Glass*Soul

I think we have the germ of a plot for a sci-fi novel here.

McFish

Yeah

I can see it now, an emotional roller coaster feel-good movie of the year, a cross between "Enemy of the State" and Charlotte's Web

One difficulty I have with the idea of not granting rights to those who don't grant them to us probably springs from watching too much Star Trek TNG. Picard would never agree to that concept...just think of all the intelligent aliens he wasted episodes learning to talk to instead of blowing them away

Really though, wouldn't such a concept of rights/respect/morality preclude retarded people, blind/deaf/dumb, stupid, etc people from being granted rights? Wouldn't it also preclude the end of a feud between ethnic groups?

Sarpedon

First of all, when I wrote my personal code of behavior, I defined its use to be limited to relationships with sane human adults. I admit that I am not knowledgeable about mental diseases and neuropsychology to make any educated judgements about the insane/mentally disabled. They are a special case and I am content to follow the lead of others in dealing with them.

The problem with animals comes from item #4 in my list of morals. I defined four moral categories when dealing with other people (sane human adults) A. Human life B. Human rights and physical well being C. Human material interests D. A person's "feelings." These are listed in the order of their relative value. I consider it unethical to act to the detriment of any thing in the higher categories for the sake of anything of the lower categories. For example, the death sentance passed against Salman Rushdie for his hurting the feelings of the muslims is unethical, as human life is infinitely more valuable than any harm his words caused, no matter how many people's "feelings" he hurt. The value of the higher categories simply cannot be expressed in terms of anything in a lower category.

I didn't stop here, after D comes E, non human animals. Because I am not a sadistic person, I do not believe that it is right to kill or harm animals needlessly, but I define such concerns as being less important than any of the previous four categories. If someone were to enjoy harming animals, I guess that would be ethical under my system. However, that might indicate some kind of mental disturbance on his part, so that means he is a special case and can't be reckoned according to this system. Last on my list is ideas and inanimate objects category F. Things that have no inherent ethical value whatsoever.


I don't see how my system would preclude people with physical disabilities from having rights...And I am rather confused as to why you would bring that up.

As for whether this would cause ethnic conflicts to continue indefinately, no it wouldnt. I have a broader view of society as being the sum total of all humans. The other (racist) view is that each culture/religion/race is its own society is largely obsolete. We have shown that all religions are false, there is no scientific basis for the concept of "race", and culture is merely a form of behavioral evolution. Therefore, "ethnic" or "religious" conflicts can be seen as societal disorders that need to be corrected, nothing more.

And lastly, yes, might does make right, it always has and always will. I have never seen any credible social theory that says otherwise. The nice thing about the modern world is that we all have a great deal of power, both economic and military. Ever since the gun leveled the playing field between the knight and the peasant, we have seen a growth of democracy and the concept of equal rights. Nowadays, economic strength is more important, even disabled persons, who were previously powerless, can hold jobs and therefore wield economic power. Technology has empowered all of us, and has fostered democracy and equal rights. The fact that I am an empowered person gives me the leisure and ability to devise and abide by my own code of ethics. If I were a slave I could not do so.

long winded fool

Not only would it be ethical for a sane person to cause needless pain and/or death to an animal as long as he is enjoying himself, it would be unethical to stop said human from enjoying himself since human feelings are higher on the list, and since it is unethical to act to the detriment of any thing in the higher categories for the sake of anything of the lower categories. If the animal said person is torturing is Sam, my pet pig, an animal that I have no material investment in other than love, which of our interests wins out? Since my interest is solely for the sake of an animal, it must be his. It hurts my feelings to have Sam tortured, but stopping the torturer prevents his enjoyment from being fulfilled and since it is unethical to preclude D for the sake of E, isn't it unethical for me to prevent him from killing my pig? And if some inanimate objects fall under human material interests, how do you differentiate them? Any inanimate object that a human has material interest in precludes the feelings of all other humans and the lives of all animals that aren't human material interests? What about potential human material interests?

As an ethical system, I think your theory needs to address these possible dilemmas. As an overview of ethics in general, I think it is inaccurate. While it follows the general behavior of humanity, there are too many exceptions to the rules to be a valid guide. I think putting the lives of higher animals before human feelings and before human material interests would be much more accurate to this society. I can't kill a dog just because it makes me mad. And I can't breed horses in squalor in order to save money. And excepting the insane from your system is dangerous. Is sadism proof of insanity? What about masochism or clinical depression? Or nose rings and mohawks? How low does one's I.Q. have to be before he is mentally disabled and absolved from these rules? My point is that I don't think that sanity can be sharply defined enough to apply to specifically declared behaviors at all times. In other words, not all who enjoy hurting animals are insane or mentally disabled.

The ethical system I see when I look at this society is one where animals have a responsibility to provide humans with food, clothing, and medicine. However, I also see humans as having a responsibility to protect and maintain animals. I derive this from natural law. All living things are responsible for providing food for other living things, and/or for maintaining the population of other living things. The circle of life as they say. Humans are simply the only animals (that we know of) that realize this. As Mr. Spock reminds us, "To hunt a species to extinction is not logical." Maintaining animal populations while herding them and using them to benefit human society is natural. All animals die for the sake of other animals. Causing needless harm to an animal is unnatural and is just that, needless. If killing an animal can be avoided without threatening to violate a human's right to life, it should be. If subjecting the animal to pain can be avoided without threatening to violate a human's right to be free from pain, it should be. If humans can experiment on animals without directly killing them or causing them pain, they should be required to do so. If they can't, but conducting the experiment may save human lives, then they ought to be allowed. If the experiment will save humans from suffering, but causes the animal suffering, then the animal should be allowed to suffer, so long as it is not killed. If the experiment will only generate profits, then both death and suffering should be prohibited. Of course there are exceptions, but in this society this is how it seems to work. While animal rights never preclude a human's right to life, they do preclude a human's right to wealth and happiness. You can legally get neither of these by violating an animal's rights, (assuming that animal rights are life and freedom from unnecessary pain.)

Sarpedon

Many people, having rejected religion try to find something to replace it. This so-called "natural law" is one of the more popular. Your assertion that animals have a "responsibility" to provide food and clothing and medicine is false and illogical. Did the animals agree to this? Who assigned them this task? Who in turn enforces our "responsibility" to them? Forgive me, but this is a false and theistic view that assumes some kind of higher order to things. Lets put it more simply. Our raising animals for food is simply a different form of predation. Our raising of domestic animals for work, or even for emotional pleasure, can be seen as a form of parasitism, or, at best symbiosis (I say parasitism, because, like many parasites, we castrate most of our animals). And you overlook that animals are frequently also property, falling under category C. If I were to kill YOUR pet Sam, that would be wrong because I am infringing on your property, not because of sam's rights. Also, your raising horses in squalor "dillemma". The reason that horses are raised in certain conditions is not because of the goodness of the horse breeders, but because the value of a well treated horse is greater than a poorly treated one. As usual, ordinary "ethics" are merely a ploy to make someone feel good about selfishly doing something that is in their own best interests. Humans are predators and animals are our prey. Whether they are used for food, medicine, spare parts, work, or "love," it is a cycle of exploitation, it always has been, and it always will be. If an animal could understand and accept some sort of role in society, I would include it as a person in my ethical system. That, however seems not to be the case.

Also, I could live without pork. I like pork, so I eat pork. How is this form of predation (I kill pigs because I like their taste) different from saying that you prey on say, squirrels because you like to hear the noises they make when you slowly dip them in a can of battery acid? (for example) They are morallly equivalent, both kill and inflict suffering on an unwilling animal in exchange for pleasure. Again I see that the common "ethics" that say one is good and one is bad merely is a ploy to make someone feel good about themselves.

As to your other objections. I repeat: I am not Qualified to judge whether a person is insane or not. I do not understand what insanity actually IS.(and I don't think that you do, either) I'm an architect, not a psychologist. Therefore, I am content to accept the definitions given to me by experts, and am willing to abide by their professional and ETHICAL judgements in that regard. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I said that they are excluded from my ethical system. That does not mean that I think you can ethically do anything you want to them. It means that my system, imperfect as it is, can only deal with ordinary situations. Think of it like the theory of Special Relativity vs General Relativity.

Second, I devote a great deal of time in my commentary on my code of ethics to the idea of "feelings." Feelings exist only in the mind, therefore they are imaginary. I like to come up with fictional stories. So if in my story Master Uthem kills Aristotle Contriari, has a crime ACTUALLY been committed? no. An crime against something that is imaginary is not a crime. Just as a person who exists only in my brain is not a real person, so too is an object that exists only in the mind not a real object. The only reason I have any concern for feelings, is that a simple regard for someone else's feelings is known to make everyone happier. However, when weighed against other (REAL) concerns, as put forth in A, B, and C, such imaginary concerns pale to insignificance. and to answer your question, yes it does include "potential" interests. And to repeat myself again: "The value of the higher categories simply cannot be expressed in terms of anything in a lower category." Therefore, each thing has an infinite value in terms of lower categories. So one human life is worth infinitely more than any material, or emotional state of any number of people. I realize that this ideal may seem impractical, and you are doubtless going to try to come up with all kind of wild and implausible situations that you think would invalidate this, but I am going to stand by my impractical divisions for this reason: There have been other systems of ethics that have tried to give a mathematical value to certain goods and bads. The problem is how do you determine these values? The values always seem to add up in favor of the person doing the calculating. We as a society accept certain things to be more important than others. I think most people would agree with at least the order of A-C. My goal was to create a rigid system of ethics, for my own use, to constrain MYSELF. My goal was not to create a system that would justify my actions with some kind of false calculus. These are real not "common" ethics. That was my goal. I was sometimes suprised to see where the ethical logic of my system has lead to, and I have modified my behavior to comply. Most people will modify their ethics to match their behavior, and make excuses like "things aren't just black and white" to justify their doing whatever they please. My system of ethics is my attempt to truly become ethical.

August Spies

cops have no ethics.

Sarpedon

As I have already indicated, I have written myself a code of ethics. It also has an increasingly extensive commentary. I think this little exchange has been very illuminating and I would like your permission to add exerps fof your posts to my commentary. This would be for non-commercial purposes and would only be viewed by myself and a few others, who are interested in ethics.

long winded fool

Certainly you have permission to quote me. And I think you are wise in attempting to develop an ethical system to eliminate the "grey areas" of morality. I just have one more question.

Say I saw a group of people throwing rocks at a squirrels' nest in the woods. Say they've already struck and killed one squirrel and are aiming at the remaining family. Assuming the people were in no danger, wouldn't it be unethical for me to stop them? Wouldn't it be morally wrong to ruin their fun for the sake of the lives of the squirrels? I understand that you aren't trying to describe other people's morality, but would you say that it's morally wrong to keep someone from hurting an animal unnecessarily?

Sarpedon

I would say that would be wrong to use force to stop them, but I hardly think that speaking to them and telling them what they are doing is wrong could be moral problem. Your right to express your opinion (category B) overrides their right to have their feelings respected. (category D) Even though some of my ethics have cause surprising results (for example, I am now in favor of legalizing drugs, gambling and prostitution, which I was formerly against) mostly it doesn't create much weirdness in everyday life.