TheEgoist

Something I've been concerned more about recently is the treatment of animals and how it relates to our ethical intuitions. As Objectivists or those sympathetic with much of the philosophy, I think we can all agree that to some extent the suffering of animals is undesirable. It is normally stated that we should not support the needless suffering of animals. I think this is a position you must take as not only a rational person, but a person with in tact human faculties of empathy. To lack any sort of feeling of disgust when presented with the suffering of animals is considered a tell-tale sign of antisocial behavior. However, I think our ethical intuitions regarding the suffering of animals goes further than this. Beyond simple feelings of sympathy, empathy and disgust at the suffering of conscious beings, I think we need to admit that it is not just the needless suffering of animals that is to be appalled, but even the suffering of animals when we might need it. So, my question is, when is the suffering of animals justified? Let me suggest two propositions that should be at the ends of this continuum: 1. The Suffering of Lab Rats in Human Medical Research 2. The Suffering of Calves In Processing Veal. At one end, we have what most people consider a justifiable practice that involves the suffering of animals for human benefit and at the other end we have an unjustifiable, or at least much less justifiable case. One exists for the long-term benefit of humans, who I think we can all agree on this forum have a privileged state of consciousness that ought to go into our ethical calculations. If a lab rat or even a Great Ape most suffer so that many human beings can prosper, this is justified. The other exists as a short term benefit of our taste buds. As a person that has eaten veal on several occasions, I have to admit that I absolutely loved the taste. It made for a great (even if costly) meal. However, it is much more difficult for me to justify eating veal than it is for me to endorse the use of medicine that was tested on animals. But calves suffer greatly and with a wide array of experience during this process. It isn't that cows have a low-level experience for pain. They can experience pain in very much the same way we do. They even show signs of empathy with their calf brothers. The torture calves endure is not like that of a slug who we salt on our basement floors. Both have some short term benefit, but one seems less severe. If we have the choice to salt a slug or torture a calf for years or even for a moment, I think we'd do well with salting the slug. Their pain sensations, if they even exist, are unlikely to be much more than an on/off switch. So, if you agree that there is a difference between the production and consumption of animal tested medicine and the consumption of veal, wherein lies the difference? ANd how vast a continuum is it? Are there merely two nodes or is the difference between these two practices very large? Should we as empathetic creatures stop supporting the veal industry, even protest it? What about farms that treat their cattle and other animals unnecessarily cruelly? Say what you will of PETA (And I'd say a bunch), they have compiled a lot of footage that displays unnecessarily cruel behavior on cows, pigs, chickens and all other form of livestock, who all show a high sensitivity for pain and emotional anguish. I'd say it is unethical to support the torture of animals when it can be reasonably avoided. Why should we allow farms that needlessly harm animals to continue, within a free market? Why give them our support if we agree that it's more than just psychotic, but unethical to treat animals in this way? I find it concerning that many Objectivists will simply brush under the rug the concern we ought to have for the suffering of conscious creatures. Is it that Objectivism, libertarianism and various individualistic philosophies attract those with low levels of empathy? I've seen Objectivists that do have a great deal of concern for the suffering of animals, but more often I see it shrugged off as not important. And perhaps in terms of ethical concerns it can rate low, but I think it deserves more than a passing thought and an "Oh well, that's the state of the world" attitude. I don't suggest one radically change their diet to cut out meat. I think there are ethical ways to eat meat and I think it's a necessary part of a good diet for most people. If it were the case that it were either veganism or the torturing of animals, I would suggest the torturing of animals. However, that isn't our only choice and I think we should stop acting as if it were.

The point is that experience is not only used in the context of subjective perception or introspection but can also refer to experience one shared with another. Saying you shared a subjective experience with someone seems absurd. One might talk of having the same work experience. So the specification of "subjective experience" is used when discussing consciousness. This couldn't be less important, though.

Hairnet, I've found reflexive monism about conscious experience to be quite palatable, and share the same concerns as most Objectivists do about materialism, dualism etc. http://cogprints.org/5730/1/Reflexive_Monism_final_version.pdf

Because there can be shared experiences. For example, if we both see a fireworks display, we have shared an experience. However, there is a subjective experience for both of us. Subjective here just means from the subject's perspective.

Figured I would do a search on psychedelics here. Glad in what I found. Been using psychedelics altogether on a somewhat regular basis (Somewhat regular for psychedelics meaning every month or two, given the tolerance your body builds for LSD and psilocybin). Last summer I took my first mushroom trip and it was a very aesthetic trip. Things were beautiful, colorful, I appreciated all things around me more. I fell in love with my friends, who I barely knew. I took two more trips that summer and all were similar. It wasn't until February that I started getting much different trips on shrooms. The enhancement (or distortion, depending on your theory) of my perception was still there, but trips started getting much more introverted. I found my head filled with thoughts, I was blasting through them. It was as if I was interrogating my ego about all its faults. At the end of my first trip in February, I finally asked out this girl who I had tripped with. She had a similar trip and came to a similar conclusion about starting a relationship. Since then I've fallen in love with her and we have both encouraged more psychedelic use. Most trips now come with some sort of theme and a revelation. Some have been what many deem as a bad trip, but they're only bad in what they make you face. If you've got issues with your self-image, take psychedelics with caution. I've had visions of my own "soul" as it were as some sort of rotting corpse (these were meditative CEVs).. I've taken LSD once. I didn't have much of a trip, while my girlfriend had quite the lovely experience.. If you want to class in MDMA with psychedelics, I've taken it 4 times since February (My girlfriend and I actually did that together before the shrooms). With this, you of course have to have extreme caution. MDMA is not a classic psychedelic, but I think it has what someone taking psychedelics is looking for. However, they're powerful amphetamines and so easy to get physically and mentally addicted to. If you do it, do it once. DOn't have it in your mind that you'll ever do it again, even if you will. Buy as much as you need for one night. I think MDMA offers the most positive experiences. It's definitely much more of a hedonistic activity, as there is none of the fear, none of the mind-crushing awe of LSD and mushrooms. I would suggest not doing it in the classic club setting. Do it with someone or some people you love. Try and meditate. Talk to someone more openly than you ever have. You'll be surprised to see how open you become in general.

SPOILERS OMG DON'T LOOK

1. Rand's opinions on scientific issues were just that, her opinions on scientific issues. They weren't a matter of philosophy. 2. There is still a lot of controversy over direct VS representational realism in psychology and philosophy. I'd say those that grant representationalism are making a philosophic judgment error, but it's not a matter of science. 3. I'm not sure what you are getting at with your first reference to spatial representation. This doesn't seem to have much to do with the blank slate theory.

A couple things. THese are not necessarily in order of apperance in the thread or in the initial list. First, if you want to argue any of this, you should actually establish how Objectivism is at odds with these theories. Objectivism can only be at odds insofar as a scientific theory makes claims of philosophic import. What exactly are the philosophic claims of the Big Bang Theory itself? Of AGW? Godel's incompleteness theorem says nothing of Objectivism. It's a very limited theorem that put to bed a project of early analytic philosophy, to explain all of mathematics by the use of first order logic. If there is any mathematical philosophy espoused by Objectivism, it doesn't run afoul with Godel. Sociology is a very broad field, within which there are many different theories and frameworks. It's a controversial field within itself. There aren't many unifying theories within sociology that bring it together as a science. It's a hodge podge. Praxeology 1) isn't accepted science and 2) isn't at odds with Objectivism, for the most part. The Misesian conception might be, but I think Rothbard showed well enough that its a priori foundations are not necessary. Analytic philosophy isn't science. It's not even a philosophy. It is, giving it a lot of slack, a way of doing philosophy that emphasizes clarity with use of concepts and language and use of formal logic. These are not things Objectivists oppose. What Objectivists oppose is linguistic philosophy, which is a particular strand within the tradition. Analytic philosophy itself is just a way of doing philosophy. It's not how Rand did it or how most "system builders" would, but you can work within the analytic tradition and within the Objectivist tradition respectively. I don't know what you mean by psychological realism.

Possible plot spoilers ahead: Of course, I don't think they meant it so literally.

Interesting stuff over at Objectivist Answers http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/6177/do-objectivists-take-the-position-that-animals-do-not-have-free-will

Can we all agree we all need clothes, boots, and a motorcycle?

Along similar lines, Antonio Demasio has written a superb book entitled "Descartes' Error" wherein he shows that emotion and reason are not in opposition. The work of Alva Noe is worth a look, especially "You Are Not Your Brain". Noe has some free papers available on his website. There has been a lot of work in concepts that can substantiate Rand's claims of concept formation, and a lot more that might prove to be reasons against it. I'll try and create a list in the next day of some interesting readings on concept formatoin.

Yeah, Nahmias has a lot of his work available for free on his website. A lot of it is worth a look.

Hi, Oscar. I'm going to suggest to you that you read this, as it might clear up some confusion you seem to be having . Basically, free will isn't going to be located in some group of neurons or connections. The life or death of free will does not hinge on scientific research. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/ The author of that article, Eddie Nahmias, does a lot of experimental research on free will that you might be interested in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Some libertarians have argued that business has also been given privileges over labor with the NLRA and other various regulations. Why not focus on taking out government-enforced privileges instead of just piling on regulatoin to a complex problem?

While public unions are bullshit, I oppose right to work laws and think most libertarian, Objectivist and generally classical liberal support of them is confusing.

This is that kind of phony privatization, like a lot of cities have with different private corporations for trash, public transit, etc. It inevitably leads to corruption as long as the State weaves itself in. And with prisons, it's an even bigger issue, since it is intricately woven in with the State by the nature of prisons. An Objectivist would say a prison system must be nationalized. I would say it needs to be abolished as it stands.

Honest people can disagree on matters such as this.

Stupid copy paste. This is the article: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-gabel-of-against-me-comes-out-as-transgender-20120508#ixzz1uL5zCNan

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/hayeks-vision/ Lots of discussion of gender on here. I figured I would share this. Tom Gabel of prominent punk rock band Against Me has come out as transgender and has announced he will begin the process of becoming a woman physically in the coming months. Not many famous people have done this. I imagine it's appropriate someone in the punk rock community is the first prominent case. I imagine feeling cast out and disenfranchised by those around him was a big reason he chose to get involved in that style of music. I can't imagine the difficulty of coming out with this news, knowing that your assumed gender plays a big role in how one thinks of a band. I know on some forums, people are concerned about the direction of the band. Some people openly mock him. Hopefully his transition happens smoothly and with the support of all his loved ones and fans.

In case anyone is interested int he on-going back and forth between Krauss and some Philosophers: http://itisonlyatheory.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos

I disagree with Rand, and specifically with Peikoff's paper on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, that there isn't a range of facts which can be described as contingent beyond man-made ones. I think possibility is much more interesting than that.

Why exactly do you come somewhere for people to fight your debates for you?