Wake Up!

Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Wake Up!

Hi, I’m new here and I’d like to ask who determines what success is? Our own stupid society that’s what and the main concern of that society is to keep us sick. The sooner we take that on board the better.   Being rich and being the chairman of something or other hasn’t anything to do with being a success. You’re only a success when you WAKE UP!

After that you don’t have to apologise to anyone you don’t care if you’re not part of a group you don’t care what someone says to you or about you.  Then you don’t bother with your worries and how broken you feel at times - then you’re happy. That’s what I call being a success.

I’m an atheist I don’t believe there is anything out there (religion is just a metaphor for the inner life) and whether people believe in a god or not is not important to me, what’s important is whether you accept human fallibility as a given.  Then you’ve got something to work with.  Beliefs that science can be used to perfect human beings is as ridiculous as a belief in magic, angels or god’s intervention.

According to the four horsemen, reason and science, rather than religion will rid us of human conflicts and evil.  Since the Enlightenment we’ve heard that one so pull another.  No, there was a dark side to the Enlightenment as we’ve found, namely you can’t understand and control people with the rational mind. Knowledge may have increased but morally as a species we haven’t change at all, selfishness is our natural state but once you’re aware of that once you’ve OWNED it you’re not sleeping anymore you’ve become awake.


 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote: No one

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
No one forces me to hire

HA how fucking jaded you are and BILLIONAIRE NICK HANOUR WOULD disagree with you.

Ok, so if demand goes up, and you "chose" not to hire, you think if you dont you can still meet that demand?

Probably not, but no one is forcing me to meet any demands either. There is nothing forcing me to even be in business, I could take an entry level position to pay the bills and live the rest of my life without hiring anyone if I choose to. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

No one tells you what choices to make, no. But basic demand will. Now for the bulk of the nations population, where do you think most of that demand comes from? The top alone? Or would most of that demand come from the middle class and working poor?

So yea, you can say "fuck you I got mine" but that only works for  a while and for very few people, what do you do when no one is demanding what you sell because they cant afford the cost of living? That is where we are at as a nation and your ilk has set this up. But you have no right to blame me for that.

He and you would agree that it makes no sense to hire one more person than you need, and I agree. But if the idea is to provide more jobs, you cant do that by being so jaded as to think that demand is created by you, when the bulk of the buying public who are not business owners are the ones with the bulk of the economy whom pay for things that make business owners rich. Nick gets it, you dont.

I'm not in business to provide jobs. I'm in business to make money, creating jobs just happens to sometimes be an appropriate step to take to reach said goal. If you can't afford my products,  you have two options- you can go make more money (produce more yourself) or you can live without it and I will lose your business. If I lose too much business I will be faced with the option of lowering my prices (and profits), closing down entirely, or producing something different, this is a decision that I have to make pretty much every year. Where is the problem? 

If you want more money, do a job that is more valuable/in demand in the market and you will have more and therefore be able to purchase more. If you don't care that much about purchasing more, your choice, I will find other customers. If you want more money there are certain actions you could take to get more, you are not taking those actions and you have declared on here that you have no interest in taking those actions.

Should I force you to take them because it would be better for me?

Or am I supposed to give you money for doing nothing just so you can indirectly give it back to me by purchasing the products created from my efforts?

I choose neither. I am perfectly content with you deciding not to add to the economy as much as you are probably capable of. You can add as much or as little to the economy as you desire, and the economy will grow or shrink depending on the cumulative actions of everyone involved. I don't think it is necessary for the economy to always grow in perpetuity. You can go off and build a new restaurant chain that becomes the biggest thing since McDonalds and be a multi-millionaire adding a ton to the economy, or you can stay where you are adding a minute amount. I don't care. Your choice. Like I said in my initial response to the OP, you set your goals however humble or grandiose they are and the measure of your personal success is how you meet those goals.

I don't care what goals you choose, if a persons goals happen to align with my goals to create an opportunity that is beneficial to both of us we can have dinner which might lead to lawyers, contracts and hopefully profits. If not, congrats on your successes and have a good life. There are more than enough people out there I don't have to insist that your goals be consistent with mine to find plenty of opportunity. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you want more

Quote:
If you want more money, do a job that is more valuable/in demand

You have such a jaded view and narcissistic view of how things should work. No matter what new demands come up for workers there is always going to be 3 classes and not everyone wants to or will move up. Some want to and some do, but life is not a script which you stupidly think it is.

My dishwashing job is in demand because no one wants to eat off of dirty plates. Thanks for saying my job is not valuable. Like I said, you look down on people at my pay scale. My job is valuable. Less pay does not mean less important. Otherwise the next time you eat out, demand dirty plates.

Or better yet, next time you eat out, ask to speak to the dishwasher and tell him/her they are worthless to their face. Or, don't have your trash picked up, because we know there is absolutly no demand for trash collectors.

You stupidly think you are completely disconnected from others, and until you understand that you will never understand how eventually your attitude will hurt even you.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:If you

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
If you want more money, do a job that is more valuable/in demand

You have such a jaded view and narcissistic view of how things should work. No matter what new demands come up for workers there is always going to be 3 classes and not everyone wants to or will move up. Some want to and some do, but life is not a script which you stupidly think it is.

If you don't want to move up and you don't do the actions required to move up you can't be surprised when you don't. And I don't care. You can go as far or not as far as you desire to attempt to achieve. That is your personal decision.

 

Brian37 wrote:

My dishwashing job is in demand because no one wants to eat off of dirty plates. Thanks for saying my job is not valuable. Like I said, you look down on people at my pay scale. My job is valuable. Less pay does not mean less important. Otherwise the next time you eat out, demand dirty plates.

Or better yet, next time you eat out, ask to speak to the dishwasher and tell him/her they are worthless to their face. Or, don't have your trash picked up, because we know there is absolutly no demand for trash collectors.

You stupidly think you are completely disconnected from others, and until you understand that you will never understand how eventually your attitude will hurt even you.

Your job is worth whatever you are paid. The reality is that in a dishwashing job you will perform a small service for a limited number of people, so your income will never be high. People simply are not willing to pay a lot of money for the service and it is a job which is easy to fill by a demographic that is willing to work for low wages and currently has an extremely high unemployment rate, all of which adds up to low wages. If you want to make more money either you need to find a way to provide the same service to more people or do something that people are willing to pay more money for. 

Obviously, there is some variance because market information is never perfect. Perhaps your boss is paying less than he is willing to pay, so you are getting paid a little less than your job is actually worth to your boss. Or maybe there is another restaurant that would be willing to pay you a little more for the same job. But as long as you are willing to do the job for your current wage, that is what your labor is worth. (Note I am talking about the monetary value of your labor, not your moral value as a human, not the same thing although you conflate the two in your post)

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Ktulu

Manageri wrote:
Ktulu wrote:
Reality is the only truth.  Therefore, a historic statement is a concept, and a concept is something dependent on a human brain to understand.  When there will no longer be human brains to understand that statement, the statement will no longer exist, therefore not an absolute.
I don't really understand the point here but I'm guessing you're somehow claiming that reality is dependent on minds perceiving it?

Quite the opposite actually.  Reality doesn't give a shit about the minds perceiving it...  We're simply part of nature.  There is no Absolute Truth, there is no God, and there is no Objective moral standard.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
What's ethical is what the majority of humans feel is ethical.

This is just as moronic as saying whatever god says is ethical, maybe more so, since at least the theists making that claim think god is loving and all knowing and shit.

If the majority feels it's ok to exterminate the jews, that makes it ok then? If the majority of people are religious and they get the idea that they should burn atheists at the stake, that's ok? This has to be the laziest, most poorly thought out ethical standard I've ever come across, especially from an atheist.

Quote:
You seem to be arguing human ethics...

I never said anything about "human" ethics, ethics is ethics, period. The ethical treatment of humans in particular is a mere subdivision.

Quote:
...exist outside human experience, can be objectively measure in a way that has no tolerance - that there's a standard of ethical behaviour that exists apart from human experience. But what is this standard? How is it measured?

I've already answered this many times, the standard is sentient welfare. As for measuring it, the fact we can't do any kind of precise measurements doesn't mean there is nothing to measure. I can say with absolute certainty that stubbing my toe is better than getting my ribcage smashed by a sledgehammer, yet I can't give you any kind of exact numeric value to indicate how much each of those sucks.

Quote:
The 'flex' that exists in our personal interpretations of ethical behaviour can't be interpreted as 'everyone going batshit crazy tomorrow'. I'm pretty sure in my last post I sought to discount the false dichotomy of psychopathic personalities being the direct opposite/result of the acceptance there are no absolute moral values, whatever these may be.

Having said this, I argue humans have a universal set of behavioural characteristics based on culture and physiology that are called ethical. Generally, well adjusted adults not exposed to abuses and war, have a very similar interpretation of what we see in our stable, family oriented societies as being the right way to behave.

Yet earlier you said whatever the majority says, goes. Make up your mind, either the retarded majority (or insane majority for that matter) makes up the rules, or there's a standard not dependent on the opinion of idiots.

Quote:
Just as a thought experiment, imagine all the humans on the planet die of some virulent plague. In the total absence of human minds and human thought, does ethical behaviour now exist? I don't mean does the potential for ethical behaviour exist if humans re-evolve, either. Can ethics exist without people to conceive them?

What we try to discover via ethical thought is the best way to play the game and maximize welfare for all players involved. Just because there's no one around anymore to make these strategies doesn't mean the purpose of them, the welfare, goes away. So to answer your question of whether ethical behaviour would cease to exist, if you define that as making decisions while having a concept of ethics, then yes, but that's not the important question. What's important is whether meaningful or efficient behaviour continues, and it obviously does as animals have a welfare too.

We don't invent value in our heads, we just recognize it. Your argument is no different from saying trigonometry would cease to exist if humans weren't around anymore to think about it. We didn't invent trigonometry, we discovered it, just like we discovered that sentient creatures have a welfare to consider.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Humans share a group of

 

 

social behaviours we label ethical. The majority of people, as I keep typing and you keep failing to read, have the same system of human ethics that has variations depending on context. The majority of humans are generally pretty good at behaving in a way we call ethical. And that's why there are seven billion humans living on the planet in close proximity to each other with a statistically low rate of disagreement.

But just because we some consider some human behaviour as being ethical we cannot claim that human ethics are universal measures of moral good. In support of your argument you once again you reach of your false dichotomy shotgun and spray the scenery with extremes. In the absence of your version of ethics, which you continue to suggest is some sort of universal law, we'll all just murder the jews because what the hell.

So, define ethics coherently and objectively. Give us a measure of ethical behaviour that is not subjective and dependent on context in it's bid to explain to us how we should behave. 

Yes we do invent value in our heads in a way. There are behaviours we value that we call ethical and we try to elevate them to the giddy heights of universal rules in the absence of supporting evidence. 

 

 

  

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
You won't even touch half

You won't even touch half the stuff I write so I don't know why I bother.

Atheistextremist wrote:
Humans share a group of social behaviours we label ethical.

Yes, many of which are completely fucking retarded, because idiots (religious people especially) have an utterly moronic definition of what ethical behaviour is. Don't swear, don't have premarital sex, oppress gays, and the list goes on and on. There are countless things people consider immoral for absolutely no rational reason whatsoever, so pulling the majority card on the most important topic there is is idiotic.

Quote:
The majority of people, as I keep typing and you keep failing to read, have the same system of human ethics that has variations depending on context.

Yeah, the majority has the absolutely retarded ideas of what's right and wrong that their DNA and their society imprinted into their silly little heads, which they accept with very little thought.

Quote:
The majority of humans are generally pretty good at behaving in a way we call ethical.

Well you define ethical as doing whatever the majority does so for the majority to fail that standard is pretty goddamn hard.

Quote:
And that's why there are seven billion humans living on the planet in close proximity to each other with a statistically low rate of disagreement.

Yeah, it's not like we have tons of crime or hugely different ideas on politics or wage wars all the time and shit...

Quote:
But just because we some consider some human behaviour as being ethical we cannot claim that human ethics are universal measures of moral good.

Right, so if you have to choose between a pinprick and a broken arm, it's not objectively better to receive the pinprick?

Quote:
In support of your argument you once again you reach of your false dichotomy shotgun and spray the scenery with extremes.

I don't recall any such things so maybe you should point to what you mean when you make these kinda claims.

Quote:
In the absence of your version of ethics, which you continue to suggest is some sort of universal law, we'll all just murder the jews because what the hell.

No, I asked you a fucking question about whether the majority gets to decide whether that's ethical, which you failed to answer, unsurprisingly I might add. So you got the balls to answer it this time? If the majority says we should exterminate the jews, does that make it ethical?

Quote:
So, define ethics coherently and objectively. Give us a measure of ethical behaviour that is not subjective and dependent on context in it's bid to explain to us how we should behave.

I've stated it many times already, sentient welfare = value. I really don't know why this is a hard concept for people to get. If you think about what has value to you in your life, it's all about your sentient experience. We value food because hunger sucks, we value sex cos it feels good, we value not being in pain because it really sucks, anything I could possibly name that has value to a person has value because it affects their sentience in some way.

As for the objective/subjective shit, if you can't agree that the feeling of an orgasm is objectively better than the feeling of having a knife in your eye, you're too stupid for words. What you people keep mixing up is what feels good to people and that feeling itself. There are experiences for all sentient beings that are objectively better than other experiences, the only thing that changes somewhat is how those experiences are triggered (like whether having sex with someone of the same gender feels better to you).

If I say risotto is the best food in the world, that statement is entirely subjective. The fact that risotto is my favorite food is not subjective however, it's an objective truth about me. Therefore, assuming feeding me my favorite food is all that matters in a particular scenario, you are doing an objectively good thing if you choose to feed me risotto rather than anything else.

Quote:
Yes we do invent value in our heads in a way.

So if no mind perceives some horror like an antilope being ripped to pieces, it loses all its meaning somehow? This really isn't that hard, we don't invent, or maybe a better word is create, the value in our head, we merely recognize it and try to categorize it in relation to other stuff.

Quote:
There are behaviours we value that we call ethical and we try to elevate them to the giddy heights of universal rules in the absence of supporting evidence.

Maybe you are, I have evidence.


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:That says it

Brian37 wrote:
That says it all right there.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I will admit that I don't care about your situation.


 
This is a third party intervention so you can tell me to clear off if you like but are you saying that you care more than BS because you are a dishwasher and he is a capitalist/entrepreneur? To play the devil it could be argued that he cares more than you because he's providing a living for people other than himself.

I've done cleaning when I was younger and now work as a self-employed counsellor but I don’t feel that I'm ‘better’ now than then as I said in OP, career is not my definition of success.

To be honest I’ve been glad of people like BS in the past because they’ve provided me with a job.

I appreciate by the number of posts that you’ve probably debated each other in the past and perhaps agree over other issues but as a newbie I’m not clear what Brian37’s ‘beef’ is economically with BS. It seems that you're both in similar situations in that as a dishwasher you can think what you want and BS having more leisure time but I'm picking up a lot of anger from Brian37 and wonder what that was about? 
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:....but I'm

Peggotty wrote:
....but I'm picking up a lot of anger from Brian37 and wonder what that was about? 


 

  Class envy ?  Jealousy ?  

 

 I'm certainly envious of Beyond Saving but I feel that he came by his good fortune through honest and honorable means so I feel no desire to begrudge him.  He is simply using his talents to improve his position in life.  I see nothing sinister in that.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:I appreciate

Peggotty wrote:

I appreciate by the number of posts that you’ve probably debated each other in the past and perhaps agree over other issues but as a newbie I’m not clear what Brian37’s ‘beef’ is economically with BS. It seems that you're both in similar situations in that as a dishwasher you can think what you want and BS having more leisure time but I'm picking up a lot of anger from Brian37 and wonder what that was about? 
 

Yeah, this conversation has been running for years and a couple thousand posts. The anger is because I don't feel guilty and I don't apologize, I am a frequent critic of those who attempt to use government to redistribute wealth and oppose using government as a charity center. But what really gets Brian blustering is when I suggest that a persons financial future is primarily up to them. I have the audacity to believe that I am neither special, lucky nor particularly talented. Pretty much everyone in our great country could experience a decent level of financial comfort IF they wanted to and tried with nothing but a little bit of knowledge. This leads me to push his hot buttons by saying things to the effect that if you are broke long term you have no one to blame but yourself, if you want to change the situation try something different.

Brian on the other hand loves to blame everyone else for the plight of the poor, they are poor because employers are greedy and selfish, or the government doesn't care enough, or they are just so gosh darned unlucky. 

Mostly, I think the passion in Brian's posts simply stems from me being a convenient whipping boy to fill in for everything he doesn't like about his current employer. A role I am more than happy to fill as everyone needs a vent and I wouldn't want Brian to lose his job from venting on his boss. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi again Manageri

 

Manageri wrote:
You won't even touch half the stuff I write so I don't know why I bother.

That's partly because going through long posts and addressing every tiny and often inconsequential detail is painful. Further, there's really only one thing we are arguing over - whether ethical behaviour/human morality is entirely objective or subjective to the human species and additionally subjective or relative between in-groups and individuals. Now, Manageri, I enjoy this discussion and it's a pivotal one but your choice of language and your tone suggests you either don't enjoy an argument or you spit the dummy every time some one fails to agree with you. 

Atheistextremist wrote:
Humans share a group of social behaviours we label ethical.

Manageri wrote:
Yes, many of which are completely fucking retarded, because idiots (religious people especially) have an utterly moronic definition of what ethical behaviour is. Don't swear, don't have premarital sex, oppress gays, and the list goes on and on. There are countless things people consider immoral for absolutely no rational reason whatsoever, so pulling the majority card on the most important topic there is is idiotic.

 

I agree that many people, particularly religious people, mistake cultural and societal mores for actual moral behaviour and that this leads to moral inconsistency. This is something I've argued on these boards for years. Nevertheless, humans generally share ethical behaviours. We pay taxes for the good of the whole, we don't murder our children, we look after the elderly, we share with our neighbours, we help each other when disaster strikes. The core characteristics of stable in-group human societies are generally supportive of group welfare and could readily be described as being highly ethical.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
The majority of people, as I keep typing and you keep failing to read, have the same system of human ethics that has variations depending on context.

 

Manageri wrote:
Yeah, the majority has the absolutely retarded ideas of what's right and wrong that their DNA and their society imprinted into their silly little heads, which they accept with very little thought.

We disagree here obviously but this point is at the heart of our contention. I think the majority of people behave ethically without having read a thing about ethics. We put the welfare of others above our own, or equal with our own regularly and we even risk or sacrifice our lives for the sake of strangers. Sure there are people in the world that behave badly but most people behave well and I argue it's this group of positive social behaviours that we label as being ethical.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
The majority of humans are generally pretty good at behaving in a way we call ethical.

 

Manageri wrote:
Well you define ethical as doing whatever the majority does so for the majority to fail that standard is pretty goddamn hard.

Yet again, I do not argue that what the majority arbitrarily decides is ethical is actually ethical. Instead I argue the majority exhibit positive social behaviours that we label ethical. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
And that's why there are seven billion humans living on the planet in close proximity to each other with a statistically low rate of disagreement.

Manageri wrote:
Yeah, it's not like we have tons of crime or hugely different ideas on politics or wage wars all the time and shit...

I won't argue with you that there are failures in humanity. I think these can be attributed in part to the intensity of in-group biases - I would argue that small group ethical behaviours can cause friction in larger groups. Outsiders are seen as threatening those we care most about and we react defensively.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
But just because we some consider some human behaviour as being ethical we cannot claim that human ethics are universal measures of moral good.

 

Manageri wrote:
Right, so if you have to choose between a pinprick and a broken arm, it's not objectively better to receive the pinprick?

 

I argue that human ethics exist for us here on this planet. I would argue that extrapolating human ethics as a universal law is a hypothesis without support. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
In support of your argument you once again you reach of your false dichotomy shotgun and spray the scenery with extremes.

Manageri wrote:
I don't recall any such things so maybe you should point to what you mean when you make these kinda claims.

You claimed that if the majority said it was right to undertake genocide, my argument essentially supported that majority rule would decree genocide was ethical. But my point has always been that the majority of humans are generally ethical and what the majority of humans consider to be ethical - I often enshrine these shared social ethics as being the UN's International Articles of Human Rights - is ethical. Obviously, the majority of people do not consider murder to be ethical, rape to be ethical, genocide to be ethical. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
In the absence of your version of ethics, which you continue to suggest is some sort of universal law, we'll all just murder the jews because what the hell.

Manageri wrote:
No, I asked you a fucking question about whether the majority gets to decide whether that's ethical, which you failed to answer, unsurprisingly I might add. So you got the balls to answer it this time? If the majority says we should exterminate the jews, does that make it ethical?

No, I argued the majority act ethically most the time. The Holocaust is considered the pinnacle of human moral failure for that very reason. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
So, define ethics coherently and objectively. Give us a measure of ethical behaviour that is not subjective and dependent on context in it's bid to explain to us how we should behave.

Manageri wrote:
I've stated it many times already, sentient welfare = value. I really don't know why this is a hard concept for people to get. If you think about what has value to you in your life, it's all about your sentient experience. We value food because hunger sucks, we value sex cos it feels good, we value not being in pain because it really sucks, anything I could possibly name that has value to a person has value because it affects their sentience in some way. As for the objective/subjective shit, if you can't agree that the feeling of an orgasm is objectively better than the feeling of having a knife in your eye, you're too stupid for words. What you people keep mixing up is what feels good to people and that feeling itself. There are experiences for all sentient beings that are objectively better than other experiences, the only thing that changes somewhat is how those experiences are triggered (like whether having sex with someone of the same gender feels better to you). If I say risotto is the best food in the world, that statement is entirely subjective. The fact that risotto is my favorite food is not subjective however, it's an objective truth about me. Therefore, assuming feeding me my favorite food is all that matters in a particular scenario, you are doing an objectively good thing if you choose to feed me risotto rather than anything else.

I would not disagree that sentient welfare has ethical value. I simply argue that this value is applied by humans to those behaviours they interpret as being of greatest social value. We elevate those things that best serve stable societies that support procreation. This statement makes my point sound superficial but if you look around the world at the comparative peace and the huge numbers of people on the planet you can see the connection. Ethical behaviour, in my opinion, involves individual sacrifice to whole group selfishness. Think of all our heroes, one man prepared to die to save the world. I'd die to save the world without thinking twice. So would you. 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
Yes we do invent value in our heads in a way.

Manageri wrote:
So if no mind perceives some horror like an antilope being ripped to pieces, it loses all its meaning somehow? This really isn't that hard, we don't invent, or maybe a better word is create, the value in our head, we merely recognize it and try to categorize it in relation to other stuff.

I don't see animals eating each other as being unethical. They need to eat and they parasitise one another. We do it, too. But I agree there's moral inconsistency in failing to extend ethical behaviour to all life. Trouble is, we need to eat to survive. Plants or animals, it's a competition. That's why I use the label human ethics. They are generally anthropocentric. I think we'd probably agree this is inconsistent.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
There are behaviours we value that we call ethical and we try to elevate them to the giddy heights of universal rules in the absence of supporting evidence.

 

Manageri wrote:
Maybe you are, I have evidence.

 

We don't have to agree. And don't go through and reply one at a time. Just pick one or two points. It's too torturous otherwise. Our disagreement in part seems to relate to the ambiguity of language anyway. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I have already exhausted

I have already exhausted what little interest I hold in morality's subjectivity.  It should be obvious that without a supernatural measuring stick (aka, god), morality is not objective.  I really don't see what the argument is about.  We, as atheists, agree that there is no god, and hence no "ultimate" standard by which everything is judged. 

Everything is relative, including ethics.  My least favorite part of philosophy.  

Enjoy your stay here Manageri and take a chill pill.  We all fundamentally agree on what a humane ethic paradigm is, I just don't think you have really thought about the origins of such a paradigm, or the implication of it's "objectivity".  There is no absolute truth, remember?

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'll start off without

Ok, I'll start off without quoting and then see if there's specific points I need to adress that way. You're basically saying the majority doesn't decide what's ethical, yet they tend to act ethically. Well the only thing of real importance is deciding what is ethical. Whether the majority acts ethically or not is entirely irrelevant. So tell me, what exactly is the core axiom of your ethical system if not sentient welfare? You keep bringing up society but the only reason society has any value to us is because it generally enchances our welfare as a whole, or do you think living in any kind of organized manner would be good if it made us miserable?

Unlike you, I'd say the majority of humans fail utterly at acting ethically. You say killing 6 million jews was the pinnacle of human moral failure while literally BILLIONS of creatures just as capable of suffering go through the torture chambers known as factory farms and slaughterhouses every year. We don't even need to look at how we treat animals either (though you really fucking should), just look at stuff like how rich assholes would rather buy their 7th yacht than donate a fraction of that money to save people dying of thirst or hunger in africa. Our species is an ethical failure of epic proportions.

Quote:
I don't see animals eating each other as being unethical. They need to eat and they parasitise one another. We do it, too. But I agree there's moral inconsistency in failing to extend ethical behaviour to all life. Trouble is, we need to eat to survive. Plants or animals, it's a competition.

I thought I explained this. The important thing isn't whether the lion chewing the gazelle's ass is acting ethically, the important thing is that the gazelle's suffering has value, and if you could get the lion it's meal without imposing that horror on the gazelle then that would obviously be an objectively better way to do it.

As for us eating animals, that's entirely unnecessary for our survival so imposing great suffering on an animal just so you can have a meal you like better than the alternative is pretty much the very definition of being an asshole. Would you cut your neighbour's lips off so you can have a chicken sandwich? No? Then justify how the routine procedure of slicing a part of a chick's beak off in factory farms is worth that sandwich, please (which btw they do so the chickens don't peck the shit out of each other due to the extremely stressful conditions, sounds like fun eh?)


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:There is no

Ktulu wrote:
There is no absolute truth, remember?

 

Until you figure out that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth I really don't see the point in talking about anything remotely important with you.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Ktulu

Manageri wrote:
Ktulu wrote:
There is no absolute truth, remember?

 

 

Until you figure out that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth I really don't see the point in talking about anything remotely important with you.

Which tautological subjective system are you referring to?

is it base 10? then yes, 1+1=2

if you mean base 2, then no, 1+1=10 (1 and 0, or 1, 2 and 1, 0) Smiling there are no absolute truths silly willy Smiling

Edit:

While the above is a "shoot from the hip" example of why you are wrong.  It purposely overlooks the pink elephant in the room, namely that a dichotomy of true/false can only be "decided" on by an observer.  Meaning that truth, is a conclusion a given observer arrived at by using a subjective standard.  In other words truth is an opinion. 

I'm getting drunk now, so my coherency/eloquence will decrease in a function gradually approaching 0 (but never quite meking it) Smiling 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Which

Ktulu wrote:
Which tautological subjective system are you referring to?

is it base 10? then yes, 1+1=2

Oh wow, you figured it out.

These word games only make you look retarded, you know.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Ktulu

Manageri wrote:
Ktulu wrote:
Which tautological subjective system are you referring to?

 

is it base 10? then yes, 1+1=2

Oh wow, you figured it out. These word games only make you look retarded, you know.

I'm quickly approaching that point where I'm not sure if I'm witty, or just think I'm witty.  The difference is that I will sober up in the morning, you my friend, will have to live like this for the rest of your life.

I will say one more thing on this, and then I will leave you in your ignorance.  You have a juvenile understanding of epistemology, ethics, logic and pretty much every other aspect of philosophy that I can tell.  You keep claiming an idiocy without being able to prove it, or understanding what your line of reasoning leads to.  Perhaps I look retarded for trying to reason with someone of your intellect, for that I apologize, never again will I attempt to sink that lowly.  

Have a good life and remember, there are no absolute truths.  Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
You're a complete and utter

You're a complete and utter moron. taking 1+1, reinterpeting what the numbers mean and then drawing a different conclusion is like responding to "Michael Jackson is a star" with "lol no he's not a burning ball of gas in space", and then calling that proof that the word star can't be defined.


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: So,

Atheistextremist wrote:
So, define ethics coherently and objectively. Give us a measure of ethical behaviour that is not subjective and dependent on context in it's bid to explain to us how we should behave.

How about this and I’m no moral philosopher as Manageri’s ethics seem to me to be screaming out of the pages he writes on here (although I don’t know why he bothers), that we at least accept our own moral ambiguity be accountable for our own shit or just plain wake up! 

The guy isn’t asking for a threshold of moral responsibility nor a threshold of self-consciousness but only a threshold of sentience, so he doesn’t cause offence – right? How many books on ethics do you need to read to spot that? 
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Have a good life

Ktulu wrote:


Have a good life and remember, there are no absolute truths.  Smiling

If that statement were an absolute truth that would still make it false.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Ktulu

Gauche wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 

Have a good life and remember, there are no absolute truths.  Smiling

If that statement were an absolute truth that would still make it false.

No, the concept of an absolute truth is incoherent.  There are ABSOLUTELY no absolute truths Smiling from the definition of "absolute" and "truth".  There are absolutely no married bachelors.  In other words, if it's a truth, it is not an absolute.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
@ManageriGetting a little

@Manageri

Getting a little upset, are we? You can disagree heatedly without throwing out personal attacks, you know.

I disagree completely with some people here, in that, while I do not believe morality is objective, it sure as hell isn't subjective either. We can use information we have and see what the most beneficial actions in different situations to take. It's a flexible system that depends heavily on our societies information about various acts and their consequences. Morality evolves, but it is not subject to mere whim. You can come from basic flexible precepts such as, life is generally preferable to death, honesty and truth is generally preferable to deception, etc.

These things can be applied to the situation at hand, giving us neither a inflexible system, or a unhelpfully directionless system. Life is not preferable to death if the suffering is too great, on a case-by-case basis. The same goes for honesty and truth. If truth or honesty do more harm than a certain deception, or it is too late for truth to do any good, it is not preferable. When the Nazis come knocking I'm sure as hell not going to tell them the truth about the Jews I have in my attic.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones

ThunderJones wrote:

@Manageri

Getting a little upset, are we? You can disagree heatedly without throwing out personal attacks, you know.

Wish I could, though I think some of them are justified. I just have a really hard time not getting emotional about extremely important subjects.

Quote:

I disagree completely with some people here, in that, while I do not believe morality is objective, it sure as hell isn't subjective either. We can use information we have and see what the most beneficial actions in different situations to take. It's a flexible system that depends heavily on our societies information about various acts and their consequences. Morality evolves, but it is not subject to mere whim. You can come from basic flexible precepts such as, life is generally preferable to death, honesty and truth is generally preferable to deception, etc.

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. If there are rational reasons to think that holding values such as life is generally better than death or telling the truth is generally better than lying, then those are already covered under the simpler standard of welfare. If promoting life and honesty promote welfare then there's no need to list those things as separate ethical axioms. All you need to do is make the argument why favoring life and honesty promotes overall welfare.

Quote:
These things can be applied to the situation at hand, giving us neither a inflexible system, or a unhelpfully directionless system. Life is not preferable to death if the suffering is too great, on a case-by-case basis. The same goes for honesty and truth. If truth or honesty do more harm than a certain deception, or it is too late for truth to do any good, it is not preferable. When the Nazis come knocking I'm sure as hell not going to tell them the truth about the Jews I have in my attic.

Exactly, you understand that everything is subservient to welfare, even life itself. The standard itself isn't complicated, the hard part is applying it in complicated ethical equations.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:No, the concept

Ktulu wrote:

No, the concept of an absolute truth is incoherent.  There are ABSOLUTELY no absolute truths Smiling from the definition of "absolute" and "truth".  There are absolutely no married bachelors.  In other words, if it's a truth, it is not an absolute.

There seems to be a self reference problem with that but I don't think it's very important. I don't believe people reject animal rights in practice because they find it irrational in principle.In principle most people probably agree with it and believe the arguments have merit but find it too inconvenient in practice.

If people were to in some way discover how to produce meat without harming animals I doubt many would say it doesn't matter one way or another, but it's a safe assumption some who would continue killing animals would do so for reasons that are irrational, like ritual sacrifice or the joy of killing.

I think it's an unhelpful starting point to frame the matter as two competing yet equally valid preferences when in ethics we are seeking a conclusion backed by reasons.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:ThunderJones

Manageri wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:

@Manageri

Getting a little upset, are we? You can disagree heatedly without throwing out personal attacks, you know.

Wish I could, though I think some of them are justified. I just have a really hard time not getting emotional about extremely important subjects.

Well, when the other party is maintaining a calm and pretty much reasonable tone, it doesn't reflect well on the blustering and angry one.

Manageri wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:

I disagree completely with some people here, in that, while I do not believe morality is objective, it sure as hell isn't subjective either. We can use information we have and see what the most beneficial actions in different situations to take. It's a flexible system that depends heavily on our societies information about various acts and their consequences. Morality evolves, but it is not subject to mere whim. You can come from basic flexible precepts such as, life is generally preferable to death, honesty and truth is generally preferable to deception, etc.

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. If there are rational reasons to think that holding values such as life is generally better than death or telling the truth is generally better than lying, then those are already covered under the simpler standard of welfare. If promoting life and honesty promote welfare then there's no need to list those things as separate ethical axioms. All you need to do is make the argument why favoring life and honesty promotes overall welfare.

I'm assuming you are using the term welfare to mean quality of life, freedom, human rights etc.?

Manageri wrote:
Quote:
These things can be applied to the situation at hand, giving us neither a inflexible system, or a unhelpfully directionless system. Life is not preferable to death if the suffering is too great, on a case-by-case basis. The same goes for honesty and truth. If truth or honesty do more harm than a certain deception, or it is too late for truth to do any good, it is not preferable. When the Nazis come knocking I'm sure as hell not going to tell them the truth about the Jews I have in my attic.

 

Exactly, you understand that everything is subservient to welfare, even life itself. The standard itself isn't complicated, the hard part is applying it in complicated ethical equations.

If you use the word welfare to mean the general well-being of a person, than generally it takes a high-ground to many other issues, but I would hesistate to start throwing out any absolutes.

 

Here is a good video series in-progress that shows some of the ways secular morality can function, and the ways religious morality does not.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0EFCB22DFCD4F2E7&feature=plcp

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:I'm

ThunderJones wrote:
I'm assuming you are using the term welfare to mean quality of life, freedom, human rights etc.?

Right, except I wouldn't say "human" rights as there's nothing limiting welfare only to our particular type of sentience. I'm also not a big fan of the term animal rights as that implies their needs are somehow in a different category than ours. I'd go with sentient rights.

Quote:
If you use the word welfare to mean the general well-being of a person, than generally it takes a high-ground to many other issues, but I would hesistate to start throwing out any absolutes.

Well can you think of anything more important to a sentience than its welfare? Survival certainly isn't, unless you think circumstances like eternal horrendous torture are better than nonexistence.

Quote:
Here is a good video series in-progress that shows some of the ways secular morality can function, and the ways religious morality does not.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0EFCB22DFCD4F2E7&feature=plcp

I'm subsriced to this guy but I seem to have missed these vids, thanks for the link. I watched the first one and I agree with pretty much all of it, the way we appraise the value of behaviour is entirely dependent on how much harm it causes (iow how it affects welfare).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I've got no problem with

 

Manageri wrote:

Exactly, you understand that everything is subservient to welfare, even life itself. The standard itself isn't complicated, the hard part is applying it in complicated ethical equations.

 

this but I simply argue ethics/morality/welfare depends on a context that is supplied at least in part by an observer's point of view. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
We don't

 

Manageri wrote:
Ok, I'll start off without quoting and then see if there's specific points I need to adress that way. You're basically saying the majority doesn't decide what's ethical, yet they tend to act ethically. Well the only thing of real importance is deciding what is ethical. Whether the majority acts ethically or not is entirely irrelevant. So tell me, what exactly is the core axiom of your ethical system if not sentient welfare? You keep bringing up society but the only reason society has any value to us is because it generally enchances our welfare as a whole, or do you think living in any kind of organized manner would be good if it made us miserable?

 

See eye to eye on everything but I wouldn't disparage your sense of universal altruism. I simply don't believe universal altruism is possible on this planet. I guess you can propose such a thing as an ethical theory but it would hardly be objective if it could not exist. Even if conceivable I can't manage to turn that momentarily attainable sense of globally mutual happiness into a belief that it might be possible for all life forms to exist whole and yet separated from the roiling, recycling, competitive, symbiotic, parasitic ecosystems they evolved to inhabit. I think of myself as a colony of single celled organisms smothered in bacteria and viruses right down to the genomic level. I am an ecosystem whose very existence is a testament to past battles at cellular, personal, species and group levels. My sentience is the final product of 3.5 billion years of fights to the death.   

The reason I keep mentioning society is because humans give to society and the value it has to us is at once ethical and yet selfish, with a subjective element framed by context. The ethical sacrificial behaviours we engage in on behalf of society, from visiting our aging parents in the nursing home to paying tens of thousands for surgery on our pets, certainly have a subjective element. I visit my mother, I pay for my pet. I care more about the citizens of my country. I would argue that as our perceptions move out into the world our ethical behaviour weakens as the relationships we encounter grow more genetically distant, and our sense of what is ethical changes.

 

Manageri wrote:

Unlike you, I'd say the majority of humans fail utterly at acting ethically. You say killing 6 million jews was the pinnacle of human moral failure while literally BILLIONS of creatures just as capable of suffering go through the torture chambers known as factory farms and slaughterhouses every year. We don't even need to look at how we treat animals either (though you really fucking should), just look at stuff like how rich assholes would rather buy their 7th yacht than donate a fraction of that money to save people dying of thirst or hunger in africa. Our species is an ethical failure of epic proportions.

 

As I've said, I think the majority of humans do behave ethically a lot of the time but as I've also said, I agree with you that human behaviour is morally inconsistent. People are both ethical and unethical, if you like, and this behaviour varies on the basis of shared genetic heritage. I take this ethical 'tolerance' as supporting my argument that there is level of subjectivity in ethics. There is no gold standard of perfect moral good. We would die for our children without thought yet slaughter a chicken for lunch while its mother watched. We let our neighbours move into our houses in a flood but watch news of drone strikes on orphans overseas with no immediate sense of personal outrage. I wouldn't argue with you for a second that humans are not moral inconsistent. We are definitely, irrevocably, morally inconsistent.  

 

Manageri wrote:

The important thing isn't whether the lion chewing the gazelle's ass is acting ethically, the important thing is that the gazelle's suffering has value, and if you could get the lion it's meal without imposing that horror on the gazelle then that would obviously be an objectively better way to do it. As for us eating animals, that's entirely unnecessary for our survival so imposing great suffering on an animal just so you can have a meal you like better than the alternative is pretty much the very definition of being an asshole. Would you cut your neighbour's lips off so you can have a chicken sandwich? No? Then justify how the routine procedure of slicing a part of a chick's beak off in factory farms is worth that sandwich, please (which btw they do so the chickens don't peck the shit out of each other due to the extremely stressful conditions, sounds like fun eh?)

To my mind, the idea it might be possible to spring all life from the trap of being part of a system of entropy in which organic systems endlessly process the sun's energy into a state of equilibrium in part by by breaking one another down into molecular constituents is clouded by unreality. I can't help but apply this to higher organisms, too. 

Personally, I'm not a huge meat eater having visited a few abattoirs and seen what goes on. And while throwing huge piles of raw meat around a debate about objective/subjective human ethics probably appeals to emotion, I'm not going to argue with you that the treatment of animals in the modern world is corrupt. But this truth doesn't stop ethics from being humanly subjective, group subjective, personally subjective. I think humans can be ethical in one environment and unethical in another. And I think this variable behaviour supports my argument that human ethics is not objective.

All this said, I think universal altruism is worth striving for and I agree with your argument that endeavouring to spare the suffering of all sentient creatures would be a good place to start if humans were seeking to impose broadly consistent ethical rules on themselves in relation to minimising general suffering. In the wild such rules would be impossible to impose without total destruction of ecosystems and the obliteration of the overall good of Gaia's self-regulating natural systems. We'd also have to define sentience. It seems even bacteria experience qualia and are aware of each other, sacrifice themselves for each other, communicate with each other. Plants, too. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I've

Atheistextremist wrote:
I've got no problem with this but I simply argue ethics/morality/welfare depends on a context that is supplied at least in part by an observer's point of view. 

 

A person making a judgement has to depend on his subjective interpretation of the situation. This doesn't mean there aren't objective facts involved, it just means the person making the decision doesn't have complete knowledge of them. If I ask you to pick up one of two cubes based on which you think is lighter, one cube appearing to be made out of gold and the other of wood, the fact the golden cube was actually hollow and hence lighter doesn't mean the weight of gold in relation to wood is subjective.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: We

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

We don't see eye to eye on everything but I wouldn't disparage your sense of universal altruism. I simply don't believe universal altruism is possible on this planet. I guess you can propose such a thing as an ethical theory but it would hardly be objective if it could not exist. Even if conceivable I can't manage to turn that momentarily attainable sense of globally mutual happiness into a belief that it might be possible for all life forms to exist whole and yet separated from the roiling, recycling, competitive, symbiotic, parasitic ecosystems they evolved to inhabit.

Whether something's possible has nothing to do with whether it's good. I'm well aware humans are such assholes and idiots that the chances of even a majority of our species ever giving a shit about the greater good is tiny.

Quote:
The reason I keep mentioning society is because humans give to society and the value it has to us is at once ethical and yet selfish, with a subjective element framed by context. The ethical sacrificial behaviours we engage in on behalf of society, from visiting our aging parents in the nursing home to paying tens of thousands for surgery on our pets, certainly have a subjective element. I visit my mother, I pay for my pet. I care more about the citizens of my country. I would argue that as our perceptions move out into the world our ethical behaviour weakens as the relationships we encounter grow more genetically distant, and our sense of what is ethical changes.

Which is illogical. Your parents don't need you taking care of them any less than the old guy next door. People in another country don't somehow magically have less needs than the ones in your own. The fact you care less about those people is evidence only of the fact you blindly accept your DNA-hardwired intuitions of right behaviour rather than using your intelligence.

Quote:
As I've said, I think the majority of humans do behave ethically a lot of the time but as I've also said, I agree with you that human behaviour is morally inconsistent. People are both ethical and unethical, if you like, and this behaviour varies on the basis of shared genetic heritage. I take this ethical 'tolerance' as supporting my argument that there is level of subjectivity in ethics.

The fact the rapist gave a homeless dude a twenty doesn't make him not a huge asshole in the big picture, which is obviously what we should be looking at. The only thing this "tolerance" supports is the fact that people aren't black and white, but that doesn't mean there aren't different shades of gray.

Quote:
There is no gold standard of perfect moral good.

Of course there is, maximum welfare possible for everyone.

Quote:
We would die for our children without thought yet slaughter a chicken for lunch while its mother watched. We let our neighbours move into our houses in a flood but watch news of drone strikes on orphans overseas with no immediate sense of personal outrage. I wouldn't argue with you for a second that humans are not moral inconsistent. We are definitely, irrevocably, morally inconsistent.

The fact our silly psychology doesn't react to all these situations equally doesn't mean they don't possess equal value. I inherently have less desire to sexually pleasure a man than a woman due to being straight, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna draw the logical conclusion that women are more deserving of pleasure, which is exactly what you have done here.

Quote:
All this said, I think universal altruism is worth striving for and I agree with your argument that endeavouring to spare the suffering of all sentient creatures would be a good place to start if humans were seeking to impose broadly consistent ethical rules on themselves in relation to minimising general suffering. In the wild such rules would be impossible to impose without total destruction of ecosystems and the obliteration of the overall good of Gaia's self-regulating natural systems.

Who says destroying something can't be better overall?

Quote:
We'd also have to define sentience. It seems even bacteria experience qualia and are aware of each other, sacrifice themselves for each other, communicate with each other. Plants, too.

Just because they have some chemical communication going on doesn't in any way imply sentience.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Cannibals

 Manageri,

  I would ask you to consider the following thoughts. 1. The concept of ethics is a construct defined and understandable to humans only - animals do not have ethics, they have instinct (atruism perhaps, but this is based on instinct and genetic make-up a la Selfish gene principles). Therefore ethics are fundamentally group-centric, where in general terms the group in this case is 'humans' 2. Some isolated group-centric ethical codes are more specific than merely human. Take the example of cannibalistic tribes - Humans in other tribes were caught and eaten in order to provide nourishment to the cannibal tribe. Now, while reprehensible to our western way of thinking, the ethics of that cannibal tribe are consistent. The group survives and flourishes by incorporating the practise of cannibalism this is subjectively ethical to that group. 3. This is also true of slavery. As long as the slaves are considered a separate group to those making them slaves, they can be seen as a resource that can be used in order to strengthen the enslaving group.  What this boils down to is that there can be no objective measure of ethics that is independent of the Human construct we happen to find ourselves in - your defined ethics are not objective, if you were part of a cannibal tribe, then the ethical imperative not to kill (or harm sentient beings) is not part of the code.  You can define your moral code to include not harming animals, but this is 'no true Scotsman fallacy' with regard to the ethics generally.   PS I'm a vegetarian and personally abhor animal cruelty; so I'm somewhat playing Devil's advocate here - But my perspective is that the ethical code is subjective within the paradigm of Humanism.  

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:1.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
1. The concept of ethics is a construct defined and understandable to humans only - animals do not have ethics, they have instinct (atruism perhaps, but this is based on instinct and genetic make-up a la Selfish gene principles).

The same is true of math, yet you won't call math subjective because only a tiny percentage of sentient creatures can understand the concept.

I'd also like to again reiterate the difference between ethics and value. A tiger can't solve any ethical equations in its head but it still understands that not sticking its paw into a fire is better than the alternative, and even if they couldn't figure that out and went around doing retarded shit that ended up hurting them, the fact remains that their suffering has value. A universe where a tiger is lying around rubbing it's balls is objectively better than one where its balls are on fire.

Quote:
Therefore ethics are fundamentally group-centric, where in general terms the group in this case is 'humans'

The fact only a certain group understands some concept doesn't mean said concept only applies to them. Birds have no friggin clue about aerodynamics from a theoretical point of view but that doesn't stop them from using and being bound by those principles, and neither does the fact that animals can't recognize the value of suffering as a universal concept mean their suffering isn't just as valuable as the suffering of those that can understand it.

Quote:
2. Some isolated group-centric ethical codes are more specific than merely human. Take the example of cannibalistic tribes - Humans in other tribes were caught and eaten in order to provide nourishment to the cannibal tribe. Now, while reprehensible to our western way of thinking, the ethics of that cannibal tribe are consistent. The group survives and flourishes by incorporating the practise of cannibalism this is subjectively ethical to that group.

Unless you think whatever some retarded bunch of people decides is ethical I don't see the point of this. Of course I can make any behaviour consistent with my ethics if I pull those ethical rules outta my ass. If I just decide that I'm better than other people and only my welfare has value then it's by definition consistent for me to do literally whatever the fuck I want and call that ethical.

Quote:
3. This is also true of slavery. As long as the slaves are considered a separate group to those making them slaves, they can be seen as a resource that can be used in order to strengthen the enslaving group.

Which is illogical as there's no relevant difference between black people and white people that makes it ok for one to enslave the other. Both have the same needs and suffer just as much from being enslaved, so to decide one is inferior has no basis in reality. Declaring someone inferior due to their skin color is just as arbitrary and retarded as saying those born on an odd day of the month are to be made slaves for the others. Are you gonna argue that the standard of sentient welfare is as arbitrary as that?

Quote:
What this boils down to is that there can be no objective measure of ethics that is independent of the Human construct we happen to find ourselves in - your defined ethics are not objective, if you were part of a cannibal tribe, then the ethical imperative not to kill (or harm sentient beings) is not part of the code.

Welfare is an objective measure. It's extremely hard to measure precisely but that doesn't mean it's not an objective standard, just like the fact we can't measure exactly how many atoms there are in the sun doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer to that question.

Quote:
You can define your moral code to include not harming animals, but this is 'no true Scotsman fallacy' with regard to the ethics generally.

As long as you agree that sentient welfare is what has value then not abusing animals follows logically. If you don't agree then propose to me a more suitable axiom for ethics.

Quote:
PS I'm a vegetarian and personally abhor animal cruelty; so I'm somewhat playing Devil's advocate here - But my perspective is that the ethical code is subjective within the paradigm of Humanism.

Unless by vegetarian you mean vegan you're still a major contributor to animal cruelty.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: A universe

Manageri wrote:
A universe where a tiger is lying around rubbing it's balls is objectively better than one where its balls are on fire.

Not for the animal that would be getting eaten by the tiger in its next meal... so this is subjective. 

 

Manageri wrote:
 

Unless you think whatever some retarded bunch of people decides is ethical I don't see the point of this. Of course I can make any behaviour consistent with my ethics if I pull those ethical rules outta my ass.

Unfortunately you are pulling your ethical rules out of your arse - My point is that ethics are defined by the group living by them. This has changed with time as humanity advances - hundreds of years ago, on a polynesian island, cannibalism was an ethically sound practise.. within that group's paradigm. That same group would have laughed at the concept of not killing an animal for ethical reasons (as some groups today still do). YOUR group of vegans have a set of ethics at odds with that cannibal tribe's, but objectively, as long as both groups survive and prosper because of their ethical code, then it is valid.. OBJECTIVELY.

Your beliefs in your ethics are very strong, which is commendable, but their strength blinds you to objectivism, which is what has led some members here to compare it to a theist viewpoint.

 

Oh, and when I mentioned slavery, I said nothing of black/white.. I was actually thinking of ancient slavery where it was common practise and the rest of the world didn't look down on it as barbarous.

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: A universe

Manageri wrote:
A universe where a tiger is lying around rubbing it's balls is objectively better than one where its balls are on fire.

If that tiger is about to have me for breakfast, the universe where the tigers balls are on fire is far superior. Somehow I have a hunch that if you were about to be eaten by the tiger that your objective universal ideals would go out the window. No matter how nice you are to the tiger or how much you attempt to reduce its suffering and make its life better, the tiger won't hesitate to rip your head off. Not because it is bad, or unethical, because it is a freaking tiger.

 

Manageri wrote:
Unless you think whatever some retarded bunch of people decides is ethical I don't see the point of this. Of course I can make any behaviour consistent with my ethics if I pull those ethical rules outta my ass. If I just decide that I'm better than other people and only my welfare has value then it's by definition consistent for me to do literally whatever the fuck I want and call that ethical.

Where exactly does your ethical standard come from? Didn't you just pull it out of your ass and now insist that everyone else in the world follow it? Maybe it is better, but it is just as made up as for example the idea of representative government. And using your ethical standard, how could you condemn cannibalism? They don't eat the person alive. So the only possible harm they are causing is killing the person, in which case the immoral action may lie in the killing but your arbitrary moral code doesn't forbid all killing, so without more information you can't determine whether the killing was moral or immoral. 

Manageri wrote:

Which is illogical as there's no relevant difference between black people and white people that makes it ok for one to enslave the other. Both have the same needs and suffer just as much from being enslaved, so to decide one is inferior has no basis in reality. Declaring someone inferior due to their skin color is just as arbitrary and retarded as saying those born on an odd day of the month are to be made slaves for the others. Are you gonna argue that the standard of sentient welfare is as arbitrary as that?

What about owning a dog or a horse? Especially one that you use for personal economic gain? Is that akin to slavery? 

 

Manageri wrote:

Welfare is an objective measure. It's extremely hard to measure precisely but that doesn't mean it's not an objective standard, just like the fact we can't measure exactly how many atoms there are in the sun doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer to that question.

Perhaps in quantity but the value of welfare is hardly objective. Whatever you say, I am sure that my personal welfare is worth less to you than your own personal welfare.  

 

Manageri wrote:
 

As long as you agree that sentient welfare is what has value then not abusing animals follows logically. If you don't agree then propose to me a more suitable axiom for ethics.

Not necessarily. Recognizing something as having value does not describe how much value. Pleasure also has value. In the case of eating a hamburger, I would say that the pleasure and nutrition provided to the human has more value than the welfare of the cow. In the case of the rapist I would say the value of the victims welfare is more important that the pleasure experienced by the rapist. 

A crayon drawing made by a child has value, that doesn't mean it has as much value as a Van Gogh painting, although to the parents of that child it might. 

 

Manageri wrote:
 

Quote:
PS I'm a vegetarian and personally abhor animal cruelty; so I'm somewhat playing Devil's advocate here - But my perspective is that the ethical code is subjective within the paradigm of Humanism.
Unless by vegetarian you mean vegan you're still a major contributor to animal cruelty.

Pot meet kettle. The computer you are on and the electricity that powers it, only exist because of significant destruction of animal habitat which no doubt had a negative effect on the welfare of many sentient beings. By participating in modern society you are a contributor to animal cruelty. The only logical action for you to follow is to move out into the middle of Siberia and live in a hut. Or at the very least, live your life like a Janist monk. Doing anything else indicates that you value other things more than you value the welfare of each sentient being. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Manageri wrote:
A universe where a tiger is lying around rubbing it's balls is objectively better than one where its balls are on fire.

Not for the animal that would be getting eaten by the tiger in its next meal... so this is subjective.

As soon I posted that I thought "you know what, I bet this guy is gonna cheat the thought experiment and talk about the tiger's victims or some shit".

If I had wanted to include the rest of the universe in the thought experiment I would have, so tell me, without changing the thought experiment this time, do you think that an animal suffering is worse than the animal not suffering IF ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL.

It's not subjective that a creature suffering is worse than said creature not suffering, unless you're gonna tell me that you don't recognize suffering has value.

Quote:
Unfortunately you are pulling your ethical rules out of your arse

Wow, so I'm pulling it outta my ass that getting a blowjob feels good and getting a spear through the balls feels bad, and the relative goodness of these experiences is not something arbitrarily decided by my psychology? I'm pulling it outta my ass that the aforementioned being the case, unless there's some greater harm being prevented by doing so, you shouldn't go around impaling people's nuts? Am I also pulling it outta my ass that whether the spear is going through my nuts, your nuts, or a tiger's nuts, it's pretty much just as negative an experience? How silly of me.

If you know that someone else is capable of feeling the exact same kind of suffering you are, there is absolutely no logical reason to think your suffering is somehow more meritorious. In the big picture it's entirely irrelevant which one of you experiences some specific pain. Note that I am talking about the experience itself, not it's cause, so don't give me some bullshit like depriving two people of painkillers isn't the same because only one of them has a headache. The lack of painkillers there is a cause for suffering, not the actual suffering.

Quote:
My point is that ethics are defined by the group living by them. This has changed with time as humanity advances - hundreds of years ago, on a polynesian island, cannibalism was an ethically sound practise.. within that group's paradigm.

No, it was still as retarded as it is today, the people were just idiots. I already went through this. By your standard if the majority decides torturing the minority just for the lulz is ethical then so it is, which is obviously an absolutely ridicilous way to define what's right.

Goddamnit I really hate both the words morality and ethics as both have been polluted with multiple different meanings based on idiotic religious and cultural nonsense. I wish there was a word that simply meant something like "conducive to the overall welfare of all sentient creatures involved".

Quote:
That same group would have laughed at the concept of not killing an animal for ethical reasons (as some groups today still do). YOUR group of vegans have a set of ethics at odds with that cannibal tribe's, but objectively, as long as both groups survive and prosper because of their ethical code, then it is valid.. OBJECTIVELY.

Since there's no logical reason to think creatures outside your group don't have value, excluding them from ethical consideration is bullshit. I really don't have any great love for animals, just like I don't have any great feelings to people I pass by on the street, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna torture them.

Quote:
Your beliefs in your ethics are very strong, which is commendable, but their strength blinds you to objectivism, which is what has led some members here to compare it to a theist viewpoint.

Practically everyone agrees with my central premise of sentient welfare just as strongly, the only difference is most people are intellectual pussies and won't do the rest of the equation because they know they wouldn't be able to justify their countless abuses.

Quote:
Oh, and when I mentioned slavery, I said nothing of black/white.. I was actually thinking of ancient slavery where it was common practise and the rest of the world didn't look down on it as barbarous.

Doesn't matter, their standards of who it was ok to enslave were just as nonsensical.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Ok, when I was a kid we kept

Ok, when I was a kid we kept chickens. One night a fox got into the coup and killed them all. It took one with it when it left, but left the bodies of the others, so it killed them without needing to, and without using them as nourishment.

Is the Fox, a sentient being, cruel? Evil?

 

Killer whales routinely play with half dead seals, tossing them into the air, and smashing them with their tails until the seal finally dies of its injuries.

Are killer whales evil?

 

According to your code of ethics, because they cause unnecessary suffering, and the ethical code is objective they are. 

 

However, you probably won't say that. BUT a human doing the same thing IS cruel and unethical under your definition.. So this PROVES that Ethics are a human construct, and therefore subjective - because if they were objective they must apply universally, regardless of the knowledge the creature has.

 

 

 

 

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Unless by

Manageri wrote:
Unless by vegetarian you mean vegan you're still a major contributor to animal cruelty.

   What do you mean by that ? Can you explain that in more depth for me ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Somehow

Beyond Saving wrote:
Somehow I have a hunch that if you were about to be eaten by the tiger that your objective universal ideals would go out the window. No matter how nice you are to the tiger or how much you attempt to reduce its suffering and make its life better, the tiger won't hesitate to rip your head off. Not because it is bad, or unethical, because it is a freaking tiger.

If me not letting the tiger eat me somehow makes things in the universe worse overall, it would be wrong for me to stop it. Whether my monkey brain submits to this logic and does the right thing is entirely irrelevant to what the right thing is. Even if I was the worst animal abuser in the world that wouldn't mean my argument for their welfare is any less meritorious, it just makes me a hypocrite, just like a child molester saying raping kids is wrong doesn't mean he can't be right. Try shooting the message rather than the messenger next time.

Quote:
Where exactly does your ethical standard come from? Didn't you just pull it out of your ass and now insist that everyone else in the world follow it?

Have the balls to say you disagree then. Tell me that suffering has absolutely no value. Until then, your objections are bullshit because you (presumably) already agree with my premise.

Quote:
And using your ethical standard, how could you condemn cannibalism? They don't eat the person alive. So the only possible harm they are causing is killing the person, in which case the immoral action may lie in the killing but your arbitrary moral code doesn't forbid all killing, so without more information you can't determine whether the killing was moral or immoral.

I really didn't wanna get into the details of that particulat scenario as I didn't wanna get sidetracked. The purpose of the example was just to point out that people used to do really retarded shit.

I have no problem with answering your questions though. Eating humans is in itself no more immoral than eating plants. Once you're dead your body has no welfare and hence is worthy of no moral consideration whatsoever. The only logical reason to justify considering the dead person's wishes regarding what to do with their corpse is so that the people still alive can feel reassured that their idiotic notions of how they want their corpse treated will be honored.

As for killing someone, until you point out how the person is worse off being dead, I don't see a problem.

Quote:
What about owning a dog or a horse? Especially one that you use for personal economic gain? Is that akin to slavery?

I've never owned a dog but they seem genuinely happy as pets, at least their condition can by no means be compared to actual slaves. I know even less about horses and their psychology so I won't comment there, but I will say I see no inherent problem with the notion that certain ways of treating animals could be labeled slavery. Anyway, whether you call it slavery or just abuse or whatever doesn't really matter, it's just a label.

Quote:
Perhaps in quantity but the value of welfare is hardly objective. Whatever you say, I am sure that my personal welfare is worth less to you than your own personal welfare.

Once again you're trying to prove that people's welfares aren't equal by appealing to our irrational biases. This is no less absurd than concluding my back account holding 1000€ is worth more than the neighbor's account holding 2000€ just because I'd rather see his account stolen than mine.

Quote:
Not necessarily. Recognizing something as having value does not describe how much value. Pleasure also has value.

Pleasure and pain aren't exact opposites in some highly meaningful ways but I won't go into that here. As for evaluating how much value something has, we may not be able to exactly pinpoint every single conceivable circumstance's value, like whether eating 9 potato chips or 8 fries gives me more pleasure, but we can easily solve most important equations, such as the bullshit you're about to say next:

Quote:
In the case of eating a hamburger, I would say that the pleasure and nutrition provided to the human has more value than the welfare of the cow.

This is what I mean. There is not a motherfucking way in hell that you would experience the suffering the cow went through if that was the price of you getting that hamburger, so claiming the cow's suffering is less valuable than your petty taste pleasure is a fucking lie, unless you're such an idiot you don't understand a cow's pain doesn't feel different than a human's (in any meaningful way at least).

Quote:
A crayon drawing made by a child has value, that doesn't mean it has as much value as a Van Gogh painting, although to the parents of that child it might.

Neither has the kind of value I'm talking about. You're pointing at objects that produce emotional value while I'm talking about that emotional value itself.

Quote:
Pot meet kettle. The computer you are on and the electricity that powers it, only exist because of significant destruction of animal habitat which no doubt had a negative effect on the welfare of many sentient beings. By participating in modern society you are a contributor to animal cruelty. The only logical action for you to follow is to move out into the middle of Siberia and live in a hut. Or at the very least, live your life like a Janist monk. Doing anything else indicates that you value other things more than you value the welfare of each sentient being. 

I already explained how my potential hypocrisy is a different issue than the validity of my arguments. Another important thing to note is that while my existence assuredly causes all kinds of unseen and unavoidable mayhem in the world, that doesn't excuse you deliberately being an asshole. Just because I've raped one woman doesn't mean I can't call you a bigger asshole if you've raped a hundred.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Unless by vegetarian you mean vegan you're still a major contributor to animal cruelty.

   What do you mean by that ? Can you explain that in more depth for me ?

All animals in factory farms are treated like shit, given minimal room to move in, no health care and just in general no consideration whatsoever (unless doing so is somehow conducive to making more money off of them). You can find tons of info about this, just google cow cruelty or something like that. The conditions of egg laying hens are also something worth looking into.

EDIT: A good onestop source for a lotta this shit is the documentary Earthlings, you can watch it free on their homepage http://earthlings.com/

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Ok, when I was a kid we kept chickens. One night a fox got into the coup and killed them all. It took one with it when it left, but left the bodies of the others, so it killed them without needing to, and without using them as nourishment.

Is the Fox, a sentient being, cruel? Evil?

Irrelevant, I don't give a shit about whether someone/something is evil/unethical/immoral/wearing clown shoes or any other bullshit, all I care about is the end result.

Quote:
According to your code of ethics, because they cause unnecessary suffering, and the ethical code is objective they are. 

 

However, you probably won't say that.

If you want a better word for what I mean then I'd go with something like efficiency rather than morality. Animals torturing their prey needlessly is clearly inefficient, as that pain has no positive effect whatsoever.

Quote:
BUT a human doing the same thing IS cruel and unethical under your definition.. So this PROVES that Ethics are a human construct, and therefore subjective - because if they were objective they must apply universally, regardless of the knowledge the creature has.

The value is objective. Whether a human kicks a lion in the balls or a gorilla does it, the pain is the same, and that is what has value.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Nice sidestep, but

 Nice sidestep, but efficiency and morality are really not the same thing. This is your weakest statement yet.

 

I could say factory farming is highly efficient and therefore moral, following your lead. Try answering that again.

 

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Obviously by efficiency I'm

Obviously by efficiency I'm talking about the efficiency of producing the best outcome for all involved, based on the standard of welfare. Factory farming is efficient for torturing animals and giving us cheap animal products, it's is extremely inefficient in producing welfare.

EDIT: I think I explained it kinda hastily so I'll clarify. The point of me making up the word efficiency was to move the conversation away from the thing performing the action and into the result of the action. So when I say something is efficient, I mean it causes relatively much welfare while consuming relatively little of it (such as getting a vaccination to some horror which stings a little but prevents you from puking your fucking guts out).


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Have the

Manageri wrote:
Have the balls to say you disagree then. Tell me that suffering has absolutely no value. Until then, your objections are bullshit because you (presumably) already agree with my premise.

What do you think I have been doing? Yes, I completely disagree with your assertion that there is an objective universal morality. I also disagree that the general welfare of all sentient life is anything other than an arbitrary axiom. I have absolutely no problem with you using that as a basis for your morality, although it leads to a few ethical principles I think are fucked up. I will also freely admit that my morality is as arbitrary as my concept of beauty. The difference is that I don't expect others to follow my moral beliefs, nor particularly care whether they do any more than I expect everyone to agree with me when I describe something as beautiful or ugly. I don't even grant that pain is necessarily the worst thing ever and should be avoided for the sake of avoiding it. 

 

Manageri wrote:

Once again you're trying to prove that people's welfares aren't equal by appealing to our irrational biases. This is no less absurd than concluding my back account holding 1000€ is worth more than the neighbor's account holding 2000€ just because I'd rather see his account stolen than mine.

To me, my bank account has substantially more value than my neighbors, regardless of the relative purchasing power. My neighbor could have trillions over there and it is still worth 0 to me. Value is relative to the subject you are talking about, that is the basis of our entire economic system. That is why you can purchase a cup of coffee from the vendor and the vendor is happy because he/she values the money more than the coffee and you are happy because you value the coffee more than the money. 

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
In the case of eating a hamburger, I would say that the pleasure and nutrition provided to the human has more value than the welfare of the cow.
This is what I mean. There is not a motherfucking way in hell that you would experience the suffering the cow went through if that was the price of you getting that hamburger, so claiming the cow's suffering is less valuable than your petty taste pleasure is a fucking lie, unless you're such an idiot you don't understand a cow's pain doesn't feel different than a human's (in any meaningful way at least).

What rational reason is there for me to care about the pain a cow goes through? It seems rather irrational to me to allow a tiger to eat you because it is better for the universe at large. I would argue that self preservation is a very rational response. Conclusion: your morality is based on an axiom that is rooted in emotion and your personal feelings not objective logic. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I don't believe there is an objective rational morality, although there may often be rational reasons to follow certain guidelines we call morality. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Still not good

 Still not good enough:

 

Whale torturing and killing a seal - End result, Seal dead - suffering inflicted

Humans factory farming cows - End result, cows dead - suffering inflicted

Only difference is magnitude - More consumers, more death, more suffering.. but proportionately more, efficiency is similar. In fact, one cow will feed many humans, while a whale needs many seals a day.. 

 

You need to give a valid reason why the first point above is ethical in your objective ethics universe, while the second is not, and you haven't done this yet.

 

 

 

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I also

Beyond Saving wrote:
I also disagree that the general welfare of all sentient life is anything other than an arbitrary axiom. I have absolutely no problem with you using that as a basis for your morality, although it leads to a few ethical principles I think are fucked up. I will also freely admit that my morality is as arbitrary as my concept of beauty.

Then your moral condemnations by your own standards hold no more weight than you stating you disagree with someone's taste in women. If you think "suffering sucks" is the same kind of statement as "blondes are hot" then I really don't care what you have to say about my ethical standards, as you obviously don't think ethics is of any importance in general.

Quote:
The difference is that I don't expect others to follow my moral beliefs, nor particularly care whether they do any more than I expect everyone to agree with me when I describe something as beautiful or ugly.

Oh, you dont expect me not to inject you with AIDS, or care if I do?

Quote:
I don't even grant that pain is necessarily the worst thing ever and should be avoided for the sake of avoiding it.

Just so we're clear, when I say welfare, that encompasses all negative sensation, not just physical pain. A much better word is suffering. If you don't think pointless suffering is bad then I hope you stay the fuck away from me and all other sentient life for that matter.

Quote:
To me, my bank account has substantially more value than my neighbors, regardless of the relative purchasing power. My neighbor could have trillions over there and it is still worth 0 to me.

All you're saying is you CARE ABOUT your account more than his, not that his account isn't worth more.

Quote:
Value is relative to the subject you are talking about, that is the basis of our entire economic system. That is why you can purchase a cup of coffee from the vendor and the vendor is happy because he/she values the money more than the coffee and you are happy because you value the coffee more than the money.

I haven't argued anything that contradicts this. I keep pointing out that whatever stuff enchances our welfare is entirely subjective, but the value of the welfare itself is not. If giving some guy a cup of coffee makes him much happier than giving it to someone else, then it's better to give it to him, not complicated.

Quote:
What rational reason is there for me to care about the pain a cow goes through?

I don't give a shit if the rapist cares about the victim, I care about whether his pleasure is worth more than the victim's suffering. You do realize what you just said can be used just as easily to justify being a rapist, right?

Quote:
It seems rather irrational to me to allow a tiger to eat you because it is better for the universe at large.

It's entirely rational given my premises.

Quote:
I would argue that self preservation is a very rational response.

I'd say it's an incredibly animalistic response with almost no thought attached to it, otherwise we'd have to teach little children to run from scary shit, which we don't have to do.

Quote:
Conclusion: your morality is based on an axiom that is rooted in emotion and your personal feelings not objective logic.

You can't base any ethical axiom on pure logic, it's impossible unless you have a way to bridge the is-ought gap. All you can do is figure out what you find value to be about (which I don't think should really be hard for a sentient organism), make that an axiom, and then do OBJECTIVE logic from there. All these people (except you, but I already knew you're an asshole) understand that welfare has value and therefore their disagreement with me should really be about the logic that follows from that, not the premise itself


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Still not good enough:

 

Whale torturing and killing a seal - End result, Seal dead - suffering inflicted

No, here's what I mean:

1. Whale killing a seal, seal feels some pain, whale gets a full belly

2. Whale killing and torturing a seal, seal feels a lot more pain, whale gets a full belly

The first option is clearly more efficient in terms of the welfare "spent" killing the seal in relation to the welfare gained feeding the whale.

Quote:
Humans factory farming cows - End result, cows dead - suffering inflicted

Only difference is magnitude - More consumers, more death, more suffering.. but proportionately more, efficiency is similar. In fact, one cow will feed many humans, while a whale needs many seals a day.. 

 

You need to give a valid reason why the first point above is ethical in your objective ethics universe, while the second is not, and you haven't done this yet.

Can we please stop using the word ethical already? Both situations suck in reality. Whales cause unnecessary suffering and so do humans. Both are acting inefficiently when they cause unneccesary suffering and should therefore be condemned just as harshly regardless of motivation or understanding of the suffering they cause. Just because a retard doesn't understand he's capable of harming someone with it doesn't mean you don't stop him from gaining access to a loaded gun.

One cow's suffering in relation to the taste pleasure of the people eating it (and it is ONLY that, taste, not survival) is absurdly inefficient and you know it. The fact many people can derive pleasure from one cow's suffering is no more proof of it's efficiency than the fact many men can rape a woman at the same time is evidence of its efficiency.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 If you're going to reduce

 If you're going to reduce your whole argument to welfare efficiency, then I really don't know what your point is.

 

Would you try and educate whales to get them to kill more efficiently? It's their nature - and it's not intrinsically wrong - Evolution has for whatever reason happened to cause this trait in them. You're right, it has nothing to do with Morality or ethics. But you appear to be judging them based upon your objective standard of welfare.. Does this seem a little bizarre to you?

 

 

 

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 If you're going to reduce your whole argument to welfare efficiency, then I really don't know what your point is.

That IS the point.

Quote:
Would you try and educate whales to get them to kill more efficiently? It's their nature - and it's not intrinsically wrong - Evolution has for whatever reason happened to cause this trait in them. You're right, it has nothing to do with Morality or ethics. But you appear to be judging them based upon your objective standard of welfare.. Does this seem a little bizarre to you?

 

 

 

 

Why should it? If whales are a negative influence in the world then the appropriate response, seeing as they can't be taught a goddamn thing, is to annihilate the fuckers. Yeah, a vegan just told you DON'T save the whales.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
..So then you'd have to

..So then you'd have to annihilate all carnivores because generally they cause more than minimal suffering when they kill.

.. but then you'd have to kill the humans that killed the carnivores..

 

... and I think we can now all agree that your point is reduced to absurdity.

 

Nice debate though.

 

 

 

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

..So then you'd have to annihilate all carnivores because generally they cause more than minimal suffering when they kill.

.. but then you'd have to kill the humans that killed the carnivores..

 

... and I think we can now all agree that your point is reduced to absurdity.

 

Nice debate though.

 

 

 

 

Who says my ultimate conclusion isn't the end of all sentience?


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
That would surely be the

That would surely be the opposite of what you were arguing for - as you'd have to go through a lot more suffering to do that.

 

Also, I think that when you feel the need to destroy yourself to prove a point... generally you've lost the debate.