| By Pikkle on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 - 01:01 am: Edit |
Hey, where'd my sententious prattler go? Shit, I must have fallen asleep somewhere along the way...
| By Louched_Liver on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 06:19 pm: Edit |
Pan,
Good one!
Anatomist,
Good one as well!
| By Pan on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 06:01 pm: Edit |
Anatomist:
Sandwiched right in between the condom and the roofies.
-Dev
| By Anatomist on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 05:51 pm: Edit |
Doesn't everyone just carry around a packet of 3-carbon date contracts now?
| By Pan on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 01:09 pm: Edit |
Well, one of the recommendations is that you discuss before the date begins what will happen and how you want it to end up.
His interpretation went something like this:
"I'm planning to get a little drunk. And get you a little drunk. Then I was going to slip you a roofie, but I might not do that because you look like you're easy. At any rate, I'm planning to fondle you thoroughly. If you don't put up too much of a struggle, we'll probably fuck like rabbits. If you put up too much of a struggle . . . well, that's what the roofies are for. At any rate, I plan to leave early tomorrow morning and never call you again. Whew. Glad that's out of the way. Hi, I'm Bob, you must be Anne? Nice to meet you."
-Dev
NOTE: I in no way condone date rape in any shape or form. A dear friend of mine is presently muddling through the legal system because an asshole decided to slip something into her drink. So please don't send me nastigrams.
| By _Blackjack on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 12:57 pm: Edit |
Quote:Ooo, my roommate is reading a pamphlet outloud about how not to daterape chicks. Woo!
| By Pan on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 10:02 am: Edit |
Oh, that's neat. I agree, and wouldn't've thought of it in that sense.
That's sort of like the old logic debate as to whether intension precedes extension . . .
IE, you have to have an idea of the attributes attributable to a thing before you can realize the things existence. Supported by the fact that you can have a term with intension and not extension (unicorns, for instance, have intension -- a horsey-thing with one horn growing from its forehead -- but no extension).
Ooo, my roommate is reading a pamphlet outloud about how not to daterape chicks. Woo!
-Dev
| By Pikkle on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 12:35 am: Edit |
The homosexual love fest never ceases here... you go proud lovers, you go!
| By _Blackjack on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 12:02 am: Edit |
Quote:I have to disagree. "Moral content" is the "good or evil" of a thing. Ethics are the science by which you determine that moral content. Moral content, therefore, is an "empty-set."
| By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 10, 2002 - 12:10 am: Edit |
PV,
Regarding whether Kenneth MacAlpine reuninting 2 Pictish kingdoms or not depends on which theory you follow. Certainly the commonly held theory in the past was that there were 2 Pictish kingdoms in Scotland (East and West). However most eminent historical 'experts' on the Picts (e.g. Cummins, Sutherland, Ritchie) now hold the view that the Western kingdom of Dal Riada was not Pictish but was Scot (in the West there are found very few Pictish carved stones or evidence of 'Pictish culture'). The 'Annals of Ulster' also show that Wester Scotland was part of the Dal Riadan kingdom of Northern Ireland where the Ulaidh and the Dal Riadans were battling for control over all of Ulaidh and Dal Riada. Eventually the Ulaidh came out on top and the Dal Riada paid homage to the Ulaidh. MacAlpine (who did have some Pictish blood) was not a Pict but a Dal Riadan Scot(Irish) ruling Dal Riada. He then (through a mixture of warfare and political machinations) took hold of the Pictish kingdom.
But a lot of things that happened over 1000 years ago there is not an abundance of surviving written records so different people put the few surviving pieces of the jigsaw in different places and come up with different stories. Who knows what really happened?
Hobgoblin
| By Pan on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 11:14 pm: Edit |
Blackjack, just a few thoughts . . .
I have to disagree with the understanding of the terms "ethics" and "morals" as both of you (meaning Blackjack and Rch) are discussing them.
I would suggest that you have reached some sense of confusion. Without going through the etymology of the word "Ethics" again, I would posit this as a better definition: "Ethics" is the study of human acts (as opposed to acts of a human being) in so far as they are good or evil. Another common way of phrasing it is " 'Ethics' is the study of the moral content of the voluntary acts of a human being." This is not something I made up, it is a time-honoured, and basically "standard" definition for the philosophical discipline. I could cite the appropriate Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, but I would have to get my notebooks and I'm too lazy.
I don't say that you can't change the definition of that term in the context of this discussion, but I think that if you're attempting to do a comparative study of ethical systems and demonstrate that there are no absolutes, it would be best to use the terminology that the majority of the philosophers in question were most likely using when they were developing these systems of thought.
Hence, when Blackjack objects:
' Morals, whatever their source, are the things which tell you "doing X is wrong". Ethics are the things which tell you "I can avoid doing X by doing Y." You need the X first. '
I have to disagree. "Moral content" is the "good or evil" of a thing. Ethics are the science by which you determine that moral content. Moral content, therefore, is an "empty-set."
Hence, Utilitarian Ethics are a system by which the "moral content" of an act is determined by the "greatest good." Kantian Ethics are a system by which the "moral content" of an act is determined by that act's compliance with the Categorical Imperative. Aquinas's Ethics are a system by which the "moral content" of an act is determined by its tendency to perfect man in his seeking of God.
Okay, okay, I know I just reduced some of the transcendent geniuses in the history of human thought into glib little one-liners, but that last paragraph was largely by way of explication of the "standard" definition of the "science" of Ethics, not an attempt to accurately summarize various philosophers thoughts on the subject.
I also like to train monkeys to fling poo at my enemies. Muahahahahahaha! HA!
-Dev
| By _Blackjack on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 10:02 pm: Edit |
Quote:I didn’t say “direct physical pain”, I didn’t mean “"direct physical pain”. Caused suffering. Physical harm, mental or emotional cruelty, externally caused. That’ll have to do for a definition.
Quote:I’m unaware of any such instinct for causing suffering. Can you cite an example?
Quote:I’m not talking about having to cram for an surprise exam, I am talking about, for example, the life of a veal calf or a battery hen.
Quote:Never mind the very reliable and nearly global agreement that murder is negative.
Quote:It didn’t require an exhaustive study of the experiences of the 135,000 residents of Dresden to know that the Allied firebombing was “negative”.
Quote:I haven’t found myself anywhere near a “just is”.
Quote:So: because we have yet to categorically, scientifically determine whether or not death is superior or inferior to life, it must just be a moral judgment?
Quote:I am unaware of any “biological predispositions” that would cause me to state – after filtering empirical knowledge through reason – that it is unethical for a human animal to cause physical harm to another animal for their own gain.
Quote:What I am advocating is nothing more than attempting to use ethics – stripped of acculturation, self-interest, politics, superstition or anything else that is likely to skew the results -- to make the wisest choice for the largest circle of affected parties.
| By Pan on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 08:39 pm: Edit |
It's okay, just be more careful when you're parking your double-wide and we won't have that problem again.
*wink 'n' grin*
-Dev
| By Mr_Rabid on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 06:09 pm: Edit |
Sort of.
I just started out saying there is no universal law of ethics, no uber-system of right and wrong, and rch427 says there is.
Then he says 'suffering is bad' so causing it is bad. And I sez 'you ovasimplifiyin, beyotch.'
And so here we are, and I didn't mean to crush your sister with my house.
| By Pan on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 06:03 pm: Edit |
I don't mean to be unkind, and I may be misunderstanding . . .
But this seems to be essentially boiling down to two strange branches of Utilitarian thinking.
One is placing primacy on the quality of human comfort and pleasure, while the other seems to be weighing human gastronomical joys versus animal suffering and is finding it wanting.
This is very interesting, because it's exactly the type of problem that made my Ethics professor more-or-less discount Utilitarianism as a system for governing behaviour.
Am I missing something?
-Dev
| By Mr_Rabid on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 05:36 pm: Edit |
"Nice cliché, but I have no reason to presume it is factual. Even strictly on a results basis, it is probably a foolish gamble to make."
Let me lay it out like this:
Lets say you have a robot trying to climb some stairs. We'll give it a nice little ability to learn. It knows it must get to the top of the stairs but not how. It tries different things until something works. Processes that produce results measured against the goal of getting up the stairs are encouraged (given more electrical potentiality) and those that do not are discouraged (they will not be run again.)
Pain is the discouragement in humans. Pleaseure is the encouragement. Things that give you pain produce a tendency to avoid them, things that give you pleasure a tendancy to seek them out.
Still in diapers at the bottom of the stairs. You get frustrated (suffer) as you find difficulty in negotiating this obstacle.
You get to the top at last, feeling a little pleasure each time you realize you are making progress, and a lot upon acheiving your goal.
Suffering is a mechanism directly involved in producing efficiency.
Efficiency is reduced in the eyes of a slave owner when his slaves find ways to slack off behind his back but NOT from the standpoint of the slaves own brain, which has achieved its goal of avoiding painful repetetive work for a time.
Dig?
| By Mr_Rabid on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 05:13 pm: Edit |
Mmm. Steak.
" Your Mr. X may have misjudged his neighbor’s potential for recrimination"
Sure may have. Them's the breaks.
May means jack and shit. My Mr X may get a disease and run out of cows, and yours may get a disease and run out of tofu. Same diff.
The US has still not felt the karmic affects you postulate from taking most of North America just like my Mr X would have done. Nor has Japan for the same thing.
Or Australia. When will those aboriginies use your retribution dynamic? Are they just biding their time until their master plan can be sprung?
You seem to hold the logic that suffering for another automatically causes it for me. This is where I disagree with you. That's why I was saying 'mmm steak.'
I should have been speaking more pedantically, I suppose.
"For related reasons, most people accept that it is wisest if they not do it to others"
add 'who can do it back' and you will see what I mean.
See, my suffering may be reduced, my life made better, my chances to survive improve directly as a result of actions that cause other living things to suffer.
See? Like, a wolf eats a deer? Or a walrus eats a baby walrus? Or you eat a potato?
| By Anatomist on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 05:10 pm: Edit |
Ding! First one to read the whole thing gets a coupon for a free 'meat-lover's deluxe' pizza at Shakey's!
| By Rch427 on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 04:57 pm: Edit |
Mr. Rabid –
"suffering is something humans instinctively avoid,"
Means I should avoid suffering by not denying myself that juicy steak.
How clever.
"suffering is something animals instinctively avoid,"
Uh- so?
You asked how I know that suffering is something to avoid. I demonstrated it is instinctual. Apparently that went over your head.
"we can observe negative results of suffering,
suffering diminishes the pleasure we otherwise prefer"
OK. Note to self. Avoid sticking genitals in battery acid. Have juicy steak.
How clever, part 2.
"human-caused suffering among livestock has drastically increased,"
Mmmm. Steak. I am still not suffering here.
How clever, yet tiresome. You seem to have a gift for it.
"suffering among humans reduces their efficiency"
Certainly! Your inclusion of cows in my social group is something I have an issue with. I am saying that causing suffering to the next village does me no harm, and maybe a great deal of good (as long as they can't retaliate effectively when I raid their grain silo.)
You may be right: the inclusion of cows in your social group would probably be unfair to the cows. See? I can be glib and smartass too. I suspect you’re just pulling out the typical macho hubris, but if you truly believe that causing suffering in the next village does you no harm, then you’re hopelessly naïve. Someone should introduce you to the “lifeboat” principle. In a closed system (read: neighborhood, city, country, planet, whatever) your actions are likely to affect the future “climate” in ways that you may not expect or want. You could also call this the “don’t shit on your own floor; you’re likely to step in it later” principle. Odds are that the villagers would return the raid, plus interest.
"compared with murder causing suffering is still relatively negative ,"
Circular.
It’s only “circular” if you require 100% evidence, something that probably doesn’t exist for any subject. In the meantime, most people are willing to accept the notion that murder is negative if it is threatened to or happens to them. For related reasons, most people accept that it is wisest if they not do it to others. Suffering has many commonalties with the threat of murder or the physical act of being murdered. You may as well become a solipsist, it’ll save you a lot of time and effort if you just presume that – not only is murder not negative, but none of us really exist anyway.
And you seem to have agreed with me that ethics is unnatural. I'm not saying it's bad. But I am saying it is a made thing, and not a condition of nature.
I agree with you that it is possible to advance ethics by comapring behaviours and results, modifiying the behaviour etc.
I am saying that there is no objective correct choice, and that is a thing you are deciding on.
I don’t think that ethics are “natural” or “unnatural”, I think they are constructs, based upon the best possible reasoning, given a preponderance of information and consideration for the largest scope of potentially affected parties.
" The cow isn’t “providing” anything -- things are being taken from it. " Sho nuff.
SO Mr X happily MURDERS the cow, the cad. And feeds his children more efficiently, promoting their survival, so this murderousness is passed on in their (to use the word your way) moral outlook.
Your granola eating subsistence farmer Mr X lost three of his to starvation. The others were all killed when my meat eating murdering bastard Mr X's kids came along and used their hunting skills to sneak up and behead them. They weren't burdened by your ethics. So they are still breathing. And now they have some new pasture land.”
f you disagree that this is a survival trait, ask a Pict. Or the Ainu.
More bluster. “Raiding party” mentalities are hardly the sort of society to aspire to. It sets up a dangerous dynamic for retribution, the results of which can be seen throughout history. A negative action is more likely to produce effects that are potentially negative to the persons who caused them. Your Mr. X may have misjudged his neighbor’s potential for recrimination. Perhaps his victims will call in the local lord, have you charged with theft and put in prison. The survivors of your raid may band together with other neighbors and raid your home. Your Mr. X’s actions may promote a general lawlesness in his area. His family may develop Kreuzfeld-Jacob disease from infected cows. Instead of being self-sufficient, he may become dependent upon raiding parties and starve, if he runs out of cows. Not too sensible.
Pikkle –
OK! OK! I’ll finally acknowledge your existence! There -- are you happy? Now go find someplace else to whine; no-one is forcing you to notice this thread.
Blackjack –
Quote:
suffering is something humans instinctively avoid,
First, you fail to define "suffering" in any meaningful way, and even if you mean "direct physical pain," this is not always the case. A strong argument could be made for an instinctive drive towards risky (i.e., potentially painful) behavior, especially in males.
I didn’t say “direct physical pain”, I didn’t mean “"direct physical pain”. Caused suffering. Physical harm, mental or emotional cruelty, externally caused. That’ll have to do for a definition.
”More to the point, inflicting suffering on others, especially other species, is also very likely instinctive in humans. Don't fall into the Naturalistic Fallacy. An "is" doesn't make a "should".”
I’m unaware of any such instinct for causing suffering. Can you cite an example?
Quote:
suffering is something animals instinctively avoid
”Again, not always true, especially when the suffering is conducive to procreation. Regardless, human avoidance of pain is on a totally different leven than that of most animals, since we are more capable of comprehending risks and associating the suffering with death.”
Again, I didn’t say “pain”. And I would disagree that human pain or suffering are more profound than that of an animal. So far as we know, animals have no sense of hope that suffering or pain may be alleviated, through abstracts like either future recovery or death. I suspect that an animal in pain probably feels about it the way that a child would: the immediate discomfort is their entire sensation, without thought of remedy.
Quote:
we can observe negative results of suffering
”We can also observe positive results of some forms of suffering, be it increased physical strength, the ability to attract a mate, increased knowlege, or psycholgoical satisfaction. I've certainly learned more from suffering than from pleasure.”
I think you’re trivializing my use of the word “suffering”. I’m not talking about having to cram for an surprise exam, I am talking about, for example, the life of a veal calf or a battery hen.
Quote:
suffering diminishes the pleasure we otherwise prefer,
”Sexual kinks aside, this is still not always true.
Sorry I can’t give you a 100% guarantee. It is, I think, a reliable majority.
Quote:
human-caused suffering among livestock has drastically increased,
”We've certainly gotten more efficient at it, anyway. I have no way to measure how much more suffering a factory-farmed cow feels than a free-range one, however.“
Just because you haven’t witnessed it doesn’t have any bearing on their experiences. In this case, empirical information is compelling. I’ve even known cattlemen who have a difficult time with putting their cattle through the processes.
Quote:
suffering among humans reduces their efficiency
Again, not always so. What doesn't kill you often really does make you stronger.”
Nice cliché, but I have no reason to presume it is factual. Even strictly on a results basis, it is probably a foolish gamble to make. Anyway, no 100% guarantee that suffering among humans reduces their efficiency (I never promised one), but nevertheless a significant majority.
Quote:
compared with murder, causing suffering is still relatively negative
”Begging the question. You are assuming that something can be proved negative as a part of your proof of same.”
Not really. Like most relativists, you rely upon the lack of categorical imperatives to give you latitude. When in doubt, cry “begging the question!” Never mind the very reliable and nearly global agreement that murder is negative. Just keep sticking to the relativism, but you’d be wise to hope that those around you are less so. Again, with your line of reasoning, we have no way of knowing whether or not the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot or George Custer were “negative”. It didn’t require an exhaustive study of the experiences of the 135,000 residents of Dresden to know that the Allied firebombing was “negative”. Your expectation for 100% complete and unanimous information is unrealistic, to say the least.
Quote:
We don’t have to await a magic formula to know that it is “right” to help a child in danger, or that it is “wrong” to cause suffering in an animal.
While I agree that there isn't a magic formula involved, I disagree that we KNOW that these things are right or wrong. If, by protecting a child in danger, a man loses his life, thereby damning his own children to poverty, and perhaps those who depend on his work as well, is it still "right"? If the only way a man can feed is family is to club an animal to death, are you going to tell him you "know" it is wrong?”
I think most people would act instinctively to some extent. Endangering one’s life to protect another’s was probably a bad example for me to use, mostly because it requires a quick decision with long-term repercussions that may not be able to be considered. However, I would say that it would be “wrong” to club an animal to death to feed one’s family. I think this is another false dilemma, and is becomingly increasingly so, except perhaps for survivalists with frontiersman fantasies. Replace the word “animal” with “human”. Is it “wrong” for a man to club another man to death, if it’s the only way he can feed his family? If so, why? If not, why not? Yes, I’d tell him he was “wrong” either way (and he’d probably try to club me to death – good thing I’m fast and sinewy).
”Let me get down to brass tacks. The things you "know" are right and wrong are rooted in your biological predispositions, your conditioning in childhood, and your emotional reations. Listen you your inner 4-year old whenever you chose to make a moral (and in this case, that is the right word) judgment.
"Suffering is wrong."
"Why?"
"Because pleasure is better than pain."
"Why?"
"Because pain is assosiated with things which lead to death, and death is worse than life."
"Why?"
"Because...it just is, OK?"
Whenever you find yourself at a "just is", you have reached the limits of reason and emperical knowlege. You are making a moral judgement. There is no innate quality which makes life superior to death, which makes suffering inferior to its absence. All of these valuations are based on a web of various stimuli, biological, environmental, emotional and rational, and none of them are fixed or measurable.”
Notice that I didn’t say “pain”, I said “suffering”, nor did I say “death is worse than life” -- what I said is “compared with murder, causing suffering is still relatively negative”. There is a large difference between those statements, and I stand by mine. I haven’t found myself anywhere near a “just is”.
So: because we have yet to categorically, scientifically determine whether or not death is superior or inferior to life, it must just be a moral judgment? Well, you’re welcome to be the first to report back from the other side. In the meantime, the rest of us – especially those of us who have spent much time around dying people and animals – must have been royally duped. I am unaware of any “biological predispositions” that would cause me to state – after filtering empirical knowledge through reason – that it is unethical for a human animal to cause physical harm to another animal for their own gain. Indeed, I was conditioned to the contrary when I was a child, and my emotions are beside the fact. I would hold the same view if the animal in question were a human who had just hit me over the head to take my wallet. Emotionally, the prospect of hitting him back and taking his wallet may appeal, but I recognize that it would be unethical for me to do so.
”Where does this leave us? The same place we started: we don't know, with any degree of certainty, what is right and what is wrong. How do we proceed? Carefully. We have to be careful, when we make decisions which affect others, most especially when those decisions involve use of coercive force, or which involved things which cannot be undone. While we can certainly draw some vague general guidelines from the predominant disposition (e.g., MOST people want to avoid pain, MOST people prefer to stay alive), we must always be aware of the potential that any individual choice made may well be wrong. We do not have perfect knowlege. Even if one accepts the absolute value of minimizing suffering, we do not have sufficient ability to predict the outcome of our actions to know that any choice will in fact be conducive to your goal.
I mean, I could eliminate human suffering tomorrow, if I had enough heroin for everybody.”
Could you be confusing “eliminate” with “postpone”? I suspect most junkies would know the difference.
You advise caution – always a good idea – but only for one half of the equation. You want caution when it comes to expecting others to make “…decisions which affect others…”. In your case, you expect the benefit of the doubt to be extended to those who are likely causing the harm, rather than to those who are experiencing the harm. Unfortunately, with the emphasis just on the first party, momentum (or inertia, as the case may be) continues the harm until it is often too late.
I would be a good deal more impressed with your argument if I thought you applied the same sort of intellectual rigor to everything you do. “We do not have a sufficient degree of certainty”, “we do not have sufficient ability to predict the outcome of our actions”, “we do not have perfect knowledge”, etc. Apparently, that would leave your hands tied, unable to make any decision. That sounds to me suspiciously like a “get out of any quandary free” card. Well, I presume you make decisions every day, whether they’re based upon habit, value judgments, morals, ethics, the i ching or a combination thereof. What I am advocating is nothing more than attempting to use ethics – stripped of acculturation, self-interest, politics, superstition or anything else that is likely to skew the results -- to make the wisest choice for the largest circle of affected parties. Those are decisions we make anyway; we might as well make them ethically. Unfortunately, many people are still expecting philosophy to provide them with universal absolutes with which to direct their lives. That seems a bit optimistic, to say the least. In the meantime, in the absence of such information, most people still make decisions based upon self-serving.
I entirely disagree with your claim that we cannot make decisions based upon ethics without having total knowledge of all factors and variables and potential repercussions. Humans are curious animals, and we are pretty good at organization. Individuals have been suggesting that we use these skills to do what philosophy has yet to do: make available information about – not the definite – but the most likely. Do we know for a fact that the ozone layer is being depleted by the emissions from internal combustion engines, heavy industries, and so forth? We don’t have 100% proof, but scientists the world over think so, and have asserted it for decades, but that doesn’t convince some people. Apparently George W. Bush takes your tack – “we can’t be sure, so let’s keep making a mess and hope it goes away”.
Lord Hobgoblin --
"Pain and suffering is useful...[snipped for brevity]...Try sitting on a spike, pain is a bloody useful thing in this case as it stops you from letting the spike continue to skewer you."
I suppose it would be too much to expect you to simply look before sitting. Another false dilemma, and a ho-hum.
Anyway life is suffering, suffering is life.
Ah -- the priceless aphorisms of the junior guru.
Enough of my time has been wasted on the subject with you lot. Thanks again to those of you who e-mailed me privately; a public post might've been nice too. Anyway, I'm satisfied that my methodology directs me to not have complicity in causing the problems we've been discussing. Even most self-serving relativists are aware of their role in adding to the good or ill in the world.
| By _Blackjack on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 04:04 pm: Edit |
Picty picty picty...
| By Perruche_Verte on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 03:48 pm: Edit |
Re Picts:
They did cease to be a separate people at some point, but were never physically exterminated. MacAlpin had Pictish ancestry himself and simply united the kingdoms, so down the road Picts began to identify themselves as "Scots".
This was long before the (lowland) Scots were encouraged to dissociate themselves from the Irish and from the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders, which also occured for rather specific political reasons.
| By Crosby on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 09:23 am: Edit |
If the average person can eat one pork pot sticker in 30 seconds, and the waitress brings a platter of 12 pot stickers, how long will it take five vegans to not eat them?
| By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 09, 2002 - 01:19 am: Edit |
Pikkle
Probably even more useful because while although they can't reply to your questions at least penises still exist. (Until of course militant feminists take control and become unhappy with just cutting balls off).
Hobgoblin
(Just to correct an error in my last post : The demise of the Picts was actually in the 9th and not the 10th century, 843AD when Kenneth MacAlpine of Dal Riada established supremacy over all of 'Scotland').
| By Pikkle on Friday, February 08, 2002 - 03:54 pm: Edit |
If you can't find a Pict to ask, just ask your penis... it would be just as useful!
| By Pan on Friday, February 08, 2002 - 03:44 pm: Edit |
"Mashed potatoes . . .
Sweet potatoes . . . "
And so forth.
-Dev
| By Mr_Rabid on Friday, February 08, 2002 - 03:35 pm: Edit |
Perhaps if they'd been against causing suffering they'd still be around. Those invaders would have just looked at em, and realizing the error of their ways gone on home singing songs about vegetables.
| By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, February 08, 2002 - 03:20 pm: Edit |
A bit hard to ask a Pict nowadays.
Unless you can time-travel back to 10th century Scotland, or Pictavia as the Pictish part of it was called, before the Scots (the term meant Irish at the time) from the West of Scotland i.e. Dal Riada (which was part of the Irish kingdom of Ulaidh/Ulster) invaded Pictavia, overthrew the Picts and 'Scotland' was formed.
Hobgoblin
| By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, February 08, 2002 - 03:11 pm: Edit |
Pain and suffering is useful. If pain and suffering wasn't beneficial then our ability to experience it wouldn't have survived millions of years of evolution and natural selection.
We need pain and suffering. It is our body's way of warning us of danger. If someone was immune from pain or suffering then he'd do himself a great deal of serious danger. Try sitting on a spike, pain is a bloody useful thing in this case as it stops you from letting the spike continue to skewer you.
Anyway life is suffering, suffering is life.
Hobgoblin
| By Mr_Rabid on Thursday, February 07, 2002 - 05:17 pm: Edit |
OK.
"suffering is something humans instinctively avoid,"
Means I should avoid suffering by not denying myself that juicy steak.
"suffering is something animals instinctively avoid,"
Uh- so?
"we can observe negative results of suffering,
suffering diminishes the pleasure we otherwise prefer"
OK. Note to self. Avoid sticking genitals in battery acid. Have juicy steak.
"human-caused suffering among livestock has drastically increased,"
Mmmm. Steak. I am still not suffering here.
"suffering among humans reduces their efficiency"
Certainly! Your inclusion of cows in my social group is something I have an issue with. I am saying that causing suffering to the next village does me no harm, and maybe a great deal of good (as long as they can't retaliate effectively when I raid their grain silo.)
"compared with murder causing suffering is still relatively negative ,"
Circular.
And you seem to have agreed with me that ethics is unnatural. I'm not saying it's bad. But I am saying it is a made thing, and not a condition of nature.
I agree with you that it is possible to advance ethics by comapring behaviours and results, modifiying the behaviour etc.
I am saying that there is no objective correct choice, and that is a thing you are deciding on.
" The cow isn’t “providing” anything -- things are being taken from it. " Sho nuff.
SO Mr X happily MURDERS the cow, the cad. And feeds his children more efficiently, promoting their survival, so this murderousness is passed on in their (to use the word your way) moral outlook.
Your granola eating subsistence farmer Mr X lost three of his to starvation. The others were all killed when my meat eating murdering bastard Mr X's kids came along and used their hunting skills to sneak up and behead them. They weren't burdened by your ethics. So they are still breathing. And now they have some new pasture land.
If you disagree that this is a survival trait, ask a Pict. Or the Ainu.
| By Pikkle on Thursday, February 07, 2002 - 04:49 pm: Edit |
Yes, many of us are suffering through this trite thread right now... go to SIH... it's hip!
| By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 07, 2002 - 04:48 pm: Edit |
Quote:suffering is something humans instinctively avoid,
Quote:we can observe negative results of suffering
Quote:suffering diminishes the pleasure we otherwise prefer,
Quote:human-caused suffering among livestock has drastically increased,
Quote:suffering among humans reduces their efficiency
Quote:compared with murder, causing suffering is still relatively negative
| By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 07, 2002 - 04:19 pm: Edit |
Quote:We don’t have to await a magic formula to know that it is “right” to help a child in danger, or that it is “wrong” to cause suffering in an animal.
| By Rch427 on Thursday, February 07, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit |
Blackjack --
” It depends on what the alternatives are, and how suffering is reduced. That's the point. Right and wrong cannot be reduced to a binary equation. While reducing suffering may a good guideline, it cannot be an absolute end. First of all, you have to define suffering. Does the pain of childbirth count? The sorrow of a broken heart? The strain of productive work? Is the suffering of starvation and war preferable to the suffering of political oppression (a choice Gandhi had to make...)?”
I agree that “right and wrong cannot be reduced to a binary equation”. I would say, however, that in many cases, a preponderance of reliable evidence already exists. Apparently it was sufficient to determine that human slavery was “wrong”, as was genocide and a number of other things. Importantly, many societies practice customs that others believe to be “wrong” – such as genital mutilation, capitol punishment for moral infractions, etc. Does this mean that societal norms are sacrosanct? I hardly think so. We have enough good reasons to think that it is wrong to stone a woman to death for exposing her ankles. In such cases, the “wrong” of killing a person for a moral infraction far surpasses any “wrong” of that infraction. Using the exact same criteria, I would argue that the “wrong” of imprisoning a calf in insufferable conditions to produce veal, far surpasses any “benefit” that meat provides.
”Suffering is not a quantity. It cannot be defined precisely enough for any ethical system, based on its elimination, to be unquestionable. Ethics must be treated like quantum physics. You cannot know absolute values except in the most specific cases, so you must create theorems based on probabilities, with the understanding that they may only be useful under certain circumstances. It is a ballancing act of innumerable variables, only some of which can be known.”
That illustrates two problems that I find with this issue: in its efforts to be universalizable, philosophy is often left impotent, and people will continue to do whatever is self-serving. Philosophy has tried for at least 2,300 years to produce some sort of guidelines for good, but it has yet to produce a magical formula for behavior. Some mistake this as proof that philosophical principles cannot be of much use. At the same time, humans manage to employ general principles from various sources to produce the greatest result, as in business or politics. The fact is that, in many cases, we have compelling and reliable philosophical and empirical evidence that we could act upon, but humans prefer to operate out of habit and self-interest. We don’t have to await a magic formula to know that it is “right” to help a child in danger, or that it is “wrong” to cause suffering in an animal.
Mr. Rabid --
”You are advocating an unnatural stance on things- your stance on ethics is against nature. To go with nature is to prey on those weaker than you, be they carrots, cows, or the guys in the next village. To go with nature is to fuck, fight, eat, shit, die. You have no choice about three of those. Doing the other two will often make your personal suffering go down. This promotes your survival and the passing on of your genes.”
There have been many examples of what appears to be altruistic behavior in wild animals, even between different species. One well-documented case in Kenya involved a wild elephant trying to free a young rhinoceros that was trapped in a mud hole. Another involved the rescue of a human child who fell into a zoo moat, by a male gorilla. For every case that has been recorded, it is likely that many more have gone unobserved. Is it “natural” for an animal to help another of a different species? Perhaps it is.
Saying that the only natural mode in which humans should exist is to “…fuck, fight, eat, shit, die” is totally incomplete, and has not been “natural” to the experience of most humans for thousands of years. Most humans have emotional and mental lives that are often at odds with those five events. Human “freedoms” are willingly affected by laws and morals to enable us to coexist in relative harmony. Such a state may not be “natural”, but it produces a “greater good” for the majority who is considered (in this case, mostly humans). If you look at the continuum of the importance of mental and emotional faculties, it is obvious that they are taking more prominence and are becoming ever more complex. Looking at the increasing protection that has been afforded to animals over the past hundred years proves that, and it suggests that humans will continue to afford animals more protection. “Unnatural” to do so? You can say so if you want, but that doesn’t diminish the awareness that many people have of the importance of doing so. Some of this is due to increasing realization that animals share many traits with humans.
”Mr X spending his energy and resources to avoid harming the cow, when the cow provides more sustenance for less effort, is counter to his survival. So is moving, maybe, depending on who happens to live on the arable farmland.”
“Maybe” sounds like you acknowledge a false dilemma -- that there are usually more than two choices in any given situation. It’s also telling that you say “…the cow provides more sustenance…”. The cow isn’t “providing” anything -- things are being taken from it. In order to get cows to lactate so that the milk can be taken from them, they have to be impregnated. Once they give birth, the calf is usually taken away from the mother within a day or two and (if it is female) it is fed on a mix of whey and other things. If it is male, it usually is sold to a veal “ranch”, where it is kept in permanently dark shed, in a stall the size of a car trunk, for four months, until it is taken out and slaughtered. “Natural”? Hardly. “Provide”? I’d say that the worst treatment of a sweatshop worker is a good deal better.
” No other animal worries about the suffering it imposes on another (at least they sure don't seem too sorry) unless there is a pack/family relationship. To do so is as natural as driving a car or watching TV- it isn't.”
True enough, but then it isn’t “natural” for many animals to be concerned about equality, freedom of dissent, and a bunch of other things that humans care about. It isn’t “natural” for people to spend ¼ of their lifetimes working for someone else, then take a portion of the payment of that and use it to help others who have suffered great misfortune. The thing that I find truly “unnatural” is the arbitrary distinction of relieving the suffering of a fellow human (say, sending money -- which for most people represents a percentage of their life and effort -- to support victims of a disaster) but draw the line at helping domesticated animals who live in worse conditions their entire lives, or have direct complicity in causing that suffering. I know that’s getting into questions of “virtue”, but I think it also relates to the topic at hand.
”Your 'less suffering' thing is invalid. Less suffering for *me* is certainly something I naturally work towards. For you or your cat? That is something I might choose to do. But it will not intrinsically reduce my suffering if I reduce the suffering of a chicken.”
I never claimed it would. However, humans (perhaps uniquely) have the option to reduce the suffering they cause. Invalid? I disagree. You asked “What about causing less suffering makes it a good choice as a goal?” I listed seven reasons why:
suffering is something humans instinctively avoid,
suffering is something animals instinctively avoid,
we can observe negative results of suffering,
suffering diminishes the pleasure we otherwise prefer,
human-caused suffering among livestock has drastically increased,
suffering among humans reduces their efficiency
compared with murder, causing suffering is still relatively negative
Saying my “less suffering thing is invalid” isn’t too impressive to me; it hardly refutes the seven points above. I never claimed that reducing the suffering of a chicken would reduce your suffering; that was not the question as it was posed. I am looking for ethics that take people beyond that sort of self-serving relativism which has produced incalculable misery for people and animals throughout history.
"employees are free to quit anytime, slaves are not"
”Employees in many third world countries exist in sweatshop conditions. That means, if you quit, you will frequently find you don't need a job as you have been crippled as an example to the others. You are paid just enough to allow you to survive. The economy is such that if they would let you quit, you could starve to death in perfect freedom without that job. This is close enough to slavery for me. If I were in those conditions, I would feel like one.”
I’m well aware of the working conditions at factories in many developing nations. Let’s not forget that, in most of these places, factory work – indeed any industrial employment is a very recent development. Obviously these people survived before Nike or The Gap built factories there, mostly on subsistence agriculture, light animal husbandry, local crafts, export and trade, tourism, whatever. I think it’s a bit silly to claim that the sweatshops are the only thing that enable these people to survive. It wasn’t so 50 or 100 years ago; I doubt it is so now.
| By Pan on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 04:50 pm: Edit |
"I don't eat apes and whales, by the way. "
Mmmm . . . monkey and whale . . . *drool*
*wink*
-Dev
| By Mr_Rabid on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 04:27 pm: Edit |
"It is a ballancing act of innumerable variables, only some of which can be known"
Thats what I was tryin to say before- math is a horridly imprecise language to describe societies, ethics, and suffering.
Math can accurately model some things- as long as you limit the variables. And to do that you must subjectively assign them to your 'ethical equation.'
And you can do that with math to make it sound all sciencey and stuff. Credibility in a can!
But you are still assigning specific values to what are non-specific things.
You can mathematically express how many people live in Guam. You cannot mathematically express what it means to lose a loved one without assigning it a number- it doesn't have one on its own like the population of Guam.
| By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 03:34 pm: Edit |
Quote:Can you cite any compelling evidence that suffering is not something to be avoided or reduced?
| By Mr_Rabid on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 02:52 pm: Edit |
" think that is an arbitrary exclusion, that pits humans against nature."
You are advocating an unnatural stance on things- your stance on ethics is against nature.
To go with nature is to prey on those weaker than you, be they carrots, cows, or the guys in the next village.
To go with nature is to fuck, fight, eat, shit, die. You have no choice about three of those. Doing the other two will often make your personal suffering go down.
This promotes your survival and the passing on of your genes.
Mr X spending his energy and resources to avoid harming the cow, when the cow provides more sustenance for less effort, is counter to his survival. So is moving, maybe, depending on who happens to live on the arable farmland.
No other animal worries about the suffering it imposes on another (at least they sure don't seem too sorry) unless there is a pack/family relationship.
To do so is as natural as driving a car or watching TV- it isn't.
Your 'less suffering' thing is invalid. Less suffering for *me* is certainly something I naturally work towards. For you or your cat? That is something I might choose to do. But it will not intrinsically reduce my suffering if I reduce the suffering of a chicken.
If the conditions the chickens live in now were less efficient due to their suffering, the money grubbing fuckers who do that to them would stop. But it is more efficient, so they will keep removing those beaks.
"employees are free to quit anytime, slaves are not"
Employees in many third world countries exist in sweatshop conditions. That means, if you quit, you will frequently find you don't need a job as you have been crippled as an example to the others.
You are paid just enough to allow you to survive.
The economy is such that if they would let you quit, you could starve to death in perfect freedom without that job.
This is close enough to slavery for me. If I were in those conditions, I would feel like one.
| By Tavarua on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 02:24 pm: Edit |
Better be careful all you vegetarians, "when all the cows are gone, we're coming after you leafy green eaters." Ummm, tender, leafy green eaters.
| By Rch427 on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 12:30 pm: Edit |
Mr. Rabid --
Math is a language. If you don't beleive me, look at it's deficiencies. There are lots of things it cannot say. (If you have the urge to come back with 'it will eventually advance to that point' I could say the same of English in reverse.)”
Since “there are lots of things (mathematics) cannot say…” -- that makes it a language?! Sorry, I don’t see the logic of that. No, I certainly don’t think that language “…will eventually advance to that point” of being able to express everything concisely. Nevertheless, basic mathematics can express relationships and outcomes that are objective, repeatable, falsifiable, independent of bias and of regional considerations.
”Adolf Hitler was working towards the common good. He was imposing an unpopular but very ethical set of ideas.”
They were popular enough with a large percentage of the German and Austrian people. Ethical, they were not. If you want to say “moral”, I cannot object.
”He was working towards a unified world of smarter, stronger, healthier and more ethical people.”
I don’t know why you think so. From the point when he became aware that Britain and the rest of Europe was not going to hail him as the new savior, he pitched his small percentage of the world against the majority, with the majority to be enslaved by the minority. I don’t recall anything in his program that would’ve “unified” the world’s population, merely replaced it.
”His definition of 'the greater good' was different than yours, is all. So we are left again with what you consider the greater good, and what you choose to call 'more' ethical. Causing less suffering, you say- is that necessarily the right way to go? What about causing less suffering makes it a good choice as a goal? Don't be circular here, either. Tell us why that's better for humanity.”
I think one big difference between our thinking is that you frame things in terms of what is “better for humanity”. I think that is an arbitrary exclusion, that pits humans against nature. I would ask what is better for the entire scope of what we have contact with: humans, animals, the environment, etc. Reducing the harm of and suffering of animals and the rest of nature has value. This has already been recognized by the voters and legislatures that have enacted environmental protection laws and animal welfare laws. Why do you suppose that it is now illegal for a person to beat their horse to death? To fight dogs? I think it is because humans have become increasingly aware of the similarities of the human and animals experiences. Why do you suppose one can still force a horse to pull a plow all day, or leave a dog tied up to a stake all day? I think it is because our consideration for them is in conflict with what we gain from them. If animals could defend themselves, if trees and other organisms could protect themselves against harm from humans, it would be a different equation. They can’t (so far as I know), so the onus is upon those of us who recognize the value of non-harm to prevent harm.
Unfortunately, I’m unaware of any snappy, one-line explanation to your question, but I think that a valid case can be constructed of smaller elements.
Perhaps the most obvious clue as to why “…causing less suffering (is) a good choice as a goal…” is the general agreement among humans that suffering is something we personally prefer to avoid. Apparently this is one of (if not the) most basic impulses, and it can be observed from newborn infants through mentally-diminished elderly persons. Some people become exceptions (e.g., Buddhists, masochists, etc.) but the predominance is so large as to be compelling, if not convincing on its own.
Then there is our observation of animals and their suffering-avoidance. If you go to strike a horse or a dog, odds are that it will try to avoid the blow. They recognize that we are not their predators, but they expect suffering to be the result of being struck, and so try to avoid it. Humans may not find this to be sufficient reason to discontinue practices that harm animals, but it is an additional and important factor.
There is also the human ability to compare past experiences and extrapolate the likely results of a present or future actions. We can compare the negative consequences of externally-caused suffering (resulting in non-co-operation, antisocial behavior, destructive tendencies, lawlessness, etc.) observed in past situations regarding forced suffering.
We can also observe how suffering diminishes pleasures that we otherwise generally prefer. This can also be seen in animals, as where the presence of a wound visibly affects the mood of a dog who would otherwise be playful.
Another factor that might well be considered in the specific case of “livestock” is the conditions in which they are kept, which increasingly causes suffering. 200 Years ago, farm animals were generally kept in farmyards, in low concentrations. That has changed to the point where today, about 95% of hens spend their entire lives in stacks of small cages, and more than half of all cattle and pigs live in small, dark enclosures. Living conditions have been progressively worsened in the effort for maximum profit. As humans, we value such living conditions that afford space, light and freedom, and find the opposite to cause discomfort, if not suffering. It isn’t difficult to tell that animals value these things similarly to humans.
There is also the matter of efficiency. Suffering often causes a measurable decrease in efficiency, which causes waste. On strictly utilitarian (small “u”) terms, suffering is an impediment to optimal performance. This seems to be easier to measure in humans than in animals, but I think it is still reliable.
I think that in some ways, causing suffering is analogous to any other question of harm. You might ask “what about not committing murder makes it a good choice as a goal?” If we can establish (and I think we can) that not murdering others is part of an implicit social contract that most people observe (often independently of laws or mores), this contributes to not only a “good”, but the additional benefit of not fearing for our own lives. By determining to not commit murder, we expect others to not murder us. If we can establish that the extreme of murder is worth avoiding, it is an incremental step to the value of avoiding torture, suffering and so forth.
You asked “What about causing less suffering makes it a good choice as a goal?” Well, I’ve just cited a number of reasons why I think it is. Perhaps none are compelling on their own, but taken as a whole (and, no doubt there are many others), they are significant. I have never heard arguments to the contrary that didn’t involve some moral expectation, i.e., “suffering is good for the soul”, “suffer in this life to earn paradise”, etc. Can you cite any compelling evidence that suffering is not something to be avoided or reduced?
”Because slavery in name is less popular now you say we have advanced- I say things are largely the same, but we have gotten new slaves and call them 'employees' in poor countries.”
You seem to be such a stickler for using what you perceive as “accurate” terms – why are you now saying “low-paid foreign workers” equal “slaves”? Why not just claim that employees in the US who receive minimum wage are “slaves”? There are at least two major distinctions: employees are free to quit anytime, slaves are not. Employees receive remuneration sufficient to convince them to stay employees, slaves do not. Consequently, I think that the definition of slaves is nowhere near met.
”Let's say your Mr X lives on a big, grassy plain. The only thing that grows well there is grass. But that's OK, cause the kids still get their protien, from Bessy the cow, whom Mr X has enslaved along with her herd for their milk and meat. Mr X understands Bessie's suffering- but now he must choose between feeding his children or freeing Bessie. Which would be more ethical there?”
“Which would be more ethical there?” Picking up and moving. Seriously, this is a classic “false dilemma”. It’s like me claiming that I had no choice but to hit you over the head and steal your wallet, since I was hungry. There are nearly always more than two options in any given situation; those who try to claim only two are usually not being creative enough or hiding an ulterior motive. Few inhabited places on earth will not support sustenance agriculture; awareness of an area’s ability to support humans should be a factor when choosing to live there and whether or not to reproduce; one can move to another area, etc. This sort of justification also conveniently ignores the potential to change. So long as we can justify a practice with this poor cousin of the “defense of necessity”, people will continue to choose to do harmful things. Why bother looking for an alternative to exploiting a herd of cows so long as it is taking care of the immediate protein problem? This is a common way that mores are established. Inertia is so much easier than problem solving.
Pan –
” Incidentally, if I remember my Shirer correctly (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), Hitler was a vegetarian. Apparently, his flatulance (sp?) was something of a running gag among his inner circle (though, presumably only laughed at when he wasn't around).”
That urban legend originated with Josef Goebbels’ “biography” of Hitler, where he attempted to associate him with all manner of great men, from Wagner to Gandhi (who were both intermittent vegetarians). In fact, Hitler was not a vegetarian; he simply found that he often could not eat meats and certain other foods without suffering from intense abdominal pain and gas. I have read biographies of Hitler which included interviews with both his personal physician (Dr. Theodor Morell) who diagnosed Hitler with chronic irritable bowel syndrome, and by his private cook (Dione Lucas), who stated unequivocally that Hitler's three favorite dishes were stuffed squab, liver dumplings and sausages.
” As an interesting aside, in my understanding the great, big, flaming difference when it comes to Mill and Bentham and Utilitarian Ethics is that Mill posited that intellectual pleasures deserved greater weight in the calculation than did physical ones. His reasoning, if I remember, is that anyone who has experienced both prefers the former (I'm not saying I agree, or am even necessarily correct in my recollection, just suggesting it as what I remember). Bentham seemed to think that, all quantity being equal, knitting was as good as chess.”
I may be wrong, but I think Bentham saw it the other way ‘round, with physical pleasures receiving greater weight -- I think his term was “a pushpin is as good as poetry”. Also, Bentham thought that all action was caused by pleasure or pain, which seems to me improbably narrow.
” Having spent a semester doing nothing but reading Existentialist literature and hollering at my professor, a pupil of Hannah Arendt (and incidentally, a very active and healthy vegitarian), I can say that ethics is only one thing for sure: as difficult as it is pervasive. Little can be done by a human that isn't a reflection of SOME conception of ethics, but rarely are two conceptions completely in accord.”
Agreed, but I’d still rather work towards some accord with the greatest possible outcome and not simply claim that the status quo is satisfactory for all. I know that others feel this way too, and I am glad to discuss, debate, argue and “holler” about it.
” As far as eating meat . . . meh, to each his own. So long as no one bothers me about what I'm eatin', I'm inclined to leave discussion about it to friendly disagreement and trivial chatter.”
Hey – that’s fine, so long as Bessie gets her say too, and I’m channeling her right now.
| By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 11:10 am: Edit |
It was more intended as a calirification of my position on why humans are more deserving of rights than animals, than an attempt to borach the subject of free will. Whether we have true free will or not, we display a capacity for something which, to us, appears to be free will, in that we appear to be capable of comprehending the potential consequences of our actions and making choices from this understanding. Animals, with the possible exception of the apes and the whales, don't seem to display this capacity.
I don't eat apes and whales, by the way.
| By Pan on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 03:30 am: Edit |
Eek! I really rather wish you hadn't gone down the free-will slope, Blackjack. I think you might've over-stated your case.
Free will is a great big smelly issue in philosophy, as I'm sure you know. There are a large number of people who aren't convinced that PEOPLE have free will, let alone animals.
I realize that was just a small part of your overall comment and doesn't necessarily detract from it in a meaningful way, but I thought I'd bring it up and let you clarify your thoughts.
-Dev
| By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 02:49 am: Edit |
Quote:Generally agreed upon” is not the same as “accurate”,
Quote:Um…go back and read what I wrote:
Quote:assigning each positive and negative factor an equal value,
Quote:how many posters here are familiar with “Utilitarianism”, much less read Kant?
| By Pan on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 05:40 pm: Edit |
Incidentally, if I remember my Shirer correctly (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), Hitler was a vegetarian. Apparently, his flatulance (sp?) was something of a running gag among his inner circle (though, presumably only laughed at when he wasn't around).
As an interesting aside, in my understanding the great, big, flaming difference when it comes to Mill and Bentham and Utilitarian Ethics is that Mill posited that intellectual pleasures deserved greater weight in the calculation than did physical ones. His reasoning, if I remember, is that anyone who has experienced both prefers the former (I'm not saying I agree, or am even necessarily correct in my recollection, just suggesting it as what I remember). Bentham seemed to think that, all quantity being equal, knitting was as good as chess.
Having spent a semester doing nothing but reading Existentialist literature and hollering at my professor, a pupil of Hannah Arendt (and incidentally, a very active and healthy vegitarian), I can say that ethics is only one thing for sure: as difficult as it is pervasive. Little can be done by a human that isn't a reflection of SOME conception of ethics, but rarely are two conceptions completely in accord.
As far as eating meat . . . meh, to each his own. So long as no one bothers me about what I'm eatin', I'm inclined to leave discussion about it to friendly disagreement and trivial chatter.
You know, like on a BBS or something . . . **impish little grin**
-Dev
| By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 04:22 pm: Edit |
I can't help myself.
Math is a language. If you don't beleive me, look at it's deficiencies. There are lots of things it cannot say. (If you have the urge to come back with 'it will eventually advance to that point' I could say the same of English in reverse.)
Your comments on the imposition of unpopular ethical ideas (suffrage, freeing the slaves etc) are most amusing.
Adolf Hitler was working towards the common good. He was imposing an unpopular but very ethical set of ideas.
He was working towards a unified world of smarter, stronger, healthier and more ethical people.
His definition of 'the greater good' was different than yours, is all.
So we are left again with what you consider the greater good, and what you choose to call 'more' ethical.
Causing less suffering, you say- is that necessarily the right way to go? What about causing less suffering makes it a good choice as a goal? Don't be circular here, either. Tell us why that's better for humanity.
Because slavery in name is less popular now you say we have advanced- I say things are largely the same, but we have gotten new slaves and call them 'employees' in poor countries.
Let's say your Mr X lives on a big, grassy plain. The only thing that grows well there is grass. But that's OK, cause the kids still get their protien, from Bessy the cow, whom Mr X has enslaved along with her herd for their milk and meat.
Mr X understands Bessie's suffering- but now he must choose between feeding his children or freeing Bessie. Which would be more ethical there?
| By Rch427 on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 03:51 pm: Edit |
Blackjack Quotes RCH427:
I assert that “morals” are unnecessary and often negative in their influence.
”I assert that ethics are meaningless in the absence of morals, by definition, as ethics are a system of thought by which one seeks moral knowledge. Morals are the actual valuation of action; the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something. Ethics are the intellectual structures by which you seek to know the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action. You seem to be under the misapprehension that ethics are somehow seperable from morals. As the terms are used in the tudy of philosophy, ethics cannot exist without morals, OK? Please stop lecturing people about language until you are ready to use the generally agreed-upon meaning of words.”
“Generally agreed upon” is not the same as “accurate”, just as “moral” is not the same as “ethical”. Most people think the two are synonymous, but they are not. According to the OED, the Greek word “ethikos”, meant “customary behavior”, as used by Aristotle. Cicero later adapted “ethikos” into the Latin word “moralis” to mean “one’s disposition”. Already, you can see shades of difference between the two. Later, the two words became commonly used interchangeably, and as late as the early 20th century, the philosopher E. G. Moore argued that there could be no distinction between the two. However, philosophers have increasingly utilized the two words separately to mean different things. Again, my distinction between the two terms is not original, it is taken from a number of contemporary philosophers who find it to be useful.
I discussed this subject with my wife and, considering she is working on her Ph.D. in philosophy, she has spent the recent past exposed to the most specific and exacting information about the subject. A few months ago, she spent an hour pointing out to me the distinctions that are presently made in philosophy between the two terms. That’s a snip compared to the lecture she attended a couple of years ago where Prof. James Griffin (one of the chairs of Cambridge’s philosophy dept.) spent 5 hours explaining the distinctions between the two words. The upshot? “Morals” are subjective may be used without any direct relation to ethics, “ethics” attempt to be objective and are often at odds with morals, and certainly may be employed without them.
For example, slavery, as an act, became unethical at least as soon as humans developed the capacity to recognize the superior value of freedom, whether slavery was considered by those who valued freedom, or whether they were ignorant of slavery. Morals did not modify the unethical state of slavery, either when they were used to justify slavery nor when they eventually condemned it, thousands of years later. As I’ve pointed out, the Catholic more on contraception has no ethical value, despite the fact that millions of people view contraception as immoral. Ethics without morals, morals without ethics.
There are, I suspect, many things that are ethical or unethical of which we have no knowledge, and so, have not developed moral positions relative to them. Those who study patterns in the way that ethics may be recognized will probably be the first to find these ethical conflicts. Prof. Peter Singer recently wrote a very interesting book called The Expanding Circle, where he demonstrates this very pattern, using the increased protection of animals from human exploitation as a clear example.
Blackjack Quotes RCH427:
He did indeed show that ethics can be objective (if not absolute)
Actually, he showed, or attempted to, anyhow, that MORALS could be objectivly grounded in metaphysics. (Please note the predominance of the word "Sitten" in his works.) He did so, however, through a bootstrapped web of sophistries that could only have come out of the 18th century. It was an attempt to snatch the idea metaphysics and, ultimately of deity, from the jaws of Hume. I don't think he succeeded. “
Um…go back and read what I wrote: “…Bertrand Russell is generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. He did indeed show that ethics can be objective…” Metaphysics were anathema to Russell, or at least irrelevant. Nor was he a sophist. I’m well aware of Kant’s limitations, but that’s not what I was discussing.
Blackjack Quotes RCH427:
Utilitarian philosophers such as Mill and Bentham suggested that whatever actions produced the greatest good.
”And how, praytell, did they decide what was the greatest "good"? (I know the answer, but I'd be amused to see yours...) “
My, what hubris! From what I remember, J. S. Mill’s Utilitarianism treated ethical theory as a democratic process, whereby the good of the majority would be promoted and the safety of the minority protected, by evaluating all of the possible factors, assigning each positive and negative factor an equal value, and evaluating the outcome, with the weight going for the majority. A novel theory, but not, I think, very practical as it stood. It was, however, very important to the development of democracy in general.
Bentham was a bit out there; he devised something he called “hedonic calculus” that considered a number of (7? 8?) different factors (e.g., “amount of pleasure”) to determine which behavior should be required and which prohibited. Unfortunately, merely determining all of the factors and presuming that they could be accurately weighed would be nearly impossible to accomplish. Still, I find his views about the importance of separating ethics from motivation to be interesting.
Those are gross simplifications, but I see no need to go too far into their depth, since I don’t agree with either of their methodologies. A major criticism I have of the early Utilitarian philosophers is that they drew an arbitrary line between the value of human pleasure and suffering and that of animals. These were the same distinctions made by most scientists at the time, so it’s hardly surprising that they held that view. However, Utilitarianism has become increasingly sophisticated, although I find it still flawed by its generalization. I have yet to agree wholly with any single philosopher, and find it most useful to cobble together elements from a number of different ones.
I’ve never read James Mill, so I can’t comment on him.
BTW – a friend of mine (and a classmate of my wife) is the closest direct descendent of Jeremy Bentham. When he died in the early 19th century, his body was preserved in a seated position in a chair, with a wax replica of his head where his real head had been. His head is preserved separately, elsewhere. His body is doing well; they wheel it out to be present at special occasions of the philosophical society he once belonged to. His head, however, recently needed some “restoration”, for which they asked her permission. Surreal. “Pardon me, miss, but may we please put some spackle in your great, great, great, granddad’s nose? It’s beginning to smell!”
”Son, your enthusiasm is duly noted, but you need to recognize that a) you are unlikely to be introducing any ideas here with which most of us are not already familiar …”
Oh, I doubt that. Even statistically, that’s unlikely (how many posters here are familiar with “Utilitarianism”, much less read Kant?), but many of the statements made reflect the self-centered relativism typical amongst those who have given little thought to ethics.
”b)…and these ideas are not so unempeachable that that should be taken as fact without argument.”
But I welcome argument, or at least lively debate. It exposes people to new ideas and challenges preconceptions. For example, some of “Anatomist’s” statements will cause me to recheck figures that I’ve taken from other sources; if the information I accepted was incorrect, I will change it. I always look for correction, even if it is in opposition to what I’ve previously accepted as valid. After all, that is how I became a vegan in the first place. I could’ve just continued to relegate animals to a status that valued them by their usefulness to me, but I was challenged by others who made me realize that to do so was inconsistent with what I knew to be fair and just.
”That way lies exactly the sort of unpleasant imposition of ideas (e.g., the Nazis, the Inquisition) that you seem so against.”
Sorry, but I find that ridiculous. What is less of an “unpleasant imposition of ideas” than what the abolitionists (and to a lesser extent, the Union) forced upon the South in their efforts to change unjust treatment of humans based on their ethnic background? I’ve no doubt that this very argument was employed by slave owners then, who were operating within the law and their morals in owning slaves. The same can be said of the “unpleasant imposition of ideas” of those who championed Native American rights, the suffragists, those who fought to enact child labor laws, gay and lesbian rights, and so on. Each of these situations had at least three things in common: at first they had no legal standing and little or no moral influence, early efforts were in direct opposition to the laws and the mores of the time, and they sought to establish limitations upon the strong, to protect the vulnerable -- or effect the “unpleasant imposition of ideas”, if you prefer. That is exactly parallel to the situation facing the animal rights movement. The difference is that we’re still in the early stages of this effort, so the majority is still unaware of the ethical issues, and there is tremendous resistance from those with a vested interest in continuing the present situation.
Incidentally, the Adolf Hitler himself disbanded the German Vegetarian Union, as being a threat to the good of the state. That’s how the Nazis felt about animal rights.
Now, if we can look back at all of the examples above and regard the “rightness” of their struggles as self-evident, why should we be so cavalier as to presume that the more that animals are for our exploitation -- is “right”? To me, that demonstrates how myopic society is and it shows little regard for ethics in general.
And now a question for you: let’s say that this thread were not about veganism or (connectedly) about animal rights. Let’s suppose it were about women recently being harmed in Afghanistan. Suppose someone posted something like “Afghani women shouldn’t object to being stoned for breaking Islamic law, as it clearly states in the Q’raan that, if a woman shows her ankle to a man, she is an adulteress in the eyes of Allah, and thus deserving of death”. Let’s say that I responded by pointing out that that is simply not factual; e.g., not in the Q’raan. Someone else posted something like “Afghani women who show their ankles deserve to be raped”, and I pointed out that that is absurd and unethical (although apparently it is not “immoral” to some Afghani men). Let’s suppose the debate expanded to the wider question of ethics relative to the treatment of women. I suspect that there would be very little objection if I asserted that women deserve protection from harm, at least once the trolls went away and people realized that it wasn’t going to be a “let’s say something stupid about women” thread. So why do you think that the response has been so different on this thread? My somewhat tactless posting style aside, I can only conclude that it is not because animals don’t deserve protection from harm, but rather because some posters have a vested interest in the continued harming of animals, regardless of the ethical value of the protection of animals.
| By Anatomist on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 03:20 pm: Edit |
...mean-spirited goth girls with nothing substantial to say, who instead make feeble attempts at clever, drive-by innuendo?
| By Verawench on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 12:58 pm: Edit |
I'll tell you what's sad...
| By Anatomist on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 06:23 am: Edit |
I would hardly call this a brilliant debate. It hasn't ever gotten past square one. Your garrulous hero has indeed read a slew of books, but he's no philosopher and no scholar... more like a producer of large quantities of runny philosophical oatmeal. For this to go anywhere besides around in circles, it would need to get some agreed upon definitions of basic terms, some common premises, and an understanding of how to apply basic logic to sorting things out in a debate. So far none of this has happened, despite repeated attempts. It's sad.
K.
| By Marccampbell on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 04:31 am: Edit |
this is one of the most fascinating and insightful threads that I've read in the forum since being a member. Thanks to you all for sustaining a brilliant debate.
Marc
| By Pikkle on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 12:45 am: Edit |
And I'll take a café latte while you're all at it... thanks.
| By _Blackjack on Tuesday, February 05, 2002 - 12:30 am: Edit |
Quote:I assert that “morals” are unnecessary and often negative in their influence.
Quote:He did indeed show that ethics can be objective (if not absolute)
Quote:Utilitarian philosophers such as Mill and Bentham suggested that whatever actions produced the greatest good.
| By Pikkle on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 11:15 pm: Edit |
Gotta love a guy who loves to hear himself talk... and Don, wasn't talking about the People's Republic of Korea... no, it was our left coast buddies, the People's Republic of Kalifornia, über alles...
| By Rch427 on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:55 pm: Edit |
”I love rats. Some of my best friends are rats. You don't know shit about rats.”
And you base this on what – that I said that rat infestation isn’t a problem in my area? That I said that rat populations can be kept in check by proper sanitation and security? Was I mistaken about those two assertions? You certainly haven’t shown that. I never claimed to be an expert on rats, but why should I accept that your assertion is more valid than mine? BTW – I like rats too; had a pet one when I was in my mid-teens. And I’d never harm one, which I’d think would be worth something in your book.
”Oh, BTW, you knowlege of moral philosophy is kinda lacking, too. Ethics are not a thing seperate from morals. Ethics are a system by which one seeks moral knowlege. Ethics are to morals as algebra is to numbers. While you can certainly create a consistant and systematic ethical equation, it doesn't mean shit if you don't have morals to plug into it. Ultimately, you must place value on one thing over another, and I have yet to see anyone, not Kant, not Russell, not Rand, and certainly not you, demonstrate that any of these values can be shown to be absolute or objective. And trust me, I've looked. “
And you have yet to demonstrate that your definition of “morals” is correct or that your assertion of ethics not meaning “…shit if you don't have morals to plug into it”. I assert that “morals” are unnecessary and often negative in their influence. Many people do without them entirely, instead basing their decision-making on ethics. I think your analogy to numbers and algebra is inaccurate. I would say that perhaps ethics are to morals as mathematics is to language. Languages are often incompatible, inaccurate, heterodox, subjective. Mathematics is universal, accurate and objective. One can do without a common language (indeed, do to the fact that there are hundreds of different languages that prevent common linguistic communication, in a way we all “do without” language) but one can communicate information and ideas just with mathematics. As for “…Ultimately, you must place value on one thing over another…”, I suggest you look into Utilitarianism. Utilitarian philosophers such as Mill and Bentham suggested that whatever actions produced the greatest good
Language is a good thing, but morality is often not. As I have pointed out ad nauseum on this thread, morals are usually the product of regional or religious influences and are often at odds with other mores from other regions and religions. Birth control is “immoral” to many Catholics; eating pork is “immoral” to many Muslims and Jews. The moral stances of Jews and Muslims drive them to kill each other. What use is such a code of conduct if it has limited applicability and causes division? On the other hand, if people agreed to behave by a universal set of ethics – even on a strictly Utilitarian basis – the effect would be much more positive. This arguing in favor of morals, against ethics, sounds to me the same as arguing in favor of aristocracy, against true democracy. Morality and aristocracy had their day and amply demonstrated that they were not worthy of being relied upon to create the greatest good for the greatest number of participants.
Kant’s ideas are important, but there has been progress in philosophy since the 18th century. Bertrand Russell is generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. He did indeed show that ethics can be objective (if not absolute), and lived his life largely in accordance. I suggest you read An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth for evidence. Rand? Now she was a tough character – and makes me seem positively wishy-washy. Don’t think she was that important philosophically, though; more a social and political theorist. From what I recall from my reading of her 20 years ago, it seemed to me she was quite an absolutist, and although she called her overarching theory “objectivism” (a term already in use in philosophy, but with a different meaning); I wouldn’t call her views entirely objective.
Anyway, philosophy is a long process of evolution, with many false turns, fits and starts. Philosophers like Hare and Stevenson were still questioning in the mid-20th century what can be determined of normative ethics; that’s a long time after Kant. Despite the pace of philosophical development and the unwillingness of philosophers to be pinned down, ethical questions can be usually determined by an objective process. Again, I have to point out that issues of slavery, human rights, woman’s sufferage, child labor, animal torture, etc., have been assessed from an ethical standpoint -- often at odds with the dominant mores of the time and have been addressed through the efforts to change laws and mores. Simply put: ethics changed bad practices for the better, in opposition to morals.
| By _Blackjack on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 11:54 am: Edit |
That, and I'm allergic to them. It breaks my heart.
| By Louched_Liver on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 03:35 am: Edit |
Blackjack,
You've got it right about rats. I currently have 3. The only problem w/them is they don't live long enough.
| By _Blackjack on Sunday, February 03, 2002 - 10:33 pm: Edit |
Quote:When I lived in SF I saw more raccoons than rats (yes, really) and I lived for 4 years Downtown.
| By Rch427 on Sunday, February 03, 2002 - 05:38 pm: Edit |
Lord Hobgoblin –
” Since when did I ever mention ethics? I have only ever mentioned morality. They are two entirely different things. Morality, ethics and the law are entirely different things.”
What a surprise. I’ve only pointed that out about a half dozen times already, and throughout this entire thread I’ve been explicitly discussing “ethics”, not “morals”. Don’t know how you missed that fact. Considering the debate has been centered around the notion of ethics, I’m glad you finally figured it out. If you’ve been mistakenly critiquing my position as a “moral” one, you went way off.
Note to the chorus: these are not my ideas. I did not come up with any of them, nor did I clam to have. There is nothing that I have asserted that wasn’t already said by acknowledged experts in animal husbandry, animal behavior, ethicists, philosophers, etc. These people (such as Blackburn, Singer, Russell, etc.) are far more knowledgeable than I and, equally important, they are likely more so than any of you. Is there debate over the details? Sure. However, when in doubt, it is usually best to take the path of less harm. So far as I know, there isn’t another choice that produces a greater good for a larger number of participants.
Having established that, see if you can follow this: morals, being personal and subjective, are the problem, not the solution. When the Christian Church established the first Inquisition, they were acting from (one presumes) a moral position, and within the law. The results were hundreds of thousands of innocent people being imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Same goes for the Nazi regime, the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban and countless of other events throughout history. I ask you: if “morals”, working within the law, result in these atrocities, what good are they?
That is the point of ethics: a larger frame of reference, a more benign influence. More to the point, that is what I’ve been writing about this entire time. Morals/mores are not reliable in convincing people to not cause harm. Never have been; probably never will be. Same goes for wishful thinking.
” Animals do not have rights that are set in stone.”
No indeed. But what do you make of the fact that animals have received more and more legal protection over the past 150 years? Where do you think it will lead? And do you think that the “good” of the likely result of animals eventually being protected against all exploitation will offset the “bad” of people no longer being able to eat them?
” As to spending the whole 6 months studying a topic making you an expert. Thats only the equivalent of about one academic year of study.”
I never claimed to be an “expert”. If you read what I wrote, I said that after 6 months of study I became convinced to become a vegan. If it takes six months for a smoker to decide to quit smoking, I hardly think you’d characterize that as being too fast. Or perhaps you’d like to have a stab at defending smoking too?
”It takes a lifetime of constant study to become an expert on anything, let alone set yourself up as a supreme and unquestionable authority.’
Bullshit. People become experts on things in far shorter times than you admit. I know of many people in their 20s who are experts on aspects of computers and other recent technologies. I know of many in their 30s who are experts in various arts or crafts. People become expert athletes even younger. For me at 39 to describe myself as fairly well educated about ethics and knowledgeable about animal rights and philosophy, after two decades of research, is hardly stretching credibility. Peter Singer, probably the preeminent expert on animal rights, became so in his 40s. Bertrand Russell wrote Principia Mathematica (for which he won the Nobel Prize) when he was younger than I am now. Hawking, Tesla, Feynmann – all were widely considered “experts” while in their 40s. I’ve never compared myself to them, but your claim is simply nonsense. I never claimed to be “…a supreme and unquestionable authority”, merely to know of which I speak, through a synthesis of what I have learned from others and experienced firsthand over the course of 20 years.
” As to Rats, well you know little about rats. Unless they are killed (and your local council will be killing them by the thousands each month) they would infest all urban areas. Keeping a lid on your trash can will not keep the rats under control.”
Oh really? So now you’re an expert on where I live? So far as I know, there is no serious rat problem where I live, nor is there many other places. When I lived in SF I saw more raccoons than rats (yes, really) and I lived for 4 years Downtown. You’re full of generalizations and hubris, aren’t you?
As to whatever effect I’ve had on those I’ve come in contact with, you once again know very little. From the e-mails I've received from forum participants over the last couple of days, I'm actually encouraged. Anyway, I’m never combative with people in the flesh, and seldom so on line. This thread is an exception, and I’ve been more civil and rational than some participants. Over the past few years there have been at least 5 or 6 people that have become vegans after getting to know me and have stated that information from me was invaluable in their decision.
Here’s a little scenario I just thought up; see if you can understand it. There are three characters: an observer, a free agent (let’s call him “Mr. X”) and a hen, who we’ll call “Doris”. Mr. X is an average American who eats anything he fancies, and has never really considered that the animals he eats are formerly living creatures. He expresses this to the observer, who notes on a chart that Mr. X is operating from a position of ignorance, to the detriment of a hen like Doris, who will likely end up as his McNuggets. One day, Mr. X (for whatever reason) thinks, as he eats fried chicken, that a live chicken must have been killed to become his lunch. He expresses this, a bit guiltily, and goes on eating. The observer notes on the chart that Mr. X is operating from acknowledgment, still to the likely detriment of Doris. Later, Mr. X is eating a chicken salad and thinks to himself – “I hope that the chicken didn’t suffer”. The observer notes “good intentions, no change in effect for Doris”. Another day, Mr. X decides to cut back on eating red meat, as he is concerned about his cholesterol levels. The observer notes “change of habit for health, no change for Doris.” A while later, Mr. X may think “it’s good that I’m not eating red meat, because cattle and pigs probably die in pain”. The observer notes “change of motivation with change of habit, no change for Doris.” Later, Mr. X reads and thinks enough about chickens and other birds and thinks – “I’ll try giving up poultry as well; surely birds suffer like cattle and pigs.” Observer notes: “enlargement of circle of regard, no change for Doris”. One day, eating an egg, Mr. X realizes that an egg is a meat protein supply for an embryo (and often the chicken embryo as well.) He thinks “hey – that’s pretty close to being a chicken in there; maybe I’ll stop eating eggs too”. The observer notes: “realization of egg-laying hen-chicken meat process, likely relief for Doris”. At that point, the relationship between Mr. X and Doris is completed, unless he wishes to do something more, such as provide a comfortable place for her to live. I'll save you the trouble of thinking up a rejoinder and mention that Mr. X has discovered that braised tofu is just as tasty as chicken and much better for his health.
Now, the observer has no stake in this process, he only notes what he perceives, whether he agrees with it or not. Doris cannot perceive anything about the process but her stake in it is profound. Mr. X understands the process in stages, as he learns and questions; his stake in it is important but far less so than Doris’. Ultimately, the only important thing to Doris is that she is not going to spend three years in a wire cage the size of a TV, then be sent off for butchery. The observer can chart a definite evolution of understanding in Mr. X, and it can be assessed as a series of sequential changes, each resulting in an increasingly positive change for an increasing number of sentient beings. That is “ethical progress”: to start from a thoughtless but negative action and to progress towards awareness and harmlessness.
Sorry if that isn’t sexy enough to those of you who need a .45 to prop up your penis.
Two last questions, Lord Hobgoblin -- let’s see if you’re honest enough to answer them.
(1) Levi & Catharine Coffin ran the "underground railroad" at a time when it was legal to own slaves, and in a place where many people, informed by their “morality” owned slaves. Should the Coffins and other abolitionists have kept their opinions to themselves and left the choices of slave ownership up to each person’s mores – even though they knew that inaction and silence on their parts would result in greater harm for innocent people? If so, why? If not, why not?
(2) Adolf Hitler was a racist at a time when it was legal to harm certain gr