Compulsory Voting

[FlatAssembler]

Guessing where a particular restaurant is isn’t immoral, as there is not a necessary immorality motivating the guess.

That makes no sense. I am trying to think of an analogy for that, but it's hard. Let's see... This is like saying eating meat is moral because it is not immorality that motivates it. I hope you can see why that's an absurd argument.

If someone were to cast a vote for a measure which, unbeknownst to the voter at the time of voting, causes the deaths of 10 000 people, the voter has not acted immorally - there is no morally culpability for unintended consequences.

I think it depends on whether the voter has really done their best to inform themself on the outcomes of policies. Perhaps if the voter really had no way of knowing it would lead to deaths of 10'000 people, and if the voter had apparently-well-justified reasons to think that policy will have good results, then that voter cannot be blamed. But that's not what's going on on most elections. Most voters are probably unaware of all the policies their candidate promises to implement, much less aware of what the experts think about those policies. That's what makes voting immoral.
It would perhaps not be immoral to direct a tourist at a restaurant that you don't know is closed, as you had good reasons to think that restaurant was actually there and open (you were there a year ago...). But it would be immoral to guess that there is a restaurant somewhere (where you have no good reasons to think there is a restaurant) and to misdirect the tourist that way.

If that is the only issue that concerns the voter, he is not committing an immoral act by voting for the candidate most likely to lower taxes.

I think he is committing an immoral act there. He is literally unaware of the policies he is voting for. He is not doing his best to inform himself before voting.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh, and one more thing...

mama cows are extremely protective of their calves

No, they are not. Cows don't make good mothers. That's why, in dairy industry, calves are taken away from their mothers a few hours after they are born.

Actually, they are,  and not having a mother has serious health consequences for the calf. The idea dairy cows make poor mothers was created by the dairy industry so that the calves don't drink the milk and cut into their profits. Cow sanctuaries and farms where cows are not removed have consistently shown cows can take care of their young.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Guessing where a particular restaurant is isn’t immoral, as there is not a necessary immorality motivating the guess.

That makes no sense. I am trying to think of an analogy for that, but it's hard. Let's see... This is like saying eating meat is moral because it is not immorality that motivates it. I hope you can see why that's an absurd argument.

If someone were to cast a vote for a measure which, unbeknownst to the voter at the time of voting, causes the deaths of 10 000 people, the voter has not acted immorally - there is no morally culpability for unintended consequences.

I think it depends on whether the voter has really done their best to inform themself on the outcomes of policies. Perhaps if the voter really had no way of knowing it would lead to deaths of 10'000 people, and if the voter had apparently-well-justified reasons to think that policy will have good results, then that voter cannot be blamed. But that's not what's going on on most elections. Most voters are probably unaware of all the policies their candidate promises to implement, much less aware of what the experts think about those policies. That's what makes voting immoral.
It would perhaps not be immoral to direct a tourist at a restaurant that you don't know is closed, as you had good reasons to think that restaurant was actually there and open (you were there a year ago...). But it would be immoral to guess that there is a restaurant somewhere (where you have no good reasons to think there is a restaurant) and to misdirect the tourist that way.

If that is the only issue that concerns the voter, he is not committing an immoral act by voting for the candidate most likely to lower taxes.

I think he is committing an immoral act there. He is literally unaware of the policies he is voting for. He is not doing his best to inform himself before voting.

1. Eating meat is not an immoral act. Why do you think it is?

2. Thank you. You’ve just refuted Huemer’s view that ALL voting, in and of itself, is immoral. I happily stipulate that some voters are behaving immorally when they knowingly vote for immoral policies or candidates, but that’s not Huemer’s position. Ignorance of a candidate’s policies is not an immoral act.

3. Suppose you find a wallet in the street. The wallet is stuffed with cash and credit cards. You find the owner’s name and address in the wallet. Unfortunately, he lives more than 100 miles away and you lack the means to return it in person. Being a good citizen, you turn the wallet in to your local police station and they return the wallet. Later, you discover that the owner of the wallet was a paedophile and used the money you returned to him to purchase child pornography. Have you committed an immoral act by returning the wallet before you found out everything you could about the owner?

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's not immoral to be an uninformed voter. People can vote for whatever reason they want.

[FlatAssembler]

Eating meat is not an immoral act. Why do you think it is?

Because somebody has to die for you to eat meat, and buying meat is supporting that.
But let's think of a slightly different analogy... What you said is like saying farmers are not committing an immoral act by preventatively giving antibiotics to farmed animals because they are not motivated by immorality.

You’ve just refuted Huemer’s view that ALL voting, in and of itself, is immoral.

That's not what he said. He said that voting in most elections (because, in most elections, it is impossible to be an informed voter) is immoral. Like voting between Hillary Clinton (a woman who threatens to start World War 3, who is explicitly against LGBT people, and so on...) and Donald Trump (who is obviously incompetent): how would you inform yourself on what is the less of the two evils? If some election is about a single issue which it is possible to inform yourself about, then voting there is not immoral.

Suppose you find a wallet in the street. The wallet is stuffed with cash and credit cards. You find the owner’s name and address in the wallet. Unfortunately, he lives more than 100 miles away and you lack the means to return it in person. Being a good citizen, you turn the wallet in to your local police station and they return the wallet. Later, you discover that the owner of the wallet was a paedophile and used the money you returned to him to purchase child pornography. Have you committed an immoral act by returning the wallet before you found out everything you could about the owner?

That might be the correct analogy for: "You are forced to vote. You have a choice between something you think will benefit you (keeping the wallet) and something you think will benefit the society (returning the wallet). You vote for that which you think will benefit the society. That turns out to have disasterous consequences.", but that's not how most elections work. In most elections, you are not forced to vote. You can say that you will not vote. And that's what I think is the most moral thing to do.

[FlatAssembler]

Oh, and one more thing...
No, they are not. Cows don't make good mothers. That's why, in dairy industry, calves are taken away from their mothers a few hours after they are born.

Actually, they are,  and not having a mother has serious health consequences for the calf. The idea dairy cows make poor mothers was created by the dairy industry so that the calves don't drink the milk and cut into their profits. Cow sanctuaries and farms where cows are not removed have consistently shown cows can take care of their young.

OK, who is NOW spreading vegan propaganda?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Eating meat is not an immoral act. Why do you think it is?

Because somebody has to die for you to eat meat, and buying meat is supporting that.
But let's think of a slightly different analogy... What you said is like saying farmers are not committing an immoral act by preventatively giving antibiotics to farmed animals because they are not motivated by immorality.

You’ve just refuted Huemer’s view that ALL voting, in and of itself, is immoral.

That's not what he said. He said that voting in most elections (because, in most elections, it is impossible to be an informed voter) is immoral. Like voting between Hillary Clinton (a woman who threatens to start World War 3, who is explicitly against LGBT people, and so on...) and Donald Trump (who is obviously incompetent): how would you inform yourself on what is the less of the two evils? If some election is about a single issue which it is possible to inform yourself about, then voting there is not immoral.

Suppose you find a wallet in the street. The wallet is stuffed with cash and credit cards. You find the owner’s name and address in the wallet. Unfortunately, he lives more than 100 miles away and you lack the means to return it in person. Being a good citizen, you turn the wallet in to your local police station and they return the wallet. Later, you discover that the owner of the wallet was a paedophile and used the money you returned to him to purchase child pornography. Have you committed an immoral act by returning the wallet before you found out everything you could about the owner?

That might be the correct analogy for: "You are forced to vote. You have a choice between something you think will benefit you (keeping the wallet) and something you think will benefit the society (returning the wallet). You vote for that which you think will benefit the society. That turns out to have disasterous consequences.", but that's not how most elections work. In most elections, you are not forced to vote. You can say that you will not vote. And that's what I think is the most moral thing to do.

1. Death is not immoral, nor is killing (necessarily). No, giving preventive antibiotics to food animals, while arguably not the wisest course of action, is not an immoral act.

2. Wrong. Huemer goes on at great lengths that voting or any other political action, is inherently immoral (this is to be expected from an anarchic-capitalist). By extension, Huemer would us collapse into a quagmire on indecision, because it is impossible to know all the outcomes of any decision we make about anything.

3. You didn’t answer my question (not that I was expecting you to do so). Your analogy is flawed because it hasn’t been established that you are forced to do anything about the wallet. And you are still ignoring the point that the unintended consequences of an act carry no moral weight for the original actor, one way or the other.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

Because somebody has to die for you to eat meat, and buying meat is supporting that.
But let's think of a slightly different analogy... What you said is like saying farmers are not committing an immoral act by preventatively giving antibiotics to farmed animals because they are not motivated by immorality.
That's not what he said. He said that voting in most elections (because, in most elections, it is impossible to be an informed voter) is immoral. Like voting between Hillary Clinton (a woman who threatens to start World War 3, who is explicitly against LGBT people, and so on...) and Donald Trump (who is obviously incompetent): how would you inform yourself on what is the less of the two evils? If some election is about a single issue which it is possible to inform yourself about, then voting there is not immoral.
That might be the correct analogy for: "You are forced to vote. You have a choice between something you think will benefit you (keeping the wallet) and something you think will benefit the society (returning the wallet). You vote for that which you think will benefit the society. That turns out to have disasterous consequences.", but that's not how most elections work. In most elections, you are not forced to vote. You can say that you will not vote. And that's what I think is the most moral thing to do.

1. Death is not immoral, nor is killing (necessarily). No, giving preventive antibiotics to food animals, while arguably not the wisest course of action, is not an immoral act.

2. Wrong. Huemer goes on at great lengths that voting or any other political action, is inherently immoral (this is to be expected from an anarchic-capitalist). By extension, Huemer would us collapse into a quagmire on indecision, because it is impossible to know all the outcomes of any decision we make about anything.

3. You didn’t answer my question (not that I was expecting you to do so). Your analogy is flawed because it hasn’t been established that you are forced to do anything about the wallet. And you are still ignoring the point that the unintended consequences of an act carry no moral weight for the original actor, one way or the other.

Boru

Back when dad was practicing vet med, there was a set time that meat and/or milk was to be discarded from any animal that was given antibiotics or other medications.  I feel pretty sure those rules are still in place.  He also said that the meds given to food animals were more rigorously tested than people meds because it could/did pass to humans.

I am firmly convinced that, among other things, FA doesn't know a damn thing about animals.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, they are,  and not having a mother has serious health consequences for the calf. The idea dairy cows make poor mothers was created by the dairy industry so that the calves don't drink the milk and cut into their profits. Cow sanctuaries and farms where cows are not removed have consistently shown cows can take care of their young.

OK, who is NOW spreading vegan propaganda?

.....?  It's a known fact, and a massive industry, breeding animals for confinement and profitability.  

For the same reason, laying hens are selected based on their size, broodiness, and production.  You want small hens that don't eat much, lay alot of eggs, and have no interest in caring for their young.  This gets them in and out of the laying boxes as quickly as possible, with as much floor density as possible, at the lowest price to producer.  

Heritage breeds, that lack some or even all of these attributes, are maintained as genetic stock.  Two of the most unsuitable breeds of chicken with respect to the layer model actually breed to form one half of the production mainline breeds (red and black sex-links).  Both of them are large, they're not bad layers but they're far from good, they're foragers and fighters, and the hens are broody as shit.  As far as meat, that market is entirely comprised of just one breed, the cornish cross - which is a terrible egg layer, requires a specialized feed, and is so dumb they literally cannot survive outside of confinement.  OTOH, they have a genetic abnormality as a product of the cross that means they reach full (chicken) size in a short 8 weeks, as opposed to the 27 of heritage breeds.  If let to go to 27, they're as big as turkeys. Now, don't feel too bad for the big boys, just because they'll be eaten. The layers tend to live about three years (though they're usually replaced after two - mostly composted but some end up as stewing or roasting hens - the small whole birds in the aisle by the big packages of boneless skinless cornish x breast) because they go through a demons resume of reproductive issues (cancers, tumors, etc) on account of laying an egg a day or more over their short lives.

This is how the sausage is made.  Not propaganda.  It's the difference between 50 birds per acre and 500.  The difference between raising chickens or producing eggs for sale being profitable, and not.  The difference between being able to provide people with this nutrition, or not. As it stands, with heritage breeds (and even small flocks of sex links), you can't make money from selling chickens or eggs competitively in the us.  You have to make your money by selling pasture owners on the fertility, pest control, and weed suppression benefits, or selling relatively wealthy people on the lifestyle.  The break even price on a pound of pasture raised chicken is a little over $6 - so, consider that the next time you buy chicken that advertises itself as such but comes in at a lower price.

As a fun fact, chicken is, perhaps, the least efficient and sustainable protein source in all of conventional ag. It relies heavily on subsidies and exploited labor alongside absolutely horrific living conditions for the stock as well as an endless supply of cheap monocultured grains. In the wild, chickens are half market size, taste like shit, and lay an egg a month. Cattle, by comparison, are fucking machines...and the best use of a chicken, is to keep cattle on pasture healthy - and to help cultivate the tastiest slips of the most nutritious forage in a regenerative model. People here might be familiar with the phrase "a chicken in every pot" but, because of the passage of time and the ubiquity of chicken today - we forget why this was such an alluring promise. It was an indicator of wealth and decadence, sold to the poor.

Now, for the real kicker, with respect to cattle and poultry - because the animals used are what we would call f1 hybrids..bred for our purposes and not theirs - left to their own devices, they will not reproduce true to type and cannot be profitably bred with each other. Which is to say that the calf of an absentee cow or hen will not, itself, reliably produce absentee offspring. It takes strict control at every point to maintain this situation - which is why it's so vulnerable to any number of market or environmental disturbances. With all of this in mind, do we consider the people who work hard for very little to do this evil, or do we acknowledge that they are presented with a set of exclusively suboptimal decisions..and, absent any actual motivation to do harm, modify our final moral judgement of the person and their actions? I mean, I doubt anyone here loves my birds like I do, but I'm sure as shit not interested in making food exclusively for the rich, so that 500 number sounds a whole lot better than the 50 - and all I can do is treat my birds a bit better than purdue's captive labor force treats theirs - though I'm sure they'd treat theirs better, too, if they could afford it. OTOH, I'm a breeder - I maintain those heritage flocks that the poor fucks are bred out of, and if I just stopped doing that - on the one hand...there would be fewer suitable birds for abusive industries to leverage, and on the other, people would starve and fall into poverty.

Decisions decisions..eh? Maybe, just maybe, the moral onus is on the consumer, instead of the producer? What a person will pay for their food - and it doesn't matter if that's veggies or meat, determines the conditions of the production environment. Veggies are, amusingly, even more abusive in this regard than meat. People get into livestock because it pays better, people get into processing because there is the possibility of benefits, lol. No such luck for your pickers and packers, and whatever animals their own models depend on, whether that's on farm, or in the area around the mine or well where they source their fertility.

[FlatAssembler]

1. Death is not immoral, nor is killing (necessarily). No, giving preventive antibiotics to food animals, while arguably not the wisest course of action, is not an immoral act.

2. Wrong. Huemer goes on at great lengths that voting or any other political action, is inherently immoral (this is to be expected from an anarchic-capitalist). By extension, Huemer would us collapse into a quagmire on indecision, because it is impossible to know all the outcomes of any decision we make about anything.

3. You didn’t answer my question (not that I was expecting you to do so). Your analogy is flawed because it hasn’t been established that you are forced to do anything about the wallet. And you are still ignoring the point that the unintended consequences of an act carry no moral weight for the original actor, one way or the other.

Boru

Back when dad was practicing vet med, there was a set time that meat and/or milk was to be discarded from any animal that was given antibiotics or other medications.  I feel pretty sure those rules are still in place.  He also said that the meds given to food animals were more rigorously tested than people meds because it could/did pass to humans.

I am firmly convinced that, among other things, FA doesn't know a damn thing about animals.

You know, I often get amazed at how ignorant people are about global problems. Superbacteria, caused primarily by us preventatively giving antibiotics to farmed animals, are probably the greatest threat to human race today. That's a way more serious issue than global warming is... But almost nothing is done about it. No government has yet banned preventative use of antibiotics in farmed animals. And very little money is given to the research on new classes of antibiotics (which, if we are lucky, may be used to fight superbacteria). That, in my opinion, is yet another failure of democracy: people don't know about that issue (or they at least greatly underestimate the severity of the problem), so nothing is done to mitigate it until it's too late.
And when my grandchildren, living in a world destroyed by pandemics of superbacteria, ask me "Did you do everything you could to prevent this?", what should I tell them? I can show them this amazingly ignorant comment, so they will get the idea of why we did almost nothing. I will be able to tell them that I was a vegan, so that I at least did not support the system that causes superbacteria... but that's basically it.