Just how smart is an octopus?

I understand (and share) your skepticism, particularly in the light of what science and health reporting has become. Moreover, the popular press tends to lump vegetarianism with every other orthorexic/antiscience fad to come along - from non-celiac gluten avoidance to 'juice' cleanses to wheatgrass enemas. It's not a minor frustration to be lumped in with the self-absorbed orthorexic crowd, but what are you going to do? :)

Regardless, the healthiness of vegetables isn't new science, nor is our understanding of the fundamental requirements of the human body. We know humans require iodine, vitamin d and other essential vitamins to survive. We know humans can't manufacture 9 specific amines that we colloquially refer to as 'protein', and require them from their diet. This isn't new science, and we know that it's possible to be healthy and vegan, which is why the World Health Organization, Kaiser Permanente, among other health organizations have started promoting plant-based diets.

(If I'm feeling cynical, my usual answer to the question 'where do you get your protein?' is 'which ones are you specifically concerned about?', since the questioner invariably doesn't actually know what a protein is, but vaguely knows that meat has it, and broccoli "doesn't".)

(Broccoli has almost as much protein, on a caloric basis, as steak (8 grams per 100 cals vs 11 grams). Though, that's kind of a cop-out answer, because while broccoli contains all the right proteins, it only has very little of one of them. Then again, nobody has to live just on broccoli - just like nobody in their right mind would live on nothing but steak. Add a few beans to your diet and boom, broccoli is now as complete as steak. I have more trouble >choosingThere have been vegans for literally thousands of years - both buddhist and jainist religions espouse vegan or at least extremely plant based diets. What is new, however, is the plethora of new vegan food products and services, that have made being vegan vastly easier than it has ever been to be vegan - fermented cheeses, dozens of 'meat' substitutes, even brand new kinds of food, like Quorn. It's kind of crazy (and not entirely good for my waist :))

If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I also have sources that I consider science-based and would recommend to others, but particularly those with a skeptical eye :)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854817/

https://share.kaiserpermanente.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/1...

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/05/world-health-org-and-u...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism#Practice

You might be interested in experimental philosophy. It's where philosophers quiz people to probe at how common a given intuition is. There's ongoing debate regarding whether the results pose a problem for certain meta-ethical positions (e.g. moral-realism). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-moral/#MorJu...

Also of note is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that we ought to maximize the amount of happiness in the world/universe/multiverse while minimizing the amount of suffering. And that the morality of an action just relates to its consequences. So it's ok to lie/cheat/steal for the greater good.

Often, objections to Utilitarianism come in the form of "consider situation X. In X, maximizing utility requires us to do something horrible. Our intuitions scream not to do it, so utilitarianism is wrong". However, if these intuitions are unreliable, then so are the objections. Utilitarians can then come out and say 'the intuitions required for our theory are much more obvious/reliable/, so our theory is better supported'.

But I don't want to say that Utilitarianism is the be all end all. For instance, there's Kant, who built his moral theory on abstract first principles rather than situational intuitions. I, unfortunately, am not well versed in him, so that's all the detail that I'll go into.

Now, there are a couple of points that you made which I'd like to respond to.

> If I don't agree with 1, your whole argument breaks down.

As an addendum, this is a good thing! It means that this premise, if true, directly supports the conclusion. Arguments with unnecessary premises get confusing. They're bad practice - just like dead code is bad. It's expected that you need to accept all of the premises in order to get to the conclusion.

Oh, and I think that your points above are really a rebuttal of (3.), not (1.). Even if other people have other intuitions, hopefully you still believe that (1.) I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering? It's just not clear that (3.) my intuition of 1. provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true.

>

Your examples are all great, but I disagree with the point you're trying to make. 100% consensus on moral intuitions isn't necessary. They're clearly a flawed sense that is prone to error. The important question is, rather, do they lead to truth more often than they lead to falsehood? I don't know the answer to that question, but it's the vital one.

> seldom is there a Joker as in Heath Ledger's character. If a person fully believes that others don't count, at all, then the rule breaks down.

I want to take a hit at this one separately too. The existence of s/a hypothetical Joker/very real sociopaths/ is not necessarily proof against moral intuitions. These people might just have an impaired ability to sense moral truths.

And all of this leads us back to whether moral intuitions are generally mostly sort-of good indicators of truth. Here experimental philosophers could disprove this by showing great enough variance in moral intuitions. Or close off this avenue of criticism by showing a high degree of correlation between many moral views of many people.

Otherwise, questioning whether moral intuitions are evidence go pretty deep into Epistomology, the study of how we know what we know. That's a giant pile of worms. Great fun, but I've already created a monster with this post so I'll leave it.

TL;DR: It's all really a question of whether or not moral intuitions provide solid evidence for moral claims. Also, I want to see Batman again.

Thank you for taking the time to understand my comment in its best interpretation!

Taking your reply in reverse order:

    > Am I actually a moral absolutist, but misunderstanding 
    > the terminology?

I could be misunderstanding what you mean by "absolutist", because the terms I'm used to seeing in this context are Objective Morality vs. Subjective Morality. I'm assuming you're arguing for Subjective Morality (aka, moral relativism, aka "morality is a human invention, we decide what's right and wrong for ourselves"). If by Moral Absolutist you instead mean "there's a finite list of rules and regulations by which all humanity in all situations at all times should be living by," then I'm not arguing for that at all. So, I'm assuming you don't mean that, and that we're actually talking about Objective vs. Subjective Morality when we talk about relativism/absolutism.

I think as soon as you use terms like "should", "ought to", "right", "wrong", "good", "bad", and "evil" that you're making an objective statement about an ideal state to which you think the world should conform, ought to conform, etc. From a theistic point of view, those words make sense, but from an atheistic point of view, every time you use one of those words to refer to someone else's behavior, I'm going to ask, "Why?". Basically, if you try to effect any moral change at all in anyone, you've proven that you actually think there is at least one thing which you consider to be "right" for the other person to do, regardless of what they think about it.

    > I do think that everyone should behave with empathy 
    > because all humans have an equal capacity to suffer, 
    > and from that conclusion you get obvious things like 
    > "rape is bad", "murder is bad",

You may think it's bad, but you haven't really got a strong argument there for why it's true that murder is bad at all. You may not like murder, but why should the murderer care what your preferences are at all?

Here's what I think is a stronger, more formalized version of your argument:

    Premise #1: All humans have an equal capacity to suffer.
    
    Premise #2: Suffering is a specific electrochemical impulse in a human's brain.
    
    Premise #3: Every human dislikes the "Suffering Impulse"
    
    Premise #4: Human beings *ought* to reciprocate their dislikes.
    
    Conclusion: Therefore, everyone *should* behave with empathy.

Note that even in that argument, I couldn't even come up with a good premise for #4 that didn't use the word "ought" (and again, I'm trying to come up with a good atheistic argument for why anyone should behave in any particular way at all). And you need #4 for the argument so that the conclusion will follow from the premises.

    > I feel that a moral hierarchy exists, but it does not 
    > exist independently of the (collective) human mind.

To see where this idea logically leads, I'd encourage you to read some articles by John Gray[0]. He's an atheist who writes a great deal about the implications of atheist worldviews on morality. He's a clear thinker, and not afraid to ruffle feathers.

Also, I highly recommend that atheists read Frederich Nietzsche's "Parable of the Madman"[1]. It's another take on the moral implications of atheism.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/johngray

[1]: http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/nietzsche-madman.asp

Humboldt squids at least work together to achieve goals such as catching prey. They coordinate to confuse and ambush the selected target. This shows (to me) not only that they are not solitary (all the time) and are able to communicate to achieve their common goal. A bit like killer whales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_squid