Animal life vs Human life

[Darth Rotor]

Really? Not breeding animals is equivalent to killing them? You can see how those principles extend to human behaviors; per chance, do you think contraceptive use and being voluntarily childless for life is equivalent to murder?

I'm just not following what you're saying. How do you harm something for not bringing it into existence?



Alright, someone proud to be a bigot. *sigh*

How do you justify refusing to extend utilitarianism to non-humans without providing an automatic justification for any other kind of bigotry like racism or homophobia?
How do you justify using a moral equivalence argument between humans and animals? We are right back to wolves killing sheep or deer as immoral behavior when you do that.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

By the way Dustin, thank you for being the only other person on this forum stepping up to the plate in defense of animal rights, I really appreciate it :)
That would be like me thanking DJJ for taking my side in an argument.

You are judged by the company you keep, sometimes, though I think you can stand on your own just fine, regardless of my agreement or disagreement with your position.

Play on!

ETA:
There are lots of good reasons that make adult lives valuable. But, that's not true for infant lives, there actually aren't many reasons to value infants, because they lack so many important morally relevant characteristics like rationality and self-awareness. Basically, infants are only capable of experiencing suffering and satisfaction, and having an experiential welfare... in that respect, they aren't any worse off than animals. Animals and mentally similar humans are moral equals.
Why do you hate babies? ;) (Sorry, I could not resist.)

DR

[Marquis de Carabas]

Silly Marquis, because the forty ounce would be warm.

Homeless = no home = no refrigerator = warm beer.

QED

DR
You, sir, are the most clear-headed moralist of all time.

[mylfmyhnr]

Wow... Holy Cow (no pun intended). When I left yesterday we were on page 3! Anyway, before I attempt to delve into the pages I haven't read, I thought I'd throw a link out there for people who are looking for as "humane" a way to eat meat (specifically beef) that we have. Meaning, range-fed, not lot-fed, free-roaming, part of the ecosystem type of animals. The easiest site I've found is here:
http://www.eatwild.com/products/index.html
and has a state by state listing of range-fed ranches. So for those like Lonewulf that still eat meat but question it, here is at least a better way, anyway.

[thaiboxerken]

The humane way to eat steak is medium rare with dungeoness crab and shrimp on top of it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Here are some examples of the horrors of Dolphin hunting in Japan. This video shows how the Japaneses round up hundreds of Dolphins, pick out the youngest to be sold for zoo's and then slaughter the rest. Generally gutting them alive and allowing them to die while above water slowly.

Here's a link of a video (Warning: Disturbing) (http://www.bluevoice.org/webfilms-taiji-report.shtml)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

For those of you who don't have quicktime here's the youtube link.

uzuSULcqgxQ

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Here's an example of "Shark finning". Sharks are fished out of the ocean, their fins are cut off while they are still alive and then the sharks are thrown back into the ocean to drown.

zep7B1esW-M

[Marquis de Carabas]

Have any videos of homeless slayings?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm sure we all appreciate the videos, but do you honestly think that anyone here is not interested in animal rights and doesn't already know this?

This isn't about animal rights per se, but if killing a human is equivalent to killing an animal. So, just to piss off Slingblade, if killing a human is the same as killing an animal why does one killer get life in prison and the other a stern warning?

[thaiboxerken]

All of that shark meat, wasted. I'm sure the other fishes in the area ate well. Maybe those sharks deserved capital punishment for all of the suffering they caused schools of fish.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm sure we all appreciate the videos, but do you honestly think that anyone here is not interested in animal rights and doesn't already know this?

This isn't about animal rights per se, but if killing a human is equivalent to killing an animal. So, just to piss off Slingblade, if killing a human is the same as killing an animal why does one killer get life in prison and the other a stern warning?


Quote me on where I said that Killing a human is equal to killing other animals. Please.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Here's a wikipedia article about Dolphin hunting.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_drive_hunting)


Warning:Graphic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Bottlenoseconvulsion.jpg
A Bottlenose Dolphin caught in a drive hunt in the Japanese town of Futo convulsing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convulsion) after having its throat cut. Officially, this method of killing dolphins is now illegal in Japan.

[Marquis de Carabas]

This isn't about animal rights per se, but if killing a human is equivalent to killing an animal. So, just to piss off Slingblade, if killing a human is the same as killing an animal why does one killer get life in prison and the other a stern warning?

Quote me on where I said that Killing a human is equal to killing other animals. Please.
In fairness, Dustin did never claim this. In fact, this post from page 4 of this thread pretty clearly demonstrates that he holds human life in higher regard generally than other animal life.

Because of the potential the baby has compared to the Dog. The baby could grow up to change the world for the better. The dog could not. That's why the baby should be saved first. It's potential is much greater.

[Lonewulf]

I'm sure we all appreciate the videos, but do you honestly think that anyone here is not interested in animal rights and doesn't already know this?

This isn't about animal rights per se, but if killing a human is equivalent to killing an animal. So, just to piss off Slingblade, if killing a human is the same as killing an animal why does one killer get life in prison and the other a stern warning?

That's the thing. People like Thaiboxerken respond to my posts as if I want all animals to treated like humans. OBVIOUSLY, if I want to treat an animal a certain way, I MUST want to treat humans exactly the same. And OBVIOUSLY, if I suggest one method of treatment, then I MUST go for something else in every other situation. I have made it clear, from the beginning of my discussion on the topic, that my argument is complex, takes in various variables, is not entirely absolute, has exceptions to it (what, no moral code has exceptions? Bullcrap!), and that I think that all animals except humans are different than humans, and some animal species are different than other animal species. I think that whales and dolphins deserve better treatment than plankton. You think that's inconsistent? I don't give a damn.

If you're for the death penalty, then OBVIOUSLY you want to kill everyone that has ever committed a crime. If you're for going to school, then OBVIOUSLY you want everyone to learn 24/7, without ever doing something with your life. You want to go to a certain limit, so OBVIOUSLY you have to go to some arbitrary extreme, because he says so. If you're against the death penalty, then OBVIOUSLY you think that no one should be able to defend themselves. If you're for people being able to defend themselves, then OBVIOUSLY you're for the death penalty of every single crime (I heard this argument in the Gun Control thread...)

If I think that letting some domesticated animals that we bred, that had no choice in breeding, and that we would have to keep around should go extinct, OBVIOUSLY I should want for the entire human race to go extinct.

It's ******** logic like that that make me think, in the end, that any conversation on this topic will be useless. No one wants to learn other's viewpoints; they want to just throw in a few "points" to make everyone but themselves look crazy and insane, even when they end up doing so to themselves.

Hell, no one responded to my other points. No one responded to my points on economics; no, they gotta focus on the little nitpicks. There's a lot more to my argument, and there has always been more to my argument, than the stupid oversimplified bullcrap that Thaiboxerken condenses everything. He wants to think of the world in utter simplicity? Fine. I don't see the world that way, though, and I'm happy for it. He can go off and do whatever the hell he likes. But it's no longer my business.

[fuelair]

Silly Marquis, because the forty ounce would be warm.

Homeless = no home = no refrigerator = warm beer.

QED

DR
That's not a crime in Britain - though the beer itself probably would be!

[Taffer]

I don't think morality is relative in principle, only in practice, because few people have any expertise whatsoever in philosophy and they rarely ever question their own moral convictions. There's no inconsistency in saying that morality has some non-subjective component and simultaneously people will have disagreements about morality.

I personally don't have any problem presuming that morality is subjective, because in spite of that, people still have the capacity to state why its wrong to take human life. Almost 100% of the time, the reasons for protecting human life, particularly infant life, apply directly to animals, because animals share many of the same morally relevant characteristics in common with humans.

Moral consistency demands that we carry our moral principles to their logical ends, and the principles justifying ethical treatment of humans easily extend to ethical treatment of animals. We don't have to be morally consistent if we don't want to, but its best that we are because otherwise we couldn't make an objection to any behavior at all, which is understandably very bad for our own personal survival.

Perhaps. But I disagree on our moral obligations. How many animals protect other species' life?. Some will, I'm sure, but the vast majority do not. Why are we any different?

[Lonewulf]

Perhaps. But I disagree on our moral obligations. How many animals protect other species' life?. Some will, I'm sure, but the vast majority do not. Why are we any different?

But that's a slippery slope; you're getting into the realm of, "Animals do it, so why can't we?"

As a moral axiom, "Animals do it, therefore it's justified" is not enough of a response. I mean, animals don't treat each other humanely, and sometimes torture each other; therefore, why can't we?

Animals rape each other; therefore, why can't we?

Animals kill each other; therefore, why can't we kill each other?

It's dangerous ground to argue from.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But that's a slippery slope; you're getting into the realm of, "Animals do it, so why can't we?"

As a moral axiom, "Animals do it, therefore it's justified" is not enough of a response.

...

It's dangerous ground to argue from.
I agree that it fails as a moral axiom (at least according to most people's tastes); however, they are not worthless questions, if sincere. Why shouldn't we rape, given that animals do? Why shouldn't we abandon the old and unfit, given that animals do?

Many of our moral precepts, we simply take for granted. Noting that not all that lives and breathes acts in accordance with our own standards is good motivation to find out why we do feel the way we do about certain things.

(Even though, I cynically agree with cyborg that all, or nearly all, moral justification is post hoc rationalisation.)

[Lonewulf]

I agree that it fails as a moral axiom (at least according to most people's tastes); however, they are not worthless questions, if sincere. Why shouldn't we rape, given that animals do? Why shouldn't we abandon the old and unfit, given that animals do?

Many of our moral precepts, we simply take for granted. Noting that not all that lives and breathes acts in accordance with our own standards is good motivation to find out why we do feel the way we do about certain things.

(Even though, I cynically agree with cyborg that all, or nearly all, moral justification is post hoc rationalisation.)

I disagree that it's post hoc rationalisation. At the least, it doesn't have to be. Most of the time, though, it probably is. Okay, so it's probably post hoc, but not always. Bah, let me explain.

There is a logical reason to be "moral". It allows you to fit in with society, and the more "moral" you are, the less you harm society. This has selfish and altruistic implications. I.E., if I was a murderer and could rationalize it, then someone else can murder me as well. If I was a rapist and I raped, then someone else can rape me as well. I do not want this to occur to me, but in order to logically keep others from being able to do it to me, I must construct some sort of moral code, and (societally) hope that others follow it, or enforce it if I must. In short, if I can do anything that I want, then others can do anything that they want; so I must "set an example", at the least.

I have a goal in mind: I want to live, I want to live happy and content. So I need a moral code in order to follow through with that, and hopefully I have a moral code that others can get down with. Usually, this will be the society's adopted code. And usually, there will be exceptions; it's the exceptions that usually end up suffering, rather than not.

There is rationalization for all of those things that you state. For instance, why can't we go around raping people? Because we, the average person, do not want to be raped, and do not want people we care about to be raped. Therefore, we agree on a moral code. Why shouldn't we abandon the old and unfit? Well, in the modern society, being "old" does not automatically make you "unfit", but that's irrelevant. When we grow old, we do not want to be abandoned, and we want to be taken care of. Therefore, we agree on a moral code.

Consistency is always going to be lacking in a code, and there will always be exceptions somewhere. For instance, I generally think that it's bad to kill other people; UNLESS killing that person is a direct necessity, such as in self defense. I personally am against the death penalty, but for other reasons (notably that I do not trust the court system, but that's beside the point).

[Taffer]

But that's a slippery slope; you're getting into the realm of, "Animals do it, so why can't we?

That's not what I'm saying at all, mate. I shall elaborate below.

As a moral axiom, "Animals do it, therefore it's justified" is not enough of a response.

I never said it was a moral axiom.

I consider morals to be an evolved trait to aid in survival. Therefore, we are only morally obligated to do things which aid in our survival; anything else is added personal baggage.

It has been claimed on this thread that we are morally obligated to treat other animals well. I ask, how does that aid in survival, and posit that there are no other animals which treat other species as their own. Therefore, to claim that that is how we must behave must be proven with evidence. Why must we treat animals as we treat other humans? We are only morally obligated to further our survival.

I mean, animals don't treat each other humanely, and sometimes torture each other; therefore, why can't we?

There are plenty of examples of social animals who treat other members of their species 'humanely'. Ants come to mind, but there are many more examples.

Animals rape each other; therefore, why can't we?

Some animals do, some animals don't. Our moral outrage at rape is, IMHO, an evolved trait to let social animals work together in a cohesive group. If you can name one social animal which rapes, then I will concede the point.

Animals kill each other; therefore, why can't we kill each other?

Social animals rarely do. For example, lions do not, AFAIK, kill members of their own pride.

It's dangerous ground to argue from.

As you should be able to see, it's not the ground I'm arguing from at all. I am simply pointing towards animals as an example of other morals. My only problem is with the universal claim that all humans are morally obligated to treat animals as we treat ourselves. Since morals are subjective, I wholeheartedly disagree with that view point.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I disagree that it's post hoc rationalisation. At the least, it doesn't have to be. Most of the time, though, it probably is. Okay, so it's probably post hoc, but not always. Bah, let me explain.

There is a logical reason to be "moral". It allows you to fit in with society, and the more "moral" you are, the less you harm society. This has selfish and altruistic implications. I.E., if I was a murderer and could rationalize it, then someone else can murder me as well. If I was a rapist and I raped, then someone else can rape me as well. I do not want this to occur to me, but in order to logically keep others from being able to do it to me, I must construct some sort of moral code, and (societally) hope that others follow it, or enforce it if I must. In short, if I can do anything that I want, then others can do anything that they want; so I must "set an example", at the least.
I agree that there are logical reasons to be moral. I disagree that most people bother to suss them out. Luckily, evolution has left us with some (broad) pre-wired guidelines that keep us pretty much in agreement on the major issues, with specific societal pressures doing much smoothing of the remaining wrinkles.

A person's moral code is typically well in place by the time they really have the capacity, the desire, and the time to ponder it. I toyed with this with Dustin a bit earlier. Of course we shouldn't off the homeless guy. Everyone knows that. But, why shouldn't we? A great many more people hold the former to be true than have a well-reasoned answer for the latter.

Furthermore, a society's moral norms (and I really meant to be speaking more to societal norms than individual codes) tend to change not because of people heeding the enlightened arguments of their more progressive members, but for the purely selfish reason that the status quo becomes too costly to maintain. After the change has set in, particularly in subsequent generations, the justification for the change can be accepted widely. I think it seldom works the other way around.

I can envision a future, a century or two hence, where we do not farm meat, where animals are killed only out of necessity (self-defense, for instance), and where everyone looks back on today wondering how we were ever so depraved as to actually breed animals for slaughter. I imagine the inhabitants of this future will know all the arguments Yahweh has put forth, and will find those arguments to hold up their mores quite well.

I believe this future, should it come to pass, will come to pass for such reasons as faux meat becoming indistinguishable from the real thing while also becoming cheaper to produce, pushing people selfishly into its production over more traditional fare. This would lead naturally to faux meat becoming cheaper to the consumer, and we can count on those selfish bastids to do their duty. With time, all these individual selfish actions will add up to real meat vanishing from society. I do not think widespread acceptance of arguments such as Yahweh's will precede the change. I think that will be added on, post hoc.

Let it not be said, however, that I think the challenging of society's mores is a completely useless endeavour. Certainly, the existence of such challenges can have localized effect, convincing some of the right people to start working on the changes that will eventually lead to substantial change. I simply think we often overestimate their worth as causative agents of widespread change. They serve more as catalysts.

Note: I said I could envision such a future. I am not one for predictions, and am not trying to start a discussion about whether this will actually come to pass.

[RandFan]

I read that. I just posted up some quick thoughts on the premises.



I understand that.



Yeah, I know that. But there are undoubtedly some ways that we could reach some sort of an agreement on an issue, assuredly.

Anyways, I seem to be stepping on a lot of toes here, so I think that I'll just bow out now.Not mine I assure you. :) I really respect your opinion even if we don't alwyas agree.

[RandFan]

Nonsense. I live in a society that eats pork and I don't eat pork. I've not a clue as to the significance of this. ?

Moreover, What right do you have to say that "Hitler was wrong" in killing 6 million people of "right and wrong" are just relative and have no absolute meaning? You can't have it both ways. What both ways? What are you talking about? I have my own personal morality and I also live in a society that has laws and moral standards. I think Hitler was wrong.

Either Hitler was wrong or he wasn't. According to what standard? To Hitler? To Himler? Goebels?

I think he was wrong. Certainly the moral standards of much of the world believed that Hitler was wrong.

In any event, no, it isn't as simple as Hitler being wrong or not.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm still wondering why the argument has been put forth that it's immoral because of suffering, and then when told that we could raise the animals so they don't suffer and die painlessly, that it's still wrong.

Then a rebuttal was because we're shortening the time that the species could be happy, but.. it's ok to make the species extinct.

[bignickel]

By page 14, I think most of the arguments that will be made, have been made. All the questions that will be answered, were answered (and the ones that haven't been answered, won't).

So, on a different tangent:

RandFan, I've heard that Ayn Rand posited an 'objective morality' of some kind (or 'rational morality); but, I've never finished any of her works (that's not fair: I've only read one paragraph, and watched "The Fountainhead"; hardly a strong effort by me).

Did Rand ever delve into this kind of issue? What was her thoughts on 'objective morality'? (I could wikipedia all this, but I don't trust wikipedia on even basic starting information on some controversial topics)

[Lonewulf]

I'm still wondering why the argument has been put forth that it's immoral because of suffering, and then when told that we could raise the animals so they don't suffer and die painlessly, that it's still wrong.

Allow me to make this simplified so you can comprehend:

1) If you raise an animal in inhumane conditions, this is bad. If you torture animals for kicks, this is bad. Therefore, we should reform our meat industries to reflect this. This is a good action, and should be taken; even if we all end up eating meat still. That is because more good than bad is taken by this action. Action has already been taken to this effect, but more work can still be done.

2) I'm willing to take this a step further. Meat is necessary? Then make faux meat, or grow meat in vats without brains. We could very well have the technology, and I fail to see what's intrinsically bad about this. If it's cheap, it's cheap; and we could grow huge vats of this stuff. Why not? I failed to see any argument of yours against this, yet it is an intrinsic part of my argument. Funny that!

So why eat meat? Because it's necessary? Then can we take steps to make it not necessary? Then why is it wrong to do so?

Is it because it's a luxury item, and we should automatically be guaranteed access to luxury items even if we overconsume? Then why not still provide that luxury item, albeit in a different (and possibly cheaper) form?

I don't quite get what's so wrong about my argument here.

Then a rebuttal was because we're shortening the time that the species could be happy, but.. it's ok to make the species extinct.

...And?

I fail to see the intrinsic hypocrisy here.

You seem to think that there is something intrinsically wrong with extinction, yet look down on me for thinking that it's intrinsically better to, say, not kill a cow if you don't actually have to?

To you, extinction by not breeding is somehow as bad as, or worse than, killing a creature when you do not have to. Now, in certain cases I might agree, but you seem to believe that this is intrinsic and obvious for all species of animals. I personally don't agree. Can you make an argument as to why your viewpoint is greater than mine?

[Lonewulf]

Not mine I assure you. :) I really respect your opinion even if we don't alwyas agree.

Aw, you're just saying that. :blush:

[Wudang]

Well, I think my points got overlooked by YHVH so I'll try again.
I am not convinced that my moral decisions need to be consistent. I used to believe in a utilitarian morality but found life to be too complex for such a crude instrument. Without the need for that consistency much of your current argument founders.
Don't by the way assume that you're either "for us or agin us". I was active in anti-bloodsports for many years for example.

[Dark Jaguar]

My take on this whole thing? I find the idea of torturing animals absolutely deplorable. I really don't care if it doesn't benefit my survival in the least. I find the prevention of torture an end in itself.

That said, I'm not a vegetarian. I enjoy eating the meats and really I don't think we have the resources for every single human on the planet to subsist on high protein seaweed or whatever it is you veggies eat. In fact I trained a cow to eat endangered species just to prevent the endangered species from becoming unendangerd, reducing the variety of life to only the nonendangered kind, which isn't diverse by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a nature lover.

But seriously, while I find torture out of the question, experimentation and feeding, so long as the death is done with minimal to nonexistant suffering, is acceptable to me. So, if it can feel pain, I want to prevent it, but absolute right to life I reserve for those with hopes and dreams for life that go beyond swim swim hungry.

All that said, I'd not want to kill an animal for food at all if we had Star Trek style replicators around.

[Lonewulf]

My take on this whole thing? I find the idea of torturing animals absolutely deplorable. I really don't care if it doesn't benefit my survival in the least. I find the prevention of torture an end in itself.

That said, I'm not a vegetarian. I enjoy eating the meats and really I don't think we have the resources for every single human on the planet to subsist on high protein seaweed or whatever it is you veggies eat. In fact I trained a cow to eat endangered species just to prevent the endangered species from becoming unendangerd, reducing the variety of life to only the nonendangered kind, which isn't diverse by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a nature lover.

But seriously, while I find torture out of the question, experimentation and feeding, so long as the death is done with minimal to nonexistant suffering, is acceptable to me. So, if it can feel pain, I want to prevent it, but absolute right to life I reserve for those with hopes and dreams for life that go beyond swim swim hungry.

All that said, I'd not want to kill an animal for food at all if we had Star Trek style replicators around.

I'd like a response to this. It sounds like you agree with this claim:

2) I'm willing to take this a step further. Meat is necessary? Then make faux meat, or grow meat in vats without brains. We could very well have the technology, and I fail to see what's intrinsically bad about this. If it's cheap, it's cheap; and we could grow huge vats of this stuff. Why not? I failed to see any argument of yours against this, yet it is an intrinsic part of my argument. Funny that!

So why eat meat? Because it's necessary? Then can we take steps to make it not necessary? Then why is it wrong to do so?

Is it because it's a luxury item, and we should automatically be guaranteed access to luxury items even if we overconsume? Then why not still provide that luxury item, albeit in a different (and possibly cheaper) form?

Now, if you could grow all the meat and skin in vats, had pseudo meat that was just real real meat, only healthier, etc., would that be more acceptable to you?

Let's assume that we stick with scientific testing of animals. We still cut down, on average, the average death of animals that is necessary. Is this a decision that is worse, or better?

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's the thing. People like Thaiboxerken respond to my posts as if I want all animals to treated like humans. OBVIOUSLY, if I want to treat an animal a certain way, I MUST want to treat humans exactly the same. And OBVIOUSLY, if I suggest one method of treatment, then I MUST go for something else in every other situation. I have made it clear, from the beginning of my discussion on the topic, that my argument is complex, takes in various variables, is not entirely absolute, has exceptions to it (what, no moral code has exceptions? Bullcrap!), and that I think that all animals except humans are different than humans, and some animal species are different than other animal species. I think that whales and dolphins deserve better treatment than plankton. You think that's inconsistent? I don't give a damn.

If you're for the death penalty, then OBVIOUSLY you want to kill everyone that has ever committed a crime. If you're for going to school, then OBVIOUSLY you want everyone to learn 24/7, without ever doing something with your life. You want to go to a certain limit, so OBVIOUSLY you have to go to some arbitrary extreme, because he says so. If you're against the death penalty, then OBVIOUSLY you think that no one should be able to defend themselves. If you're for people being able to defend themselves, then OBVIOUSLY you're for the death penalty of every single crime (I heard this argument in the Gun Control thread...)

If I think that letting some domesticated animals that we bred, that had no choice in breeding, and that we would have to keep around should go extinct, OBVIOUSLY I should want for the entire human race to go extinct.

It's ******** logic like that that make me think, in the end, that any conversation on this topic will be useless. No one wants to learn other's viewpoints; they want to just throw in a few "points" to make everyone but themselves look crazy and insane, even when they end up doing so to themselves.

Hell, no one responded to my other points. No one responded to my points on economics; no, they gotta focus on the little nitpicks. There's a lot more to my argument, and there has always been more to my argument, than the stupid oversimplified bullcrap that Thaiboxerken condenses everything. He wants to think of the world in utter simplicity? Fine. I don't see the world that way, though, and I'm happy for it. He can go off and do whatever the hell he likes. But it's no longer my business.

I'm behind you. That's why I tried to back you up (while also arguing the points from both sides) earlier. I asked Dustin what I did partially to gig him for the abuse he heaped on others earlier (I know he never said that he thought animal and human are equal, which is why I phrased my post as I did), but also to make a point. I was waiting for Yahweh to answer the question because s/he posted the original issue of human=animal morally. For what it's worth, though I eat meat, I am on the "animal rights" side. I have problems with my own meat consumption and think, as I said earlier, that the best thing we could do is not argue about it but act to eliminate the need for animal sacrifice to feed our bellies (as we both seem to agree that killing animals is soon to be a thing of the past). The animal farming techniques we use are abhorrent, and I certainly do not like the fact that I am a participant in any of that activity as a consumer. We can all be angry at Ward Churchill for what he said, but there is a truth to it. The big problem is that "truth" is everywhere. It's in every cup of Starbucks or Harry Potter book in which the money did not go toward ending human suffering. Everything we do is part of a much larger system that unfortunately is based, in large part, on exploitation of someone either human or animal. If one wants to extend moral principles to their extreme one must ask oneself how far should they go in a positive direction, how far do my obligations to my neighbor extend?

I'm afraid, in my cynicism, that I agree with the Marquis -- morality is, if not completely, then largely post hoc rationalization. But, even so, it does provide us* with some guide.


*Even though there is no us.

[Lonewulf]

I'm behind you. That's why I tried to back you up (while also arguing the points from both sides) earlier. I asked Dustin what I did partially to gig him for the abuse he heaped on others earlier (I know he never said that he thought animal and human are equal, which is why I phrased my post as I did), but also to make a point.

Understandable. I probably shoulda ganged up on Dustin, too. For similar reasons. :o

I was waiting for Yahweh to answer the question because s/he posted the original issue of human=animal morally. For what it's worth, though I eat meat, I am on the "animal rights" side. I have problems with my own meat consumption and think, as I said earlier, that the best thing we could do is not argue about it but act to eliminate the need for animal sacrifice to feed our bellies (as we both seem to agree that killing animals is soon to be a thing of the past).

Wow, someone agrees with me! :jaw-dropp

The animal farming techniques we use are abhorrent, and I certainly do not like the fact that I am a participant in any of that activity as a consumer. We can all be angry at Ward Churchill for what he said, but there is a truth to it. The big problem is that "truth" is everywhere. It's in every cup of Starbucks or Harry Potter book in which the money did not go toward ending human suffering. Everything we do is part of a much larger system that unfortunately is based, in large part, on exploitation of someone either human or animal. If one wants to extend moral principles to their extreme one must ask oneself how far should they go in a positive direction, how far do my obligations to my neighbor extend?

To be fair, there is a reason to eat meat, and it's not just the exploitation. It's healthier to have a balanced diet with meat than not. It's only recently that we've been able to even be able to discuss a world with meat grown in vats that are brainless, or gengineered crops.

Though, to be also fair, a lot of the meat-eating arguments are just as silly as the evil stupid vegetarians that people like Thaiboxerken rant about. For instance, Henry David Thoreau once had a discussion on vegetarianism with a farmer. The farmer stated that we need to eat animals, as they give us strong bones. You can't have strong bones without meat. Of course, this is ignorant: Without milk, maybe, but even soymilk (which is also a recent invention), of which I drink a lot of (the chocolate kind; it's mm-mm good!) grants stuff like calcium.

Thoreau commented that the man was frail and relying on an ox (with vegetable-fed bones) to pull his cart. He found this an amusing "wisdom of the ancients". His entire argument was that, quite frankly, just because someone's old, doesn't make him wise or his advice good. But I found it an amusing side story.

And, even to today, I see some similar silly arguments. People aren't called out on them, though. People argue that we're animals, therefore if we instinctually feel something, we should obey it without question. People argue that we should stuff animals in vats, keep them in deplorable conditions, and if it makes them taste good, then so be it. These people are here, on this forum, and are they being called out on their statements? Maybe, I guess. By some people. But it's always the vegetarians that really get ganged up on. And I can sorta see why. People that eat meat feel like they're being made to feel guilty, that they're being judged. Well, that's fine. But knee-jerk reactions don't get anything anywhere. Personally, I'm not really judging anyone, except for those that simply say, "I don't care, we should do what we will, period." But I still think that, if you're going to make moral arguments on most topics that you find a moral dilemma, then you shouldn't judge others on making moral arguments about animals. It's as if animals are on a completely different pedestal of morality, just like religion is a completely different pedestal of critical thinking, you know?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wow, someone agrees with me! :jaw-dropp



I not only agree with you, but my admiration for you grew significantly when you decided to hold back so as not to step on others' toes. That, to me, speaks volumes and is the way, I think, to change others' minds. Bludgeoning opponents to a bloody pulp my be fun for diversion, but it isn't the human way to discuss. There are some people here for whom I have great admiration. You are one of them.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Wow, someone agrees with me! :jaw-dropp
For what it's worth, I don't completely disagree with you. The hypothetical future I spoke of earlier, though not something I am either pushing or pulling for, is not something I dread or would hate to see happen. It's not that I think we should not pursue a meatless future; I just do not hold that we are obligated, in any way, to do so.

[Lonewulf]

I not only agree with you, but my admiration for you grew significantly when you decided to hold back so as not to step on others' toes. That, to me, speaks volumes and is the way, I think, to change others' minds. Bludgeoning opponents to a bloody pulp my be fun for diversion, but it isn't the human way to discuss. There are some people here for whom I have great admiration. You are one of them.

:blush:

[Wudang]

Wow, someone agrees with me! :jaw-dropp

I agree with a lot of what you say and there's much I don't disagree so much as quibble. My own views are rather complex and admittedly inconsistent*. And you differentiate nicely between what you feel is right and what you argue is right.

*Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am fat, I have eaten multitudes.

[RandFan]

By page 14, I think most of the arguments that will be made, have been made. All the questions that will be answered, were answered (and the ones that haven't been answered, won't).

So, on a different tangent:

RandFan, I've heard that Ayn Rand posited an 'objective morality' of some kind (or 'rational morality); but, I've never finished any of her works (that's not fair: I've only read one paragraph, and watched "The Fountainhead"; hardly a strong effort by me).

Did Rand ever delve into this kind of issue? What was her thoughts on 'objective morality'? (I could wikipedia all this, but I don't trust wikipedia on even basic starting information on some controversial topics)Let me say that I'm not an objectivist not nor am I an expert on Rand. In any event, my understanding is that Ayn believed that you could apply objective reasoning to given moral dilemmas or scenarios. I could be wrong though and she could have believed as you have said I'm just not familiar with it. If she did I would not simply accept her position. Ayn wasn't rigorous in her philosophy and so I'm less inclined to defend her argument.

[thaiboxerken]

1) If you raise an animal in inhumane conditions, this is bad. If you torture animals for kicks, this is bad. Therefore, we should reform our meat industries to reflect this. This is a good action, and should be taken; even if we all end up eating meat still. That is because more good than bad is taken by this action. Action has already been taken to this effect, but more work can still be done.

Ok. That's not really a bad position.


2) I'm willing to take this a step further. Meat is necessary? Then make faux meat, or grow meat in vats without brains. We could very well have the technology, and I fail to see what's intrinsically bad about this. If it's cheap, it's cheap; and we could grow huge vats of this stuff. Why not? I failed to see any argument of yours against this, yet it is an intrinsic part of my argument. Funny that!

So, morality is about economics? If it becomes cheaper to grow synthetic meat then it's wrong to kill animals?


So why eat meat? Because it's necessary? Then can we take steps to make it not necessary? Then why is it wrong to do so?

Why NOT eat meat? The accepted social standard is to eat meat. You should be providing reasons not to eat meat. So far, you haven't given any good reason.


Is it because it's a luxury item, and we should automatically be guaranteed access to luxury items even if we overconsume? Then why not still provide that luxury item, albeit in a different (and possibly cheaper) form?

Yes. If we can afford the luxury items, it's up to us to decide if we want the item or not, unless there is good reason not to have that luxury item.



You seem to think that there is something intrinsically wrong with extinction, yet look down on me for thinking that it's intrinsically better to, say, not kill a cow if you don't actually have to?

I'm saying that it's the SAME THING. Your objection to killing cows is that it stops a lasting happiness, yet you are ok with letting the entire species go extinct.


To you, extinction by not breeding is somehow as bad as, or worse than, killing a creature when you do not have to.

Yes, because I can't eat the meat of extinct creatures.

Can you make an argument as to why your viewpoint is greater than mine?

Because my viewpoint is consistent. You've contradicted yourself a few times.

You've said animal suffering is a reason. Then you've admitted it's not.
You've said lasting animal happiness. Then you've decided extinction is ok.

[Lonewulf]

Ok. That's not really a bad position.

Alright, so we agree up to a certain point, then.

So, morality is about economics? If it becomes cheaper to grow synthetic meat then it's wrong to kill animals?

Yes.

This is the premise I am working on: Let's say that you come to a path. One takes two miles to go across, AND when you do so, a bunch of animals will drop dead. Another path takes one mile to go across, and you gain a lot more, but no animals end up dead. In my opinion, it's sadistic (even if no pain is involved!) to take the first path. That's the premise I am working off of.

In the past, we went down the path that animals would end up dead because, quite frankly, it was necessary to our survival. It is no longer necessary for our survival, and in fact may be even MORE economically supportable to go down the one-mile path. Do you agree with my base premise?

That, if given a choice between two paths, one which is easier to go down and has much more benefit, the other that leads to animals dying AND is a longer path that isn't fruitful, that it is innately sadistic to travel down the latter path?

Why NOT eat meat? The accepted social standard is to eat meat. You should be providing reasons not to eat meat. So far, you haven't given any good reason.

If you agree with the above premise, then you would, at the least, begin to see why I say that we shouldn't.

I also accept some reasons as valid: When it comes to humans, for instance, KILLING a human, even painlessly, is intrinsically a bad thing if it can be avoided. Society acts in this way, and assumes that this premise is true.

For animals, if you can find a good home instead of killing them, EVEN IF the killing is painless, then it is intrinsically bad.

If you disagree with these premises, then it is you that goes against society's view, and me that stays consistent with it.

People that work for animal control centers often find themselves growing depressed when forced to kill an animal that they couldn't find a good home for. I'm assuming that the majority of the population would agree with the person that works at the animal control center. Even if the killing is painless, our empathy is strong enough to care about the animal, and we find the death of it to be intrinsically bad. So why does my viewpoint not conform to society's?

Yes. If we can afford the luxury items, it's up to us to decide if we want the item or not, unless there is good reason not to have that luxury item.

If you agree with the above premises, then you would agree that my proposed system of action is, at the least, supportable, even if you do not agree with it.

I'm saying that it's the SAME THING. Your objection to killing cows is that it stops a lasting happiness, yet you are ok with letting the entire species go extinct.

And this is where you get hung up. Extinction merely means that no new animals are being born. That's all. That's all that is required. For your system, not only would more cows be born, but they'd be born into a life where they are slaughtered for their meat.

I say that, intrinsically, if you do not require this system, then there is a reason to change it.

Yes, because I can't eat the meat of extinct creatures.

And I have come up with an alternative system where you still get the meat (and bones, and skin) of the animal, where you do not have to raise the actual animal with a brain. Or, alternatively, we grow advanced crops with some "taste" and "texture" modification, and then mix it around a bit with a "pseudo meat" recipe, and hopefully make it just as good-tasting and good-for-you as actual meat, but even moreso. You, in the end, retain the texture and taste, and get nothing bad out of it.

Why do you find this objectionable? You get what you desire. You aren't losing out on anything here.

Because my viewpoint is consistent. You've contradicted yourself a few times.

If you actually followed through with my logic, I do not think that you will find a contradiction.

You've said animal suffering is a reason. Then you've admitted it's not.

No, you are wrong. I've never once said that suffering is not a reason. But I have made clear that it's not the only reason.

Unnecessary animal suffering is something that we should limit. If we have a system where we can slaughter animals painlessly, then it is intrinsically better to go through with that system instead of one where animals are slaughtered painfully. I have accepted this premise as true. I would like for you to point out where I specifically stated that this premise was false, because that's the only way that I would desire for suffering to be allowable.

In the same token, unnecessary death is also something that should be avoided if it is feasable. If it's necessary for animals to die to support human life, and only insofar as it's necessary for animals to die, then I support it. But I do not think that, with modern technology, it is necessary. I also contend that, as long it is necessary for animals to die to support human life, then I am still for them dying (even if this includes, say, medicinal testing!) So, I am for medicinal testing, as long as there is a benefit to it. BUT, if we limit, say, animals providing meat, and do not limit animals providing medicinal research (and strike down, say, cosmetic testing!), we would limit the overall amount of death. Personally, I view this as a good thing.

And the capability to create pseudo meat is to satisfy people like you that want their meat. To me, it's a win-win. You get what you want, I get what I want, and in the end it's (ideally) economically beneficial and supportful. In the end, my proposed system of action, ideally, does not harm society and even benefits it.

You've said lasting animal happiness. Then you've decided extinction is ok.

But I do not think that the existance of a species is absolutely necessary. Also, there is a difference between "lasting animal happiness" and "wanting to limit death and suffering". One does not equate to the other. In fact, I'd say that requiring for animals to be born to be happy would be kinda silly; by that argument, we should cause even more births, even to the point of overpopulation, and then expend society's resources to keep them happy. I don't quite support this.

See, this is what I'm operating from: Two animals give birth to a calf, which will be raised in deplorable conditions, OR be raised to be slaughtered. Alternatively, two animals don't give birth to a calf. In the latter, there is less death and suffering. In the latter... where exactly is the problem?

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is that you act as if you care for animal life, yet you don't mind if they become extinct.

[Lonewulf]

The problem is that you act as if you care for animal life, yet you don't mind if they become extinct.

And I do not comprehend why you consider this a problem.

If you want to debate the subject, please respond to the whole of my post. If you do not want to debate the subject, then we will have to leave it off here.

[thaiboxerken]

It's just inconsistent, that's all. You can believe it's consistent and state it's consistent in as many words as you have, but your argument still remains illogical.

[Lonewulf]

It's just inconsistent, that's all. You can believe it's consistent and state it's consistent in as many words as you have, but your argument still remains illogical.

It's consistent, that's all. You can believe it's inconsistent and state that it's inconsistent in as many words as you have, but my argument still remains logical.

[cyborg]

Alright then, when you said "Natural parents take this duty on as a matter of biology", you were wrong. If parents lack innate feelings to protect their children, then they have no duties to protect their children.

Indeed.

Perfect. All is biology, anything you do is biology, nothing can be contrary to biology. Therefore, when you said, "Natural parents take this duty on as a matter of biology.", you were wrong (again), because a parent killing their children is acting consistently with biology, because (by definition) they can't do anything to the contrary.

Indeed.

So I guess you were lying when you said "No, we can ONLY afford moral consideration to beings that are capable of moral consideration",

No, I was being semantically awkward.

I'm sorry, I can't parse that. What are you saying?

Morality is post-hoc.

Alright then, I am society. I make the rules.

When the avalanche has started it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Notice how nearly everything I've said in this thread and others has to do with people being morally consistent? I criticize people not based on any absolutist principles, but based on their consistency.

When an arbitrary line is drawn the morality is consistent - there is just an arbitrary line.

And seriously, this is a critical thinking messageboard, and if you can't see the elementary naturalistic fallacy contained in the statement "people have duties to protect their children because of biology", then you aren't a critical thinker.

It is not a naturalistic fallacy, it is a naturalistic fact. When people do not bond with their children this is a biological defect - and it happens, no doubt, but I'm not going to pretend it is because of choice.

[Lonewulf]

Social animals rarely do. For example, lions do not, AFAIK, kill members of their own pride.

Lions are willing to kill the children of other male lions, especially when one pride moves in with another.

Humans would sometimes do such things, especially in things such as inheritance, or slavery (I.E., enslaving the children of your enemies that you conquer). We would also, sometimes, when conquered another nation, wipe out every man, woman, and child in that nation to prevent cases of revenge and differentiation. We now consider such things immoral.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I've not a clue as to the significance of this. ?

You were arguing that if I had lived in some other society I would act differently. I disagreed. I don't allow society to mold me into who I am.

What both ways? What are you talking about? I have my own personal morality and I also live in a society that has laws and moral standards. I think Hitler was wrong.

You can't say that "Hitler was wrong" and then also contend that morality is relative and not absolute. You can argue "I think he was wrong" but that's like arguing "I think blue is pretty". It's meaningless if morality is relative.


I think he was wrong. Certainly the moral standards of much of the world believed that Hitler was wrong.

You think he was wrong? Why?
Because he killed people? Why is that wrong?
Because they suffer? So what.
Suffering is bad. How?



In any event, no, it isn't as simple as Hitler being wrong or not.

Sure it is. Either he was or he wasn't. I say he was. I contend that anyone who says he was not is absolutely wrong. That there is nothing relative about what he did.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2469207#post2469207)
There are plenty of ways to kill an animal where it doesn't suffer.


Dustin:Same with a human. However you're still robbing it of it's life.


You've just established that your objection isn't to suffering, but to the actual killing of animals. Have anything else?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2469207#post2469207)
There are plenty of ways to kill an animal where it doesn't suffer.


Dustin:Same with a human. However you're still robbing it of it's life.


You've just established that your objection isn't to suffering, but to the actual killing of animals. Have anything else?



I think "Lonewolf" refuted this already but I'll say that I object to suffering and death.

[thaiboxerken]

No, lonewulf didn't refute anything, but certainly tried.

[Lonewulf]

No, lonewulf didn't refute anything, but certainly tried.

"Refute" != "Thaiboxerken thinks it was refuted".

[thaiboxerken]

Once you understand that I'm infallible, things will become much easier for you to accept.

[Lonewulf]

Once you understand that I'm infallible, things will become much easier for you to accept.

Heh. Likewise.

(Okay, this actually made me chuckle)

[Dan O.]

Shortening the food chain by growing meat substitute in vats is not necessary unless your goal is to significantly increase the human population on this planet.

Is your thought perhaps that you want to claim the moral high ground when the Kanamits arrive and take over the top of the food chain.

[Lonewulf]

Shortening the food chain by growing meat substitute in vats is not necessary unless your goal is to significantly increase the human population on this planet.

So then, we shouldn't pursue such actions? Why not?

Please give an actual reason, something concrete. What is wrong with my proposal?

Do you have a specific objection?

Also, increasing the human population? So population size is entirely dependant on how much food is available? Do you have any evidence for this claim? I thought that the size of families was dependant on, y'know, social customs and how much parents bang each other with unprotected sex. I might be wrong, though.

[Dan O.]

I don't believe that an increased population is the best path for long term survival.

[Lonewulf]

I don't believe that an increased population is the best path for long term survival.

And you say this without any evidence that population size is entirely dependant on food availability.

We have far more food availability today than we've ever had in the past. Yet, guess what? Industrial cities have a far lower birth rate, almost exceeding the death rate, than non-industrial societies. ****, you want food, where do you go? To the goddamn HEB. To the local supermarket. To a convenience store. Food surrounds all of us, and are you going to tell me that it's severely limiting our population size? Bullcrap.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not to mention, workers at the meat plants can be counted on to contribute to population control by falling into the vats.

[Lonewulf]

Not to mention, workers at the meat plants can be counted on to contribute to population control by falling into the vats.

:D

[RandFan]

You were arguing that if I had lived in some other society I would act differently. I disagreed. I don't allow society to mold me into who I am.To late, it already has.

Let's put my propostion to the test.

Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the time of hunters and gatherers?
Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the stone age?
Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the bronze age?

Sorry, Dustin, it is very difficult to escape your environment.

You can't say that "Hitler was wrong" and then also contend that morality is relative and not absolute. ?

I DIDN'T say that "Hitler was wrong" AND then contend that morality is relative. I did not do that. So telling me that I can't do it is a silly excercise. Actually I said I THINK Hitler was wrong.

You can argue "I think he was wrong" but that's like arguing "I think blue is pretty". ? I was stating a subjective opinion. I WASN'T arguing.

1.) I think vanila tastes better than chocolate.
2.) I think Rock and roll is better than Country music.
3.) I think Hitle was wrong.

All thre are relative.
It's meaningless if morality is relative. ????

I really don't know how to respond. It's MY OPINION! It has meaning ONLY BECAUSE it is relative.

You think he was wrong? Why?
Because he killed people? Why is that wrong?
Because they suffer? So what.
Suffering is bad. How? People, have been trying for page after page to get you to answer the very same questions.

Why is it ok for you to ask questions expecting an answer but not vice versa? And don't give me the BS that you've answered them.

1.) I think Hitler was wrong to kill innocent civilians because A.) I was raised to believe killing was wrong. B.) I have the capacity for empathy. C.) Having been raised in the time that I was raised in I have the luxury to consider other people's feelings more than if I was raised in another time.

3.) I don't like other people to suffer because A.) I was raised to believe suffering is wrong. B.) I have the capacity for empathy. C.) Having been raised in the time that I was raised in I have the luxury to consider other people's feelings and my sense of empathy is more developed than had I been raised in another time.

4.) Suffering is bad to me because I don't like it.

In other words, my moral values are a result of my genetic predisposition and environment. This is the scientific consensus BTW.

Sure it is. Either he was or he wasn't. I say he was. I contend that anyone who says he was not is absolutely wrong. That there is nothing relative about what he did.

1.) This is just your opinion.
2.) There is no reason to come to this conclusion.
3.) In other times people did not share your opinion.
4.) Why are you right and they were wrong?

[Dan O.]

And you say this without any evidence that population size is entirely dependant on food availability.

I only say that food availability sets an upper limit on population size. If there is a disagreament I'll think about looking for evidence or revising my view.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

To late, it already has.

Let's put my propostion to the test.

Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the time of hunters and gatherers?
Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the stone age?
Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the bronze age?

Sorry, Dustin, it is very difficult to escape your environment.

What are the "values of modern society"? Which society? My values are probably the values of 200 years in the future of some Utopian society.

Let's look at my values compared to the norms modern society, This is what my values are that most modern societies oppose (Especially Americans).

Legalization of prostitution.
Legalization of Drugs.
Abandonment of Religion.
Scientific thinking.
Acceptance of all races.
Acceptance of homosexuality.
Conservationism

This is just a sample of the long list.


I DIDN'T say that "Hitler was wrong" AND then contend that morality is relative. I did not do that. So telling me that I can't do it is a silly excercise. Actually I said I THINK Hitler was wrong.

Prove Hitler was wrong.


? I was stating a subjective opinion. I WASN'T arguing.

1.) I think vanila tastes better than chocolate.
2.) I think Rock and roll is better than Country music.
3.) I think Hitle was wrong.

All thre are relative.

Ah, So now you're comparing the fact that Hitler was evil to the subjective taste of chocolate vs vanilla...Nice!



I really don't know how to respond. It's MY OPINION! It has meaning ONLY BECAUSE it is relative.

If you define "Opinion" as "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" then you're completely understating the fact of Hitlers evilness.

People, have been trying for page after page to get you to answer the very same questions.

And I have.

Why is it ok for you to ask questions expecting an answer but not vice versa? And don't give me the BS that you've answered them.

I have.

1.) I think Hitler was wrong to kill innocent civilians because A.) I was raised to believe killing was wrong. B.) I have the capacity for empathy. C.) Having been raised in the time that I was raised in I have the luxury to consider other people's feelings more than if I was raised in another time.

1. I was raised to believe in God. I don't. Arguing that "I was raised to believe so and so" is an invalid argument. As we can see in the form of "I was raised to believe in God, that's why I do!"

2. "Empathy" simply means aware of the suffering of others. It doesn't necessarily mean you care.

3. So you're saying that people raised in the 1930's in Germany didn't consider other peoples feelings and oppose Hitler? Well thanks for attempting to abolish the efforts of thousands of anti-nazi's in Germany during WW2...


3.) I don't like other people to suffer because A.) I was raised to believe suffering is wrong. B.) I have the capacity for empathy. C.) Having been raised in the time that I was raised in I have the luxury to consider other people's feelings and my sense of empathy is more developed than had I been raised in another time.

See above.


4.) Suffering is bad to me because I don't like it.

I'm sure Hitler didn't like suffering himself either. Yet that didn't stop him from subjecting it onto millions.


In other words, my moral values are a result of my genetic predisposition and environment. This is the scientific consensus BTW.

Really now? If your 'morals' are a result of your genetics and environment then what of people who oppose cruelty to animals? Why can't their morals be the result of genetics and environment? How can you say one is valid and one isn't? You're contradicting yourself.

Moreover, Are you prepared to say that millions of Germans who supported Hitler were all genetically "jew haters"? Or was that just their environment? No genetics played a part?


1.) This is just your opinion.

So you believe it's not a "FACT" that Hitler was a bad man?


2.) There is no reason to come to this conclusion.

Sure there is. He killed millions of people. :rolleyes:


3.) In other times people did not share your opinion.

There were people in all times who shared my opinions. Even in 1930's-1940's Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelwei%C3%9Fpiraten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_resistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_20_Plot

Dutch resistance movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II#Oppression_and_resista nce)

Norwegian resistance movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_resistance_movement)




4.) Why are you right and they were wrong?

If you don't know how Nazi's were wrong then I doubt anything I say will make any difference.

[RandFan]

What are the "values of modern society"? Which society? My values are probably the values of 200 years in the future of some Utopian society. Thank you, do you get what you just did? You just proved my point. Think about it. You are saying that your morals are superior to current moral values. You are saying that morals are evolvoing. That IS RELATVE! That is the very definition of what we are talking about.

I have to set this point by itself because I want to make certain that you got it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In the English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language/British_English) language we have definitions to specific words. These words are determined by how they are used in everyday society. Some words have multiple meanings, however generally most words have one agreed upon meaning. In specific contexts one word may have one meaning while in another a different meaning. In the context of morality (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2474801#post2474801) the English word "wrong" has a very specific meaning which the Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster) dictionary defines as thus...

1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause

Now this seems pretty obvious and clear. The words in this definition are not ambiguous and anyone with a brain will know what they mean. Moreover no reasonable person would argue that what Hitler did was not "injurious" or did not cause "harm".

As far as "moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Normative_moral_relativism)" goes, the general objection that people pose to moral absolutism is the straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) that we believe there is some physical entity called 'morality' floating around out there some where. This is nonsense. Just because someone believes that there are absolute values of "right" and "wrong" does not mean that they believe that these are physical entities anymore than someone who believes that there are absolute values of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" contends that there is a physical entity of "reasonable" floating around in space somewhere.

As far as the genetic argument goes. The argument that our morality is simply the product of our evolution and humans evolved to treat other humans specific ways and to apply it to other animals makes no sense is hogwash. If it were true that our morality were simply the result of our genetics and it evolved over thousands of years of cooperating with other humans in society then why are there so many cases of people who seem to be "moral mavericks"? Why do some people seem to violate all of the so called "evolutionary ethics"? Serial killers for instance or the Hitlers of the world. These people have the same basic genetics that we do but they are vastly different. If morality were simply genetic and we should only use this genetic morality as our gauge of what is or isn't moral then if Hitler was indeed genetically the way he was, does that excuse his actions? No.

Moreover, How do the people who argue for the "genetic gauge" of morality explain the fact that most people in the world prefer to treat animals ethically? If our "morality" only evolved for humans and we should apply it to humans only then where does my preference to treat animals ethically come from? Does it come from the Environment? If so then why can't anyones moral beliefs?

The fact is simple. If someone opposes what Hitler did, what Pol-Pot did, what Osama Bin laden did, what Ted Bundy did, or what Dahmer did then they must logically also support treating non-human animals ethically. Non- human animals feel pain, suffer, feel emotions, etc. If someone opposes hurting a human because that human will suffer then they must also have the same standard for a non-human. Scientists have shown that intelligence and sentience are not specifically human traits. Drawing a line at humans does not make sense as I've explained above. There is no valid reason to do so.

The only non-arbitrary way to make moral decisions is sentience and intelligence. Some argue that intelligence itself is arbitrary but that's also hogwash. There's nothing arbitrary about basing how one treats others on their intelligence. That's about as non-arbitrary as you can get. Intelligence equals appreciation for specific treatments. Skin color, Sexual preference, race, and even species make no difference. Intelligence is the only thing that makes a difference. Two animals that have the same intelligence should be treated the same due to the fact they can appreciate such treatments the same. Should one animal be treated differently based on the fact it has scales and not fur? Why? How does this have anything to do with ethical decisions? It doesn't.

We should treat other species based on how they can or can't appreciate how we treat them. If they are ants for instance and have little or no comprehension of anything then we should care less about how we treat then than we would of a dog or a cat or a dolphin for instance. A dolphin isn't smart enough to appreciate the right to speech or the right to vote and therefore should not be afforded that right. However a dolphin is smart enough to appreciate not being tortured or slaughtered and should be afforded that right. If you try to prevent a dolphin from voting then the dolphin won't know the difference. But if you try to hurt a dolphin then it will immediately know the difference.

I treat humans differently from other animals BECAUSE humans are smart enough to appreciate the separate ways I treat them from other animals. If there was an animal as intelligent as a human then I would treat that animal just like a human. If there was some human as intelligent as a some other animal then I would treat them as such. If they had the intelligence of a dog for instance, I likely would not care whether they had the right to vote or not. But I would still refrain from harming them. I would discriminate against a very stupid human. I would not take him as seriously as someone intelligent. I would likely treat him as I would treat anything else of his intelligence. If he is as smart as a 7 year old I would treat him like I would treat any 7 year old.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thank you, do you get what you just did? You just proved my point. Think about it. You are saying that your morals are superior to current moral values. You are saying that morals are evolvoing. That IS RELATVE! That is the very definition of what we are talking about.

I have to set this point by itself because I want to make certain that you got it.

"Moral's" are not evolving. Only societies perception of what is moral. 500 years ago a society might of considered it right to burn someone alive for sodomy. That doesn't mean it was indeed right. Not anymore than the fact that 500 years ago most societies thought that the sun revolved around the earth meant it actually did. There is "reality" and then there is "perception of reality". There is "right vs wrong" as far as life is concerned and then there is "perception of right vs wrong".

[Lonewulf]

I only say that food availability sets an upper limit on population size. If there is a disagreament I'll think about looking for evidence or revising my view.

So...

Food is very available.

Birth rates are still on a downward trend, worldwide, in industrial cities. In fact, the more luxuries we gain as a society, the less, as a society, we give birth.

The U.S. can support an incredible population as-is. Meat vats won't make that significant an impact. It could possibly also provide some decent wildlife preserves (convert old farms into preserves while you have a more concentrated source of meats and foods).

So, really, I don't get your point. I really think that you're stretching here for an excuse.

[thaiboxerken]

Have you considered what the environmental impact might be if cows and pigs ceased to exist? I'm just wondering.

[RandFan]

Legalization of prostitution.
Legalization of Drugs.
Abandonment of Religion.
Scientific thinking.
Acceptance of all races.
Acceptance of homosexuality. I share all of these values.

Prove Hitler was wrong.I can't. No one can. You can't either. That is my point.

Ah, So now you're comparing the fact that Hitler was evil to the subjective taste of chocolate vs vanilla...Nice!"Nice"? Why is that nice? I'm not diminishing what Hitler did (Which I think is horrible) I'm making a point about subjective opinion.

If you define "Opinion" as "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" then you're completely understating the fact of Hitlers evilness. Who is talking about positive knowledge? Positive knowledge about what? It is my opinion that murder is wrong. It is my opinion that genocide is worse. Evil is a relative concept.

And I have.Sure.

I have.You bet.

1. I was raised to believe in God. I don't. Arguing that "I was raised to believe so and so" is an invalid argument. No. Arguing that something is right or wrong based on the way one is raised is fallacy. I'm not doing that.

My perception as to what is right and wrong is based on the way I was raised.

2. "Empathy" simply means aware of the suffering of others. It doesn't necessarily mean you care.I never said it does. My argument is that it gives me the capacity to care. It is a framework that makes it possible. People with empathy can care about others. People that don't have empathy don't usually care about people.

3. So you're saying that people raised in the 1930's in Germany didn't consider other peoples feelings and oppose Hitler? Well thanks for attempting to abolish the efforts of thousands of anti-nazi's in Germany during WW2...???

You have a very odd way of debating and an inability to grasp another person's argument or keep up.

I never said nor implied this. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I said in a previous post that Hitler was violating moral standards of much of the world.
Germans had very good reason to oppose Hitler. In fact they WERE raised with moral values contrary to Hitler. It's not that simple. Clearly many Germans went along with Hitler.
Morality, demonstrably isn't static.See above.See above.

I'm sure Hitler didn't like suffering himself either. Yet that didn't stop him from subjecting it onto millions. {sigh}

You just have an inability to grasp the point. I'll bullet as many as I can. However, if you refuse to consider the argument there is not much more that I can do.

1.) I DON'T claim that not liking suffering is the ONLY variable.
2.) That IS MY POINT. There is no single variable.
3.) Morality is based in part on genetic predisposition.
4.) One of those genetic predispositions is the ability to feel empathy.
5.) Autistics often lack the ability to feel empathy.
6.) This inability to feel empathy leaves them without an ability to care bout other people.
7.) Sociopaths are typically without the ability to feel empathy.
8.) Sociopaths are more likely to commit certain violent crimes than others.
9) Morality is, demonstrably, based on environmental influences.

Really now?Yes, that IS the scientific consensus.

Within the debates surrounding cloning, for example, is the far-fetched contention that a Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) or a Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler) could be "re-created" through genetic cloning. Current thinking finds this largely inaccurate, and discounts the possibility that the clone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning) of anyone would grow up to be the same individual due to environmental variation. For example, like clones, identical twins are genetically identical, and unlike the hypothetical clones share the same family environment, yet they are not identical in personality and other traits.


If your 'morals' are a result of your genetics and environment then what of people who oppose cruelty to animals?? What of them? They fit the scientific model of genetics and environment perfectly. Why would you suggest that they don't?


Why can't their morals be the result of genetics and environment?What are you talking about? They ARE the result of genetics and environment.

How can you say one is valid and one isn't? When did I say this????????

Would you please pay attention?


You're contradicting yourself.?????

Dustin, I'm not going to put up with this. Stick with my arguments and not ones that you invent.

Of course their opinion IS VALID!

Moreover, Are you prepared to say that millions of Germans who supported Hitler were all genetically "jew haters"? Or was that just their environment? No genetics played a part? ??????

Dustin, let me make this as absolute as clear as I can.

1.) Nature plays a part.
2.) Nurture plays a part.
3.) It is both nature AND nurture.
4.) Genetics and environment.

Got that?

So you believe it's not a "FACT" that Hitler was a bad man? It is not fact. How would I arrive at such a fact. It is a fact that based on my criteria of "bad" that Hitler was a bad man.

Hitler likely would not have been held as a "bad" man according to Attila the Hun. Nor to Hannibal Barka. Nor Genghis Khan. Nor Alexander. In fact many people from the past would not have seen Hitler as "bad". You want to judge as fact behavior based on our current moral standards.

Where are you getting this "FACT" idea?

Sure there is. He killed millions of people. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Circular reasoning. You beg the question. You must first assume that killing millions of people is bad.

There were people in all times who shared my opinions. Even in 1930's-1940's Germany. Well Duh!

I said Stone age.
I said Bronze age.

And yes, there were people who shared your opinion in those times also, that is not the point, the point is that your view was not the prevailing view.

If you don't know how Nazi's were wrong then I doubt anything I say will make any difference. I know how Nazi's were wrong based on my views of morality. You and I share much of the same morality. You are trying to appeal to our shared view to arrive at a fact.

That is fallacy. What is objectively true must exist outside of our view.

[RandFan]

"Moral's" are not evolving. Only societies perception of what is moral. Please to explain the difference between morals and perception of what is moral? How would you prove morals without special pleading to a person's view of right and wrong. BTW, you keep commiting this fallacy. Please stop. You say you believe in scientific thinking. Ok, act like it.

500 years ago a society might of considered it right to burn someone alive for sodomy. That doesn't mean it was indeed right. Not anymore than the fact that 500 years ago most societies thought that the sun revolved around the earth meant it actually did. The two examples are NOT the same.

Heliocentrism is an objective truth. I can provide evidence to demonstrate that it is.
You can't prove that it is wrong to burn someone alive for sodomy?How would you go about proving that without special pleading? Please, tell us?

There is "reality" and then there is "perception of reality". There is "right vs wrong" as far as life is concerned and then there is "perception of right vs wrong".
Ok, prove that murder is "wrong"? No special pleading please. Don't appeal to what I believe, that is fallacy. You are going to have to use logic and reason outside of what you and I believe. You are going to have to act like a scientist and question your own held beliefs. What is your hypothesis? How would you falsify it? Oh and no appeal to nature.

I can do that with the sun, can you do it with morality?

I'm quite sure we are all waiting with baited breath for you to prove that right and wrong are absolutes or is at least as objectively true, by induction, that heliocentrism is true.

[bignickel]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you: Dustin, the gnostic atheist.

Why am I reminded at this point of Neal Stephenson?
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be — or to be indistinguishable from — self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."

[Taffer]

Lions are willing to kill the children of other male lions, especially when one pride moves in with another.

Humans would sometimes do such things, especially in things such as inheritance, or slavery (I.E., enslaving the children of your enemies that you conquer). We would also, sometimes, when conquered another nation, wipe out every man, woman, and child in that nation to prevent cases of revenge and differentiation. We now consider such things immoral.

I know. We consider it immoral because of a global culture. In essence, we are all part of the same "pride" now. But I do not see how that gets extended to other animals.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for the killing of animals. I'm simply arguing against moral absolutism.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I share all of these values.

Then society doesn't shape you. I rest my case.

I can't. No one can. You can't either. That is my point.

Sure I can.

"Nice"? Why is that nice? I'm not diminishing what Hitler did (Which I think is horrible) I'm making a point about subjective opinion.

It's called "sarcasm". You're comparing the fact of Hitlers atrocities to liking or disliking Chocolate.


Who is talking about positive knowledge? Positive knowledge about what? It is my opinion that murder is wrong. It is my opinion that genocide is worse. Evil is a relative concept.

My positive knowledge that genocide is bad and "evil" is not relative.




No. Arguing that something is right or wrong based on the way one is raised is fallacy. I'm not doing that.

It's exactly what you're doing.

My perception as to what is right and wrong is based on the way I was raised.

Well my perception that the flying spaghetti monster lives in my bathtub is based on the way I was raised.





I never said nor implied this. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I said in a previous post that Hitler was violating moral standards of much of the world.
Germans had very good reason to oppose Hitler. In fact they WERE raised with moral values contrary to Hitler. It's not that simple. Clearly many Germans went along with Hitler.
Morality, demonstrably isn't static.Is morality environmental or genetic?

Is it both?

If it's genetic then why aren't Hitlers family members similar?

If it's environmental why aren't Hitlers family members similar?

You made the argument that what you believed he was wrong because of the place and time you lived. However many people who lived in the same place and time as Hitler knew he was wrong.



1.) I DON'T claim that not liking suffering is the ONLY variable.
2.) That IS MY POINT. There is no single variable.
3.) Morality is based in part on genetic predisposition.
4.) One of those genetic predispositions is the ability to feel empathy.
5.) Autistics often lack the ability to feel empathy.
6.) This inability to feel empathy leaves them without an ability to care bout other people.
7.) Sociopaths are typically without the ability to feel empathy.
8.) Sociopaths are more likely to commit certain violent crimes than others.
9) Morality is, demonstrably, based on environmental influences.

#2 contradicts your previous posts.

#4 contradicts #9.

#7 contradicts your previous posts.


Yes, that IS the scientific consensus.

Your quote contradicts your previous claims.


? What of them? The fit the scientific model of genetics and environment perfectly. Why would you suggest that they don't?

Then how is their claim that animal cruelty is wrong any less valid than your claim that things are wrong and immoral?




It is not fact. How would I arrive at such a fact. It is a fact that based on my criteria of "bad" that Hitler was a bad man.

Hitler likely would not have been held as a "bad" man according to Attila the Hun. Nor to Hannibal Barka. Nor Genghis Khan. Nor Alexander. In fact many people from the past would not have seen Hitler as "bad". You want to judge as fact behavior based on our current moral standards.

Where are you getting this "FACT" idea?

"Bad"
5 a : INJURIOUS (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/injurious), HARMFUL (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/harmful) <a bad influence>
2 a : morally objectionable : EVIL (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/evil)


"Evil"
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/pernicious)




Circular reasoning. You beg the question. You must first assume that killing millions of people is bad.

No assumption needed.


I said Stone age.
I said Bronze age.

Want me to find quotes from people of these times who agreed with me that murder is evil?



And yes, there were people who shared your opinion in those times also, that is not the point, the point is that your view was not the prevailing view.

Neither was the fact that the Earth revolves the sun...:rolleyes:


I know how Nazi's were wrong based on my views of morality. You and I share much of the same morality. You are trying to appeal to our shared view to arrive at a fact.

I'm appealing to your reason in some fleeting hope that you'll realize that i'm right.

That is fallacy.

What's the fallacy called?


What is objectively true must exist outside of our view.

Huh?


Please to explain the difference between morals and perception of what is moral?

What is "Right" or "Wrong" can be demonstrated to be "right" or "wrong" as I've been explaining for 10 pages.

"Perception" of what is right or wrong is simply the perception of the facts. Not the facts themselves.


The two examples are NOT the same.
Heliocentrism is an objective truth. I can provide evidence to demonstrate that it is.
You can't prove that it is wrong to burn someone alive for sodomy?How would you go about proving that without special pleading? Please, tell us?

Heliocentricism is an 'objective truth' and "right and wrong" are 'subjective truths' just the same as 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' are subjective truths. "Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be true epistemologically speaking. If I think of a apple in my mind then that is subjective, however epistemologically it is true that I'm thinking of an apple.

What is "Reasonable" vs "Unreasonable" is also subjective in that it occurs within the mind. This doesn't prevent it from being true or false anymore than what is "right vs wrong" being subjective prevents it from being true or false.


Ok, prove that murder is "wrong"? No special pleading please. Don't appeal to what I believe, that is fallacy. You are going to have to use logic and reason outside of what you and I believe. You are going to have to act like a scientist and question your own held beliefs. What is your hypothesis? How would you falsify it? Oh and no appeal to nature.

See other post.

[Lonewulf]

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be — or to be indistinguishable from — self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."

I'm 22. I'm hardly self-righteous. I may be opinionated and ornery when talked down to, but I don't consider myself self-righteous.

I'd also note that your quote applies to you. Or anyone here, for that matter.

But if you want to make things less anonymous, perhaps I should give you my full name, DoB (well, that's common knowledge now I think), and address?

But yes, I'd say that your claim is true enough when it comes down to Dustin.

[Taffer]

"Moral's" are not evolving. Only societies perception of what is moral. 500 years ago a society might of considered it right to burn someone alive for sodomy. That doesn't mean it was indeed right. Not anymore than the fact that 500 years ago most societies thought that the sun revolved around the earth meant it actually did. There is "reality" and then there is "perception of reality". There is "right vs wrong" as far as life is concerned and then there is "perception of right vs wrong".

You like ignoring my posts, don't you?

If you think morals are objective, can you point me out to a moral? What is a moral? What is it made of? Where does it come from? How can we detect it?

Simply put, the view that morals are absolute is stupid. Reality clearly demonstrates that morals are not, as different people differ on what is moral or not.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you: Dustin, the gnostic atheist.

I'm not a "gnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic)". I don't believe you even know what the term means.

I'm an atheist who believes in moral absolutes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism)

Why am I reminded at this point of Neal Stephenson?
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be — or to be indistinguishable from — self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."

How doesn't this apply to RandFan or you for that matter? Why can't I be the protagonist and you or anyone else arguing against me the antagonistic 16 year old?

[Lonewulf]

How doesn't this apply to RandFan or you for that matter? Why can't I be the protagonist and you or anyone else arguing against me the antagonistic 16 year old?

Because of your behavior and lack of respect for differing opinions, as well as your harsh and snap judgements on people that you've never met.

[thaiboxerken]

Dunstin, you believe in moral absolutes. That's all it is, a belief.

Good night.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You like ignoring my posts, don't you?

If you think morals are objective, can you point me out to a moral? What is a moral? What is it made of? Where does it come from? How can we detect it?

Simply put, the view that morals are absolute is stupid. Reality clearly demonstrates that morals are not, as different people differ on what is moral or not.

As far as "moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Normative_moral_relativism)" goes, the general objection that people pose to moral absolutism is the straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) that we believe there is some physical entity called 'morality' floating around out there some where. This is nonsense. Just because someone believes that there are absolute values of "right" and "wrong" does not mean that they believe that these are physical entities anymore than someone who believes that there are absolute values of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" contends that there is a physical entity of "reasonable" floating around in space somewhere.

For instance heloicentricism. Heliocentricism is an 'objective truth' and "right and wrong" are 'subjective truths' just the same as 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' are subjective truths. "Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be true epistemologically speaking. If I think of a apple in my mind then that is subjective, however epistemologically it is true that I'm thinking of an apple.

What is "Reasonable" vs "Unreasonable" is also subjective in that it occurs within the mind. This doesn't prevent it from being true or false anymore than what is "right vs wrong" being subjective prevents it from being true or false.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You believe in moral absolutes. That's all it is, a belief.

Good night.


Sure. A lot like my belief in Gravity and Heliocentrism and 1+1=2. These are all "beliefs" in the sense they are cognitive content held as true. Some beliefs are true and some are false. True beliefs are called "knowledge". False beliefs "delusion". However any cognitive content that is held to be true is a belief whether it's true or false.

[Lonewulf]

As far as "moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Normative_moral_relativism)" goes, the general objection that people pose to moral absolutism is the straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) that we believe there is some physical entity called 'morality' floating around out there some where. This is nonsense. Just because someone believes that there are absolute values of "right" and "wrong" does not mean that they believe that these are physical entities anymore than someone who believes that there are absolute values of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" contends that there is a physical entity of "reasonable" floating around in space somewhere.

For instance heloicentricism. Heliocentricism is an 'objective truth' and "right and wrong" are 'subjective truths' just the same as 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' are subjective truths. "Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be true epistemologically speaking. If I think of a apple in my mind then that is subjective, however epistemologically it is true that I'm thinking of an apple.

What is "Reasonable" vs "Unreasonable" is also subjective in that it occurs within the mind. This doesn't prevent it from being true or false anymore than what is "right vs wrong" being subjective prevents it from being true or false.

Y'know, I wanted to avoid this derail, but what you're stating makes no sense.

If there are moral absolutes, then what we define to be that absolute? What actually creates that absolute? Name me the single source that states (figuratively or literally) what is absolutely "moral"?

If it's not the ten commandments, nor society (and if it's society, then which one?), then what is it?

It occurs in the mind, yes. And your mind differs from my mind. Our minds differ from the minds of everyone else. The minds of people in Korea are different than the minds of the people here in the United States.

How do we determine which minds are "correct" and which are not?

[thaiboxerken]

Dunstin,

Do you have scientific evidence that there are moral absolutes? Feel free to provide that scientific evidence.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because of your behavior and lack of respect for differing opinions, as well as your harsh and snap judgements on people that you've never met.


What are you talking about? "Respect" and "harsh" are both relative terms that have no absolute meaning.

:D

[Marquis de Carabas]

If it's not the ten commandments, nor society (and if it's society, then which one?), then what is it?
Haven't you been paying attention? It's Dustin.

[Lonewulf]

What are you talking about? "Respect" and "harsh" are both relative terms that have no absolute meaning.

:D

There's an average and a norm. You have exceeded that norm, repeatedly. Continuously. On every thread.

[Taffer]

As far as "moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Normative_moral_relativism)" goes, the general objection that people pose to moral absolutism is the straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) that we believe there is some physical entity called 'morality' floating around out there some where. This is nonsense. Just because someone believes that there are absolute values of "right" and "wrong" does not mean that they believe that these are physical entities anymore than someone who believes that there are absolute values of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" contends that there is a physical entity of "reasonable" floating around in space somewhere.

For instance heloicentricism. Heliocentricism is an 'objective truth' and "right and wrong" are 'subjective truths' just the same as 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' are subjective truths. "Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be true epistemologically speaking. If I think of a apple in my mind then that is subjective, however epistemologically it is true that I'm thinking of an apple.

What is "Reasonable" vs "Unreasonable" is also subjective in that it occurs within the mind. This doesn't prevent it from being true or false anymore than what is "right vs wrong" being subjective prevents it from being true or false.

Then where does this absolute come from? How do you know what the absolute is? If it is not material in nature, then what is it? Some property of the universe? Does the universe decide what is "right" and "wrong"?

Your metaphysic is inconsistant.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do you have scientific evidence that there are moral absolutes? Feel free to provide that scientific evidence.


Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) deals with objective knowledge not subjective. Science can't provide answers for moral questions which are inherently subjective. The field that deals with that is called Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy).

[Lonewulf]

Haven't you been paying attention? It's Dustin.

My eyes tend to glaze over when I view his posts.

[thaiboxerken]

If it's subjective, then it can't be absolute. It has to be relative to those persons who it's subjected to. Thanks for proving yourself wrong again, Dustin.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then where does this absolute come from? How do you know what the absolute is? If it is not material in nature, then what is it? Some property of the universe? Does the universe decide what is "right" and "wrong"?

Your metaphysic is inconsistant.


It's "absolute" in the sense that it's true for one person as it is for another. The same reason for instance "reasonable" and "unreasonable" is as true for one person as it is for another. There is no such thing as "reasonable" floating around in the universe somewhere. It's not a "material".

[Taffer]

It's "absolute" in the sense that it's true for one person as it is for another. The same reason for instance "reasonable" and "unreasonable" is as true for one person as it is for another. There is no such thing as "reasonable" floating around in the universe somewhere. It's not a "material".

Then you can not claim it is objective. If it is objective, then it will be the same for everyone. Since morals are not the same for everyone, then you are incorrect.

Also, where do these "absolute" morals come from?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If it's subjective, then it can't be absolute. It has to be relative to those persons who it's subjected to. Thanks for proving yourself wrong again, Dustin.

You're confusing words here. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be true.

Do you believe that "reasonable" is relative from person to person? Is belief in Bigfoot unreasonable for instance? If so, Why? Is there such a thing as "reasonable" floating around somewhere in the universe? Is it material? No.

[Taffer]

Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) deals with objective knowledge not subjective. Science can't provide answers for moral questions which are inherently subjective. The field that deals with that is called Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy).

You claimed morals are objective, therefore the relm of science. Do you retract your claim? Do you now claim that morals are subjective, but universal?

[bignickel]

I'm 22. I'm hardly self-righteous. I may be opinionated and ornery when talked down to, but I don't consider myself self-righteous.

I'd also note that your quote applies to you. Or anyone here, for that matter.

I am confused, in that 1. I put Dustin's name in the first sentence, and 2. after not responding to any of my recent posts directed to you, you responded to one directed to Dustin instead.

Again: no one here is trying to lecture you.

As for Dustin's disavowal of 'gnostic': "I'm an atheist who believes in moral absolutes." A gnostic receives special knowledge of the Truth. Dustin, since you have knowledge of moral absolutes, you certainly qualify as a gnostic atheist. Which is pretty much the how most Christian theists perceive atheists.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then you can not claim it is objective. If it is objective, then it will be the same for everyone. Since morals are not the same for everyone, then you are incorrect.

Also, where do these "absolute" morals come from?


You're confusing words as well. I suggest you actually look up the words you're using prior to using them. "Objective" simply means something that exits apart from the mind in physical terms. "Subjective" means it exists within the mind. However just because it exists within the mind doesn't mean it can't be true. The attribute known as "reasonable" exists solely within the mind and is a subjective term. However no one who is reasonable would argue that there is no such thing as "reasonable" or that "reasonable" for one person could be unreasonable for another.

"Perception" of what is or isn't reasonable maybe. But not "reason" itself.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I am confused, in that 1. I put Dustin's name in the first sentence, and 2. after not responding to any of my recent posts directed to you, you responded to one directed to Dustin instead.

Again: no one here is trying to lecture you.

As for Dustin's disavowal of 'gnostic': "I'm an atheist who believes in moral absolutes." A gnostic receives special knowledge of the Truth. Dustin, since you have knowledge of moral absolutes, you certainly qualify as a gnostic atheist. Which is pretty much the how most Christian theists perceive atheists.

Please see my post where I provided a link that explains what "gnosticism" is. I'm not a "gnostic". An "atheist gnostic" is an oxymoron.

[Lonewulf]

I am confused, in that 1. I put Dustin's name in the first sentence, and 2. after not responding to any of my recent posts directed to you, you responded to one directed to Dustin instead.

Again: no one here is trying to lecture you.

Like I said.

Your quote applies to you. Or anyone in this forum. This includes me.

:D

Actually, I was just being ornery for the hell of it.

[thaiboxerken]

You're confusing words here. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be true.

If it's subjective, it's like an opinion. There is no "truth" behind subjectiveness.

[Taffer]

You're confusing words as well. I suggest you actually look up the words you're using prior to using them. "Objective" simply means something that exits apart from the mind in physical terms. "Subjective" means it exists within the mind. However just because it exists within the mind doesn't mean it can't be true. The attribute known as "reasonable" exists solely within the mind and is a subjective term. However no one who is reasonable would argue that there is no such thing as "reasonable" or that "reasonable" for one person could be unreasonable for another.

"Perception" of what is or isn't reasonable maybe. But not "reason" itself.

Lets assume for now that I accept your definition. Please give me an example of a universal moral.

[bignickel]

Please see my post where I provided a link that explains what "gnosticism" is. I'm not a "gnostic". An "atheist gnostic" is an oxymoron.
Argument by Wikipedia.

The gnostic receives the Truth(insert copyright symbol here). Your 'revealed' truth, completely unprovable, is Absolute Morality. To people such as me, all knowledge is tentative. But not to you.

"an 'atheist gnostic' is an oxymoron". Yep, you sure are.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If it's subjective, it's like an opinion. There is no "truth" behind subjectiveness.


No.

"Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. That's all.

"Opinion" simply means a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be fact. I am thinking of the Washington monument. These thoughts are subjective. However it's a fact that these thoughts exist and it's a fact that the Washington monument exists.

[Lonewulf]

Y'know, while this argument is important for the main discussion, it's still a derail.

Maybe we should make a new thread to discuss morality?


"Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. That's all.

"Opinion" simply means a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

And what grounds are sufficient to produce complete certainty when it comes to morality?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Lets assume for now that I accept your definition. Please give me an example of a universal moral.

Killing something without justifiable purpose=Immoral.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Argument by Wikipedia.

The gnostic receives the Truth(insert copyright symbol here). Your 'revealed' truth, completely unprovable, is Absolute Morality. To people such as me, all knowledge is tentative. But not to you.

"an 'atheist gnostic' is an oxymoron". Yep, you sure are.


Please try reading the entire thread before jumping in and making baseless ignorant assumptions. Or is reading that much too hard for you?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And what grounds are sufficient to produce complete certainty when it comes to morality?

If you want to simply argue for the sake of arguing, I won't waste my time.

If you haven't been reading my posts when I've explained this several times, I won't waste my time.

In short...If you want an answer to this, GO back and read all of my posts in this and the other "PETA" thread.

[Taffer]

No.

"Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. That's all.

"Opinion" simply means a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be fact. I am thinking of the Washington monument. These thoughts are subjective. However it's a fact that these thoughts exist and it's a fact that the Washington monument exists.

Do you believe you can ever be 100% certain in any knowledge you have?

[Taffer]

Killing something without justifiable purpose=Immoral.

How do you know this is universal?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Killing something without justifiable purpose=Immoral.
Justifiable? I would love to see your absolutist definition of that one.

[Taffer]

Feel free to create another thread, and we shall move the discussion there, Lonewulf.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do you believe you can ever be 100% certain in any knowledge you have?

I can be certain that I think.

I can be certain that I exist (Cogito Ergo sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum)).

However I can't be certain 100% of anything objective. I can't be 100% certain that I am a human or am sitting at a computer right now. I could be simply a brain in a vat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat) being tricked into thinking I'm sitting at a computer.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Justifiable? I would love to see your absolutist definition of that one.

Justifiable according to Webster...

1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable


And if you want to argue that "right" or "reasonable" are relative terms then that opens a whole new can of worms allowing someone to simply argue that "Gods existence" is "reasonable" because their relative perception says so.

[bignickel]

Please try reading the entire thread before jumping in and making baseless ignorant assumptions.
Evidence?

Oh, gosh, what am I thinking? Yeah, I'm probably not going to get much from you with that question. A nap would be more productive. On that note...

[RandFan]

Then society doesn't shape you. I rest my case. You are really frustrating. This is a non sequitur. Don't rest your case on non sequiturs.

Sure I can. Saying you can and doing it are two different things.

It's called "sarcasm". You're comparing the fact of Hitlers atrocities to liking or disliking Chocolate.It doesn't advance the discussion.

My positive knowledge that genocide is bad and "evil" is not relative.I don't even know what this means. What "positive knoweldge" How is it positive knowledge?

Assume that I'm an alien from another planet that does not believe genocide is bad, prove to me that it is?

It's exactly what you're doing.No. Not at all. I'm saying that my "perception" is based on how I was raised.

Well my perception that the flying spaghetti monster lives in my bathtub is based on the way I was raised. ? How does this advance the argument or rebutt my point?

Is morality environmental or genetic?False dichotamy?

Is it both?I've answered this how many times? Fine, I will do what you won't. I'll answer again. Both.

If it's genetic then why aren't Hitlers family members similar?Why are not identical twins identical?

You demonstrate that don't understand the role of genetics and enviorenment. It is a very complex dynamic. Such a question is not scientific.

If it's environmental why aren't Hitlers family members similar?Such a question demonstrates an ignorance of science. Again, how is it possible that identical twins can grow up to be very different? You are simply ignorant of the science.

You made the argument that what you believed he was wrong because of the place and time you lived. However many people who lived in the same place and time as Hitler knew he was wrong. Not all. In fact many were ambivilant and many shared his view.

You are engagin in fallacy to assume that they knew. Many believed that he was wrong.


#2 contradicts your previous posts.This is just an assertion. It's very weasly. How does it contradict?

#4 contradicts #9. No it doesn't. You are demonstrably wrong. #9 is because #4.

#7 contradicts your previous posts.This is just an assertion. It's very weasly. How does it contradict?

Dustin,

This is not a very intellectualy honest way to debate. If there is a contradiction you need to demonstrate that there is one and not simply declare that there is.

Your quote contradicts your previous claims.Please to explain how?

Then how is their claim that animal cruelty is wrong any less valid than your claim that things are wrong and immoral? How many times must I tell you?

Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.

Now, is that clear?

"Bad" How does this prove that it is in fact "bad"?

"Evil"Do you know what circular reasoning is?

Dustin: Murder is immoral
RandFan: Why is it immoral
Dustin: It is Evil
RandFan: Why is it Evil
Dustin: It is morally objectionable.

No assumption needed. And if someone disagrees?


Want me to find quotes from people of these times who agreed with me that murder is evil? {sigh}

I've already conceded that there would exist such people.
You have already conceded that moral perceptions has advanced.Let's move on, ok?

Neither was the fact that the Earth revolves the sun...You are confusing two different points. Please try to focus.

I'm appealing to your reason in some fleeting hope that you'll realize that i'm right. Ok, do so then. Let's for the sake of argument assume that I don't believe that murder is wrong. Prove to me that it is?

What's the fallacy called?Special pleading.

Huh?I thought you believed in scientific thinking.

The fact that I believe that the earth is flat is not a basis for finding the ttruth. Assuming that I believe that the earth is flat I must step outside of that view that the earth is flat.

I believe that murder is wrong.

Let's assume that you and I don't believe that. How would we discover that it is wrong?

What is "Right" or "Wrong" can be demonstrated to be "right" or "wrong" as I've been explaining for 10 pages.Circular reasoning.

"Perception" of what is right or wrong is simply the perception of the facts. Not the facts themselves. What facts? You simply declare what is and is not a fact. Can you demonstrate these facts?

Heliocentricism is an 'objective truth' and "right and wrong" are 'subjective truths' just the same as 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' are subjective truths. "Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it can't be true epistemologically speaking. If I think of a apple in my mind then that is subjective, however epistemologically it is true that I'm thinking of an apple. Yes, but if I think of an apple it doesn't mean that the apple exists. If I think of a unicorn it doesn't mean that it exists.

Prove to me that a unicorn exists just because you think it?

What is "Reasonable" vs "Unreasonable" is also subjective in that it occurs within the mind. This doesn't prevent it from being true or false anymore than what is "right vs wrong" being subjective prevents it from being true or false. What is reasonable to me isn't necassarly what is reasonable to you.

See other post.So, you are like a Christians that declares god true. The Christian thinks of god and therefore god is now true and so declares that god is true.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence?

Oh, gosh, what am I thinking? Yeah, I'm probably not going to get much from you with that question. A nap would be more productive. On that note...


When I say "Read the entire thread" that doesn't mean "ask me to repeat myself for the 10th time". That means READ THE ENTIRE THREAD!!!

[thaiboxerken]

"Subjective" simply means occurring within the mind. That's all.

Now you're playing the dishonest game of mixing definitions. Because these are the actual relevant definitions of subjective for this topic.

2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.


Really, did you think you could get away with such dishonesty?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Justifiable according to Webster...
There is nothing remotely absolutist about that definition. For something to be proven or shown to be just, there must be an audience of judges. Further, those judges must be rational agents; justifying your actions to a murder of crows will get you nowhere. For justifiable to be absolute, it must be held that any collection of rational agents would agree, in any and all cases, on what is justified.

[RandFan]

Killing something without justifiable purpose=Immoral.Why?

[Taffer]

I can be certain that I think.

I can be certain that I exist (Cogito Ergo sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum)).

This isn't really the time or place to get into it, but the cogito fails in one major respect. You can not be sure you think, you can only be sure there are thoughts. Thus, you can not be sure that you exist, but only that there is existance.

However I can't be certain 100% of anything objective. I can't be 100% certain that I am a human or am sitting at a computer right now. I could be simply a brain in a vat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat) being tricked into thinking I'm sitting at a computer.

Naturally. Then how can you claim to be 100% certain of anything subjective?

[Dan O.]

Food is very available.
Birth rates are still on a downward trend

So, really, I don't get your point. I really think that you're stretching here for an excuse.

I'm still looking for where the disagreement is.

I believe we agree that we don't need to grow meat substitute in vats to solve a food shortage problem. That should rule out the efficiency argument of growing meat in vats vs. on the hoof.

Your argument seems to revolve around it being immoral to take the life of an animal when we could engineer an alternative food source. Wouldn't it be equally immoral to deny an animal a purpose in life if it's only current purpose is to be food for humans?

Perhaps the best solution (with credit to Douglas Adams) would be to "cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly."

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You are really frustrating. This is a non sequitur. Don't rest your case on non sequiturs.

No. It's a fact which you've admitted.


I don't even know what this means. What "positive knoweldge" How is it positive knowledge?

Assume that I'm an alien from another planet that does not believe genocide is bad, prove to me that it is?

See previous posts.


? How does this advance the argument or rebutt my point?

I'm using the same reasoning to come to an absurd conclusion thus proving the reasoning used is absurd.




Such a question demonstrates an ignorance of science. Again, how is it possible that identical twins can grow up to be very different? You are simply ignorant of the science.

I know the science. These are rhetorical questions aimed at getting you to think about what you're actually saying.


Not all. In fact many were ambivilant and many shared his view.

You are engagin in fallacy to assume that they knew. Many believed that he was wrong.

You're evading what I said. You made the argument that you believed he was wrong because of the place and time you lived. However many people who lived in the same place and time as Hitler knew he was wrong. Thus refuting your initial argument.





How many times must I tell you?

Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.
Their claim is not any less valid.

Now, is that clear?

Good. Then what's this debate about?


How does this prove that it is in fact "bad"?

Because it fits the 'definition' of 'bad'.:rolleyes:


Do you know what circular reasoning is?

Sure.


Dustin: Murder is immoral
RandFan: Why is it immoral
Dustin: It is Evil
RandFan: Why is it Evil
Dustin: It is morally objectionable.

Except I provided definitions to the words I'm using directly from the dictionary. Meaning it can't be circular if the words I use fit the actual DEFINITIONS of the words.

And if someone disagrees?

They're wrong.



Ok, do so then. Let's for the sake of argument assume that I don't believe that murder is wrong. Prove to me that it is?

I have. See previous posts.

Special pleading.

I said that..
If you don't know how Nazi's were wrong then I doubt anything I say will make any difference.

How is this Special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)? Seems more like common sense. If you're deluded enough not to know how the Nazi's were wrong then it would be a waste of my time to bother explaining.


The fact that I believe that the earth is flat is not a basis for finding the ttruth. Assuming that I believe that the earth is flat I must step outside of that view that the earth is flat.

I believe that murder is wrong.

Let's assume that you and I don't believe that. How would we discover that it is wrong?

Don't quite know what you're saying here.

Circular reasoning.

How?


What facts? You simply declare what is and is not a fact. Can you demonstrate these facts?

Yes. Read previous posts.

Yes, but if I think of an apple it doesn't mean that the apple exists. If I think of a unicorn it doesn't mean that it exists.

But the thoughts do.


What is reasonable to me isn't necassarly what is reasonable to you.

Ok. I believe Sylvia Browne is psychic and the next messiah. That's reasonable to me. Therefore belief in Sylvia Browne is reasonable? :rolleyes:


So, you are like a Christians that declares god true. The Christian thinks of god and therefore god is now true and so declares that god is true.

Nope. I can prove what I claim. Christians can't. Since you keep asking the same questions I'll continue to repost my posts.

In the English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language/British_English) language we have definitions to specific words. These words are determined by how they are used in everyday society. Some words have multiple meanings, however generally most words have one agreed upon meaning. In specific contexts one word may have one meaning while in another a different meaning. In the context of morality (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2474801#post2474801) the English word "wrong" has a very specific meaning which the Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster) dictionary defines as thus...



Now this seems pretty obvious and clear. The words in this definition are not ambiguous and anyone with a brain will know what they mean. Moreover no reasonable person would argue that what Hitler did was not "injurious" or did not cause "harm".

As far as "moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Normative_moral_relativism)" goes, the general objection that people pose to moral absolutism is the straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) that we believe there is some physical entity called 'morality' floating around out there some where. This is nonsense. Just because someone believes that there are absolute values of "right" and "wrong" does not mean that they believe that these are physical entities anymore than someone who believes that there are absolute values of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" contends that there is a physical entity of "reasonable" floating around in space somewhere.

As far as the genetic argument goes. The argument that our morality is simply the product of our evolution and humans evolved to treat other humans specific ways and to apply it to other animals makes no sense is hogwash. If it were true that our morality were simply the result of our genetics and it evolved over thousands of years of cooperating with other humans in society then why are there so many cases of people who seem to be "moral mavericks"? Why do some people seem to violate all of the so called "evolutionary ethics"? Serial killers for instance or the Hitlers of the world. These people have the same basic genetics that we do but they are vastly different. If morality were simply genetic and we should only use this genetic morality as our gauge of what is or isn't moral then if Hitler was indeed genetically the way he was, does that excuse his actions? No.

Moreover, How do the people who argue for the "genetic gauge" of morality explain the fact that most people in the world prefer to treat animals ethically? If our "morality" only evolved for humans and we should apply it to humans only then where does my preference to treat animals ethically come from? Does it come from the Environment? If so then why can't anyones moral beliefs?

The fact is simple. If someone opposes what Hitler did, what Pol-Pot did, what Osama Bin laden did, what Ted Bundy did, or what Dahmer did then they must logically also support treating non-human animals ethically. Non- human animals feel pain, suffer, feel emotions, etc. If someone opposes hurting a human because that human will suffer then they must also have the same standard for a non-human. Scientists have shown that intelligence and sentience are not specifically human traits. Drawing a line at humans does not make sense as I've explained above. There is no valid reason to do so.

The only non-arbitrary way to make moral decisions is sentience and intelligence. Some argue that intelligence itself is arbitrary but that's also hogwash. There's nothing arbitrary about basing how one treats others on their intelligence. That's about as non-arbitrary as you can get. Intelligence equals appreciation for specific treatments. Skin color, Sexual preference, race, and even species make no difference. Intelligence is the only thing that makes a difference. Two animals that have the same intelligence should be treated the same due to the fact they can appreciate such treatments the same. Should one animal be treated differently based on the fact it has scales and not fur? Why? How does this have anything to do with ethical decisions? It doesn't.

We should treat other species based on how they can or can't appreciate how we treat them. If they are ants for instance and have little or no comprehension of anything then we should care less about how we treat then than we would of a dog or a cat or a dolphin for instance. A dolphin isn't smart enough to appreciate the right to speech or the right to vote and therefore should not be afforded that right. However a dolphin is smart enough to appreciate not being tortured or slaughtered and should be afforded that right. If you try to prevent a dolphin from voting then the dolphin won't know the difference. But if you try to hurt a dolphin then it will immediately know the difference.

I treat humans differently from other animals BECAUSE humans are smart enough to appreciate the separate ways I treat them from other animals. If there was an animal as intelligent as a human then I would treat that animal just like a human. If there was some human as intelligent as a some other animal then I would treat them as such. If they had the intelligence of a dog for instance, I likely would not care whether they had the right to vote or not. But I would still refrain from harming them. I would discriminate against a very stupid human. I would not take him as seriously as someone intelligent. I would likely treat him as I would treat anything else of his intelligence. If he is as smart as a 7 year old I would treat him like I would treat any 7 year old.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Now you're playing the dishonest game of mixing definitions. Because these are the actual relevant definitions of subjective for this topic.

2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.


Really, did you think you could get away with such dishonesty?


These definitions aren't in the context of epistemological ethical questions. When you define words you need to use their specific context otherwise the definitions you use are useless.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This isn't really the time or place to get into it, but the cogito fails in one major respect. You can not be sure you think, you can only be sure there are thoughts. Thus, you can not be sure that you exist, but only that there is existance.

Wrong. If there "are thoughts" then who is perceiving them? That being that perceives them is me since I am thinking of them. This proves I exist.

If thoughts exist then they must come from somewhere. If they don't come from me they must come from somewhere else. Maybe a "demon" as Descartes suggested. If they come from some demon tricking me into thinking they are mine them I must also exist for him to trick me into thinking the thoughts are mine.

Any way you cut it, Thoughts exist and I exist.



Naturally. Then how can you claim to be 100% certain of anything subjective?

Take a look at the definition of "subjective" and get back to me.;)

[RandFan]

No. It's a fact which you've admitted. Huh?

See previous posts.I've seen the previous posts. You've never answered the question.

I'm using the same reasoning to come to an absurd conclusion thus proving the reasoning used is absurd. Huh? You are not making any sense.

I know the science. These are rhetorical questions aimed at getting you to think about what you're actually saying. Well then you are doing a lousy job because the identical twins prove you wrong. Human traits including moral perception is based on environment and genetics.

You're evading what I said. You made the argument that you believed he was wrong because of the place and time you lived. However many people who lived in the same place and time as Hitler knew he was wrong. Thus refuting your initial argument. No. No. No.

{this really gets old}

Please pay close attention.

Premises:

Twins are genetically identical.
Twins are raised in nearly the same environment.
Twins do not have identical traits when they grow up.Conclusions:

Genetics did not absolutely shape the twins
Enviornment did not absolutely shape the twins.The error you are making Dustin is assuming that my argument is that environment is absolute in shaping morality. It is not. Neither is genetics. The fact is that it is a combination of the two and it is very complex.

People raised in Catholic families tend to be Catholic.
Not all people raised in Catholic families are Catholic.
People raised in cultures that like to eat fish eyes tend to like fish eyes.
Not all people raised in cultures that like to eat fish eyes tend to like fish eyes.

Good. Then what's this debate about?Morality is not absolute.

Many, not all, animal rights activists percieve that killing animals for food is wrong. That is a valid POV.
I don't share it. My POV is also valid.

Because it fits the 'definition' of 'bad'.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Dictionaries are not rules that govern the universe.

Sure.Then plese stop.


Except I provided definitions to the words I'm using directly from the dictionary. Meaning it can't be circular if the words I use fit the actual DEFINITIONS of the words.

Evil = immoral
Immoral = evil

Yep, that's circular reasoning.

They're wrong.In your opinion. Why is your opinion superiour?

I have. See previous posts. Yes, the "see previous posts" argument. It's BS of course.

Dustin,

When someone keeps asking me the same question I keep answering the quetion making that person look like an a-hole.

When someone keep saying they have answered a question but refuse to answer it it just makes them look an an a-hole.

Ok, fine, two can play at that game.

I effectively proved you wrong, see previous posts.

How is this Special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)? Seems more like common sense. I already believe that the Nazi's were wrong. You are trying to appeal to what I believe.

If you're deluded enough not to know how the Nazi's were wrong then it would be a waste of my time to bother explaining. Cop out.

Don't quite know what you're saying here.

Hypothetical #1: Assuming you and I didn't know the earth was flat I could come up with a means to divine that it was.

Hypothetical #2: Assuming that you and I didn't "know" that murder was wrong, who would we divine that it was?

I can do #1, can you do #2?

How?You first assume what is "right" and "wrong". Can you do that without assuming what is right and wrong?


Yes. Read previous posts.Arguvment via "read previous posts".

I have, it's not there and if you persist in this then I'm going to start calling you a liar.

But the thoughts do.Sure, but still not proof that the apple exissts.


Ok. I believe Sylvia Browne is psychic and the next messiah. That's reasonable to me. Therefore belief in Sylvia Browne is reasonable? :rolleyes::rolleyes: Non-sequitur. Randi has provided ample, objective evidence why you are wrong.

Nope. I can prove what I claim. Christians can't. Since you keep asking the same questions I'll continue to repost my posts. And so long as you keep dodging the question with weasly responses I'll keep asking the questions.

In the English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language/British_English) language we have definitions to specific words. These words are determined by how they are used in everyday society. Some words have multiple meanings, however generally most words have one agreed upon meaning. In specific contexts one word may have one meaning while in another a different meaning. In the context of morality (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2474801#post2474801) the English word "wrong" has a very specific meaning which the Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster) dictionary defines as thus... A dictionary definition, as Randi make clear constantly, is for usage. A way for us to communicate.

The dictionary is not physics. It is not a sacred text.

Now this seems pretty obvious and clear. The words in this definition are not ambiguous and anyone with a brain will know what they mean. Moreover no reasonable person would argue that what Hitler did was not "injurious" or did not cause "harm".

1.) Why does one have to accept that causing harm is immoral?
2.) Are practitioners of S&M immoral?
2.) The dictionary is simply the common understanding of that word.
3.) The definition is not a sacred text. Not everyone agrees with it.

As far as "moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#Normative_moral_relativism)" goes, the general objection that people pose to moral absolutism is the straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) that we believe there is some physical entity called 'morality' floating around out there some where. This is nonsense. Just because someone believes that there are absolute values of "right" and "wrong" does not mean that they believe that these are physical entities anymore than someone who believes that there are absolute values of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" contends that there is a physical entity of "reasonable" floating around in space somewhere. Funny, you create a straw man claiming that others are creating a straw man. I claim no such thing. I only claim that there is no objective criteria to prove what is right and wrong.

As far as the genetic argument goes. The argument that our morality is simply the product of our evolution and humans evolved to treat other humans specific ways and to apply it to other animals makes no sense is hogwash. Strawman, no one is arguing this.

One more time Dustin, one more time. Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.

I realize that I have to repeat myself to get it through your head.

Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.
Our morality is the result of genetic and environmental influences.

Is that clear?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I can do #1, can you do #2?
He's been doing #2 all over the thread.

[thaiboxerken]

These definitions aren't in the context of epistemological ethical questions.

Yes, they are. You're claiming that morals can be universal or absolute, that they are true for all people. However, they are not. Morals are SUBJECTIVE, meaning they are different depending on different people. Morals are simply opinions of right and wrong, good vs evil and nothing more. There is no scientific evidence that absolute morals exist. For you to claim there are absolute morals without having any science to support you is just pure speculation coupled with arrogance.

[The Atheist]

Maybe we should make a new thread to discuss morality?

That's a bloody good idea!

[Taffer]

Wrong. If there "are thoughts" then who is perceiving them? That being that perceives them is me since I am thinking of them. This proves I exist.

If thoughts exist then they must come from somewhere. If they don't come from me they must come from somewhere else. Maybe a "demon" as Descartes suggested. If they come from some demon tricking me into thinking they are mine them I must also exist for him to trick me into thinking the thoughts are mine.

Wrong. Your only axiom that can be granted is "thought exists". Any extra axiom on top of this cannot be proven.

Any way you cut it, Thoughts exist and I exist.

Again, any leap above the axiom "thought exists" cannot be supported.

But this really is for another thread.

Take a look at the definition of "subjective" and get back to me.;)

Nothing subjective can be absolute, by the very nature of subjective. Nothing is absolute if people can have different opinions.

[Wudang]

He's been doing #2 all over the thread.

Remind you of anyone?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL

[cyborg]

Jesus, Dustin is an idealist now? Aye Caramba!

[The Atheist]

But this really is for another thread lifetime.

Fixed that up for you, mate!

[Taffer]

Fixed that up for you, mate!

Aw, come on TA, you know I was a Phil minor!

What else am I going to do with my degree? :D

[The Atheist]

Aw, come on TA, you know I was a Phil minor!

What else am I going to do with my degree? :D

*Sigh*

Those were the days...

I majored in rugby with a minor in Lion Red.

[Taffer]

*Sigh*

Those were the days...

I majored in rugby with a minor in Lion Red.

:D

I know that all too well. Although, after last new-year's, I just can't drink as much beer as I used to be able to.

So now I drink rum instead. ;)

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, I admit that I'm lazy, but I just can't bring myself to read all the recent changes. Can someone explain to me how Justin's example/definition of an absolute wrong is not a tautology? While he has used different terms it looks exactly like the tautological definition of murder. Murder is unjustified killing. Unjustified means without right reason. Murder is wrong because it is killing without right reason. In other words, murder is wrong because it is not right. Tautology.

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK, I admit that I'm lazy, but I just can't bring myself to read all the recent changes. Can someone explain to me how Justin's example/definition of an absolute wrong is not a tautology? While he has used different terms it looks exactly like the tautological definition of murder. Murder is unjustified killing. Unjustified means without right reason. Murder is wrong because it is killing without right reason. In other words, murder is wrong because it is not right. Tautology.
Why should we explain to you what you already know so well--better than Dustin, even?

[Taffer]

He even changed his view when I pointed out that his argument was a circular argument, and then when I explained why it was still a fallacy (affirming the consequent IIRC), he just ignored me. :rolleyes:

[Davidjayjordan]

Continuing from another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77814), here's a fun question that affects the way we live more profoundly than any other consideration on the planet:

What is the moral distinction between taking animal life and human life?



Before anyone has a chance to say anything in the thread, I just want to shave at least 5 pages off this thread of monotonous, repetitive kneejerk responses that always come up, so that no one has to waste their time repeating them. Here's a short list:
- "Its wrong to kill people they are members of OUR species". Is species membership really a valid moral characteristic, and if so what makes this species so special and valuable that doesn't apply to other species?

- "Its ok to kill animals because animals aren't future members of society". Is it really a requirement that people affect society before their lives are valuable (if so, to what extent do people need to affect society?), certainly no one thinks its ok to slaughter and eat terminally ill infants who will never become future members of society or the severely mentally retarded who lack the rational prerequisites to act as members of society.

- "Animals eat other animals, why shouldn't I?". Is it really plausible that we should look to non-rational animals as beacons of moral guidance, especially when they can't make any moral decisions themselves? Even if its a fact that animals are eating each other in the wild, is that fact really relevant to how we should behave?

I come across the above responses all the time, and I don't think they are any good. They aren't based on coherent moral principles, and people are unwilling to take those arguments to their logical ends.


That's all. Discuss :)


Evolution theorises that man and animals are not different even though they pretend to find morality developing by luck and chance. This because they keep changing their theory to try and explain away their reality.

They do not follow their theory to its logical insanity and untruths, therefore switch it around when convenient.

But true science sees that man and animals are different.

(Evolutionists go absolutely insane with trying to figure out how their theory works, and yet the insane start to believe the insane... and they comofrt one another with their mutual insanities of luck and HOPE and FAITH.)

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just when I was beginning to lose hope that anyone could be less enlightened over basic philosophical underpinnings than some participants in this thread, a ray of hope shines. Thank DJJ, thank you. A thousand times, thank you.

[Darth Rotor]

Just when I was beginning to lose hope that anyone could be less enlightened over basic philosophical underpinnings than some participants in this thread, a ray of hope shines. Thank DJJ, thank you. A thousand times, thank you.
Their forum names both begin with D, I wonder if this is indicative of inherent dumbacity.

*looks to the left, at own forum name*

Uh oh! :eek:

This hypothesis could be the death of my brain. To falsify it, I may need to consult Darat or drkitten, or some other smart member like davefoc or David Swidler . . .

:)

DR

[Marquis de Carabas]

This hypothesis could be the death of my brain. To falsify it, I may need to consult Darat or drkitten, or some other smart member like davefoc or David Swidler . . .
Just try de Carabas, Marquis.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Wow, 16 pages! To celebrate, here's a picture of my deer rifle.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1116844e60fc01caf2.jpg

[cyborg]

Works for me.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Yeah, it's a .270 Remmington 700 SPS with a Swift scope. I have a Realtree camo sock that covers it nicely so I can be nearly invisible in a climbing stand.

[cyborg]

That's sexy as hell.

[RenaissanceBiker]

The Realtree camo sock? They are just a few bucks at Cabela's (http://www.cabelas.com/) website.

[andyandy]

Wow, 16 pages! To celebrate, here's a picture of my deer rifle.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1116844e60fc01caf2.jpg

lol

well i think you've settled the debate...... :D

[Lonewulf]

To celebrate, here's a picture of my automatic pistol.

http://nibtempfile.ign.com/mbozon/article/672763/Iwata%20Gun.jpg

(This link better work)

Damn, I'm sexy. And asian, apparently.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wow, 16 pages! To celebrate, here's a picture of my deer rifle.



That looks sort of like a man with breasts.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm going to stop posting in this and the other thread. I don't see the point in going through the same arguments over and over. For those of you who I won't be able to respond to, read my previous posts and I'm sure you'll find your answers to your questions.

[RenaissanceBiker]

That looks sort of like a man with breasts.

What do the men look like in Jamaica? Granted, she's had 3 kids but I think she looks pretty darn good.

[andyandy]

That looks sort of like a man with breasts.

doesn't do it for you like Adolf does eh? ;)

[andyandy]

What do the men look like in Jamaica? Granted, she's had 3 kids but I think she looks pretty darn good.

dustin prefers little men with moustaches.....

[Lonewulf]

What do the men look like in Jamaica? Granted, she's had 3 kids but I think she looks pretty darn good.

Ehh, not really my type. I thought the gun was sexier than the woman.

[andyandy]

Ehh, not really my type. I thought the gun was sexier than the woman.

looks pretty hot to me.....hope she wraps up a bit warmer when she's hunting though.....:D

[The Atheist]

Them's huntin' bare!

[Lonewulf]

looks pretty hot to me.....

I'm afraid that the sexy police will have to cite you for this. I'm the utter dictator on what's hot and what's not, because I'm me.

Sorry.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm afraid that the sexy police will have to cite you for this. I'm the utter dictator on what's hot and what's not, because I'm me.

Sorry.
Please provide evidence that there is hotality is absolute.

Thanks.

[Lonewulf]

Please provide evidence that there is hotality is absolute.

Thanks.

Evidence: Because I said so.

I did say I was absolute dictator.

[The Atheist]

Please provide evidence that there is hotality is absolute.

Thanks.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/16407-lindsay-lohan-sex-e-screensav.jpg

[Marquis de Carabas]

Lonewulf, you should take evidence-giving lessons from TA, even if he is a smegma-swilling pus-weasel.

[Lonewulf]

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/16407-lindsay-lohan-sex-e-screensav.jpg

I'm sure you have done much to convince the homosexuals and straight females in the audience.

Lonewulf, you should take evidence-giving lessons from TA, even if he is a smegma-swilling pus-weasel.

I'd hotlink this image, but I'd rather give you a choice to scar your own eyes:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e227/moustachacramp/mrbean1.jpg

How's that?

[The Atheist]

I'm sure you have done much to convince the homosexuals and straight females in the audience.

You don't think straight women think she's hot? Or gay men?

We're talking about "hotality", not sexual attraction.

I'd hotlink this image, but I'd rather give you a choice to scar your own eyes:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e227/moustachacramp/mrbean1.jpg

How's that?


Lucky.

The link gave away the "Mr Bean" bit, so I was expecting that. Not quite to my taste.

[The Atheist]

Lonewulf, you should take evidence-giving lessons from TA, even if he is a smegma-swilling pus-weasel.

:dl:

Try as you might, you will not get two quotes in my sig!

[Lonewulf]

You don't think straight women think she's hot? Or gay men?

We're talking about "hotality", not sexual attraction.

Some might consider her a scrawny little anorexic whore.

[thaiboxerken]

Anorexic? I can't even see her ribs.

[Lonewulf]

Anorexic? I can't even see her ribs.

Welcome to the world of relativity.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/BCP/BCP141/BCP039-15.jpg

[Lonewulf]

Lucky.

The link gave away the "Mr Bean" bit, so I was expecting that. Not quite to my taste.

I figured that I might as well. It didn't seem right to force that on you without some form of preparation available.

[thaiboxerken]

Probably not a good idea to post a copyrighted picture in the forum.

[The Atheist]

Some might consider her a scrawny little anorexic whore.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/straitjacket.jpg

[Lonewulf]

Probably not a good idea to post a copyrighted picture in the forum.

Fixed.

[Lonewulf]

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/straitjacket.jpg

That image confuses me.

[thaiboxerken]

That image confuses me.

I think he's suggesting that you shoud be required to try a Houdini escape right about now.

[The Atheist]

That image confuses me.

Ah, I understand the confusion.

I was saying that I think they're nuts, not sufferring from a sexual perversion. (Although the number of peculiar [!] images which sprung up on Google while searching for "straitjacket" was a little enlightening!)

[Lonewulf]

I think he's suggesting that you shoud be required to try a Houdini escape right about now.

Mmm... bondage.

I was saying that I think they're nuts, not sufferring from a sexual perversion. (Although the number of peculiar [!] images which sprung up on Google while searching for "straitjacket" was a little enlightening!)

http://www.rockridgemarkethall.com/newsletter/images/hol2005/nuts-for-web.jpg

[skeptifem]

You don't think straight women think she's hot?


i have never understood her appeal. shes really not that good looking.

[Taffer]

Mmm, now that's one sexy ... gun.

[The Atheist]

i have never understood her appeal. shes really not that good looking.

Given that I have a suspicion you might be a raving babe yourself (and having regard to a recent thread on pigmentation), I'm going to defer to you on this one! :bgrin:

[The Atheist]

Gentlemen, apparently, prefer blondes.

I'm no gentleman, but I'm a believer.

[Lonewulf]

Given that I have a suspicion you might be a raving babe yourself (and having regard to a recent thread on pigmentation), I'm going to defer to you on this one! :bgrin:

Evidence?

Preferably of the bikini kind.

[slingblade]

So........we're putting the animals into bikinis before we eat them now?


What?

[Lonewulf]

So........we're putting the animals into bikinis before we eat them now?

What?

Naw, that would be inhumane.

We're putting them in thongs.

[The Atheist]

Evidence?

Preferably of the bikini kind.

Seconded!

[RandFan]

I'm going to stop posting in this and the other thread. I don't see the point in going through the same arguments over and over. For those of you who I won't be able to respond to, read my previous posts and I'm sure you'll find your answers to your questions.Likewise.

[RandFan]

Wow, 16 pages! To celebrate, here's a picture of my deer rifle.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1116844e60fc01caf2.jpg

Ren,

You've go my approval. Very nice IMO. Rifle's not bad either but personally I prefer a 50cal BMG. It's not very sporting but it does follow Roosevelt's maxim to carry a big stick.

[Lonewulf]

Ren,

You've go my approval. Very nice IMO. Rifle's not bad either but personally I prefer a 50cal BMG. It's not very sporting but it does follow Roosevelt's maxim to carry a big stick.

Bah.

.50 BMG is only really good against heavy armor. It's way too loud, and would leave way too big a hole in the deer's hide.

...Not that I'm speaking as a hunter, just that the .50 BMG really is overrated, in many respects. It's big and it's very powerful, but it's a military-designed weapon. The 7.62mm is all that you really need for hunting.

[RenaissanceBiker]

The .50 BMG rounds cost 4 times as much, and you have to carry that heavy thing through the woods. It's hard enough to be stealthy with a climbing stand on your back. I practice with the .270 at 100 yards, but around here most deer are taken between 30 and 60 yards. The woods are just that thick. Out west you might need to reach way out there for game but the .270 is the best deer hunting rifle for the Southeastern US.

As for the rifle holder, she can also swing a hammer. Here's a picture of us building my workshop and another of the family hiking on Morrow Mountain.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11168461242a278628.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4929)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11168461242a2bfade.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4930)

[RandFan]

The .50 BMG rounds cost 4 times as much, and you have to carry that heavy thing through the woods.Who want's to carry it through the woods? I'm hunting manhole covers. ;)

It's hard enough to be stealthy with a climbing stand on your back. I practice with the .270 at 100 yards, but around here most deer are taken between 30 and 60 yards. The woods are just that thick. Out west you might need to reach way out there for game but the .270 is the best deer hunting rifle for the Southeastern US.

As for the rifle holder, she can also swing a hammer. Here's a picture of us building my workshop and another of the family hiking on Morrow Mountain.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11168461242a278628.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4929)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11168461242a2bfade.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4930)

You should be proud.

[RandFan]

Bah.

.50 BMG is only really good against heavy armor. It's way too loud, and would leave way too big a hole in the deer's hide.

I can't fault your point except to say that the weapon is an excellent long range sniper rifle with confirmed kills in excess of 1 mile, the longest being 1.51 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG). Gives a whole new meaning to reach out and touch someone.

It's also cheaper than a BMW with roughly the same compensating effect.

[Lonewulf]

I can't fault your point except to say that the weapon is an excellent long range sniper rifle with confirmed kills in excess of 1 mile, the longest being 1.51 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG). Gives a whole new meaning to reach out and touch someone.

I won't dispute that point.

Actually, one of the best snipers, I heard (not sure on name and background, though) used a .50 BMG machinegun, but fired it single-fire. It was, essentially, a machinegun used as a sniper rifle. Scary stuff, no?

It's also cheaper than a BMW with roughly the same compensating effect.

Can't quite debate that point, either.

[RandFan]

Actually, one of the best snipers, I heard (not sure on name and background, though) used a .50 BMG machinegun, but fired it single-fire. It was, essentially, a machinegun used as a sniper rifle. Scary stuff, no?The BMG (Browning Machine Gun) sniper rifle is a misnomer. Machine guns are illegal to the public. The rifle that I speak of is a bolt action capable of about 6 rounds a minute but it is still called a BMG.

http://www.edmarms.com/images/m96/edmwr96.jpg

[Taffer]

Oh baby, that's a nice rifle...

[bignickel]

Shouldn't that be called a BFG?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Who want's to carry it through the woods? I'm hunting manhole covers. ;)

Oh, well I guess you need to pick the right tool for the job. I don't know how to field dress a manhole cover.:rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

The BMG (Browning Machine Gun) sniper rifle is a misnomer. Machine guns are illegal to the public.

I know, believe me, you aren't informing me of anything here. You're talking about the BMG sniper rifle, but there was a sniper (before the BMG sniper rifle became readily available) that actually used a machinegun (and I do mean an actual machinegun, an HMG to be precise), using single fire, to "snipe". It was not what the .50 BMG Heavy Machine Gun was necessarily made for, but he still made it work.

Also, aren't "sniper" specifications (which tend to be more accurate than the average hunting rifle) illegal too? I'm not sure about that...

I'm not an expert, I just play one on TV.

The rifle that I speak of is a bolt action capable of about 6 rounds a minute but it is still called a BMG.

6 rounds a minute? One round every 10 seconds? Do they operate more slowly than smaller bolt-action rifles?

I was under the impression that bolt-action rifles, when used by an expert, could fire, optimally, once every two or 3 seconds.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Also, aren't "sniper" specifications (which tend to be more accurate than the average hunting rifle) illegal too? I'm not sure about that...

Naw, I'm pretty sure you can buy a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle without any special permit if you have the cash and the desire. I thought that's what the canadian sniper used to make that incredible shot in Afghanistan. You can buy some pretty amazing scopes as well. That kind of equipment gets pretty expensive, then you have to develop the skills to use it. My deer rifle ended costing me about $900 with the scope mounted and bore sighted. I had to visit the range a few times to get it fine tuned and develop the skills I have with it. You'll spend many thousands on a really accurate sniper rig and many hours getting good at it. There aren't many ranges set up to shoot targets at a thousand yards. That's alot of effort for something with little practical benefit.

You need a federal permit to own anything full-auto.

[RandFan]

6 rounds a minute? One round every 10 seconds? Do they operate more slowly than smaller bolt-action rifles?I was citing some specs that I can't find now so never mind. :o

[thaiboxerken]

The BMG (Browning Machine Gun) sniper rifle is a misnomer. Machine guns are illegal to the public.

Not in Arizona. You can go on machine-gun/humvee tours and go around shooting up the desert if you want, or buy a machine-gun and do it yourself.

[Lonewulf]

I was citing some specs that I can't find now so never mind. :o

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if it was accurate specs. You're still dealing with a large firearm that uses a high-mass (relatively) round, so the mechanics may be harder to work with quickly.

Just seemed a little off to me.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'll bet that you could work the action in under 3 seconds. From triggger squeeze, action, aquire target, to trigger squeeze may be 10 seconds for the average shooter.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I was under the impression that bolt-action rifles, when used by an expert, could fire, optimally, once every two or 3 seconds.
That's just a lie circulated by those who would have you believe Oswald acted alone.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Most of the really long 50-cal shots are accomplished with the Barrett .416 round, btw.

[Lonewulf]

That's just a lie circulated by those who would have you believe Oswald acted alone.

Is this post serious?

I ask because this conspiracy theory actually has some more believers than others.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Should we start a gun thread in either Sports or Science?

[Skeptic Guy]

This thread has gone in a lot better direction than it started!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Is this post serious?
No.

[RenaissanceBiker]

The Gun Thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2491204#post2491204

[Lonewulf]

No.

Good.

[RandFan]

I'll bet that you could work the action in under 3 seconds. From triggger squeeze, action, aquire target, to trigger squeeze may be 10 seconds for the average shooter.On the original machine there was a bolt release that had to be depressed before each single shot, IIRC.

[Dan O.]

I hope you're not planning to tie this discussion back to the original subject.

[RandFan]

I hope you're not planning to tie this discussion back to the original subject.I think it already is which is why the discussion is in the thread in the first place. :)