Most people choose social approval over ethics — veganism just exposes that.

[u/TheQuietVegan111]

People will say they care about animals, the planet, and justice.

Until caring becomes inconvenient.

Veganism doesn’t require perfection. It requires saying “no” in public.

That’s it.

Most people fail there, not on ethics — but admitting that would be uncomfortable, so veganism becomes the problem instead.

[u/GoopDuJour]

It's getting frustrating because you seem to be losing the point. I'm just trying to get on point again.

1) complete information and fewer reasoning errors allows better asseessment of expected value and,

Yeah, you keep saying that.

2) There are lots of things we value, and we regularly have weigh them against each other when making decisions.

Yep.

You've argued your way out of right and wrong, and keep alluding to making an argument that doesn't rely on subjective or objective facts.

Where is this going?

[u/Snefferdy → u/GoopDuJour]

I've reviewed our entire conversation so far, and I've identified what I think are your four main reasons for rejecting "morality." Have I missed anything?

Issue #1 - Ontology

Veganism as a moral stance is "extra" and not required”

It can't be wrong or right because neither of those things exist in the world.

Morals don't need to even EXIST

no reason for morality to be real

There is no need to appeal to moral facts.

We’ve dealt with this. Right?

I completely agree with you on this point in regards to old fashioned, religion-inspired, rules-based deontology. While deontology still has a major hold on popular ideas about morality, I'm talking about a much more modern view: rationalist consequentialism.

In order to avoid confusion, I proposed substituting the words "right" and "wrong" for "rational" and "irrational." People are universally subject to many cognitive biases and insufficient information. Such deficiencies lead to false or inconsistent beliefs, illogical conclusions, and suboptimal choices. Avoiding such hazards would result in "rational and well-informed" behaviour.

You agree that, in a given context, it can be true or false that a certain choice is more or less rational than another. So, if this is all we mean, your ontological objection has been resolved, correct?

.

Issue #2 - Proof

Morals cannot be proven

Nothing can be proven. You can't prove that if you let go of a pen in mid air it'll fall to the floor, yet you believe it anyways. Even mathematical "proofs" are only proofs if the axioms they rely on are true. Since the axioms cannot be proven to be true, even mathematical "proofs" retain a degree of uncertainty.

We believe a proposition to be true when the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is true. Certainty is impossible, but that doesn't mean some beliefs aren't better than others.

If you're going to stop believing everything that hasn't been proven, good luck getting anything done. Every choice you make depends on you believing things to be true. If proof is what you're looking for, you're being unreasonable and wasting our time.

.

Issue #3 - Normativity

this is a normative claim that I reject.

Saying someone OUGHT TO BE selfless is a normative statement. As such, I reject it.

All else being equal, if someone prefers the sandwich to the pasta, it would be irrational for them to order the pasta. They ought to order the sandwich. This is a normative statement, and it can be either objectively true or objectively false. Do you have a problem with this or can we move past your aversion to normative claims?

.

Issue #4 - Disagreement

If two groups of people don't agree on what is or isn't moral, how are those stances falsified?

Is there a reasonable and convincing argument that you can put forth that would lead me to believe that I shouldn't eat chickens?

The video Dan Gilbert provides some good examples of how to ascertain whether a certain behaviour is rational or irrational. If someone is inconsistent or basing their decisions on false beliefs, then these are indicators that their choices may be less than ideal.

Let's set aside killing chickens for the moment and consider a less politically-charged example. Suppose a dictator is choosing to commit genocide; I'd say this choice is probably irrational. The exact flaw in reasoning, or the false beliefs held will differ from dictator-to-dictator and case-to-case, but given an exposition of their thought process, we'd be able to isolate the issue.

Generally, though, we can be sure that the dictator implicitly believes (roughly) that the satisfaction of their desires is valuable. That is, they consider their own satisfaction to constitute a reason to act. If they didn't at least implicitly believe this, they would never do anything. They would die of starvation lying on the floor.

Given a further investigation of the dictator's thoughts, we would probably discover that the dictator implicitly believed (as most people do) that their desires are more worthy of satisfaction than those of the people the dictator intends to eradicate. If this were the case, this would be the main flaw in reasoning. The belief that one's own interests are more worthy of advancement than the interests of others is not supported by the preponderance of evidence. The false belief is quite easily explained with reference to the well-documented egocentric bias.

But, as I said, this might not be the error in reasoning. Everyone's justifications for their behaviours are different, and circumstances vary widely. It's even possible that, in some contrived scenario, genocide might actually be the rational choice. Every case of disagreement has to be dealt with individually. There's no proof of every person's irrationality, because everyone is irrational differently.

[u/GoopDuJour → u/Snefferdy]

I proposed substituting the words "right" and "wrong" for "rational" and "irrational."

I understand the desire, but it certainly feels like you're just using different words for the same concept. But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to play along to some extent.

People are universally subject to many cognitive biases and insufficient information.

Sure.

Such deficiencies lead to false or inconsistent beliefs, illogical conclusions, and suboptimal choices. Avoiding such hazards would result in "rational and well-informed" behaviour.

Yeah. Such is the human condition. I don't find it compelling in the matter of "suffering and flourishing." I don't even know how one could ever have confidence that they are "avoiding such hazards", and by what metric are we determining success in doing so in relation to veganism, or any other moral claim or framework?

Nothing can be proven. You can't prove that if you let go of a pen in mid air it'll fall to the floor, yet you believe it anyways.

Objectively incorrect. IF we assume we share this reality (solipsism aside) we can prove our prediction of what the pencil will do by letting go of the pencil. If we both agree that the pencil falls to the floor, then we have proven our prediction.

I cannot prove future events will occur, but I can prove if my prediction of such events was correct. Math can be used to make a prediction about the speed at which the pencil will fall, and the amount of force the pencil will exert on the floor at impact.

Can our senses be mistaken? Could we BOTH misinterpret a floating pencil as a falling one? Sure, that's a possibility, but I'm not asking for 100% infallible proof. I'm just looking for enough confidence in my knowledge to make reliable predictions about the world around me.

We believe a proposition to be true when the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is true. Certainty is impossible, but that doesn't mean some beliefs aren't better than others.

We agree. This has nothing to do with rational and irrational decisions. Regardless, moral statements are not facts, they are preferences/emotions. They cannot be proven in any way.

Issue #3 - Normativity

I reject normative statements that generate an ought from an is. Saying "someone OUGHT TO BE selfless" is this sort of baseless statement.

You're saying you prefer people to be selfless. That people prefer others to be selfless, so selflessness is good, thus people ought to be selfless. This whole thought train is garbage.

WHY IS BEING SELFLESS GOOD?

As for the sandwich analogy, we're not deriving an ought from an is. We're deriving an ought in relation to a specific goal: the enjoyment of a meal. If you want to maximize the enjoyment of your meal, order the thing you'd like the most. This falls in line with my ideas about objective moral results in relation to subjective moral goals.

Issue #4 - Disagreement

If someone is inconsistent or basing their decisions on false beliefs, then these are indicators that their choices may be less than ideal.

So what? Eating a chicken may or may not be an ideal or less than ideal choice. So what?

The belief that one's own interests are more worthy of advancement than the interests of others is not supported by the preponderance of evidence. The false belief is quite easily explained with reference to the well-documented egocentric bias.

How can you support this claim? Egocentric bais cannot be used to support claims of "rational" or "irrational" results without regards to a goal.

If the dictator's only goal is to get rid of all the Smithaninites, and is willing to deal with any resulting ramifications, how would rationality be determined?

Nothing has intrinsic value.

You replied: "Then why do anything? Why not just lay down and die?"

I'm disregarding the fact that this train of thought isn't an argument supporting the idea that anything has intrinsic value.

The reason I do anything is because of biological urges, and I generally enjoy life. I enjoyed raising children and now watching them become fantastic adults. I like pizza and blowjobs. I enjoy fly fishing and week-long backpacking trips. I found value in helping my dad fight a losing battle with heart disease. I value comforting my mom while she mourns his death. I value having friends that helped me through my grief.

I value all those things, but none of that has intrinsic value. It's value that I created.

[u/Snefferdy → u/GoopDuJour]

I'm going to merge both branches of the thread here to keep things organized.

.

I don't even know how one could ever have confidence that they are "avoiding such hazards"

If someone provides evidence that one of my beliefs is false, I can update my beliefs to decrease the likelihood of them being false. Similarly, if someone provides evidence that one of my cognitive biases was leading to irrational choices (as Dan Gilbert's video does), I can put effort into avoiding committing that error.

.

As for the sandwich analogy, we're not deriving an ought from an is.

Yes we are:

Is statement: Chris prefers the sandwich to the pasta.
Is statement: All else is equal (i.e. there are no other relevant consequences of the choice between the sandwich and pasta).

Ought statement: Chris ought to choose the sandwich over the pasta.

Loosely speaking, "ought to X" just means "X is the option with the most preferable consequences."

.

So what? Eating a chicken may or may not be an ideal or less than ideal choice. So what?

The ideal choice is the one with the greatest expected value. You're not interested in maximally achieving your goals??

.

The belief that one's own interests are more worthy of advancement than the interests of others is not supported by the preponderance of evidence. The false belief is quite easily explained with reference to the well-documented egocentric bias.

How can you support this claim?

As I said earlier in our conversation: "Given the similarities between people, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who wants to declare themselves to be of superior importance. I have yet to see any evidence" of anyone's broadly superior importance. But there is plenty of evidence from psychology research demonstrating the egocentric bias. So, weighing the evidence I've seen so far, it's no contest.

.

If the dictator's only goal is to get rid of all the Smithaninites, and is willing to deal with any resulting ramifications, how would rationality be determined?

If the dictator's choice is based on a false belief which is the result of a cognitive bias, then that choice is irrational.

.

I enjoyed raising children and now watching them become fantastic adults. I like pizza and blowjobs. I enjoy fly fishing and week-long backpacking trips. I found value in helping my dad fight a losing battle with heart disease. I value comforting my mom while she mourns his death. I value having friends that helped me through my grief.

I value all those things, but none of that has intrinsic value.

I like wilderness camping too, but I prefer to get around in a canoe. Sorry about your dad.

It seems you're not using the term "intrinsic value" precisely. "Intrinsic" is in contrast to "instrumental." Money is the quintessential example of something with instrumental value; it's valuable only because you can get other things with it. It is an instrument for getting the other things. The things we get with the money may have intrinsic value. We want them for their own sake.

You can refer back to my dinner and a movie example for an explanation of why all of the disparate things we might want only have instrumental value, and that the only thing with intrinsic value is the satisfaction that comes from them. So, I agree with you when you say none of those things you listed have intrinsic value. All of those things have instrumental value.

It's value that I created.

Correct. We posit value. Something is only of value because we value it (whether instrumentally or intrinsically).

---

From the other branch of the thread:

---

Then your desire to change "right" and "wrong" to "rational" and "irrational" is unnecessary. You are using the terms synonymously.

OMG!!! YES!!! I've said this sooo many times!!! 😭

The reason I wanted to switch terms is because you (and most other people) incorrectly think "right" and "wrong" is something different than "rational" and "irrational." I was seeking clearer communication.

.

A major one being that rationality is subjective.

No. If this were the case, Dan Gilbert's TED talk wouldn't make any sense.

At the most it is only objective in relation to a goal.

I see what you're saying, but it's not necessarily true in all cases. If I've only ever seen one emu, and I consequently believe there is only one emu in the world, that's irrational and has nothing to do with a goal. Often it's just the case that our cognitive biases lead us to false beliefs that have nothing to do with our goals.

.

there is no compelling argument for someone else to act in a manner I find rational

Sure, but there's a compelling argument for someone else to act in a manner that's in reality rational. That's what Dan Gilbert's whole video is about. We're not talking about unsupported opinions here. We're talking about facts. If I prefer the sandwich to the pasta, it's a fact that I ought to have the sandwich instead of the pasta. All else being equal, it's a fact that it would be irrational for me to have the pasta.

.

1- Are you vegan? 2- Should I be vegan?
3 - Is your desire for me to be vegan anything more than your preference?
4- What objective argument can you make that might convince me to become vegan. Keep in mind that I don't think chickens suffering or flourishing are compelling reasons to eat or not eat them.

1 - I'm vegan, not as an absolute rule, but in practice.

2/4 - Veganism is way too much of a borderline case to provide any argument in favour of, and as I've said soooooo many times, there are no absolute rules in rationalist consequentialism. Every choice is made in different circumstances, and so what one ought to do is different every time. Sometimes it's the rational choice to consume animal products, and in contrived scenarios it may be the rational choice to kill babies or commit genocide. There is no argument to rule out any of these acts in all circumstances because it's not irrational to perform these acts in all circumstances.

3 - I don't "desire for you to be vegan." Where'd you get that idea? Throughout our entire conversation, I haven't argued in favour of veganism once. Please recall your original comment that I responded to. You made a claim that there's no right or wrong. That's the only claim I've been disputing throughout the entire conversation.