone what you're saying."

MV: "Which makes you not so different from a slave owner or a Nazi."

This is an exaggeration, but not much of one; I've been party to similar conversations, and the problem is basically what you see there: violently extreme positions are often no less consistent than "normal" ones, sometimes more consistent from what I've seen. People arguing such positions don't come off as fanatics, rather they use seemingly ironclad logic to cut the ethical ground out from under your feet.

What's the best way to argue effectively against such people?

None of that is "logic"...shall we do a short list of the informal fallacies in that little piece? Argument ad hominum, circular reasoning, appeal to emotion, false analogy....I can probably find a couple more.

That wasn't a "logical" argument, it was a religious assertion.

And when it comes to religious assertions, Yosh ought to know!

Yosh wrote:None of that is "logic"...shall we do a short list of the informal fallacies in that little piece? Argument ad hominum, circular reasoning, appeal to emotion, false analogy....I can probably find a couple more.

That wasn't a "logical" argument, it was a religious assertion.

... I shall consider myself properly told.

So, coming full circle here...

Politically I'm pretty far out in the boondocks vs. what I know of the American mainstream. Maybe not so far out for someone of my generation, not really sure.

However, I don't consider myself a radical. This is because

a) I don't think there's anything "radical" about the Golden Rule, treating people with respect, and not holding double standards. If that's radical, it's because mainstream politics are at odds with common decency. If I fail to meet those basic standards, that's me being a hypocrite; if society discourages me from meeting those standards, then society is hypocritical.

b) What I've seen from some politically radical people frankly reminds me of Scientology, insofar as people who aren't in on the ideas tend to be viewed as de facto bad human beings (as opposed to ignorant and/or biased).

c) There's this element of faith in the positive outcome of a proletarian revolution, which I consider historically problematic. Usually these things end badly for everyone; I'm not going to put my blind faith in a process that has caused more harm than good in the past.

d) The combination of (b) and (c) strike me as conducive to violence against civilians. Not explicitly perhaps; but when you consider most people opposed to you by default, and accept the use of violence as sometimes justifiable, I think that creates a dangerous set of conditions. Conditions actually not so far off, IMHO, from the mainstream dehumanization that is causing so much harm right now.

(NB: Yes, I realize violence is already a fact of life for a large subset of American civilians. My point is that we want less of that crap, not more. Violence being mainstream doesn't magically stop being a bad thing just because the violence is now "revolutionary" rather than reactionary.)

tl;dr I want to see things change really badly, but I'm a bit scared about the means by which it might happen.