- #1
viet_jon
- 131
- 0
of course it's wrong...
but is it any different than killing a pig?
but is it any different than killing a pig?
viet_jon said:of course it's wrong...
but is it any different than killing a pig?
viet_jon said:of course it's wrong...
but is it any different than killing a pig?
Yes.viet_jon said:of course it's wrong...
but is it any different than killing a pig?
Esperanza said:Perceptions, cultural and religious values are always in the middle of these controversial subjects, but what are you killing and your motive and perception is need also to be taking into consideration. If you are vegetarian or not your motive is to survive as you need nutrients to survive and you are either or both participating in the destruction of living things, is your live or theirs. I don't think that killing is right but I believe that there are justifications, for example you kill a pig or a lettuce because you need to eat. Different countries have different opinions about this and that related to cultural and spiritual values and believes for example, some people believe in death penalty, some people have kill someone in their own defence, or by accident or in an act of uncontrollable emotional violence, for example a father who find someone rapping his child . Although different justice systems have their own say, if killing is right or wrong relate to why and how and how this affect your personal believes. For example to me killing is wrong because of my spiritual believes, however I need to eat, in the other hand I drive and I pray every day not to be involve in an accident as I don't think I can live with the guilt of killing someone, but if I drink and drive, or I am sober and someone just want to commit suicide and jump in front of my car, this make a lot of different
Moridin said:1. By killing another person, you are affirming a universal right to self-ownership.
2. By killing another person, you are denying a universal right to self-ownership.
3. Contradiction (from 1 and 2)
4. Killing another person is wrong.
This works for most cases except self-defense or versions of self-defense, since the person attacking you has acted on an invalid justification.
1. By killing another person, one is affirming the existence of a universal right to self-ownership exists. One cannot assume that it only applies to oneself, since that would them simply be a personal opinion, rather than an objective fact, since everything objective needs to be universal, by definition.
2. By killing another person, one is denying that person a universal right to self-ownership.
My argument is independent on whether or not an actual universal right to self-ownership actually exists, since it is an internal contradiction, rather than an external.
This is an argument for moral realism, so if correct, it disproves all forms of moral anti-realism.
Cannibals = true humanitarians.viet_jon said:how about cannibalism?
octelcogopod said:But if it isn't an external right but an internal, then the person who kills can decide if the other person deserves his right.. Some people also think that they do not have the right to live if someone more powerful than them decide that they don't..
The right wil always be a matter of perspctive right?
Or perhaps being imperfect beings we cannot be morally absolute. We are morally relative by our imperfect nature, regardless of the existence, or lack thereof, of moral absolutes. Or perhaps two opposing concepts can be simultaneously true or false, or equally irrelevent.
Moridin said:(1) Is "not stealing" an action? I don't think so. If you do, can you describe the act of "not stealing"?
(2) By eating, you are removing your hunger, not affirming its existence. Eating is also not an action in the moral sphere and claiming that hunger is a right or a value is a non sequitur.
(3) Is "not eating" an action? I don't think so. If you do, can you describe the act of "not eating"?
Objective (or universal) morality is not the same as moral absolutism, since the later denies contextualizing, whereas the prior does not, since it is based on objective facts, rather than subjective rules. I chose the easiest examples to illustrate the general argument.
Before a conscious action is performed a conscious decision must be made. If making a decision may be considered an action then not killing may be an action because rational decisions derive from our consciousness. By making the decision to kill one assumes that there is the option to decide not to kill. So if your theorem applies strictly to actions then it is okay to decide to perform the action of killing someone, but not okay to perform the action itself. I find that to be a contradictory statement. (or at least incongruent)
If we apply the theorem as universal to all life then it would be wrong to kill any living thing. We would soon starve to death.
To rephrase I would say that we are not perfectly rational, all-knowing beings, and that we can't be perfectly objective in our judgement of morals. We are all morally subjective to some extent.
viet_jon said:of course it's wrong...
but is it any different than killing a pig?
Yes, killing another person is much different than killing a pig. We are socially conditioned to believe that murder is wrong. That has an effect on how we feel when we perform the act. It is also very possible that there may be biological reasons we avoid killing humans, such as mirror neurons. Psychologically it is easier to empathize with another person than an animal.In conflict situations the dominance of midbrain processing can be observed in the existence of a powerful resistance to killing one's own kind, a resistance that exists in every healthy member of every species. Konrad Lorenz, in his definitive book, On Aggression, notes that it is rare for animals of the same species to fight to the death. In their territorial and mating battles animals with horns will butt their heads together in a relatively harmless fashion, but against any other species they will go to the side and attempt to gut and gore. Similarly, piranha will fight one another with raps of their tails but they will turn their teeth on anything and everything else, and rattlesnakes will wrestle each other but they have no hesitation to turn their fangs on anything else. Lorenz suggests that this "non-specicidal" tendency is imprinted into the genetic code in order to safeguard the survival of the species.
But I think we probably agree that pets display the ability of being alive. Why should they be spereate from the right to have life if they exhibit the ability for it? Do rights only apply to humans, or to all beings that have the ability to act on that right? And if they only apply to humans can they be universally objective?
"Moreland [evangelical philosopher] in turn responds to the idea that humans are special on naturalism by calling this 'speciesism', the belief that humans are more valuable than animals based solely on a 'racist, unjustified bias towards one's own biological classification'. But this is a bogus charge. The special value humans is not based on our commonality of species.
[...]
Our value is based on objective distinct properties possessed by humans that are the most valuable thing to use, or to any fully-sentient being - far more valuable than anything possessed by other animals. Each human mind is an entire universe unto itself, a marvelous architecture of personality, of thoughts, dreams, memories, values, of knowledge and ideas and creative drives and skills. No other animal comes close to possessing this. The loss of a human mind is a truly profound loss to the entire universe, and the development of a human mind is the greatest, most marvelous thing the universe may ever realize. But more importantly, each human shares our awareness of being, our understanding, our capacity for perceiving happiness, and agreeing to help each other achieve it. And it is by virtue of our ability to truly comprehend happiness in this way that our happiness is so valuable. It cannot be said that we disvalues the comprehension of happiness in other animals out of bias, for they do not possesses such a thing. They can experience a kind of happiness, and thus they have value, but they cannot comprehend it, truly perceive and savor that happiness, nor can they join society and act among us accordingly. Yet if being happy is good, knowing happiness, and how to produce it, is necessarily better. That has little to do with what species you are
If it is universally wrong to kill then it is universally wrong to eat anything that isn't already dead.
I'm not concerned about the fact that objective morality exists in principle. I want to know if the principle of objective morality exists as fact. I'm not sure it does.
In your example I am not sure about #2 or #3. I don't understand how being out in the cold without protection would cause illness, except hypothermia or frostbite or such things, though it is somewhat non-sequitur to the argument.
I don't believe it is objectively beneficent to always avoid risking sickness.
For example, as a child I would hope to get sick to miss a few days of school. That is not a particularly objective view. Then there are cases of early explorers crossing vast uncharted oceans, risking sickness and death for discovery. I see that as an objectively beneficent viewpoint. Another person may disagree.
. Lorenz suggests that this "non-specicidal" tendency is imprinted into the genetic code in order to safeguard the survival of the species.
Buying.Moridin said:(1) Is "not stealing" an action? I don't think so. If you do, can you describe the act of "not stealing"?
(2) By eating, you are removing your hunger, not affirming its existence. Eating is also not an action in the moral sphere and claiming that hunger is a right or a value is a non sequitur.
(3) Is "not eating" an action? I don't think so. If you do, can you describe the act of "not eating"?
the loss of a human mind is a truly profound loss to the entire universe, and the development of a human mind is the greatest, most marvelous thing the universe may ever realize.
Moridin said:1. It is cold outside. (empirical fact)
Moridin said:I would argue that moral decisions are ultimately based on what facts exists.
It also does not suggest that evolution is beneficent. My point was that facts are not inherently beneficent. The measure of beneficence relies on a subjective interpretation of morality.Some people accept evolution. Others do not. However, that does not suggest that the empirical facts evolution is based on are relative.
Buying.
Which is one way, of several, you can take someone else's property and make it your property. Stealing is another.
Objectivity is something scientists strive for, using scientific method... its not something we have. Its not something we even know for certain exists. Absolutes are just as empty.
What a load of egocentric crap. The universe doesn't care if human beings exist.
Killing is wrong when we agree it is.
I would argue that moral decisions are based on subjective or relative values.
What is acceptable to the opinion of society becomes morality. I'm not even sure how morals can be assigned to objective fact without losing their objectivity, since they weigh the subjective properties of good and evil. I agree with Moore that it is a naturalistic fallacy to do so.
Objective or absolute morality may exist, but due to the limitations of our knowledge, or imperfect nature, I don't see how any society or individual can currently claim to understand such things completely.
It also does not suggest that evolution is beneficent. My point was that facts are not inherently beneficent. The measure of beneficence relies on a subjective interpretation of morality.
"Cold" is completely relative, based on what you are comparing. Its cold on earth...compared to the sun.
This is almost unbelievable. First you make a claim that a right to property exists by using a theorem that appeals to objectivity. Then when that same theorem is used to claim that no right to property exists you claim that would be violating someone's rights. The right must first be proven to exist before it can be violated, which was the point of the exercise in the first place.You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of a right. A right is a justification for something, or more concretely, something you are justified in using violence to defend. In trade, you are not violating anyone's rights.
No, I am not saying that it ought to be moral relativism that is true in an objective way. I thought I made clear in my statement that moral relativism is the way of the world, due to limiting contextual factors. I did not conflate moral relativism with truth. You are the one claiming that actions are moral based on facts, thus you must show these facts.Moridin said:The fact that you are disagreeing with me shows that you affirm moral realism. By questioning moral realism, you are claiming that it ought to be moral relativism that is true in some objective way (if not, that is just your unsupported opinion with no objective support), which undermines your position.
You stated that higher cognitive function makes human being's right to life more valuable than other animals. That is a property that you assigned, and is a naturalistic fallacy. Some people are more beneficent than others, and that quality has nothing at all to do with their cognitive ability. To justify the taking of life because one life-form is more cognitive than another is bias. One could just as easily justify the position that 'might makes right', and superior physical strength grants the right to kill creatures weaker than themselves.The Naturalist Fallacy is not applicable, since it is only relevant when "philosophers attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties". I am not performing that fallacy, since I argue that moral facts are empirical facts and I have never once appeal to something being more natural than others. I am not even committing the is-ought fallacy, since I have given numerous examples on how to transform and is to an ought.
Here you say some action is objectively beneficent. You are making a fact-based claim to an indefinable quality. You are appealing to a definition of the term 'good' to justify your position. That is a naturalistic fallacy.1. Using a powerful welding device can cause severe injuries if used without adequate protection. (empirically testable)
2. It is objectively beneficent for a person to value not becoming severely injured for ones (empirically testable)
4. I ought to put on protection. (moral imperative)
No, I would only be making that mistake if I claimed that moral relativism is more beneficent, which I did not. (edit-In fact, I specifically stated that we ought to strive to understand moral objectivism and moral absolutism to become better than we are. How could you confuse my statement as support for moral relativism?)In fact, you are the one committing the naturalist fallacy by arguing that moral relativism is more natural.
Please separate moral realism with moral absolutism. They cannot be both true at the same time, since moral absolutism is in fact subjective (the replacement of context with rules).
I did not make any claim that they both be true at the same time. I used the conjunction 'or' in all cases.Huckleberry said:Objective or absolute morality may exist, but due to the limitations of our knowledge, or imperfect nature, I don't see how any society or individual can currently claim to understand such things completely.
There are contexts where removing another person's limb may be beneficent. There are also contexts where decreasing the standard of living of others may be beneficent. I still fail to see how beneficence can be considered purely objective, since it requires subjective value judgements. I also fail to see how any action can be moral or immoral separated from the intent that motivated it.Would it be objectively beneficent for me if you decided to use a chainsaw to saw of my legs? Of course not. And not because it is my subjective opinion, but because it would massively decrees my living standard in an objective way (unable to walk, unable to work etc.)
You seem to be making it up as you go... which is very ironic... in a slapstick kind of way.Moridin said:You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of a right.
According to you, humans have a cognitive ability that gives them a right to life? What if they can't afford to buy food and therefore starve. Trade violates their rights.In trade, you are not violating anyone's rights.
Its only superior when we use it to do something those without it can't. Otherwise its just a different cognitive function. And there are quite a few animals with cognitive functions that are superior to ours... in certain ways, when doing certain things.You agree that it is an objective fact that humans have a vastly superior cognitive function that other species?
I bet you can pull a rabbit out of your ass as well.By disagreeing with me, you are affirming my position.
Then you are a great and powerful wizard, or possibly, a hopelessly deluded randian fanatic.I am not performing that fallacy, since I argue that moral facts are empirical facts and I have never once appeal to something being more natural than others. I am not even committing the is-ought fallacy, since I have given numerous examples on how to transform and is to an ought.
Really, can you quote the part where I said that?In fact, you are the one committing the naturalist fallacy by arguing that moral relativism is more natural.
Might be fun, if I was more inclined to violence. Plenty of people like that around though if that's what you are into. We tend to put them in jail.Would it be objectively beneficent for me if you decided to use a chainsaw to saw of my legs?
Why would your lack of ability to work be objectively bad. You assume I give a rats ass about your life. We could just let you die, or kill you... that would be most beneficent. Cruel to let you live really, when you can't produce anything. Poor chap.Of course not. And not because it is my subjective opinion, but because it would massively decrees my living standard in an objective way (unable to walk, unable to work etc.)
Average does not equal arbitrary. Please check your dictionary.No, temperature are the relative measure. Cold is the sum of the kinetic energies of particles in a system, whereas temperature is an arbitrary measure proportional to the average velocity of the particles in a system.
Moridin said:By questioning moral realism, you are affirming it.
JoeDawg said:What a load of egocentric crap. The universe doesn't care if human beings exist.
We are born on a small planet, around an average star, in the ass end of one, of a billion galaxies. And we have only been around for a fraction of an instant on the scale of the universe. The idea that human beings are something special is egotism, and stems from the fact that we value ourselves... which is purely instinctive and something common to all forms of life that end up procreating. Those that don't value themselves don't survive long. Self preservation is only important, to those who have it. It doesn't imply value, it describes values certain creatures have.
Life has the value we give it. And that's entirely subjective.
Killing is wrong when we agree it is.
This is almost unbelievable. First you make a claim that a right to property exists by using a theorem that appeals to objectivity. Then when that same theorem is used to claim that no right to property exists you claim that would be violating someone's rights. The right must first be proven to exist before it can be violated, which was the point of the exercise in the first place.
No, I am not saying that it ought to be moral relativism that is true in an objective way. I thought I made clear in my statement that moral relativism is the way of the world, due to limiting contextual factors. I did not conflate moral relativism with truth. You are the one claiming that actions are moral based on facts, thus you must show these facts.
You stated that higher cognitive function makes human being's right to life more valuable than other animals. That is a property that you assigned, and is a naturalistic fallacy.
Some people are more beneficent than others, and that quality has nothing at all to do with their cognitive ability.
To justify the taking of life because one life-form is more cognitive than another is bias.
One could just as easily justify the position that 'might makes right', and superior physical strength grants the right to kill creatures weaker than themselves.
Here you say some action is objectively beneficent. You are making a fact-based claim to an indefinable quality. You are appealing to a definition of the term 'good' to justify your position. That is a naturalistic fallacy.
No, I would only be making that mistake if I claimed that moral relativism is more beneficent, which I did not. (edit-In fact, I specifically stated that we ought to strive to understand moral objectivism and moral absolutism to become better than we are. How could you confuse my statement as support for moral relativism?)
There are contexts where removing another person's limb may be beneficent. There are also contexts where decreasing the standard of living of others may be beneficent.
I still fail to see how beneficence can be considered purely objective, since it requires subjective value judgements. I also fail to see how any action can be moral or immoral separated from the intent that motivated it.
I can't argue against an infallible position where even if I disagree I am agreeing with it. That's absurd, and not objective at all. I think I'll excuse myself before this degenerates even further.
JoeDawg said:According to you, humans have a cognitive ability that gives them a right to life? What if they can't afford to buy food and therefore starve. Trade violates their rights.
Its only superior when we use it to do something those without it can't. Otherwise its just a different cognitive function. And there are quite a few animals with cognitive functions that are superior to ours... in certain ways, when doing certain things.
You can't derive an ought from an is.
Then you are a great and powerful wizard, or possibly, a hopelessly deluded randian fanatic.
Really, can you quote the part where I said that?
Sounds like you arguing with yourself here more than anyone else.
Might improve things if you actually read for comprehension and not just so you can paste in your memorized answers.
I'm not a pacifist though. Happy to beat you senseless if you get in my face. Not going to argue the right or wrong of it. Life happens. I'll let the lawyers decide what was legal. They don't worry about rights or wrongs so much.
Quite amusing though, been a while since I read such self-contradicting nonsense.
CaptainQuasar said:Okay, I'm totally just sticking my head in here without having read most of this thread. But the above argument sounds to me just like this arcane Stoicist point we would advance in grade school: “I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”⚛
Moridin said:This happens in the same manner when you try to argue that it objectively ought to be the case that moral relativism is true.
The strong set the rules.Moridin said:Trade is volitional.
JoeDawg said:Strawman.
No one is arguing that except you.