41–50 of 134 posts
A vegan+animal activist being a misanthrope is really the perfect bullseye when it comes to stereotypes.
It is difficult to not be a misanthrope once one realises the scale of evil that is being (banaly) perpetrated every single day. Not everyone can be a Gandhi or MLK Jr.
I’m disappointed he projects some sort of idealised aloof moral superiority on anything non human, as though humans are obviously morally inferior to any possible other species. That our failings are somehow objectively inexcusable. He chooses dolphins. The primary reproductive strategy of many dolphins is to gang up on a female, beat her into submission and gang rape her. They also routinely murder the infants of ri…
The distinction between moral agent and moral subject is important here. "moral agent" is someone whose actions are actions are eligible for moral consideration. Non-human animals are usually considered "moral subjects" or *"moral patients". Moral agents must treat them well because they can suffer, but they don't have moral agency themselves. They can be purely amoral. Their acts can be horrible, but they don't have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as though humans are obviously morally inferior to any possible other species maybe with great brains should come more responsibility/morality ?
Yes, absolutely. We must strive to do much better. I said as much in my comment. That doesn’t make his naive projection of child like innocence and purity on anything non human credible.
Anyway, a lot of philosophizing and debating extreme corner cases is just an excuse to avoid the elephant in the room. No amount of lions hunting zebras or dolphins practicing gang rape can be an excuse for the horrible way intelligent animals are treated today by humans considering themselves civilized and humane. Just as concern for the nutritional requirements of poor children in third world countries is not a free pass for wealthy westerners to consume large amounts of animal products themselves without much regard to environmental impact and animal welfare.
I’m disappointed he projects some sort of idealised aloof moral superiority on anything non human, as though humans are obviously morally inferior to any possible other species. That our failings are somehow objectively inexcusable. He chooses dolphins. The primary reproductive strategy of many dolphins is to gang up on a female, beat her into submission and gang rape her. They also routinely murder the infants of ri…
> I’m disappointed he projects some sort of idealised aloof moral superiority on anything non human Can you pinpoint where you got that impression? Note that it's not him that "chooses" dolphins, but it's the interviewer that asks him about what would it look like if we had an LLM that works with dolphins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you being serious? Or is this just some wicked kind of sarcasm?
To the downvoters: do you have any experience with little kids? As a father of a 2 year old, it is pretty obvious what's wrong with infanticide...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the downvoters: do you have any experience with little kids? As a father of a 2 year old, it is pretty obvious what's wrong with infanticide...
Well, I am a former embryo and fetus. I was given the opportunity to be born, and so I became pro-life. That seems like a pretty obvious and logical decision.
Utilitarianism and consequentialism are very dangerous; they make it too easy for people to justify murder by doing a little moral arithmetic and (consciously or subconsciously) putting their finger on the scale by selectively considering or ignoring some outcomes. Peter Singer has demonstrated this himself, having seen fit to justify the murder of children for the greater good. This is why good moral philosophies ha…
In reality we're all consequentialists, some masquerading as deontologists. Eg, try and find people who believe US participation in WWII was immoral because participation involved German children as collateral damage. Rules like "don't murder people" don't ever work. If you held yourself to that rule, your opponent would have a very easy time exploiting it. So in my opinion such rules more exist as a pretty fiction t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I am a former embryo and fetus. I was given the opportunity to be born, and so I became pro-life. That seems like a pretty obvious and logical decision.
Abortion of a 12 week old fetus is in no way comparable to infanticide. That's the point I am trying to make.
> why he might side with aliens over humans, He's sitting on the fence about being a species traitor?
The collective guilt and remorse of all of mankind is a heavy burden, but one he is willing and able in his nobility to bear.
Bearing the collective guilt of all mankind is not a noble burden to bear because it is totally detached from taking actions that care for others. It seems more likely to motivate people to self-flagellate, stay in bed depressed by the fact that all of their actions will still result in a hugely negative outcome, or spend lots of time commenting on the internet. The results are as productive and caring as someone playing Call of Duty.
Seems more effective to pick something very specific to strive for like the joy of knowing that some specific group of users from Senegal can provide for their families and to strive towards that.
Utilitarianism and consequentialism are very dangerous; they make it too easy for people to justify murder by doing a little moral arithmetic and (consciously or subconsciously) putting their finger on the scale by selectively considering or ignoring some outcomes. Peter Singer has demonstrated this himself, having seen fit to justify the murder of children for the greater good. This is why good moral philosophies ha…
In reality we're all consequentialists, some masquerading as deontologists. Eg, try and find people who believe US participation in WWII was immoral because participation involved German children as collateral damage. Rules like "don't murder people" don't ever work. If you held yourself to that rule, your opponent would have a very easy time exploiting it. So in my opinion such rules more exist as a pretty fiction t…
I’ve found it to be a pretty workable rule in living my actual life so far.
> such rules more exist as a pretty fiction than as an actual practice
I’m curious what life experiences you’ve had which lead you to conclude that “don’t murder people” is so inapplicable as to be fiction. Are you living near Bakhmut?