Blue and Green morality

OTOH said:

Yes, the current moral fashion is to have Blue (liberal) and Green (environmental) morality. These are two separate things, though.

The core principle of liberalism is each person's liberty to do whatever they choose, so long as it doesn't violate another person's rights. Animals aren't people, so it is illiberal to pass laws restricting their owners' liberty to use them as they choose.

Environmental ethics are about protecting nature. If you give each individual absolute liberty, many will choose to damage the ecosystem, so a consistent Green would sometimes support illiberal laws.

Oh well. You could always have a morality that's more complex than pure liberalism or pure green.

Wow, thought this was going to be about Less Wrong. Don't know if I should be happy or sad.

Sad.

Tongpu:

Certainly! You could also have a moral synthesis of Green and White (traditionalism). Or a synthesis of Green and Red (socialism) that rejects Blue individualism. Unless there's some logical principle I've missed that unites them, there's no logical reason to espouse Blue and Green specifically, except to be morally fashionable.

... Maybe the 20th century was a giant game of Magic The Gathering, with Blue, White, Red, Black (Fascism) and Green fighting in shifting alliances under the command of philosophers Planeswalkers.

edited 16th Apr '11 1:32:23 PM by Rottweiler

You didn't quote the part where I said that environmentalism was largely about human rights, since we reap what we sow in terms of how we take care of the envrionment - pollution is affecting human health, depletion of resources is affecting human standard of living. In the case of environmentalism, the liberal ideal of "freedom to do what doesn't hurt other people" still holds true, since harming the environment will hurt other people.

Happy.

For me socialism is more Blue + Red, unless you mean the modern Left, in which case I agree with the Green angle. Practical socialism (the old-style Left, we can call it) tended to veer into modernism, shaping the world to your will, these things - you know the thing, turning the rivers of Siberia and all that lot. Thus, no Green.

edit: ...I didn't realise the brackets aren't referring to both, but to solely the last word. And so my argument loses relevance. Damn me.

edited 16th Apr '11 1:27:59 PM by lordGacek

@OTOH: But if you're Green, torturing animal from birth til slaughter is inherently evil, even if you find a way to do it without pollution. If you're consistently Blue, you'd oppose any animal rights law that creates a "victimless crime", with the understanding that only a person counts as a victim.

@Gacek:

Exactly so.

edited 16th Apr '11 1:25:08 PM by Rottweiler

Hence, a synthesis stating that animals have some rights as well. Which you just quoted in the OP. Why do you think one has to be either Blue or Green? I'm aqua-colored.

It's a principle of modern liberalism that persons, and only persons, each have equal rights. That's why, say, a woman has a right to kill a Homo sapiens we've excluded from the legal definition of "person".

How do you synthesize that with animal rights? As a person, if I see a wild duck, don't I have the right to kill it or not kill it as I choose?

A person's rights have priority over a non-person's rights. Because a fetus requires effort and sacrifice from a woman to survive, taking on a fetus is strictly voluntary. Animals, on the other hand, generally don't require human sacrifice to survive. In the cases in which they do - for example, wolves eating a farmer's flock, or a wild animal attacking a human being - the human has a right to terminate the animal.

And do persons have the right to eat whatever they want, whenever they want?

Not if they could have acquired the same food at the same cost with less pain involved for the animals. That's why I'm in favor of taxing the factory farms to subsidize the free range industry, making the former more expensive and the latter less expensive.

Uh. The whole reason capitalists invest in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (factory farms) is that they use advanced technology to reduce the cost of producing meat.

Exaclty. Which is why we provide incentives that would make factory farmed meat more expensive and free range meat more affordable, whether it's taxation, subsidies, or research into reducing the costs of free range, humane meat production techniques.

"make factory farmed meat more expensive..."

Why this sin tax and no others? Why not a punitive tax on abortions to subsidize orphanages? Why not a punitive tax on alcohol?

Why not just recognize these as two unrelated codes of ethics?

They already have a tax on Alcohol.

And why not simply cut prices for free range food instead if "sin taxes" are so objectionable.

Economics. You're familiar with the consequences of price ceilings far below the market price of a good?

Also, You're certainly a liberal. Are you a vegetarian?

I am actually in favor of a sin tax on vices that make people unhealthy, such as alcohol and fast food, if the state might end up paying for their liver damage or heart disease. Having more benefits under the government necessarily means having less freedom.

As for why a liberal might support this sin tax and not others, this is a tax designed to protect animals from people, whereas most sin taxes are designed to protect people from themselves, something which liberals are undestrandably uncomfortable with.

Edit: I believe Joseph said he gets free range meat.

edited 16th Apr '11 2:28:29 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

Sweet Baal no.

But all of my stuff is from ethical sources, I make sure to check and my parents generally only buy free range (which is very common in this country) or fairtrade (which tends to be common enough).

See, Rott? His country managed to make free range and fair trade common and available.

Is opposition to factory farms for non-animal-rights-related reasons not a factor?

He never said it's just as cheap. You do recognize his social class, right?

If people, especially the working class and lumpen, choose the cheap meat of tortured animals, what right do you have to take away their choice?

I'd just say "torturing sentient beings is inherently evil, and a just government checks evil", but I'm illiberal.

Its a tad more expensive, but for the most part it's only by a couple of pence and, if you wanted, you could probably provide some subsidies that could see to that.

Indeed there have been a few small campaigns to encourage people to eat healthier, and it has provided some results, especially with several lower middle and working class areas.

Ofc you are never going to STOP people buying horrible processed stuff covered in breadcrumbs, but its better to try and encourage people and give them the option, as well as making sure that public sector food comes from ethical areas than it is to just try and force people not to eat "junk".

Yes Rott, but fortunatly you aren't in charge of anywhere more important than yourself.

edited 16th Apr '11 2:46:10 PM by JosefBugman

Yes, how fortunate that millions of people in your country eat tortured animals every day because Blue ethics prevent you from banning factory farms.