The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of
>>>>> overall
>>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all
>>>>> future time,
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us.
>>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to
>>>>> death for
>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>> sentient being, like a chicken?
>>>>>>>>>> Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
>>>>>>>>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it
>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time.
>>>>> My
>>>>>>>>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
>>>>>>>> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
>>>>>>>> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
>>>>>>>> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
>>>>>>>> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
>>>>>>> This is nonsense
>>>>>> No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.
>>>>> That's not an argument.
>>>> It's a observation based in fact.
>>> What facts?
>> Weights are assigned, ****wit, and they're arbitrary,
>> and manipulated to get to where you want to go.
>>
>
> Give some evidence for this contention.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal
>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve
>>>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar
>>>>> interests of all
>>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species.
>>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the
>>>>> chicken?
>>>>>>>>>> It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
>>>>>>>>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are
>>>>> used in
>>>>>>>>> the phrase being defined.
>>>>>>>> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
>>>>>>>> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
>>>>>>> Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
>>>>>> No. There's no such thing as morality in
>>>>>> utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
>>>>>> blabbering about entities' preferences.
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> Not an argument, and anyway false.
>>> You presented no argument
>> False.
>>
>
> Where's the argument?
Go back and look.
|