Atheism and vegetarianism

[leo-rcc]

The same cannot be said of the gnostic atheist (the atheist who says "there is no God").

With us there is a period behind that sentence, we don't add something to that line lrh9.

[lrh9]

I'm not sure about this. Killing anyone over the age of seventy would benefit society, and be in our self interest, but there are laws against it nonetheless. Having a slave class of the unintelligent would be to our benefit, but it's illegal. Dealing arms to dodgy people who hurt the citizens in their own country would be to our benefit, but governments generally don't go in for that (though sometimes do, unfortunately). Having no animal cruelty laws whatsoever would be to our benefit, but there are some. Or are all these cases ultimately in our interests?

I said group policy can maximize the fulfillment of member's desires. I didn't say that member's desires would always be beneficial to society.

Material or bodily benefit is not the whole of self interest.

People can desire other things, and when those desires conflict with material or bodily interests (or when anticipated desires in the future conflict with present desires) they prioritize. This leads to a non-obvious but rational and optimal maximization of expected fulfillment of desire over the whole range of desires or the whole lifespan.

No doubt a group could fulfill material and bodily desires by eliminating or enslaving people, but at a great detriment to emotional desires and at a great detriment to desires to behave according to behavioral programming. So even if policy only serves emotional desires and reinforces behavioral programming there is an amoral explanation for laws.

And there are policies that do permit meat industry workers to inflict or facilitate pain on their animals to maximize meat production. The condition industry pigs are raised in can induce them to bite other pigs' tails or to allow other pigs to bite their tails. This can lead to infection. To counter this problem, industry workers stub the tails of their pigs. This makes the tail remnant much more sensitive. So much so that even the most demoralized pigs will fend off another pig trying to bite its tail.

That is a clear case of the law favoring our material and bodily desire over 'morality'.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm not sure about this. Killing anyone over the age of seventy would benefit society, and be in our self interest

Without supporting evidence, that sounds like the kind of agist bullshit one would expect from the more callow and unreflective of adolescents.



OUR self interest? .I'm nearly 63,speak for yourself whippersnapper.

[The Omnissiunt One]

I said group policy can maximize the fulfillment of member's desires. I didn't say that member's desires would always be beneficial to society.

Material or bodily benefit is not the whole of self interest.

People can desire other things, and when those desires conflict with material or bodily interests (or when anticipated desires in the future conflict with present desires) they prioritize. This leads to a non-obvious but rational and optimal maximization of expected fulfillment of desire over the whole range of desires or the whole lifespan.

No doubt a group could fulfill material and bodily desires by eliminating or enslaving people, but at a great detriment to emotional desires and at a great detriment to desires to behave according to behavioral programming. So even if policy only serves emotional desires and reinforces behavioral programming there is an amoral explanation for laws.

Okay, take the welfare state. Those who make laws are generally reasonably wealthy, and have no interest in the welfare state. They will most likely never need it. Obviously, the welfare state is in some people's interest, but not for those who make laws i.e. politicians. A society can run perfectly well without a welfare state, and, once people get used to not haing one, nobody objects. So why are there socialist politicians?

And there are policies that do permit meat industry workers to inflict or facilitate pain on their animals to maximize meat production. The condition industry pigs are raised in can induce them to bite other pigs' tails or to allow other pigs to bite their tails. This can lead to infection. To counter this problem, industry workers stub the tails of their pigs. This makes the tail remnant much more sensitive. So much so that even the most demoralized pigs will fend off another pig trying to bite its tail.

That is a clear case of the law favoring our material and bodily desire over 'morality'.

Agreed, and I wish that weren't the case. But there are some cruelty laws nonetheless, and this has no clear benefit for anybody. Unless, of course, you take into account people's moral objections to such things, but still, much of what goes on is done in secret, so nobody would be any the wiser. Yet, cruelty laws exist.

---

Without supporting evidence, that sounds like the kind of agist bullshit one would expect from the more callow and unreflective of adolescents.

It seems fairly obvious that those who've retired are a net drain on society's resources, as they contribute nothing to the economy and put a strain on healthcare. Or maybe I'm just a callow and unreflective adolescent.

OUR self interest? .I'm nearly 63,speak for yourself whippersnapper.

Don't worry; you've still got seven years until the state drags you away to the gas chamber.

[Entropist]

In Memoriam Padraic
1947-2017

---

(Double click on the YouTube vid to view it)

[lrh9]

A society can run perfectly well without a welfare state, and, once people get used to not haing one, nobody objects.

French Revolution

[The Omnissiunt One]

Yeah, it was a bit more than a lack of a welfare state. There was also famine, a financial crisis, massive unemployment, and ideological upheaval. We in Britain didn't really have a welfare state for most of our history. Still got a royal family (much as I'd like to behead most of them).