I don't have all the links I had saved on reddit anymore so I'm trying to get ahead of the next struggle session and I think it would be beneficial for everybody if we planned it out ahead of time. We should at least figure out what it will be about and when it should start. Any ideas? I was thinking we should do something a little bit different than the usual.

    • Utopia [none/use name]
      1·
      4 years ago

      But the difference is animals can suffer and are actually aware they are alive

        • Utopia [none/use name]
          2·
          4 years ago

          I have a lot of respect for Jainism, ahimsa is badass.

          However if you seriously want to argue that a completely thoughtless chemical response to stimuli in a lifeform with no nerves or nervous system, nevermind a brain, is the same as suffering from animals with actual nervous systems then you must be arguing in bad faith (or you're joking in which case sorry for the rant lol)

          • the_river_cass [she/her]
            ·
            4 years ago

            ehh keep in mind, the Jains live the way they do because of their relative class/caste position. they literally hire servants to sweep the road in front of them so they don't accidentally step on bugs. without the labor of people who do kill, their philosophy would be much harder to put into practice.

            a version of the same that also barred exploitation? that would be interesting but possibly also bar you from cultivating food to eat.

            • Utopia [none/use name]
              ·
              4 years ago

              That's a good point to be fair, I guess that's something they had no concept of when they were thinking of that stuff, although I guess a rotting body does also support a lot of life in the bacteria that eat it, which I guess some of which would be the bactiera that are already on/in you?

              With regards to a nervous system, it isn't inherently better however for the argument of veganism it is what allows suffering to occur, according to all the science we know to date. Killing things without nervous systems that are (probably) incapable of suffering will reduce the amount of suffering in the world when compared to killing things that can suffer.

              Even if plants did suffer, eating them over animals would still reduce total suffering because 90% of energy is wasted as you move up every trophic level. And so by us eating plants directly, rather than us eating animals that eat plants, we actually eat fewer plants anyway.

              • it_that_follows [none/use name]
                5·
                4 years ago

                Not to get too broad but you're also working from the assumption that all suffering is bad, which seems obvious in normal conversation, but needs to be supported in order to be used as a basis for your ethical model.

                If, let's say (Ben Shapeeno style), that some suffering is either good or necessary, you would need to give a reason as to why eating animals is ethically wrong other than simple suffering avoidance.

                • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Eh, I've read a bit on metaethics and without using something as god as authority it either ends up treating ethical statements as subjective fiction or postulating "self-evident" axioms like "suffering is bad".

                  • Utopia [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    ends up as ... postulating “self-evident” axioms like “suffering is bad”.

                    Yes.

                    • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                      1·
                      4 years ago

                      I mean, I agree. I'm just pointing out that "prove to me that suffering is bad" doesn't end up being a productive "facts and logic" conversation even among philosophers.