Re: Philosophy's lack of proofs

[chokhmah@xxxxxxxxxx]

There is the further problem of obligate carnivores. How shall we reason with a
tiger or a lion that eating meat is unethical?

Should humans attempt to control the diet of obligate carnivores? My family
raises a pet chameleon. It is an obligate carnivore (it must eat insects to
survive). Is it ethical for me to raise this pet? Should I attempt to coerce
the chameleon to become a vegetarian? Or should humans attempt to reduce the
population of obligate carnivores?

Perhaps you have answers to these ethical questions, but it seems there
would be:

1) No consensus among ethics philosophers,
2) No verifiable proofs of correctness,
3) No consequences to the conclusions

The discussion then has no meaning to me. How can I accept it as truth?

chokhmah

On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 10:08:07AM -0700, chokhmah@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Zinov, will you still check the mailing list? I find the conversations
> interesting. Even if you step away for a bit, I would be pleased to
> continue the discussions after you return.
> 
> To continue my argument, there exists no consensus even amongst
> vegetarian philosophers. There exists no consensus about applied ethics,
> nor about the princinples or axioms used to prove vegetarianism. For
> example, suppose you believe that there should not be differential
> treatment among species. This is equivalent to saying that all species
> have equal value. I could point out that vegetarians contradict this by
> eating plants.
> 
> If only non-plants have equal value, then vegetarians are inconsistent
> when they routinely kill primitive animals like beetles, worms, ants,
> aphids, and other pests as a routine part of agriculture.
> 
> Often, the killing of species is even deliberate. If rodents spread
> disease among humans, would it not be ethical to kill rats in order to
> save human lives? Similar arguments can be made for killing cockroaches,
> ticks, and mosquitoes. Many of these vectors clearly experience
> sentience and feel pain.
> 
> Among vegetarians, there is not even any consensus about the extent to
> which animals can be exploited. Even if all philosophers agreed to not
> kill animals, there would be no agreement about the extent to which
> their labor and products can be used.
> 
> Is it ethical to eat chicken eggs? Is it ethical to raise bees for
> honey? Is it ethical to raise cattle for dairy? No consensus.
> 
> If we had lived in an era before engineering, we would likewise find no
> consensus about the use of draft animals. Is it ethical to use horses
> and donkeys for transportation? Is it ethical to use oxen for plowing?
> Is it ethical to use worms for vermicomposting? Is their consent
> necessary?
> 
> Today, new unresolvable problems arise. Is it ethical to genetically
> engineer other species to produce valuable human products, such as
> insulin? Beyond E. coli, sentient mammals, birds, and fish are routinely
> used to produce therapeutic human proteins. Again, no consensus or hard
> proof can be offered about ethics without some religious tradition.
> 
> To compound the problem, there are zero methods offered for ethics
> enforcement. When a man chooses or disregards ethics, outside of
> religion, there are zero consequences.
> 
> Suppose you could undeniably *prove* that it is unethical to kill
> animals for meat. 90% of the world, however, accepts the practice of
> raising livestock for food (as it currently does). What consequences
> would these people face for their unethical practices? Since the
> majority controls the government, the law offers no punishment for these
> offenders. Without divine or cosmic justice, ethics becomes entirely
> devoid of meaning.
> 
> The problem therefore is threefold:
> 
> 1) No consensus (not even among philosophers)
> 2) No verifiable proofs
> 3) No consequences
> 
> The issue is not specific to vegetarianism. The problem is that many
> philosophy problems suffer from the exact same 3 flaws. These flaws
> render discussion of the problems of philosophy completely meaningless.
> 
> chokhmah
> 
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 05:44:06PM -0700, chokhmah wrote:
> > The problem with philosophy in general is the inability to verify or
> > prove its conclusions. This was discussed in the past with idealism vs
> > realism; there is no way to prove, without resorting to some authority
> > or tradition, which is true. The Ship of Theseus paradox regarding
> > identity is another.
> > 
> > In this thread, let us discuss ethics. How do you *prove*, in a way
> > convincing manner, that behavior XYZ is ethical? Take the hypothetical
> > statement: "Killing X is wrong".
> > 
> > X could represent a human, an animal, a plant, a cell, a robot, etc.
> > Most people agree killing a human is wrong. Some believe killing an
> > animal is wrong. A tiny minority believe killing a plant is wrong.
> > Without religious tradition, how do you prove that Killing X is wrong,
> > or that Killing X is ethically acceptable?
> > 
> > As another example, take the ethical statement, "Y requires permission
> > from Z". For example, Y could be taking a photo, which would require
> > permission from Z the person in the photo. Or Y could be dumping
> > pollution in a river, which would require permission from Z the
> > municipality that owns the river. How do you *prove* that these actions
> > are ethical or unethical?
> > 
> > Plato thought that censorship of the arts and literature was ethical to
> > achieve his goal of a harmonius, beautiful city. He believed deceiving
> > the public was ethical to enforce an efficient caste system. He thought
> > forced marriages and infanticide was ethical to achieve superior human
> > breeds. Without resorting to tradition, how do you prove that what he
> > believed was unethical?
> > 
> > For these questions, there has been almost zero consensus amongst
> > philosophers for over two thousand years. This is why ethics (and
> > philosophy in general) appears to many to be a fruitless field. It is
> > not because I do not desire to learn the truth. The problem is no hard
> > proofs can ever be offered, so no consensus can ever be reached. The
> > result is no truth is to be found.
> > 
> > It is not like this in other fields like mathematics where proofs can be
> > demonstrated, consistency and logic is systematic and methodical be
> > demonstrated, and sometimes empirical experiments can even be used to
> > confirm the truth of claims.
> > 
> > chokhmah
> > 
> > 
> 
>