The people who argue that living things can be property and also believe in "human rights" advocate a form of speciesism.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
When some eschews animals rights, but embraces human rights purely on axiomatic grounds, then that is speciesism. Sure, some argue that rationality guarantees rights, but this is laughable. There's nothing intrinsic in rationality that promotes "rights." From a utilitarian perspective, rights are determined by the ability to feel pain, physical or psychic. From an amoralist point of view, rights do not exist or are a function of power. From a Kantian view, rights are arbitrarily drawn according to rationality. What is it about rationality that implies rights?
the amoralist has no concern about the topic at hand. therefore he has a solution: to do something else.
banned: This is a supposition, not a proof. It's not a valid demonstration of rational choice within non-homo sapiens.
This is a supposition, not a proof. It's not a valid demonstration of rational choice within non-homo sapiens.
Not according to Wolfgang Kohler...
banned: This failed to address anything. You've just loaded the identity of "kindness towards animals" into the word empathy and asserted that in order to be human, you must respect other animals. Empathy (emotive drive) is a requirement in humanity and and is also a demonstration of sentience. It is an integral part of human action, while prescribed values are not.
Empathy (emotive drive) is a requirement in humanity and and is also a demonstration of sentience. It is an integral part of human action, while prescribed values are not.
So finding commonality between the pain of another species and the abstraction of one's own pain is not empathy?
Alright, then.
banned: So, given this, I suppose Anti-semitism was necessary requirement for human beings in Nazi Germany?
So, given this, I suppose Anti-semitism was necessary requirement for human beings in Nazi Germany?
You really had to reach for that Godwin's law, didn't you?
existence is elsewhere
Chris George:Unfortunately this is the result of Rothbard's rejection of utilitarian ethics. The utilitarian standard for moral culpability rests on the persons causing of pain. If the man had anesthetized the dog first, I would see nothing wrong with the act as dogs are not self aware and therefore the act causes no pain. Had the act been done to an human, then it would always be immoral. The people who argue that living things can be property and also believe in "human rights" advocate a form of speciesism. Amoralists and utilitarians have the only real solution to this dilemma. The Kantians certainly don't.
What is your metric for pain? Why is pain a valid foundation for "morality" (why isn't this just claim as 'arbitrary' as rationality)? Some people have conditions that prevent their brain from interpreting pain correctly, are they not granted rights? etc., etc.
I assume you're referring to Bentham's form of Utilitarianism, because Mill made exceptions to deriving the "right actions" through pain/pleasure. I recognize that there have been more recent establishments of Utilitarian ethics, but they predominantly derive from the aforementioned philosophers. For one, you're perverting Utilitarianism in your description of it. Utilitarianism is built on a pain/pleasure dichotomy and the right action is determined by how much pain/pleasure it evokes (pleasure being positive, pain being negative). You've merely stated that pain is what determines "rightness" in which case you rule out all actions that cause pain, which is in essence any action which stimulates the nervous system.
Evaluating this scenario with utilitarian ethics would require you to account for all parties: If the pleasure the man felt by mutilating the dog was greater than the pain the dog felt, It would be morally permissible for the man to mutilate the dog. You've done no such thing and instead asserted that because the man caused pain to someone else, his action is impermissable.
Anyways, utilitarianism is logically bankrupt, a priori. The only way of deriving a "right" or "virtuous" action is through evaluating actions by utilitarian calculus. However, evaluation is, itself, an action, so it requires evaluation too, which requires evaluation, which requires evaluation, etc., etc. ad infinitum. Utilitarians only solve this by assuming it is correct to act in evaluating actions, but this is not a valid assumption to make within their moral philosophy.
Wilmot of Rochester:Not according to Wolfgang Kohler...
Well, according to me, and according to the scientific method, it is.
Wilmot of Rochester: So finding commonality between the pain of another species and the abstraction of one's own pain is not empathy?
Did I say that? No.
Wilmot of Rochester: You really had to reach for that Godwin's law, didn't you?
Why not? It was a relevent analogy.
You are correct, my description of utilitarianism was overly simplified to the point of possible butchering. I figured that since I was on an intellectual forum, people would get the gist of it. Your description of Utilitarianism is correct.
(All parties considered would also include any bystanders who may or may not derive pleasure or pain for witnessing the action.)
Why is it wrong to assume outcomes and therefore determine morality? If I opposed a minimum wage increases on utilitarian grounds because of its high probability of causing undesired unemployment, then I have act before evaluating an actual effect. I have used logic to determine action in the desire of reducing pain and maximizing pleasure.
Rationality is a far more ephemeral standard than the tangibility of pain. Furthermore, pain (and pleasure) causes rationality, since pain must exist before knowledge of pain may exist before rational avoidance of pain must exist.
I don't advocate quantification of pain since it would be impossible, but logical assumptions are in order.
Chris George: What is it about rationality that implies rights?
What is it about rationality that implies rights?
Animals can't follow natural rights of humans. They are not rational enough, and the natural rights of humans are "of" humans, "of" the individual naturally. Natural rights are not "for" any creature and animals are not acting these natural rights "of" themselves. If there are animals rights that humans can recognize, then these rights would be "for" animals and not naturally "of" the animal. Animals can't recognize a humans right of life, liberty, and property in any reasonable way.
banned: Well, according to me, and according to the scientific method, it is.
Considering Kohler was one of the first pioneers in animal psychology, it's funny you say this.
banned: Did I say that?
Did I say that?
Um... Yes.
banned: Why not? It was a relevent analogy.
Well if you avoid the obvious reply that the Nazis directly involved in extermination of Jews, Romani, and so many others were a perfect example of a group lacking empathy, then I suppose you could call it an analogy.
Let's back up. Permitting natural law exists which appears objectively so, if God does not exist, then morality cannot exist. The "is" of natural law doesn't imply an "ought" to follow it. People may form contractual relationships to form law, but this cannot be called morality, because there is no existence of an ought. This is called amorality. If this is the case, then proceed with animal torture. Even if god exists, this is still a possibility.
Let's now assume god exists and morality exists, then god must give clues as to what is and is not moral. In order to DO what one ought to do, he must KNOW what he ought to do. This clue could be pleasure and pain. If the clue were rationality, then morality could only arise with rationality which had to been a feature evolved into. The evolution of rationality would have been the RESULT of pleasure and pain perception as action leads to stimuli leads to knowledge leads to the ability to reason. So, pleasure and pain begat rationality. So rationality was begat of utilitarian inputs and not the other way around. Therefore reason demonstrates right and wrong from the perspective of pain and pleasure. So a rationally moral person should resist the causing of pain. Which is utilitarian.
Chris George: Let's back up. Permitting natural law exists which appears objectively so, if God does not exist, then morality cannot exist. The "is" of natural law doesn't imply an "ought" to follow it. People may form contractual relationships to form law, but this cannot be called morality, because there is no existence of an ought. This is called amorality. If this is the case, then proceed with animal torture. Even if god exists, this is still a possibility. Let's now assume god exists and morality exists, then god must give clues as to what is and is not moral. In order to DO what one ought to do, he must KNOW what he ought to do. This clue could be pleasure and pain. If the clue were rationality, then morality could only arise with rationality which had to been a feature evolved into. The evolution of rationality would have been the RESULT of pleasure and pain perception as action leads to stimuli leads to knowledge leads to the ability to reason. So, pleasure and pain begat rationality. So rationality was begat of utilitarian inputs and not the other way around. Therefore reason demonstrates right and wrong from the perspective of pain and pleasure. So a rationally moral person should resist the causing of pain. Which is utilitarian.
A noble, courageous person may endure pain thus may cause knowing pain to themselves as such a person doesn't back down while feeling pain.
Edit: Also you are talking about pleasure/pain - the sense of touch, but what about being cognizant of a situation without needing the touch of pleasure or pain to inform you of such a situation? What about smell or even sight to be able to understand and judge an event? Why are you stating you or a person needs to touch an object to understand what to do? But yet to even understand and judge, thus, to know pleasure/pain in a human is to point out intellect.
Wilmot of Rochester:Considering Kohler was one of the first pioneers in animal psychology, it's funny you say this.
If Köhler believed that because it is concievable for instinctual creatures to not adapt well within a naturally selective environment, creatures must be sentient, and such a supposition was 'verifiably' true by its own virtue, he would be wrong. I highly doubt this to be the case. In fact, to my understanding (limited), he studied monkeys and the effects environments had on the actions they made, and made various psychological findings through close testing and observation.
Wilmot of Rochester: This failed to address anything. You've just loaded the identity of "kindness towards animals" into the word empath Um... Yes.
This failed to address anything. You've just loaded the identity of "kindness towards animals" into the word empath
Well it's not my fault if you make no categorical distinction between a value and a process by which values are understood/expressed. The value of "animal kindness" is not the same thing as the process of understanding and evaluating things outside the ego: empathy.
Empathy is not 'valuative', it is a process by which values are constructed and considered. So no, I didn't. You've just refused to understand this quote or understand what it was in reference to (a categorical distinction between value and process).
Wilmot of Rochester:Well if you avoid the obvious reply that the Nazis directly involved in extermination of Jews, Romani, and so many others were a perfect example of a group lacking empathy, then I suppose you could call it an analogy.
You've missed the analogy.
You said:
"In all actuality, I think emathy [sic] (read "kindness towards animals") is indeed a necessary - though not the only necessary - requirement for human beings; at least for human beings that I think most people want to see continue living. "
I said:
"So, given this, I suppose Anti-semitism was necessary requirement for human beings in Nazi Germany?"
You've postulated a value that people ought follow, and supported this by claiming that they ought to follow it if they want to continue living. While my analogy was hyperbolic, it was not invalid.
If you'd like me to spell it out for you, here:
""In all actuality, I think anti-semitism is indeed a necessary - though not the only necessary - requirement for human beings; at least for human beings that I think most people want to see continue living. ""
Chris George:(All parties considered would also include any bystanders who may or may not derive pleasure or pain for witnessing the action.)
There was no indication of this in the article. All it said is that the dog was found some time after it was mutilated.
Chris George:Why is it wrong to assume outcomes and therefore determine morality? If I opposed a minimum wage increases on utilitarian grounds because of its high probability of causing undesired unemployment, then I have act before evaluating an actual effect. I have used logic to determine action in the desire of reducing pain and maximizing pleasure.
This isn't my critique. I understand that utilitarianism relies entirely upon the assumption of future consequences and that the rightness of actions are determined by these assumptions through utilitarian calculus. They are "evaluated". Utilitarian evaluation is an action, so it too must be evaluated, but making that evaluation entails an evaluative action, so that too must be evaluated. My critique is, utilitarians must make the arbitrary assumption that utilitarian evaluation is a permissable act without reguard to the central thrust of utilitarianism (that is, actions are deemed right or wrong by their consequences through utilitarian calculus), because if they accept that the act of evaluation must be evaluated, they are left in an infinite regress.
Chris George:Furthermore, pain (and pleasure) causes rationality
There's no evidence of this. Sensory information is handled by a different part of the cerebral cortex than memory, communication, and decision making and people who have no sensory perception of pain/temperature are not often retarded (in the conventional sense).
banned:the central thrust of utilitarianism (that is, actions are deemed right or wrong by their consequences through utilitarian calculus)
Right or wrong for what purpose? It seems utilitarianism evaluates right and wrong by looking at net pleasure. "If net pleasure to myself is positive, the action is OK." How does the adherent of utilitarianism know if maximizing personal happiness is a good thing? Seems self-evident enough. But really why would we call this utilitarianism? Why not just being logical?
Why anarchy fails
banned: If Köhler believed that because it is concievable for instinctual creatures to not adapt well within a naturally selective environment, creatures must be sentient, and such a supposition was 'verifiably' true by its own virtue, he would be wrong.
If Köhler believed that because it is concievable for instinctual creatures to not adapt well within a naturally selective environment, creatures must be sentient, and such a supposition was 'verifiably' true by its own virtue, he would be wrong.
Oh, OK.
banned: Well it's not my fault if you make no categorical distinction between a value and a process by which values are understood/expressed. The value of "animal kindness" is not the same thing as the process of understanding and evaluating things outside the ego: empathy.
Really now? Now I see two options for you. You'll either play semantics or you'll move onto the easier argument to make, which is that I am simply being too harsh on people to suggest justification for violence for the use of violence against animals.
banned: You've postulated a value that people ought follow, and supported this by claiming that they ought to follow it if they want to continue living. While my analogy was hyperbolic, it was not invalid. If you'd like me to spell it out for you, here: ""In all actuality, I think anti-semitism is indeed a necessary - though not the only necessary - requirement for human beings; at least for human beings that I think most people want to see continue living. ""
No, I got the analogy, it was just careless and made no sense.
How can you simply switch the word empathy for anti-semitism? One is a fundamental part of cognition necessary to live in society and the other is a philosophy of scape goating. Empathy is about caring for others and being able to feel their pain and anti-semitism is an idea that Jews are less than human.
Empathy and anti-semitism are on a polar opposite. Like I said, you were just reaching to fulfill Godwin's law. You got too excited and pulled the Nazi card out as soon as you thought of it.
Wilmot of Rochester: Oh, OK.
And I suppose you think that demonstrates your claim was a valid proof, no? Or are you backtracking and trying to supply scientific evidence (in the form of a news article) as hypotheses are not self-verifying.
Wilmot of Rochester:Really now?
Did you even bother to read that link? Seriously?
From the source: Empathic concern is often and wrongly confused with empathy.
Empathic concern is often and wrongly confused with empathy.
Looks like I don't have two options anymore.
Wilmot of Rochester:How can you simply switch the word empathy for anti-semitism? One is a fundamental part of cognition necessary to live in society and the other is a philosophy of scape goating.
Because you weren't using empathy that way. All through your statement you were equivocating it with animal charity. You were ascribing a postive value to others, claiming that if they didn't follow it, they should, in your eyes, expect to be killed. Precisely what the Third Reich did.
Wilmot of Rochester:Empathy and anti-semitism are on a polar opposite.
No, because empathy is not valuative. It is a cognitive process by which someone "puts themselves in another's shoes", and derive a value within that abstraction. You hinted at this earlier in this post, and quickly went back to equivocating.
AJ:Right or wrong for what purpose?
Maximizing pleasure.
AJ:"If net pleasure to myself is positive, the action is OK."
This is not how it works. It is a global ethic, not a 'subjective' one.
AJ:How does the adherent of utilitarianism know if maximizing personal happiness is a good thing? Seems self-evident enough.
It's not about personal happiness though. Bentham argued for, for lack of a better term, 'neurological pleasure'. He was only interested in 'carnal' stimulation.
Mill constructed a more qualitative analysis of pleasure which allowed for more high end or 'spiritual' pleasures. But classic utilitarian calculus, for the most part, is at odds with subjective choice and doesn't permit a very free way in which individuals pursue individual pleasures. It seems to me to be democracy's ethical equivalent.
AJ:But really why would we call this utilitarianism? Why not just being logical?
Well you weren't really describing classical utilitarianism. I would say that you more described a variant of egoism.
banned: And I suppose you think that demonstrates your claim was a valid proof, no? Or are you backtracking and trying to supply scientific evidence (in the form of a news article) as hypotheses are not self-verifying.
The news article points out that the evidence is increasingly supporting the idea that some animals other than human beings do indeed possess sentience.
As far as a valid proof, proof is virtually impossible, but reasonable people tend to classify something as proven when the evidence is mostly supportive of one side or the other.
banned: Did you even bother to read that link? Seriously? Empathic concern is often and wrongly confused with empathy. Looks like I don't have two options anymore.
No, you resorted to semantics as the wikipedia article does - though outside of that it seems mostly correct. Most people define empathy as being synonymous with empathic concern and compassion. I'm using the term as defined by most people - people that don't seem to have a vested interest in defining it otherwise, people like you.
So using that term like a normal person, animals do possess empathy.
banned: Because you weren't using empathy that way. All through your statement you were equivocating it with animal charity. You were ascribing a postive value to others, claiming that if they didn't follow it, they should, in your eyes, expect to be killed. Precisely what the Third Reich did.
Yes I was. All throughout my statement I was "equivocating" empathy with... well... empathy as defined by almost everyone other than you and the author that added that bit into the wikipedia article - an article that, again, isn't bad other than that bit.
Again, the use of the Nazi card here just does not fit. You used it incorrectly. I was ascribing empathy as being a necessary part of human nature that most people should have and that those who do not are people that almost everyone else does not care to see live. This is almost exactly what I said. No mention of them expecting to be killed, just that those who possess no compassion are typically not those who most people would mourn for.
banned: No, because empathy is not valuative. It is a cognitive process by which someone "puts themselves in another's shoes", and derive a value within that abstraction. You hinted at this earlier in this post, and quickly went back to equivocating.
Again you insist on saying equivocation when empathy is the ability to see the side of others - to feel their pain and emotions. It has nothing to do with valuative or not valuative.
Honestly, I don't know why you continue to defend people that beat and torture animals and then call me the Nazi... Though I think I know another person who might do the same in a debate if the subject were brought up... It just makes you wonder who else is really on the internet.
i'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to a courageous person.
That's incorrect. I specified that I am referring to physical pleasure and pain and also psychic pleasure and pain.
banned:There was no indication of this in the article. All it said is that the dog was found some time after it was mutilated
Well, obviously the guy who started this thread received some psychic pain from the news.
banned:Utilitarian evaluation is an action, so it too must be evaluated
No it isn't. utilitarian evaluation is a psychic process. It's based on conjecture, not evaluation. Evaluation determines whether the conjecture was correct.
banned:There's no evidence of this. Sensory information is handled by a different part of the cerebral cortex than memory, communication
That doesn't matter. Action is determined by the pursuit of maximum pleasure. This is an economic axiom.
banned:decision making and people who have no sensory perception of pain/temperature are not often retarded
you're neglecting psychic utility. these people may not feel physical pain, but they do feel psychic pain. And their loved ones surely have psychic value from their well being.
Chris George: i'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to a courageous person. That's incorrect. I specified that I am referring to physical pleasure and pain and also psychic pleasure and pain.
Physical and psychic pleasure and pain are understood - understanding implies intellectually sensible. So I don't know what point you are trying to make that's unique. Telos of happiness has been intellectually discovered and discussed from Aristotle to Aquinas to various other people for centuries. Utilitarianism is a 19th century idea that from what I gather doesn't recognize the individual (what's best for most, etc...) and has difficulty with the fairly simple concept, imo, "moral judgement", etc... Look at my signature in this post. Good and bad are elementary concepts that have excellent explanatory power.
Chris George: banned:There was no indication of this in the article. All it said is that the dog was found some time after it was mutilated Well, obviously the guy who started this thread received some psychic pain from the news.
And I have psychic pain hearing Obama and Bernanke jabber about what I think are absurdities.
banned: AJ:"If net pleasure to myself is positive, the action is OK." This is not how it works. It is a global ethic, not a 'subjective' one.
OK, well then I can say with many other posters now that utilitarianism (in that form) is silly and possibly dangerous.
I guess I'm more asking, if everyone's goal is to maximize their own pleasure (even if that is accomplished primarily by things like "getting right with God," helping others, saving the world, seeing justice done, satisfying one's sense of empathy, etc.), isn't it just confusing the matter to create the whole field of "ethics"? In other words, if ethics is the study of how people should act (to achieve X set of unstated purposes), what good does it do to study it (as an academic topic) if every single person can and often does have a different set of unstated purposes implied in their own set of "shoulds" that they adhere to?
Chris George:Well, obviously the guy who started this thread received some psychic pain from the news.
The entire notion of property rights allows him to address his psychic pain by ordering his environment to diminish and remove it.
wilderness:Utilitarianism is a 19th century idea that from what I gather doesn't recognize the individual (what's best for most, etc...) and has difficulty with the fairly simple concept, imo, "moral judgement", etc... Look at my signature in this post. Good and bad are elementary concepts that have excellent explanatory power.
I like your sig, but it doesn't explain why that conception of right and wrong is useful. I am nearly convinced that the whole concept of ethics (as an academic subject) just originated as some sort of semantic misunderstanding. As someone recently said, "It's hard to agree on anything when the whole premise you're debating on is a mistake." I suspect that "ethics" just originally referred to those reasons for or against an action that had more to do with "moral" senses, which seem to refer primarily to our senses of empathy and justice, plus religious considerations for the religious. In a word, the "psychic" aspects of decision-making.
Somehow the fact that those senses, religious considerations and other psychic aspects are mysterious confused people into thinking that it wasn't just the reasons that were mysterious, but also the very concept of ethics itself. But after all is said and done, people really do just do what they believe will maximize their own happiness, however intimately those actions may be intertwined with helping others.
Not to go off on a tangent, but I am sure some readers have misgivings about the idea that each action humans take is simply our best rational attempt to maximize our own pleasure. People help others only to benefit themselves - to get rewards through trade or reciprocation, and/or to get the satisfaction of knowing they helped someone else (or other psychic rewards).
Think what a terrible world it would be if helping others didn't feel good! If seeing others grow and learn did not warm your heart!
The idea of a truly "selfless" action is a contradiction, and this mythical "selfless acter" would be - by definition - a cold-hearted automaton. The selfless man must - by definition - feel no joy in his heart when he rescues a stranger from certain death. The selfless woman must - by definition! - feel no twinge of empathy when witnessing the brutal beating of a stranger's child.
liberty student: Chris George:Well, obviously the guy who started this thread received some psychic pain from the news. The entire notion of property rights allows him to address his psychic pain by ordering his environment to diminish and remove it.
This is exactly the form of response I think is most efficient in answering people like the OP. (A response that directly addresses the purpose served by adopting one system or another.)
It is only now, with this stated, that the OP is forced to confront the real issue: Will his needs be better served under Rothbard's system or not? If not, why?
Will his needs be better served under Rothbard's system or not? If not, why?
AJ: wilderness:Utilitarianism is a 19th century idea that from what I gather doesn't recognize the individual (what's best for most, etc...) and has difficulty with the fairly simple concept, imo, "moral judgement", etc... Look at my signature in this post. Good and bad are elementary concepts that have excellent explanatory power. I like your sig, but it doesn't explain why that conception of right and wrong is useful.
I like your sig, but it doesn't explain why that conception of right and wrong is useful.
Prosperity isn't useful? Allowing a person to live isn't useful? Liberty isn't useful? If you are going to get into injust usefulness for one over another, then that isn't ethical.
AJ: Somehow the fact that those senses, religious considerations and other psychic aspects are mysterious confused people into thinking that it wasn't just the reasons that were mysterious, but also the very concept of ethics itself. But after all is said and done, people really do just do what they believe will maximize their own happiness, however intimately those actions may be intertwined with helping others.
And to maximize ones own happiness is good aka pursuit of happiness. Natural rights allows each person under the law an equal (justice) foundation to pursue their happiness.
AJ: Not to go off on a tangent, but I am sure some readers have misgivings about the idea that each action humans take is simply our best rational attempt to maximize our own pleasure. People help others only to benefit themselves - to get rewards through trade or reciprocation, and/or to get the satisfaction of knowing they helped someone else (or other psychic rewards).
You're not saying anything unique. Not sure where the disagreement is.
AJ: Think what a terrible world it would be if helping others didn't feel good! If seeing others grow and learn did not warm your heart! The idea of a truly "selfless" action is a contradiction, and this mythical "selfless acter" would be - by definition - a cold-hearted automaton. The selfless man must - by definition - feel no joy in his heart when he rescues a stranger from certain death. The selfless woman must - by definition! - feel no twinge of empathy when witnessing the brutal beating of a stranger's child.
As you said this last part was a little tangent of yours... I'm not saying a bad tangent, but a side point for tangential purposes.
Juan:Will his needs be better served under Rothbard's system or not? If not, why? What needs ? The needs to control his fellows ? Of course not. Libertarianism doesn't allow that - though utilitarianism may.
If you are correct about his desire for control, then you're definitely right - he should just run for office in our present system. Libertarianism won't help him gain control over people.
wilderness: AJ:I like your sig, but it doesn't explain why that conception of right and wrong is useful. Prosperity isn't useful? Allowing a person to live isn't useful? Liberty isn't useful?
AJ:I like your sig, but it doesn't explain why that conception of right and wrong is useful.
Prosperity isn't useful? Allowing a person to live isn't useful? Liberty isn't useful?
I agree with the spirit of your questions. What I am saying is that different people may choose to adopt the conception of right and wrong in your sig for different reasons, and I am attempting to make the case that people would accomplish more in debate if they were more explicit about their core reasons for advocating their respective moral stances.
Because, I suppose, the original idea of a "moral" was that it was a sentiment presumably shared by most of the people in a given fairly homogeneous social group. I suspect the concept emerged as a shorthand because there was a set of reasons shared by most folk that could simply be summarized for convenience as, "You know, you should do that," and in that homogeneous context everyone knew what reasons you were implying.
But now, especially in debating subtle topics in a global forum, that shorthand no longer functions as well, because it implies mutual agreement on a set of moral precepts. Now, unwieldy as it may be, I think we frequently must make our intended concepts' raison d'être explicit if we expect to win others to our way of thinking, or to be maximally amenable to being shown a better way.
wilderness:And to maximize ones own happiness is good aka pursuit of happiness. Natural rights allows each person under the law an equal (justice) foundation to pursue their happiness.
Yeah, that's phrasing natural rights in a way that encourages meaningful debate, because then someone can say they agree or disagree by looking at whether natural rights are or aren't the best system for allowing people to pursue happiness.
wilderness: AJ: Not to go off on a tangent, but I am sure some readers have misgivings about the idea that each action humans take is simply our best rational attempt to maximize our own pleasure. People help others only to benefit themselves - to get rewards through trade or reciprocation, and/or to get the satisfaction of knowing they helped someone else (or other psychic rewards). You're not saying anything unique. Not sure where the disagreement is.
No disagreement with you. I wrote that for readers that may have misgivings about that notion (I figured at least a few other people will read this and didn't want to waste space with two posts).
wilderness: As you said this last part was a little tangent of yours...
As you said this last part was a little tangent of yours...
Yeah, it's not directed at you unless you found anything contentious in there. I just assumed some people reading might disagree.
Juan:Well, I made a guess of sorts about his needs/motives - What do you think are his needs though ?
I personally have noticed that people tend to make statements that seem outrageous when trying to defend moral ideas in debates, but I don't think we can judge them too harshly for those statements in that context unless they are experts in the field, or unless they say something totally, unmistakably insane. They are after all trying to express themselves in unfamiliar philosophical territory, so they are bound to misspeak and make blanket statements when they really mean something more precise. I think we all agree a lot more than our debates would indicate. The OP may have a desire for controlling others, but I say innocent until proven guilty. Just my opinion.
Wilmot of Rochester:The news article points out that the evidence is increasingly supporting the idea that some animals other than human beings do indeed possess sentience.
I never contested this. If you follow the conversation here's what you said:
"After all, a creature built with nothing more than instinct would not be particularly well suited to survive in the course of natural selection."
"Not according to Wolfgang Kohler..."
"Considering Kohler was one of the first pioneers in animal psychology, it's funny you say this."
If Köhler believed that because it is concievable for instinctual creatures to not adapt well within a naturally selective environment, creatures must be sentient, and such a supposition was 'verifiably' true by its own virtue, he would be wrong [...]
"Oh OK"
And now you're interjecting evidence, when you started off saying that a hypotheses was not a supposition and did demonstrate its premise.
Wilmot of Rochester:As far as a valid proof, proof is virtually impossible, but reasonable people tend to classify something as proven when the evidence is mostly supportive of one side or the other.
I appologize, I should have used the word "demonstration", as the scientific method only falsifies.
Wilmot of Rochester:No, you resorted to semantics as the wikipedia article does - though outside of that it seems mostly correct.
It is semantic in the sense that you are making a category mistake in ascribing empathy with a value, when it is regarded within it's category as a process within the realm of cognition. If you meant empathic concern, you should have used that term, just like I don't use banana as a synonym with rationality, because it just doesn't make sense. This is not an argument over meaning meaning, you are making claims that would not be valid with the meaning you're using.
If you are using empathy and 'animal charity' interchangeably, it's no use trying to convince you that you're misusing the word, and giving it properties it cannot have under your definition. I'm going to retract what I said said about 'empathy' 'animal charity' being necessary to social-humanity because it quite obviously isn't under your definition, nor is it cognitive, it is merely representative of a value.
Wilmot of Rochester:Most people define empathy as being synonymous with empathic concern and compassion.
Hardly. This is just evasion.
Wilmot of Rochester:I'm using the term as defined by most people - people that don't seem to have a vested interest in defining it otherwise, people like you.
If you would like, I can post up the conventional definitions of empathy (from various other dictionaries), but:
Merriam-Webster: 1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it 2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner
Nowhere do I see the equivocation with empathy and empathetic concern. It seems pretty clear it's defined as a process. So 'people like me' likely include most every dictionary company in existence.
Wilmot of Rochester:Yes I was.
No, you weren't. There is a clear distinction between a value and a process. It's not that hard to understand.
Wilmot of Rochester:Again, the use of the Nazi card here just does not fit. You used it incorrectly. I was ascribing empathy as being a necessary part of human nature that most people should have and that those who do not are people that almost everyone else does not care to see live.
You were ascribing a value as being necessary for those that wished to live, or others wanted to live. Antisemitism is a value. People who did not adopt that value lost favor with the Third Reich. This is pretty black and white, what's so hard to understand?
Wilmot of Rochester:Again you insist on saying equivocation when empathy is the ability to see the side of others - to feel their pain and emotions. It has nothing to do with valuative or not valuative.
Precisely my point, though the ability is to abstractly observe things outside the ego. There is no known way of objectively taking part in another person's consciousness.
The kindness to animals you insist on is not empathy, it is a value.
Wilmot of Rochester:Honestly, I don't know why you continue to defend people that beat and torture animals and then call me the Nazi.
I'm not, and I didn't. I'm questioning your idea that it's impermissible to torture animals but not euthanize or eat them and I made a hyperbolic analogy.
Wilmot of Rochester:Though I think I know another person who might do the same in a debate if the subject were brought up... It just makes you wonder who else is really on the internet.
Cool story bro.
AJ: wilderness: AJ:I like your sig, but it doesn't explain why that conception of right and wrong is useful. Prosperity isn't useful? Allowing a person to live isn't useful? Liberty isn't useful? I agree with the spirit of your questions. What I am saying is that different people may choose to adopt the conception of right and wrong in your sig for different reasons, and I am attempting to make the case that people would accomplish more in debate if they were more explicit about their core reasons for advocating their respective moral stances.
Well, my sig was put on at that point when an influx of misjudgement about what good and bad even mean happened in the forum. My sig. is outdated. It was only for a specific point at one time here.
AJ: Because, I suppose, the original idea of a "moral" was that it was a sentiment presumably shared by most of the people in a given fairly homogeneous social group. I suspect the concept emerged as a shorthand because there was a set of reasons shared by most folk that could simply be summarized for convenience as, "You know, you should do that," and in that homogeneous context everyone knew what reasons you were implying.
Morals is a principle of good or bad. What that even might mean for any particular instance varies but since morality is abstracted about any particular instance is why it is an intellectual principle aka a universal principle. Not that anybody might want to talk in terms of good or bad, but there is a judgment that happens in each person's actions from what kind of statement a person wants to make with their clothes, to what kind of healthy lifestyle they desire to experience, and/or if they want to not give a person a chance to pursue their happiness or not. Since what is moral is personal, unless we are talking about natural rights, then a near infinite number of moral wiggle room is available.
AJ: wilderness: As you said this last part was a little tangent of yours... Yeah, it's not directed at you unless you found anything contentious in there. I just assumed some people reading might disagree.
I edited my last post to include, 'not a bad tangent, merely a tangent', only to repeat what you, yourself labeled those series of sentences.
wilderness:And I have psychic pain hearing Obama and Bernanke jabber about what I think are absurdities.
as do i, there words however are not nearly as harmful as their actions. they should be in jail for their actions.
Utilitarian calculus applies only to percievable consequences. Obviously the guy didn't percieve he was going to get caught, else he wouldn't have done it (unless he likes jail).
Chris George:No it isn't. utilitarian evaluation is a psychic process. It's based on conjecture, not evaluation. Evaluation determines whether the conjecture was correct.
Well, a process is a series of actions.
By evaluation, I am not referring to evaluating the action based on it's consequences. I am referring to evaluating the action within utilitarian calculus.
Chris George:That doesn't matter. Action is determined by the pursuit of maximum pleasure. This is an economic axiom.
Actually, action is determined by marginal utility, which is not conventionally synonymous with "maximum pleasure".
Chris George:you're neglecting psychic utility. these people may not feel physical pain, but they do feel psychic pain. And their loved ones surely have psychic value from their well being.
Perhaps. But not necessarily. Some people cannot experience depressive emotions, and some people are hermits.
wilderness:Well, my sig was put on at that point when an influx of misjudgement about what good and bad even mean happened in the forum. My sig. is outdated. It was only for a specific point at one time here.
I'd like to see Rothbard's full context on that one. I haven't read his conception of ethics yet (getting around to it), but that quote in your sig did surprise me.
wilderness: AJ: Because, I suppose, the original idea of a "moral" was that it was a sentiment presumably shared by most of the people in a given fairly homogeneous social group. I suspect the concept emerged as a shorthand because there was a set of reasons shared by most folk that could simply be summarized for convenience as, "You know, you should do that," and in that homogeneous context everyone knew what reasons you were implying. Morals is a principle of good or bad. What that even might mean for any particular instance varies but since morality is abstracted about any particular instance is why it is an intellectual principle aka a universal principle. Not that anybody might want to talk in terms of good or bad, but there is a judgment that happens in each person's actions from what kind of statement a person wants to make with their clothes, to what kind of healthy lifestyle they desire to experience, and/or if they want to not give a person a chance to pursue their happiness or not. Since what is moral is personal, unless we are talking about natural rights, then a near infinite number of moral wiggle room is available.
Yeah, I think we're agreeing here.
As for natural rights, they seem most clearly to me to be that very limited set of rights that most(?) people can agree must be defended in order to satisfy some fairly universal moral sense in our psyches, as well as to ensure a peaceful and wealthy society, and a few other time-tested reasons. They are so self-evident that they are called "natural" (even though some people remain blinded to them). I take no exception to the notions of right to life, liberty, and property, but think each person would do well to make the intended benefits of enforcing these rights clear, or else no one can argue as to whether that particular conception of rights is the best for achieving those particular benefits. Since someone else may look to rights to provide a different set of benefits that aligns more closely with what they think will maximize their happiness.
AJ, thanks for saying some of the things I wanted to say but didn't feel like spending the time to write. Although, you appear to be stating an amoralist perspective. There is of course a possibility of some action being inherently wrong by decree of God or whatever. The distinction between ethics and morality is spurious as well. The question is "is there really inherently wrong actions/thoughts? and if so what determines the wrongness of an action? Its outcome (utilitarianism)? Its intent (Deontology)? Or the content of the character of the actor (Virtue ethics)? I content that if the "means" were the determinate feature of morality, then we would never be able to figure out what was moral and it would be impossible to be moral and therefore it can't be moral. Ends/results are the only way of figuring out right and wrong (that is if there is such a thing as right and wrong).