John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[UserGoogol]

Responsibility is a social construct, and therefore I do not think it should not be taken into consideration when determining the nature of right and wrong. First we define right and wrong, then we decide if a particular social construct such as "responsibility" happens to be right or not.

Right and wrong are happiness and unhappiness. Simple as that. From the point of view of a particular individual, right and wrong are defined with respect to how much happiness it produces, because epistemologically speaking, all a person absolutely knows exists are his mental states. Thus, a situation is good if the corresponding mental state is good. A good mental state is by definition happiness, because happiness is that which "feels good."

If you want an objective standard of ethics, then surely you need to take everyone's opinion. Thus, everything which can be considered to have a mental state should be taken into consideration. Of course, not all minds are capable of the same amount of depth. The depth of a cockroach is far less than the depth of a human, therefore a human should be taken more seriously.

Of course, the question arises why people should act ethically. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean people have any reason to actual obey it. And indeed, there are many situations where it is logical to act unethically.

I suppose a good argument is that, as you say, in order to live a comfortable life in a community of persons, we have to act at least relatively ethically to each other. However, the definition of person is not a discrete thing. For any given creature, it is possible to imagine another creature who is slightly more or less persony. It is possible to create artificial lines of personhood and non-personhood, because as it currently stands, things are neatly divided into human beings (who are clearly persons) and non-humans (who aren't going to be getting involved in social contracts any time soon, at least.) However, I do not think this convenient division will last forever. There are already debates about the borders of personhood regarding fetuses and the like, and I think that as technology advances, we might discover more oddities. (Artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and all sorts of wacky scifi nonsense like that.) Therefore, I think it is more advantageous to all involved parties if we can use a smooth continuous definition of personhood instead of discretely lumping people into person or non-person, and that as a result, we should be ethical to an entity even if we're not sure if said entity is a person. When you construct a continuous definition of ethics, you don't have to worry about borderline cases.

...being as I just topped off my argument by referencing superintelligent computers, feel free to take my argument with a grain of salt. I thought up the "animal rights so we can be ready for cyborgs" argument while writing this post and I'm beginning to question my sanity. Of course my ethical opinons are still very much under construction.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Your use of the term absolute, which I learned from previous threads and postings, lacks recognizable meaning.

Non-argument. There are no absolute or universal morals. End of story.

Quote:

This is the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is.

No, it is simply explaining how humans acquired the means for moral philosophy. "Interests" are the result of evolution.

Quote:

I only use the word "highest" because, as you acknowledge earlier, it is enforceable: the three can decide to murder the one and not commit any ethical wrong-doing.

Yes, "can" decide to murder. From the perspective of the two that is correct. Not "highest" to the third however.

Quote:

You see, you don't need to interrupt the flow of discussion to make this kind of remark.

Wrong. It is necessary because one is not analogous to another. The truth of one is based on objective data. Perspective won't change the truth. The other is relative and there is no objective data. This is where you are making your fatal error.

Quote:

This is confusing now. By admitting that what the majority says "could be [moral]" you are implying that there exists a morality independent of our beliefs.

Your statement is logically invalid. Mine is not. There is no morality independent of OUR beliefs. There are two statements and they are coherent.

1.) I don't hold that what is moral is what the majority says it is.
2.) I hold that what is moral could be what the majority says it is.
3.) There are no axiomatic morals.
4.) If there were we would have to protect the zebra from the lion.

Lion and zebra statement restated because it is axiomatic.

Quote:

It is wrong for a human to hunt and kill a zebra like a lion.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Why should anyone else agree?

Quote:

And why is the propagataion of the species important again?

It might not be. It is a human "interest". Why is any "interest" important?

Quote:

As for the "why not" -- I already said why not right there! Because it's hopelessly arbitrary.

Claiming that it is hopelessly arbitrary is just silly gainsaying. It is a simple mathematical argument. One moral agent alone on a desert island has no need of moral codes.

2 moral agents on a desert island do. Yelling "hopelessly arbitrary" is just sticking your fingers in your ears. If you refuse to accept such a simple concept there is nothing more I can do or say.

Quote:

So what if non-human animals cannot look after the interests of humans.

There is no utility in looking after the interests of those who cannot look after mine.

Quote:

We cannot expect the severly retarded, infants, etc., to look after the interests of rational moral agents. Almost nobody considers that a good argument for eating babies.

Let's be honest enough to admit that eating babies is counter to most of our own feelings based on innate feelings to perpetuate our own species. An argument could be made based on the moral agent philosophy that these examples are not moral agents and therefore could be disposed of or eaten.

Animals don't share such a position in the human psyche because a prohibition against eating animals is not as likely to perpetuate the human race.

[Mycroft]

RandFan,

I really admire your tenacity.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

RandFan,

I really admire your tenacity.

Tenacity? Or OCD?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

RandFan,

I really admire your tenacity.

Originally Posted by Freakshow

Tenacity? Or OCD?

Help, I'm debating and I can't shut up.

[Cain]

RandFan, I'm glad Mycroft is here to give you the occasional reach-around. You need it, as we see from the outset.

Unfortuantely, as has become the case, it's important for me quote my original words just to highlight how poor your responses have become.

Cain:

Quote:

Your use of the term absolute, which I learned from previous threads and postings, lacks recognizable meaning.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Non-argument. There are no absolute or universal morals. End of story.

Interestingly, you accuse me later on of sticking my fingers in my ears. Despite resorting to the old "non-argument" saw -- without argument, I should note -- and several bold assertions, punctuated by rhetortical nonsense (Hell, why not say, "End of story, period"), my remark is an important one. Your use of the term "absolute" has been incorrect -- i.e., in error, wrong -- and I think I settled the matter in my previous posting with the aid of several concrete examples. You never bothered to address that crucial paragraph so I take it we're on the same page now.

Cain:

Quote:

This is the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is.

RandFan:

Quote:

No, it is simply explaining how humans acquired the means for moral philosophy. "Interests" are the result of evolution.

I see: instead of answering the counter-argument, you will restate your (mistaken) assertion. Yes, our "interests" are the product of our evolution. Very good. Again, this harkens back to the normative/descriptive distinction. The central point is that evolutionary pressures do not determine morality (normatively speaking). It is not moral to rape women even if rape is an efficient strategy for the propagation of selfish genes. Do you see the distinction now?

Quote:

Yes, "can" decide to murder. From the perspective of the two that is correct. Not "highest" to the third however.

Ah, so you're equivocating. I "can", for example, murder the person sleeping in the next room. Of course I was never talking about the ability of two people to subdue one (read it over again). I was talking about what is morally permissable, not who is physically capable. That such a simple and fundamental distinction has been lost on you is... inauspicious.

Quote:

Wrong. It is necessary because one is not analogous to another. The truth of one is based on objective data. Perspective won't change the truth. The other is relative and there is no objective data. This is where you are making your fatal error.

Or so you've said multiple times.

Quote:

Your statement is logically invalid. Mine is not. There is no morality independent of OUR beliefs. There are two statements and they are coherent.

1.) I don't hold that what is moral is what the majority says it is.
2.) I hold that what is moral could be what the majority says it is.
3.) There are no axiomatic morals.
4.) If there were we would have to protect the zebra from the lion.

Lion and zebra statement restated because it is axiomatic.

I see you've gone back to repeating yourself without clarification (though adding the muscular rhetoric of logical validity -- sans argument). In the interests of supporting my meat-eating friends, I will point out that 4 does not necessarily follow from 3. The other statements apparently clarify nothing. What did I say that was "logically invalid"? In the section you quoted I was attempting to paraphrase your argument.

Quote:

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Why should anyone else agree [not to kill the Zebra]?

Well, I don't want to spoil the answer for anyone... but I already did. Pages earlier. This is, after all, what the thread fundamentally comes down to.

Quote:

It might not be. It is a human "interest" [to propagate the species]. Why is any "interest" important?

Contemporary evolutionary theorists disagree. First of all, we are propagating our selfish genes, not the "speicies". Since your posts tend to be rich irony I will point out that the view you are espousing goes back to my anarcho-socialist buddy Kropotikin. He was mistaken, unfortunately. See _The Selfish Gene_. In fact, if we believe Dawkins (and we probably should), his provocative thesis claims you have it backwards. It is in the "interest" of genes to create humans. We're merely vessels; vehicles. What does he say again? Something about "lumbering robots"...?

The second question is interesting because previously you claimed to have an answer: Your interests are important because they're yours. Then again, you seem to have a charming disregard for consistency. Which brings me to the next bit of text:

Quote:

Claiming that it is hopelessly arbitrary is just silly gainsaying. It is a simple mathematical argument. One moral agent alone on a desert island has no need of moral codes.

2 moral agents on a desert island do. Yelling "hopelessly arbitrary" is just sticking your fingers in your ears. If you refuse to accept such a simple concept there is nothing more I can do or say.

Now you're just using a poor example. If you recall, I asked why two was important in the context of an entire society. In your example above your entire society consists of only two people. I have said earlier that a moral agent who has no prospects of interacting with any other moral agents, or moral patients, does not have a morality.

Quote:

There is no utility in looking after the interests of those who cannot look after mine.

This is demonstrably false (a phrase you like to use to no effect). Of course there is utility in aiding those who cannot reciprocate. I think you mean there's "nothing in it for you", which deals with personal utility. I thought I dispensed of this short-sighted egoism a while ago.

Quote:

Let's be honest enough to admit that eating babies is counter to most of our own feelings based on innate feelings to perpetuate our own species. An argument could be made based on the moral agent philosophy that these examples are not moral agents and therefore could be disposed of or eaten.

This is an argument that rests on a couple of false premises. 1) Who cares if eating babies goes against our own feelings? What do you say to the sort of person who strongly feels that he should rape lots and lots of women? 2) This talk about perpetuating our species is mistaken for reasons enunciated above. In fact, the example offerred here (and earlier) is more consistent because it emphasizes *selfish genes*.

I would like to make a few concluding remarks. Your arguments have taken several different approaches that most decent conservatives should find horrifying: majoritarian domination, moral relativism, and appeals to emotion. What's funny is that if I said anything remotely as crazy, hordes of right-wing troglodytes would descend on this thread faster than Republican politicans spend money.

[RandFan]

{non-argument snipped}

Quote:

The central point is that evolutionary pressures do not determine morality (normatively speaking). It is not moral to rape women even if rape is an efficient strategy for the propagation of selfish genes. Do you see the distinction now?

What you don't see is that this is not my argument. In this case I'm not justifying any specific behavior I'm explaining the foundations of that behavior.

Quote:

Ah, so you're equivocating.

No, I'm stating logically consistent argument.

Quote:

I was talking about what is morally permissable, not who is physically capable.

So was I. In a society of 3 people what is morally permissable is what two people agree is morally permissible. You are demonstrating over and over the inability to grasp that morals are not absolute.

Quote:

Or so you've said multiple times.

Because it is true.

Quote:

In the interests of supporting my meat-eating friends, I will point out that 4 does not necessarily follow from 3.

If murder is wrong for me then it is wrong for the lion. Yes, it does follow.

Quote:

What did I say that was "logically invalid"?

You said:

Quote:

By admitting that what the majority says "could be [moral]" you are implying that there exists a morality independent of our beliefs.

No, that is invalid. I'm saying that morality is dependent (to an extent) on our beliefs (that IS my point). MY belief however is that morality is not simply what the majority says it is unless the majority truly believed what they said it was.

If the majority wants the possesions of the minority it is not moral for them to simply take from the minority for selfish purposes. However if the majority truly believed that it was moral to take from the minority then it would be so.

Just because you and I share a belief does not mean that another incapable of a different perspective.

Both of those positions are logically valid. Your statement is not.

Quote:

In the section you quoted I was attempting to paraphrase your argument.

Thus the source of the problem. Stick with what I say and not what you think I say.

Quote:

... but I already did.

I'm sure you think you did.

Quote:

RandFan
It is a human "interest" [to propagate the species]

Contemporary evolutionary theorists disagree. First of all, we are propagating our selfish genes, not the "speicies".

A meaningless distinction.

Quote:

It is in the "interest" of genes to create humans. We're merely vessels; vehicles.

I absolutely agree. At TAM4 this week Dennet explained that sheep herders are used by sheep to propagate the sheep. Domestic sheep are far more successful than their wild counterparts.

Quote:

The second question is interesting because previously you claimed to have an answer: Your interests are important because they're yours.

They are important to me. Your interests are important to you. If they were not they would not be "interests". This does not obviate the question of "why is any interest important". That they are does not explain why. Also, to simply ask "why an interest is important" is not to suggest that they are not important. Don't read into my question what is not there.

Quote:

Now you're just using a poor example. If you recall, I asked why two was important in the context of an entire society.

Then you are failing to grasp what I am saying. In a society of 3, 2 are sufficient to declare what is moral (assuming they truly believe that which they declare). In a society of 4, 3 are sufficient.

Quote:

I have said earlier that a moral agent who has no prospects of interacting with any other moral agents, or moral patients, does not have a morality.

Then stop claiming that I am arbitrary.

Morals are not absolute.

1.) If the majority believed that killing the minority where moral then that is moral. You may find that notion unsettling but there is simply no way around it.

2.) If the majority didn't believe that killing the minority was moral but killed the minority for selfish purposes any way and they knew that what they were doing was wrong and acted contrary to their beliefs then their act would be immoral.

Quote:

Of course there is utility in aiding those who cannot reciprocate.

Agreed. I was impercise. The utility of aiding non humans is not the same as aiding humans. If I treat a human with respect I am more likely to gain respect. I am more likely to survive in a society that values human life therefore it is incumbent on me to value human life.

Valuing the life of a pack of wolves will not increase the likelyhood of my survival.

Quote:

I think you mean there's "nothing in it for you"...

Actually there is. If I'm a sheep herder there is utility to tending to my flock.

Quote:

This is an argument that rests on a couple of false premises. 1) Who cares if eating babies goes against our own feelings?

I care. Those who believe it wrong will work to protect babies.

Quote:

What do you say to the sort of person who strongly feels that he should rape lots and lots of women?

I would say that society has decreed that it is wrong and that those who do eat babies will be punished if they are caught.

Society you see has a way to increase the chances that members adhere to the moral codes of society. It is called punishment.

Quote:

2) This talk about perpetuating our species is mistaken for reasons enunciated above. In fact, the example offerred here (and earlier) is more consistent because it emphasizes *selfish genes*.

Again, a meaningless distinction. The "selfish gene" ensured that we would care to propagate the species. It is an "interest" to humans regardless of its origin just as sheepherders are an "interest" to sheep.

Quote:

I would like to make a few concluding remarks. Your arguments have taken several different approaches that most decent conservatives should find horrifying: majoritarian domination, moral relativism, and appeals to emotion. What's funny is that if I said anything remotely as crazy, hordes of right-wing troglodytes would descend on this thread faster than Republican politicans spend money.

1. I'm not a conservative.
2. I don't claim to speak for anyone else.
3. I don't believe in the domination of the majority. I point out that majority domination could be moral if the majority believed that such domination was moral.
4. I do not appeal to emotion. I point out that emotions are in part a basis for morality. Caring about other people is an emotion. Caring about animals is an emotion. If we didn't care then there would be no morals. The trick is to craft moral codes that are rational and not simply emotional so as to be equitable, to maximize benifits and to ensure our own intersts.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

{non-argument snipped}
What you don't see is that this is not my argument. In this case I'm not justifying any specific behavior I'm explaining the foundations of that behavior.

*sigh... stares past the monitor* How many times must this be pointed out? I wholly accept (for the purposes of this discussion) any and all neo-Darwinian narratives as functional explanations for human and non-human behavior. However, this does not play a prominent role in the ethics of refraining from eating animals, or as a rational argument in favor of eating animals.

Quote:

No, I'm stating logically consistent argument.

Well, that settles it.

Quote:

In a society of 3 people what is morally permissable is what two people agree is morally permissible. You are demonstrating over and over the inability to grasp that morals are not absolute.

As I've said, your first statement leads to absurd conclusions: it is morally permissable for two people to torture, flay, and set afire the pariah of the group. The second statement -- accusation, really -- has become tiresome. If in your mind you think aboslute = universal, then just say universal.

[snip]

Quote:

If murder is wrong for me then it is wrong for the lion. Yes, it does follow.

No; "murder" is a loaded term with a highly specific legal meaning. This is actually where a kind of "moral relativism" would apply. Lions kill; they do not commit murder.

Quote:

You said:
No, that is invalid. I'm saying that morality is dependent (to an extent) on our beliefs (that IS my point). MY belief however is that morality is not simply what the majority says it is unless the majority truly believed what they said it was.

This seems to be a difference without a distinction. Barring special circumstances we might as well trust that people believe what they say. When people lie about what they "truly believe", as some do on issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia, then is exactly because they find dominant social norms intimidating.

Quote:

If the majority wants the possesions of the minority it is not moral for them to simply take from the minority for selfish purposes. However if the majority truly believed that it was moral to take from the minority then it would be so.

Provide a concrete example. Were segregation and slavery morally unimpeachable because people believed in those institutions, laws and norms?

Let me just say that you've added another level of confusion and incoherence to the views espoused here. Now you're saying motives crucially matter. To compound difficulties, whereas earlier you were an apologist for egoism, now you're saying selfishness could void the views of the moral majority.

Quote:

Thus the source of the problem. Stick with what I say and not what you think I say.

On the contrary, the source of the problem -- a problem -- is your inability to cogently express your inherently muddled views. Taking an example at random: I can only believe what I think you're saying, and vice-versa.

Quote:

A meaningless distinction.

Not at all. I'm rather certain Dawkins spends the better part of a chapter fleshing out the distinction.

Quote:

They are important to me. Your interests are important to you. If they were not they would not be "interests".

This is only true in a vacuous (i.e., tautological) sense.

Quote:

This does not obviate the question of "why is any interest important". That they are does not explain why. Also, to simply ask "why an interest is important" is not to suggest that they are not important. Don't read into my question what is not there.

You had already said an interest was important because it was yours. Revealingly you later went on to confuse utility with self-advantage.

Quote:

Then you are failing to grasp what I am saying. In a society of 3, 2 are sufficient to declare what is moral (assuming they truly believe that which they declare). In a society of 4, 3 are sufficient.

Now let us take a blast to the past:

Quote:

Where does this moral calculus come from? I ask because it's strikingly arbitrary. Why not three people, or three thousand people?

Quote:

The number requires at least two. Any group of people require morals for social cohesion and to protect members from anarchy and to ensure the propagation of the species.

Here you could have very easily said, "oh, yes, three people would be the appropriate number in a society of four." Instead you couched your rationale in stability and the by now well-worn canard of "propagating the species".

Quote:

1.) If the majority believed that killing the minority where moral then that is moral. You may find that notion unsettling but there is simply no way around it.

2.) If the majority didn't believe that killing the minority was moral but killed the minority for selfish purposes any way and they knew that what they were doing was wrong and acted contrary to their beliefs then their act would be immoral.

The problem with 2) is that humans are very, very good at rationalizing their behavior. It would be almost impossibly difficult to peer into another's soul -- so to speak -- and understand what she "truly" believes.

Quote:

Agreed. I was impercise. The utility of aiding non humans is not the same as aiding humans. If I treat a human with respect I am more likely to gain respect. I am more likely to survive in a society that values human life therefore it is incumbent on me to value human life.

But then this just tells us -- and it is consistent with subjective egoism -- to go ahead and be free-riders, which, incidentally, results in sub-optimal outcomes.

Quote:

Valuing the life of a pack of wolves will not increase the likelyhood of my survival.

Here again I see a conundrum. What if I valued a pack of wolves, or went on some politically correct crusade, because it got me laid? That is to say, I did not "truly" believe in it, but it brought me fame, fortune, mates.

Quote:

I care. Those who believe it wrong will work to protect babies.

And on what grounds? On what grounds could you then possibly criticize any proponent of animal rights/liberation/obligations?

[rest snipped, mostly because I am short on time]

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Cain

No; "murder" is a loaded term with a highly specific legal meaning. This is actually where a kind of "moral relativism" would apply. Lions kill; they do not commit murder.

Nonsense. The legal meaning of "murder" does not apply to the lion precisely because it is an animal and not a human. If you are going to compare the morality of animals to humans you must ignore such distinctions.

[Cylinder]

Is sex with animals considered abusive?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Nonsense. The legal meaning of "murder" does not apply to the lion precisely because it is an animal and not a human. If you are going to compare the morality of animals to humans you must ignore such distinctions.

If a baby were to knock a knife onto the back of his mother as she cleaned up the juice he spilled, killing her, no one would go on a fact-finding mission to determine if the baby had murdered his mother. In fact, I think we'd consider that ridiculous. Premedited malice is essential in the legal definition of murder (and differentiates between various types of homicide), and that does not seem to be a quality that animals or infants possess (at least, not as we generally understand it).

That the victim must be human is a simple instance of speciesism. Again, there are no morally relevant qualities to distinguish a baby from a dog--the dog is in every imaginable way more personable--yet we consider infanticide murder.

This would not be the first time that our legal system rendered morally arbitrary distinctions.

[Paulhoff]

Murder all depends on your society. If you live in a tribe and you kill someone in another tribe you are having war with, then it isn’t murder. If it is a friendly tribe, now there may be war, and if they don’t know who killed whom, then it is less competition for resources and still not murder. If it is someone from your own tribe, and they know you did it, now it is murder. Murder is a concept of humankind, and its laws, it is no more then that.

Now about animals, I saw a show about wild Africa dogs. The alpha female dog of the pack did not like one of the another lower females of the pack. And she killed one by one the another female’s pups, all but one, and when then the pack traveled to a new location the alpha female would not let the mother dog help it’s pup as they traveled, and the pup got further and further behind. The camera crew finally stepped in and helped the pup. Do some animals know how to murder, the answer is yes.

Paul

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

If a baby were to knock a knife onto the back of his mother as she cleaned up the juice he spilled, killing her, no one would go on a fact-finding mission to determine if the baby had murdered his mother.

If a bull were to accidently knock over some bales of hay that crushed a cowboy, nobody would hold the bull responsible for the accident. If the same bull were to get angry and trample a cowboy to death, then off to the slaughterhouse it goes.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

If a bull were to accidently knock over some bales of hay that crushed a cowboy, nobody would hold the bull responsible for the accident. If the same bull were to get angry and trample a cowboy to death, then off to the slaughterhouse it goes.

Sure, but would we characterize this as punishment for a murder?

Richard Dawkins has an interesting answer to the Edge's recent World Question ("What is your dangerous idea?"). He points out that this idea of retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with science, and something that we consider absurd unless it is directed at an actor we feel should know better.

Strangely, accusing animals of 'murder' implies a very strong animal rights perspective; by arguing that they are capable of murder, we effectively afford them not only status as a moral patient, but personhood.

Of course, I think what's missing here is the idea of premeditation, which implies an ability to plan someone's death, and I don't think it's something a bull could do. Killing someone in a fit of passion is not quite the same thing as premeditated malice, which is why we have this popular notion of crimes of passion (I don't think this has any particular legal weight, but it's a successful defense strategy).

[Mycroft]

But certainly the lion premeditates the death of the gazelle.

[Paulhoff]

So the lion should eat grass, and or go to the supermarket. I am sure that a dead gazelle would be easier.

Paul

[Cain]

Quote:

Nonsense. The legal meaning of "murder" does not apply to the lion precisely because it is an animal and not a human. If you are going to compare the morality of animals to humans you must ignore such distinctions.

This is a simple confusion, addressed earlier, but I'll add my toothpick to the pile. Murder does not apply to animals -- including some animals who happen to be human -- because they lack the capacity to murder. A non-human animal, like some human animals (i.e., aforementioned marginal cases), cannot be blamed for its actions. If you think that they can be held responsible -- and remember that responsibility has been the standard for moral agency throughout this thread -- then you're taking a stance that goes well beyond most animal rights activists. In order to reconcile this with your lifestyle choices you'd have to believe -- oh, I dunno -- that predatory non-humans somehow overwhelmingly choose to do evil. Except for dolphins. Dolphins would have to be made honorary citizens because they murder sharks. Plus they're cute. Almost everyone loves dolphins, except for sharks.

Quote:

If a bull were to accidently knock over some bales of hay that crushed a cowboy, nobody would hold the bull responsible for the accident. If the same bull were to get angry and trample a cowboy to death, then off to the slaughterhouse it goes.

What do you think is the reason it goes to the slaughterhouse? Mumblethrax assumes you're talking about punishment for murder. Is that so? Instead I think the rationale for killing the bull is that it presents a danger to human society. Incidentally punishment, as Dawkins explains in the cited _Edge_ piece, is "unenlightened" even when it comes to humans. Or at least that's what I remember him saying.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

But certainly the lion premeditates the death of the gazelle.

Yes indeed. He plots it days in advance, draws up a detailed schematic, and then puts his diabolical plan into motion. A little known fact: Roadrunner cartoons are based on true events. Do you think lions have malicious intentions? Maybe, just maybe, they cannot choose to do otherwise. Maybe.

Paulhoff

Quote:

Murder all depends on your society. If you live in a tribe and you kill someone in another tribe you are having war with, then it isn’t murder. If it is a friendly tribe, now there may be war, and if they don’t know who killed whom, then it is less competition for resources and still not murder. If it is someone from your own tribe, and they know you did it, now it is murder. Murder is a concept of humankind, and its laws, it is no more then that.

Yes, indeed. This is why I said murder is troublesome concept. Anti-choice n activists claim that "abortion is murder". Well, in a legal sense that's just not true. Maybe it "ought" to be the case if, as anti-choicers believe, the law were applied consistently.

In a discussion of ethics it might make more sense to talk about "justified" and "unjustified" killing in the context of accountability.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

*sigh...

There is no need to sigh. I'm just answering your question.

Quote:

Well, that settles it.

Yes, it does.

Quote:

As I've said, your first statement leads to absurd conclusions: it is morally permissable for two people to torture, flay, and set afire the pariah of the group.

Why is that absurd? It is only absurd from a perspective that sees such behavior as immoral. Are the criminally insane absurd to the criminally insane? To me it is immoral but I'm capable of viewing the world outside of my own moral perspective. A coyote eating baby ducks is understandable from the perspective of the coyote.

Quote:

Lions kill; they do not commit murder.

And now you have your solution. Lions are amoral. Lions and humans don't share the same responsibilities, interests or rights because Lions are not moral agents and humans are.

Quote:

This seems to be a difference without a distinction.

On the contrary. I don't think a coyote eating baby ducks is a good thing. It is sad. But I can't enforce my moral code on the coyote. If there were a group of people who like the coyote had a different perspective where such behavior were moral then the majority would be moral but I would still see the actions as immoral.

Quote:

Provide a concrete example. Were segregation and slavery morally unimpeachable because people believed in those institutions, laws and norms?

"Unimpeachable"? Not relevant to my argument. What are the moral perspectives of the people who believed in those institutions and why? Could the people you refer to be seen as behaving morally? Perhaps. For many who did practice slavery I would have to say no. They knew better. For many if not the vast majority of those who practiced slavery I would say that they went out on a limb to justify their actions.

Quote:

Let me just say that you've added another level of confusion and incoherence to the views espoused here. Now you're saying motives crucially matter. To compound difficulties, whereas earlier you were an apologist for egoism, now you're saying selfishness could void the views of the moral majority.

My view has not changed. An amoral person like the lion cannot act in an immoral manner. A person who truly believes that he or she is acting morally or amorally then it is so.

{tiresome rhetoric snipped}

Quote:

Not at all. I'm rather certain Dawkins spends the better part of a chapter fleshing out the distinction.

Not for the purpose of our discussion which Dennet so eloquently demonstrates.

Quote:

This is only true in a vacuous (i.e., tautological) sense.

Just stating the obvious and the relevant because you fail to take it into account.

Quote:

The problem with 2) is that humans are very, very good at rationalizing their behavior. It would be almost impossibly difficult to peer into another's soul -- so to speak -- and understand what she "truly" believes.

No "problem". One can rationalize all he or she wants. Rationalizing doesn't make something ok.

Quote:

Here again I see a conundrum. What if I valued a pack of wolves, or went on some politically correct crusade, because it got me laid? That is to say, I did not "truly" believe in it, but it brought me fame, fortune, mates.

Whatever floats your boat. I think I understand your point but I think you will need a better example.

Quote:

And on what grounds?

Innate sense.

Quote:

On what grounds could you then possibly criticize any proponent of animal rights/liberation/obligations?

"Any"? I support many organizations who work to reduce animal suffering. I criticize those who would set humans as second priority or who act irrationally.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

There is no need to sigh. I'm just answering your question.

Sorry, I'm just expressing my frustration. I must say, I think you're just making up things as you go along: from invoking Cohen to impresice language relating "absolute" morality and legalisms such as "murder." Here's another main sticking point:

Quote:

Why is that absurd? It is only absurd from a perspective that sees such behavior as immoral. Are the criminally insane absurd to the criminally insane? To me it is immoral but I'm capable of viewing the world outside of my own moral perspective. A coyote eating baby ducks is understandable from the perspective of the coyote.

There's not much purpose discussing animal rights because you don't even believe in basic human rights. I do find it curious how you conveniently venture off into the realm of relativism -- where all views, no matter how silly, are rendered equal -- when discussing the subject of non-human animals.

Quote:

Lions are amoral. Lions and humans don't share the same responsibilities, interests or rights because Lions are not moral agents and humans are.

I can fully agree with these statements, though I would add a slight nuance: most humans are moral agents. Notice this leads to a substantive distinction. We can slightly reword your observation: Not all humans share the same responsibilities, interests or rights because some humans are moral agents and some are not.

Quote:

On the contrary. I don't think a coyote eating baby ducks is a good thing. It is sad. But I can't enforce my moral code on the coyote. If there were a group of people who like the coyote had a different perspective where such behavior were moral then the majority would be moral but I would still see the actions as immoral.

First off, virtually no one is advocating an activist role for humans in the animal kingdom. Indeed, the animal rights crowd takes a rather laissez-faire stance. So it's not a matter of you "enforcing" your "moral code" on a coyote vis-a-vis ducks. Instead we're talking about how humans treat animals, mostly domesticated animals. You have already agreed that it is legitimate to set limits on what humans can do with animals (see above anti-cruelty posts).

Quote:

"Unimpeachable"? Not relevant to my argument. What are the moral perspectives of the people who believed in those institutions and why? Could the people you refer to be seen as behaving morally? Perhaps. For many who did practice slavery I would have to say no. They knew better. For many if not the vast majority of those who practiced slavery I would say that they went out on a limb to justify their actions.

I'm not going to bother disputing our respective impressions of different times and places in history. Again, it doesn't matter to me whether or not I know what people believed "deep down"; that's just a profoundly confused approach to morality, in my opinion. I can also turn it on its head: many Americans don't want to meet their meat because they're afraid of what they'll find out, so animal consumption might be immoral.

I want to add that your relativist views encounter a problem of geography. What is the relevant society? What if the majority in an insulated town believes in X, Y, Z, as does the region, but the state/country disagrees? What majority are we talking about when it comes to morality? State structures? Because I share more in common with citizens in "foreign" cosmopolitan cities than farmers in bumf*ck, Alabama.

That opinions change (mostly driven by demographics) are also gives rise to another absurdity in this relativist scheming.

Quote:

My view has not changed. An amoral person like the lion cannot act in an immoral manner. A person who truly believes that he or she is acting morally or amorally then it is so.

So if you're a self-deluded homophobic, racist, misogynist, and you have an intense dittohead following, then those views can give rise to legitimate political institutions.

Quote:

Not for the purpose of our discussion which Dennet so eloquently demonstrates.

Just stating the obvious and the relevant because you fail to take it into account.

The first statement is puzzling. The second is wrong. Neither is important.

Quote:

No "problem". One can rationalize all he or she wants. Rationalizing doesn't make something ok.

Whatever floats your boat. I think I understand your point but I think you will need a better example.

Innate sense.

"Any"? I support many organizations who work to reduce animal suffering. I criticize those who would set humans as second priority or who act irrationally.

This is just emotivist agent relative "morality." There's little or nothing to add. I trust that in the future, when threads come up relating to homophobes, racists, rapists, murderers, torturers, dictators, anything that contradicts your market fundamentalist beliefs etc., you will say, "Yes, well, that viewpoint is as equally valid as anyone else's.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Sorry, I'm just expressing my frustration. I must say, I think you're just making up things as you go along: from invoking Cohen to impresice language relating "absolute" morality and legalisms such as "murder."

{blah blah blah}

Quote:

There's not much purpose discussing animal rights because you don't even believe in basic human rights.

Absolutely not true and this doesn't follow from anything I have said.

Quote:

I do find it curious how you conveniently venture off into the realm of relativism -- where all views, no matter how silly, are rendered equal -- when discussing the subject of non-human animals.

No.

Quote:

Indeed, the animal rights crowd takes a rather laissez-faire stance.

Precisely. The interests of animals is out of sight out of mind when humans are not involved.

Quote:

Instead we're talking about how humans treat animals...

But it is important to understand that you want the interests of animals considered on one hand but not the other.

Quote:

You have already agreed that it is legitimate to set limits on what humans can do with animals (see above anti-cruelty posts).

Yes. And please note that I have also agreed that laws that would curtail or eliminate animal domestication and the consumption of meat could also be legitimate.

Quote:

Again, it doesn't matter to me whether or not I know what people believed "deep down"; that's just a profoundly confused approach to morality, in my opinion.

Well you are entitled to your opinion but it is not one rooted in science.

Quote:

I want to add that your relativist views encounter a problem of geography. What is the relevant society? What if the majority in an insulated town believes in X, Y, Z, as does the region, but the state/country disagrees? What majority are we talking about when it comes to morality? State structures? Because I share more in common with citizens in "foreign" cosmopolitan cities than farmers in bumf*ck, Alabama.

?

You are outlining a classic ethical problem as though I discovered it or that it only exists in the abstract. This is Ethics 101.

Quote:

Comparative morality among cultures

There has been considerable work done in studying comparative morality among cultures. To such researchers, morality is not seen as a constant essential "truth" but as a series of values that is influenced by (and influences) the cultural context. One well known commentator is Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, which (among other values) tested the proposition of what expectation did the driver of a car expect to have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that in different cultures there were quite different expectations (from none to almost certain), and in some cultures it mattered whether the pedestrian died what assistance would be expected.

Quote:

That opinions change (mostly driven by demographics) are also gives rise to another absurdity in this relativist scheming.

"Absurdity"? You might want to avoid any courses in ethics.

You can't really escape the moral conflicts based on ideology, theology, age, sex, etc. This is the subject of much research on the part of social anthropologists. You might want to let them know that their research is absurd.

Quote:

So if you're a self-deluded homophobic, racist, misogynist, and you have an intense dittohead following, then those views can give rise to legitimate political institutions.

"Self-deluded"? I never said self delusion was basis for morality. I understand your point but it misses the point.

Quote:

The first statement is puzzling. The second is wrong. Neither is important.

No reason to be puzzled. Dennet's explanation which I posted earlier is pretty self-explanatory. And yes, they are important.

Quote:

I trust that in the future, when threads come up relating to homophobes, racists, rapists, murderers, torturers, dictators, anything that contradicts your market fundamentalist beliefs etc., you will say, "Yes, well, that viewpoint is as equally valid as anyone else's.

That would be fine if there were any reason for me to believe that. This has nothing to do with my position.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

{blah blah blah}

Absolutely not true and this doesn't follow from anything I have said.

I suggest you look up human rights, or see how it's used. It is a universal ("absolute") ethic that applies to humans everywhere, regardless of culture or the majority's beliefs in those cultures. It is defined in contradistinction to the relativism you're espousing. That you cannot stomach these (rather straightforward) implications testifies to the ad hoc nature of the hodgepodge of arguments endured thus far.

Quote:

Precisely. The interests of animals is out of sight out of mind when humans are not involved.

But it is important to understand that you want the interests of animals considered on one hand but not the other.

Humans are at the forefront of abuses against animals. Furthermore, these abuses can be prevented and stopped *because* we're moral agents. In simple utilitarian terms, it makes sense for those concerned to focus on mistreatment as it is perpetrated by humans.

We can't really do anything about lions killing zebras, recreating Eden in accordance with our utopian fantasies. If we could, then we should... but we can't (at the moment).

Quote:

Yes. And please note that I have also agreed that laws that would curtail or eliminate animal domestication and the consumption of meat could also be legitimate.

Yes, they could be legitimate, but it seems you cannot generate free-standing arguments to justify anything as everythings is "relative".

Quote:

Well you are entitled to your opinion but it is not one rooted in science.

I rather despise it when people tell me I'm "entitled" to my opinion. Yes, I am, and that goes without saying. You're also entitled to *your* own opinion, but not your own facts. I'm not sure how you can suggest that the viewpoint you expressed earlier -- what people "truly" believe -- is somehow rooted in science. First of all, ethics (normative philosophy) is not rooted in science, in spite of the numerous deductive errors that litter this thread. Science can tell us, for instance when a fetus can feel pain, or when it becomes viable; science cannot tell us if sensation and viability are morally significant attributes.

Your "science" only goes as far as polling opinions, and even then you have to resort to Oprah-like art of deciding what people "really" feel. Science informs our morality, it does not determine our morality (as just about any evolutionary psychologist worth her weight in sh*t cautions readers).

"My genes can go jump in a lake for all I care." -- (paraphrasing Steven Pinker)

[quote]You are outlining a classic ethical problem as though I discovered it or that it only exists in the abstract. This is Ethics 101.

I'm not going to bother expressing how pathetic this comment is. The quote is rather more of the same smattering of Wikipedia-Google faux-expertise I've had to endure throughout this thread. Yes, of course there are different expectations in different cultures on moral matters. (Compare and contrast the views of women in the middle-east with Northern Europe). How does this in any conceivable way address my comments?

Quote:

"Absurdity"? You might want to avoid any courses in ethics.

You can't really escape the moral conflicts based on ideology, theology, age, sex, etc. This is the subject of much research on the part of social anthropologists. You might want to let them know that their research is absurd.

I've already taken my courses in ethics. And now, again, not to appeal to authority -- but I *teach* them. My comment on "absurdity" -- *sigh* -- once again goes to *normative* conceptions.

Let me say this one final time, and you can obstinately ignore it again at your own peril.

What is considered moral differs from person to person, culture to culture. Fact. The crucial, crucial, crucial word here, however, is "considered." Without this distinction the sentence seems to express your views. Human rights activists (not animal rights activists) argue, for example, that torture is wrong everywhere, regardless of where you're from or what people in close geographical proximity happen to believe.

Since we're talking about basic ethics, I'm interested in which academic books you've read on the subject. I'm sure I could count them on one fist.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

I suggest you look up human rights, or see how it's used. It is a universal ("absolute") ethic that applies to humans everywhere, regardless of culture or the majority's beliefs in those cultures.

?

Come again? What does this have to do with the point at hand.

Quote:

It is defined in contradistinction to the relativism you're espousing.

And I agree with them. So what? What is that supposed to prove?

Quote:

Humans are at the forefront of abuses against animals.

Please to demonstrate?

Quote:

Furthermore, these abuses can be prevented and stopped *because* we're moral agents. In simple utilitarian terms, it makes sense for those concerned to focus on mistreatment as it is perpetrated by humans.

I'm for ending mistreatment. Of course you would have to define mistreatment. Our definitions don't sync I'm afraid.

Quote:

We can't really do anything about lions killing zebras, recreating Eden in accordance with our utopian fantasies. If we could, then we should... but we can't (at the moment).

So we yawn and shrug our shoulders. We are only bothered by predation when perpetrated by humans.

Quote:

Yes, they could be legitimate, but it seems you cannot generate free-standing arguments to justify anything as everythings is "relative".

I don't hold that all things are equal. Only that morals are relative. Please don't put words in mouth.

Quote:

I rather despise it when people tell me I'm "entitled" to my opinion. Yes, I am, and that goes without saying.

As long as you are spouting it I will continue to let you know that you are entitled to it.

Quote:

Science can tell us, for instance when a fetus can feel pain, or when it becomes viable; science cannot tell us if sensation and viability are morally significant attributes.

Agreed. That is my point.

Quote:

Science informs our morality, it does not determine our morality...

No argument.

Quote:

Yes, of course there are different expectations in different cultures on moral matters. (Compare and contrast the views of women in the middle-east with Northern Europe). How does this in any conceivable way address my comments?

I don't know how it could be any clearer. It directly address your comments. It demonstrates that perceptions about morality change from culture to culture.

Quote:

I've already taken my courses in ethics. And now, again, not to appeal to authority -- but I *teach* them.

{Too easy}

Quote:

What is considered moral differs from person to person, culture to culture. Fact. The crucial, crucial, crucial word here, however, is "considered." Without this distinction the sentence seems to express your views.

And what does it mean to be "considered"? Morality does not exist in a vacuum. It's not something that is written in our genome or on stone tablets. Morality is a human construct. Without consideration, without perception there is no morality (see lion example above).

Quote:

Human rights activists (not animal rights activists) argue, for example, that torture is wrong everywhere...

And I agree. However that does not mean that the immorality of torture is an absolute. Human rights activists did not come to their conclusions absent cultural influence and empathy (which could be argued is simply a fluke of nature). These things shaped their perceptions and can't be removed from the equation.

Quote:

Since we're talking about basic ethics, I'm interested in which academic books you've read on the subject. I'm sure I could count them on one fist.

Obviously the books you have read, if any, haven't given you a basic understanding of how culture has shaped morals.

As to your question, counting course text books in ethics, psychology, and sociology I have probably read less than 10 books.

That you pose the following question says much about your understanding of ethics.

In your previous post you said:

Quote:

What if the majority in an insulated town believes in X, Y, Z, as does the region, but the state/country disagrees?

This is a classic moral dilemma and one should expect it to be addressed in rudimentary ethics courses throughout the world. Like I said, it is Ethics 101. Yet here you are asking me the question as if it should prove something counter to current paradigms. I have to say that truly amazes me. How you can teach ethics and pose such a question as though it proves something counter to my position is rather odd. The question doesn't prove anything. It only demonstrates the very real moral dilemmas that have confounded humans for thousands of years. But here you are solving the problem simply by asking the question and assuming that it proves something.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Since we're talking about basic ethics, I'm interested in which academic books you've read on the subject. I'm sure I could count them on one fist.

BTW, the question is fallacy and intended by you to be a gotcha. As if the number of books that either of us have read proves something. The number of books that you or I have read won't change the validity of our argument.

[monoman]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Is sex with animals considered abusive?

Sex with animals is non consensual (if the human is doing the do) so could be considered abuse. You'd have to ask the animal.
The killing of an animal executed correctly doesn't cause any suffering (assuming there's no strong bonds with other animals)

Aside from that, eurgh!

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by monoman

Sex with animals is non consensual (if the human is doing the do) so could be considered abuse. You'd have to ask the animal.
The killing of an animal executed correctly doesn't cause any suffering (assuming there's no strong bonds with other animals)

Aside from that, eurgh!

I dunno. I've seen cats in heat that would consent.

[monoman]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I dunno. I've seen cats in heat that would consent.

My own (tom) cat used to have a penchant for getting 'down' with my arm. No idea why he was so attracted to that.
I have to admit it made me feel special, but the nads had to go!

[Cain]

Quote:

BTW, the question is fallacy and intended by you to be a gotcha. As if the number of books that either of us have read proves something. The number of books that you or I have read won't change the validity of our argument.

Wait a second, you're the one pretending to lecture on "Ethics 101" while basically having no clue of the definitions and terms you're bandying about. It's only a fallacy, by the way, if I conclude that your arguments on X, Y, Z are invalidated by lack of study. Instead I can rationally conclude that you're not very well informed (which is what I've been suspecting for years, based on dozens and dozens of posts).

Originally Posted by RandFan

?

Come again? What does this have to do with the point at hand.

That you have no idea what human rights are while taking inconsistent positions.

Quote:

And I agree with them. So what? What is that supposed to prove?

Uh, that there's an internal contradiction in your belief system.

Quote:

Please to demonstrate? I'm for ending mistreatment. Of course you would have to define mistreatment. Our definitions don't sync I'm afraid.

This is kind of what the thread is about. What constitutes an "abuse" depends on respective paradigms of morality. Your shifting definition of what "mistreatment" means is contingent upon on the muddled "true" beliefs of some vaguely defined "moral society." The disagreement is far more fundamental, as I've emphasized in these last few postings.

Quote:

I don't hold that all things are equal. Only that morals are relative. Please don't put words in mouth.

Please read the sentence you're pretending to reply to again before putting your foot in your mouth. Thanks!

Quote:

Agreed. That is my point.

Quote:

And what does it mean to be "considered"? Morality does not exist in a vacuum. It's not something that is written in our genome or on stone tablets. Morality is a human construct. Without consideration, without perception there is no morality (see lion example above).

"Considered" as in what people believe. What person A believes is moral differs from what person B believes is moral. The fact that these beliefs diverge -- that they are mutually exclusive -- does not mean morality is "relative", or subjective. This is "relativism" in the most superficial way (instantiated, incidentially, by your posts).

[quote And I agree. However that does not mean that the immorality of torture is an absolute. Human rights activists did not come to their conclusions absent cultural influence and empathy (which could be argued is simply a fluke of nature). These things shaped their perceptions and can't be removed from the equation.[/quote]

Of course everyone carries on board their epistemological baggage: from being born human and being socialized at a particular time and place. Culture influences all kinds of beliefs: whether we were created from animals, or created by God, sexual mores, etc.

Quote:

Obviously the books you have read, if any, haven't given you a basic understanding of how culture has shaped morals.

Oh, yes, that weasel word "obviously" -- the one you constantly invoke when making a shaky allegation.

You're *still* failing to distinguish the different senses of morality.

Quote:

This is a classic moral dilemma and one should expect it to be addressed in rudimentary ethics courses throughout the world. Like I said, it is Ethics 101. Yet here you are asking me the question as if it should prove something counter to current paradigms. I have to say that truly amazes me. How you can teach ethics and pose such a question as though it proves something counter to my position is rather odd. The question doesn't prove anything. It only demonstrates the very real moral dilemmas that have confounded humans for thousands of years. But here you are solving the problem simply by asking the question and assuming that it proves something.

It's not a "moral dilemma" as the common usage has it. It is an argument that challenges your morality on a more fundamental level: the coherence of relativism. It's also sailing right over your head.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by monoman

Sex with animals is non consensual (if the human is doing the do) so could be considered abuse. You'd have to ask the animal.
The killing of an animal executed correctly doesn't cause any suffering (assuming there's no strong bonds with other animals)

Aside from that, eurgh!

Eurgh indeed. But aside from that, you are saying that it's ok that the animals die, as long as they do not suffer? On this, I think you'd have to ask the animals. One common method is to hang the animals upside down by thier hind-legs, then slice their throats and let them bleed to death. It certainly seems painful to me, but then again I've never experienced it. I suppose I could do a survey. But then, that's alot of people to eat.(it's ok as long as I don't let the meat go to waste) So, are you feeling any discomfort? Any shock knowing that your life is draining out of you? Any fears surfacing? I'm sorry, what was that last part? All I got was a low gurgling noise.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Wait a second, you're the one pretending to lecture on "Ethics 101" while basically having no clue of the definitions and terms you're bandying about. It's only a fallacy, by the way, if I conclude that your arguments on X, Y, Z are invalidated by lack of study. Instead I can rationally conclude that you're not very well informed (which is what I've been suspecting for years, based on dozens and dozens of posts).

We'll if successfully completing undergraduate study at a university in social sciences is uninformed then I'm guilty. To be fair it has been over 20 years and I have been in computer sciences since then.

On the other hand your making some very fundamental errors that would cause me to wonder your background. I won't press you because I think it irrelevant. Yeah, I know, you "teach" ethics. Right.

Quote:

That you have no idea what human rights are while taking inconsistent positions.

"No idea"? If I really had no idea we would not be having this exchange.

Quote:

Uh, that there's an internal contradiction in your belief system.

Uh, no. That I share many of the same perspectives in no way demonstrates an internal contradiction. It simply demonstrates the ability to see another point of view even if I disagree with that point of view.

Quote:

This is kind of what the thread is about. What constitutes an "abuse" depends on respective paradigms of morality. Your shifting definition of what "mistreatment" means is contingent upon on the muddled "true" beliefs of some vaguely defined "moral society." The disagreement is far more fundamental, as I've emphasized in these last few postings.

This has nothing to do with my position.

Quote:

Please read the sentence you're pretending to reply to again before putting your foot in your mouth. Thanks!

{sigh} Again, you make no argument.

Quote:

What person A believes is moral differs from what person B believes is moral. The fact that these beliefs diverge -- that they are mutually exclusive -- does not mean morality is "relative", or subjective.

Actually it does. That is exactly what it means.

{rhetoric snipped}

Quote:

Of course everyone carries on board their epistemological baggage: from being born human and being socialized at a particular time and place. Culture influences all kinds of beliefs: whether we were created from animals, or created by God, sexual mores, etc.

Bingo, including what is right and what is wrong.

Quote:

You're *still* failing to distinguish the different senses of morality.

I see no relevance in distinguishing between different senses of morality as it relates to this discussion. One can't define morality to be absolute. Duty, responsibility, rights, considerations, interests, virtue, etc. are all subjective.

Prima Facie Principles are not held as universal by all ethicists. There isn't even consensus as to whether to take a teleological or deontological approach. We can use logic to help us resolve moral conflict and to avoid the irrational but we first must come to a consensus as to which principles to accept and which approach to use.

In other words as rational human beings we can come up with good strategies to create social cohesion and maximize benefits to humans. Or we can simply determine what commons sense or intuition tells us is correct, codify those beliefs and follow them come hell or high water.

Quote:

Moderate Objectivism adheres to basic notions of the Natural Law Theory. William Ross refers to these moderate objectivists accounts of moral principles as “Prima Facie Principles” which are valid rules of action that one should generally adhere to but, in cases of moral conflict, may be be overridable by another moral principle, hence the moderation. Prima Facie Principles contain duties that are correlated with many ethical theories. Such duties include fidelity, fulfilling commitments, truth and promises; justice, giving people what they deserve; respect for freedom; beneficence, improving the conditions of others; non-injury; self-improvement, stemming from the possibility of improving one’s own condition with respect to virtue, intelligence, and happiness; non parasitism, and most importantly reparation, the duty of making up for wrongful acts previously done to others. David Ross believed that these duties are to be followed and remain with each person's thought processes of behavior because it is their moral obligation to do so. Also, Prima Facie principles prove the existence of ethical principles that are binding on rational beings. Pojman, on the other hand created ten similar principles “necessary for the good life within a flourishing human community.” He refers to these principles as the “Core Morality.” These simple, common sense principles include such morals as do not: kill innocent people, cause unnecessary pain, lie or deceive, cheat or steal, honor your promises, deprive another of his/her freedom…as well as show gratitude, help others, do justice, and obey just laws. Both Prima Facie and Core Morality are exceedingly similar unlike the ideas of objectivism and absolutism. As said before, absolutists pursue the notion of “do the act that is set and given and do nothing else regardless the situation.” A good example of an extreme absolutist following is those of the Divine Command Theory. In The Divine Command Theory, the good is whatever the "God" or deity commands, meaning whatever and whenever and wherever.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

We'll if successfully completing undergraduate study at a university in social sciences is uninformed then I'm guilty. To be fair it has been over 20 years and I have been in computer sciences since then.

On the other hand your making some very fundamental errors that would cause me to wonder your background. I won't press you because I think it irrelevant. Yeah, I know, you "teach" ethics. Right.

Yes, very basic errors such as... ? Oh, and the next time you want to set a clumsy "gotcha" trap why don't you disguise it as a big wooden horse.

Quote:

"No idea"? If I really had no idea we would not be having this exchange.

??

Quote:

Uh, no. That I share many of the same perspectives in no way demonstrates an internal contradiction. It simply demonstrates the ability to see another point of view even if I disagree with that point of view.

This has nothing to do with my position.

{sigh} Again, you make no argument.

I see nothing resembling content here. When I point out a mistake in your reasoning or characterization, you say that that specific sentence lacks an "argument." Well, it's part of a broader argument. You say something has "nothing to do with your position" -- probably because your "position" is rather protean and incoherent.

Quote:

Actually it does. That is exactly what it means.

No, this is your simple confusion from which all else stems, as evidenced (in part) by the following quote:

Quote:

I see no relevance in distinguishing between different senses of morality as it relates to this discussion. One can't define morality to be absolute. Duty, responsibility, rights, considerations, interests, virtue, etc. are all subjective.

Heh, if you only we get that far. I'm merely talking about distinguishing "is" from "ought". That our behavior from person to person, culture to culture, IS different does not mean a great deal for this type of discussion.

I see your block quote mentions Louis Pojman (a religious moral theorist). He writes introductory books on ethics, and I suggest you take a gander at the first few chapters. Most undergrads, I believe he notes, enter their university education believeing in a kind of cultural relativism (by a 2 to 1 ratio in his classes, across the country, at different institutions). When pressed, however, they reveal beliefs that contradicts this outlook (and this has been common in my experience as well, just everywhere in life -- messageboards etc. Of course, sometimes I do encounter someone who is colossally pig-headed, but I digress). Moral subjectivism -- which is actually much more intense than cultural relativism -- and it seems like a view you have at times defended during the course of this discussion -- makes nonsense of morality. Morality is about what we ought to do, how we ought to behave. Saying that all of us DO do different things is superficial and obvious.

Then there are these weird biological considerations you keep introducing -- "the good of the species" -- which is simply mistaken (i.e., wrong, biologically speaking. You also talk about "social cohesion", a type of communitarianism from what I gather. Why is social cohesion important? Because it allows humans to flourish? Why is THAT important? More critically, why are we trying to benefit humans?

Quote:

Prima Facie Principles are not held as universal by all ethicists. There isn't even consensus as to whether to take a teleological or deontological approach. We can use logic to help us resolve moral conflict and to avoid the irrational but we first must come to a consensus as to which principles to accept and which approach to use.

In other words as rational human beings we can come up with good strategies to create social cohesion and maximize benefits to humans. Or we can simply determine what commons sense or intuition tells us is correct, codify those beliefs and follow them come hell or high water.

Yes indeed, there is nothing resembling a consensus among moral philosophers on some of the most pressing issues of the day. Derek Parfit says that this is because only relatively recently have ethicists extricated morality from religion. He speculates that real progress should be made in the next one-hundred years. However, it is worth pointing out, that there is a consensus on some basic matters. One, just mentioned, is disposing of God. Another is the abandonment of subjectivism and relativism (especially in philosophy departments in the United States). Literature departments are another matter, and so is France/Europe. According to an article in _Skeptic Magazine_ (the one with Spinoza on the cover, second volume I believe), there is a lower percentage of moral subjectivists in philosophy departments than intelligent design theorists in biology departments. It has been awhile since I read the issue -- and I've mentioned it before on this board, in threads like this one -- but it's no doubt true that the position(s) you're taking, though common among the young laity, is rather marginal.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Morality is about what we ought to do, how we ought to behave. Saying that all of us DO do different things is superficial and obvious.

But I'm not saying simply that all of us do different things. I'm not talking about comparative behavior. I'm talking about comparative morality. What we "ought" to do varies from culture to culture.

Quote:

Comparative morality among cultures

There has been considerable work done in studying comparative morality among cultures. To such researchers, morality is not seen as a constant essential "truth" but as a series of values that is influenced by (and influences) the cultural context. One well known commentator is Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, which (among other values) tested the proposition of what expectation did the driver of a car expect to have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that in different cultures there were quite different expectations (from none to almost certain), and in some cultures it mattered whether the pedestrian died what assistance would be expected.

Quote:

Then there are these weird biological considerations you keep introducing -- "the good of the species" -- which is simply mistaken (i.e., wrong, biologically speaking.

No, it is not wrong biologically speaking. Evolution endowed us with a means of survival. How we view each other and society are critically important to us.

Quote:

You also talk about "social cohesion", a type of communitarianism from what I gather. Why is social cohesion important?

Social cohesion might not be important. It is important to me because I want to live in a society free of stress and disorder. So to ME social cohesion is important.

Quote:

More critically, why are we trying to benefit humans?

Because we care about humans. "Mankind was my business" --Marley

Because trying to benefit humans is beneficial to most of us. There is utility in it.

Quote:

...there is a lower percentage of moral subjectivists in philosophy departments than intelligent design theorists in biology departments.

I'm skeptical but more importantly what is the basis of this objective morality? Interests? Consideration? No interest is universal. No consideration is universal. What is moral to a masochist could be immoral to someone who is not a masochist. What is moral to someone who places a higher value on honesty could be immoral to someone who places a higher value on harmony.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

But I'm not saying simply that all of us do different things. I'm not talking about comparative behavior. I'm talking about comparative morality. What we "ought" to do varies from culture to culture.

Earlier we agreed that not only does it vary by culture, but there are (obvious) intracultural disputes. This cultural relativism leads to the absurd consequences already mentioned.

Quote:

No, it is not wrong biologically speaking. Evolution endowed us with a means of survival. How we view each other and society are critically important to us.

Here I believe I was referring to your "good of the species" claim, which is false.

Quote:

Social cohesion might not be important. It is important to me because I want to live in a society free of stress and disorder. So to ME social cohesion is important.

So then it just gets pushed back for a subjectivist: why don't you want to live a society of stress and disorder? The answer may seem obvious, but there's no grounding. Utlimately everything is arbitrary. You cannot (morally) condemn a person who murders, pillages and rapes because that's what he wants. You might appeal to "society", but what if society agrees with his behavior? You might say they only agree because they have nefarious, selfish motives, but what if they don't? And each level of argument -- what a person believes, what a society believes, whether or not a person's motives are "selfish" -- you have to provide a reason why that is morally relevant.

Quote:

Because we care about humans. "Mankind was my business" --Marley

Big deal. So what if we cared only about white people? Or only about males? The whole point -- going back to the marginal cases argument -- has to do with distinguishing the arbitrary from the non-arbitrary. Besides, it's arguable that we care about humans when some 50,000 die each day from malnutrition and poverty related diseases.

Quote:

Because trying to benefit humans is beneficial to most of us. There is utility in it.

This is another inconsistent argument. Earlier you were talking about motives (whether or not people were being selfish) and now you're talking about goals. And besides, there was already a good reason to reject this limited and arbitrary utilitarianism: why would you respect the rights of all humans? There's no utility in spending resources for the severly mentally handicapped unless you inconsistently elevate their interests above similarly situated non-humans.

Quote:

I'm skeptical but more importantly what is the basis of this objective morality? Interests? Consideration? No interest is universal. No consideration is universal. What is moral to a masochist could be immoral to someone who is not a masochist. What is moral to someone who places a higher value on honesty could be immoral to someone who places a higher value on harmony.

There are many different universalist views. Since utilitarianism is an empirical philosophy, it could subordinate honesty (in some cases) to harmony... but then a utilitarian, if she is rational, takes a long term view, and therefore she must consider the full implications of dishonesty. And even still there is a difference between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism.

How we reconcile different "moral beliefs" is not a question of morality really. It is a question of political theory (which is itself derived from some morality). Good political theory, in my opinion, endeavors to answer the following question: how are we to live together? Even people who agree on a specific type of utilitarianism may have different views about how the world works -- the economy especially -- and consequently advocate different types of political, social, and economic institutions.

When it comes to not harming animals one could take either of the most influential moral theories: (Tom Regan with Kant; Peter Singer with Utilitarianism) and apply them consistently. Cultural relativism and subjectivism cannot be co-opted because they are arational.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Earlier we agreed that not only does it vary by culture, but there are (obvious) intracultural disputes. This cultural relativism leads to the absurd consequences already mentioned.

The consequences are what they are. They don't change the relative nature of morality.

Quote:

Here I believe I was referring to your "good of the species" claim, which is false.

Yes, just declare it false. Good argument.

Quote:

So then it just gets pushed back for a subjectivist: why don't you want to live a society of stress and disorder? The answer may seem obvious, but there's no grounding. Utlimately everything is arbitrary.

But there is no "grounding" to anything. In the end there is only our wants, interests and considerations. Since many of us share similar wants, interests and considerations we can establish etiquette, ethics, laws to increase the likelihood that we will achieve social order, justice and anything else that we commonly hold to be "good".

Quote:

You cannot (morally) condemn a person who murders, pillages and rapes because that's what he wants.

If it is counter to the morals of society then of course I can.

Quote:

You might appeal to "society", but what if society agrees with his behavior?

I'm SOL. And "society" might be acting counter to their own morals. We certainly have plenty of history to demonstrate that.

Quote:

...you have to provide a reason why that is morally relevant.

But that is what Social anthropologists strive to do. Nothing is solved by declaring morals objective. We can only objectivly apply our morals. You will always come back to the same starting point. Perspective. You can't escape it.

Quote:

Big deal. So what if we cared only about white people? Or only about males?

What is the basis for your hypothetical society to care only about white people or males for that matter? You cannot argue morals in a vacuum. I have never held that the behavior of the majority is de facto moral.

Quote:

Earlier you were talking about motives (whether or not people were being selfish) and now you're talking about goals.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusivel. #1 If the majority believe murder to be wrong but act counter to their own beliefs for selfish purposes that would be immoral. #2 I'm stating that there is reason to have shared values that will likely benefit me if they also benefit society.

Quote:

Why would you respect the rights of all humans? There's no utility in spending resources for the severly mentally handicapped...

No, and perhaps we shouldn't. I happen to think it good that we do.

Quote:

...unless you inconsistently elevate their interests above similarly situated non-humans.

non-humans as a group are not moral agents.

Quote:

When it comes to not harming animals one could take either of the most influential moral theories: (Tom Regan with Kant; Peter Singer with Utilitarianism) and apply them consistently. Cultural relativism and subjectivism cannot be co-opted because they are arational.

Your conflating two different things.

A moral theory that treats all moral agents consistently can't be said to be irrational as it relates to moral agents.

Such a theory is not morally relativistic per se.

If you want to hold that marginal cases should be treated equitably good or equitably bad then that is appropriate. If you say that the life of a baby should have no more value than the life of a goat then that is fine. If I choose to kill and eat both would you consider me consistent?

I chose to hold all moral agents equal in deserving of consideration and rights. This is a consistent position as it relates to moral agents. I choose to value human babies because nature has giving me the wherewithal to value human babies via evolution. My value of babies is bottom up.

As to relativism, I'm only pointing out that there is no universal guide that all rational persons would agree on to govern the behavior of all moral agents. We can always find exceptions for any prohibition against acts that most would agree are wrong.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The consequences are what they are. They don't change the relative nature of morality.

Yes, just declare it false. Good argument.

Heh, I thought we agreed earlier it was wrong. You know, Kropotkin, selfish genes, Dawkins? Since not even something as simple as this can be established, I wonder why we're bothering continuing,

Quote:

But there is no "grounding" to anything. In the end there is only our wants, interests and considerations. Since many of us share similar wants, interests and considerations we can establish etiquette, ethics, laws to increase the likelihood that we will achieve social order, justice and anything else that we commonly hold to be "good".

Yes, you *can* do that.

Quote:

If it is counter to the morals of society then of course I can.

No, you can't because that's just your society. Their society is different. But it's interesting you say this because it implies that you agree you cannot condemn murder, rape etc., if your society holds similar values.

Quote:

But that is what Social anthropologists strive to do. Nothing is solved by declaring morals objective. We can only objectivly apply our morals. You will always come back to the same starting point. Perspective. You can't escape it.

A good deal of progress is possible through adhering to a universal morality: it allows us to arbitrate matters in a manner that is unobtainable through cultural relativism. As for another of your comments, it is possible to, as an Arendtian scholar once put it, "visit other perspectives." This is part of growing as a person, cultivating what Kant called an "enlarged mentality." We can learn a lot from the anthropologists who report back on other cultures, other forms of social organization etc. But justifications for certain types of behavior must transcend, "It's OK because my culture says it is." Apologists for female "circumcision" support the practice by appealing to universal values: the good of the woman, social harmony, etc. If they only said, "this is justified by the fact that it's part of culture, so **** off", then that wouldn't be much of an argument at all.

Quote:

What is the basis for your hypothetical society to care only about white people or males for that matter? You cannot argue morals in a vacuum. I have never held that the behavior of the majority is de facto moral.

What does it matter what the basis is? Here you again seem to be striving for the moral foundationism that you claim to reject. They probably think males and whites are better, which justifies different types of treatment. Of course, they don't have a GOOD reason for this distinction, but neither does our society when it comes to animals.

Do you see how you're being completely inconsistent on this point? When it comes to consuming animals you talk about our soceity, and never ever ever provide a morally significant difference. When it comes to others you want to know their reason.

Quote:

The two concepts are not mutually exclusivel. #1 If the majority believe murder to be wrong but act counter to their own beliefs for selfish purposes that would be immoral. #2 I'm stating that there is reason to have shared values that will likely benefit me if they also benefit society.

My point was much broader, in line with the teleolgocial/deontological distinction you mentioned earlier. Incidentially: 1) is inconsistent with moral subjectivism. 2) Is subject to criticisms cited earlier

Now, in the case of 1) you're right that the person is doing something wrong because he's being inconsistent: he's saying murder is wrong, but he's allowing for murder.

Well, that's basically the case made by animal rights advocates. I'm not espousing some kind of utilitarianism or Kantian morality. I take agreed upon ehtical precepts and apply them.

skipping ahead to thoughts in this vein:

Quote:

A moral theory that treats all moral agents consistently can't be said to be irrational as it relates to moral agents.

Such a theory is not morally relativistic per se.

If you want to hold that marginal cases should be treated equitably good or equitably bad then that is appropriate. If you say that the life of a baby should have no more value than the life of a goat then that is fine. If I choose to kill and eat both would you consider me consistent?

Yes, I would say you were consistent -- though of course the question is: consistent with what? It depends on your reasoning but the scenario you describe is, on its face, consistent.

I'm not sure what ideas you're saying I'm "conflating". Cultural relativism and moral subjectivism are only consistent in their "almost-anything-goes" inconsistencies (particularly in the case of the latter).

Quote:

I chose to hold all moral agents equal in deserving of consideration and rights. This is a consistent position as it relates to moral agents. I choose to value human babies because nature has giving me the wherewithal to value human babies via evolution. My value of babies is bottom up.

OK, but is this a good reason? If that's so then you have to accept the full range of implications: a cuckolded husband can then plausibly excuse the murder of his wife's baby by saying it was evolution at work. Evolution wants us to help our biological children to become successful, and so this may create pressures to generate advantages by lying, cheating, stealing and worse. Appealing to one's genetic legacy, however, is not typically a convincing form of argument.

Now that's taking your argument at face-value and assuming you do value babies (in general) because of some evolutionary quirk. I don't think this is the case to the extent that you think it is. Also remember that there is no end-point to evolution: it is a work in progress. If the people who prey on the innocent and weak manage to kill them, weed them out, then evolution selects for aggressive take-charge people with those predispositions, which subsequently inverts our value scheme: what we consider "good" and "moral" is "bad" and "immoral" via competition and survival of the fittest.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Heh, I thought we agreed earlier it was wrong. You know, Kropotkin, selfish genes, Dawkins? Since not even something as simple as this can be established, I wonder why we're bothering continuing

Your statement is nonsensical.

Quote:

No, you can't because that's just your society. Their society is different. But it's interesting you say this because it implies that you agree you cannot condemn murder, rape etc., if your society holds similar values.

?

How can I imply the positive by stating in the negative?

Quote:

A good deal of progress is possible through adhering to a universal morality:

Oh, I understand the practical advantages of a universal morality. I just dispute that there is one.

Quote:

What does it matter what the basis is? Here you again seem to be striving for the moral foundationism that you claim to reject.

I never said that there were no foundations for morality. I said there is no universal foundation.

Quote:

Do you see how you're being completely inconsistent on this point?

Not at all. All of the individuals in question are moral agents.

Quote:

a cuckolded husband can then plausibly excuse the murder of his wife's baby by saying it was evolution at work.

If society accepted that reasoning. As it is we extend some rights including life to babies.

Quote:

Evolution wants us to help our biological children to become successful, and so this may create pressures to generate advantages by lying, cheating, stealing and worse. Appealing to one's genetic legacy, however, is not typically a convincing form of argument.

Note that such an argument as this seeks advantage over other moral agents.

Quote:

Now that's taking your argument at face-value and assuming you do value babies (in general) because of some evolutionary quirk. I don't think this is the case to the extent that you think it is. Also remember that there is no end-point to evolution: it is a work in progress. If the people who prey on the innocent and weak manage to kill them, weed them out, then evolution selects for aggressive take-charge people with those predispositions, which subsequently inverts our value scheme: what we consider "good" and "moral" is "bad" and "immoral" via competition and survival of the fittest.

I have no argument with this paragraph. Agreed.