DRFseven

The one where he/she says humans are animals, and you disagreed. Didn't you just reference that?

thefugitivesaint

99%,
i fail to see how your definition of "human" has any bearing on my question addressing how your supposed moral "rules" could be both "limited" but "universal".

You answered me with a non-answer:
As if any discussion of morality applied to another realm and as if this is supposed to give some sort of insight into your confused premise.

Then you bring up another thread, wherein you made the claim that "human beings are NOT animals" and you use this to avoid, once again, addressing the above question.

So, you avoid having to elaborate your conflicting notion any further by claiming that the endeavor would be pointless. In the end you lay the fault with me and not with your own confused use of terms. Congragulations.

-theSaint

P.s.

Human beings ARE animals. I suggest you study your biology with a bit more detail. We fall under the label of Homo sapiens ("Homo" stands for the zoological genus, and "sapiens" for the zoological species). This term was 1st by the Swedish botanist and systematist Karl von Linne, who is better known for the latinized form of his name, Linnaeus. He utilized this name to distinguish (not completely seperate) humanity for its ability to use its mind which he believed surpassed all other species. But, i digress here. I will address this elsewhere.

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: thefugitivesaint ]</p>

99Percent

thefugitivesaint: Let me just ask you this simple questions: do animals have morals? why or why not?

thefugitivesaint

To answer your question 99%,
Human beings are animals
human beings possess morals
so animals possess morals

Now, does this simple syllogism express my complete view? No, it does not.

Human beings are one species among many other species who dwell upon this planet. We are a product of our total evolutionary heritage. Our moral systems are a result of our capacity to utilize symbolism, mainly in the form of language, and our ability for rational thought; these traits are a product of our need to communicate with one another, as we are essentially social animals, who are dependent upon one another for survival. Basically, certain behaviors were found to be effective and advantageous to our collective benefit and these behaviors were, and continue to be, promoted by a process of acculturation.

To slightly clarify what i am saying here let me repeat part of a post i made elsewhere about the development of "values":

With the advent of complex language use and social interaction our "values" became the basis for our moral codes and ethics.

(For futher clarification, the word morality has a slightly different association then the terms ethics and values:that is because "morality" usually refers to the moral rules we follow, the values that we have. "Ethics" is generally defined as theories about these rules; ethical questions and justifies the rules we live by, and if ethics can find no rational justification for those rules, it may ask us to abandon them. Morality is the stuff our social life is made of-even our personal life-and ethics is the ordering,a nd questioning, the awareness, the investigation of what we beleive.)

If i may digress here with a bit of philosophy, Kant in his Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals stated, essentially, that rational beings are ends in themselves. He claimed human beings were intrinsically valuable. Why? Because they can place a value on things. Human beings are value-givers; they assign relative worth to things that interest them. Thus people are value-givers, because they can decide rationally what they want and what they don't want. (This is part of his "catagorical imperative".)

In relation to animals, Kant classified them as things and can be treated any way that a rational person likes, because animals can't place a value on something-only humans can do that. And an animal is not worth anything in itself; it has value only if it is wanted for some purpose by a human. If nobody cares about cats, dogs or spotted owls, they possess no value. This is, of course, some very spotty and circular reasoning on his part but i think you would agree with his assesment of things 99. i do not.

I question the notion of whether or not animals are excempt from placing values on things. Most people with 1st hand knowledge of animals will report (from their own subjective positions of course) that pets are capable of valuing their owners above all. Animals in the wild reflect interests that are found in humanity in varyng degrees, like placing an importance on their territory and their young.( Might the self-sacrifice of a baboon to save her "tribe" from a leopard constitute a moral dimension?)

Existing animal research also has much to say on this subject. It has established beyond the doubt of most scholars that animals do have a rudimentary practical rationality, especially so-called "higher" animals. They understand quite well the cost-efficiency of a chosen course of action, and they can even be observed to calculate the best response to a given situation.

Of course animals don't have the higher intellectual capacities of humans but dolphin, gorilla, and chimpanzee experiments have established that at least some animal intelligence embraces a certain understanding even of grammer and of hypothetical situations. Many people today would categorize animal interests as just different in degree from human interests, and not different in kind.

I will admit that i do not believe that animals possess the same level of complex moral reasoning that human beings possess but this is specific ability which our species possess makes us no less an animal then, say, a Bonobo (presumably the most intelligent animals on this earth aside from ourselves).

And, as i stated in the "libertarianism" thread:

So i believe animals possess a basic form of rational thought, that they do have some sort of "value" system, and that they act in a manner that is somewhat consistant with these aspects of their existence.

I do not equate their behaviour with human behaviour but i do not label them as "inferior" to us, merely different.

I hope this answers your question and allows you to clarify your own position.

-theSaint

P.S.,
In the film, Blade Runner a future is envisioned in which intelligent and physically perfect "replicants" are denied human rights. The character of Batty (Rutger Hauer) shows that even with only four years of life (due to a built in self-destruct mechanism), an artificial intelligent being can develop a sense of wonder and emotion-in a sense, develop a "soul". My hypothetical question to you is this: Does the character of Batty possess the traits necessary to qualify him as "human"? Let's kick this around for the hell of it. (anyone?)

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: thefugitivesaint ]</p>

pug846

thesaint:

…He was obviously referring to non-human animals. Saying humans have morals is trivially true and not what he was looking for. He wants to know if you believe non-human animals have morals, why or why not?

I think this can be true of morality in general, but it isn’t the whole picture. Clearly, many things that many people have called moral in the past and in the present aren’t advantageous to our collective benefit. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Something tells me that 99 percent with his Objectivist metaphysical grounding isn’t going to like your idealism or your notion that we create our own values.

thefugitivesaint

pug846, if you had bothered to read the entire thread you will have noticed the part where 99% decided that the wisest course to approach when answering my question how, "very limited but universal objective rules" could possibly exist was to reply that s/he was not going to bother due to conflicting notions concerning the definition of "human" in another thread we were participating in.( a question 99% has never addressed coherently.)

Within this thread 99% made the claim that, "humans were not animals". He was not reffering to "non-human animals" because 99% does not believe that human beings are animals so 99% would make no such distinction.

The real motivation behind 99% question is to try to establish what s/he percieves to be the unique status of our 'moral condition'. So, perhaps it was you that did not 'understand' 99% question?

As to the following: I am not sure why you chose to remove the last sentence to a wider paragraph and then proceed to examine that sentence out of context. I did not state that all moral behaviour was advantageous i stated that certain behaviours were advantageous. Surely, racism, sexism, homophobia and the rest of the lot cannot be considered 'advantageous' (depending on your viewopoint i guess) but this has no bearing on my intended point. I was simply establishing the premise (one i strongly support) that our 'moral' and 'ethical' behaviours have biological roots and are the result of our evolutionary development. Is that enough of a road map to get to my point?

99% already dislikes my various positions on the board of life but that hasn't stopped me from playing the game. And, the "idealism" you speak of was Kants not my own. I do, however, agree that we create our own values as values are an intellectual concept which id defined in our language which is, itself, a construct we created from scratch. Besides, i'm a subjectivist...so to speak.

-theSaint

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: thefugitivesaint ]</p>

99Percent

thefugitivesaint: I don't deny that human beings are biological beings who have evolved through natural selection (although I also believe evolution was greatly accelerated through the breeding of human values).

The main distinction between man and animals that you fail to see is that man can rationalize, reason, postpone immediate pleasure and completely dominate pain and emotions for future greater gains. Sure, you might find some very rare domesticated animals who can achieve this although in a very very limited degree such as the Bonobo, but this doesn't mean a Bonobo is not already born with all the necessary means of survival. Man must necessarily develop his own means of survival. A naked and stupid human being will die quickly in any environment. He has to use his intelligence in order to survive. No animal in its natural state uses his intelligence to survive, it already comes with its own instinct, its own instruction manual so to speak. Man has to develop his own instruction manual, in other words his morals, in order to survive and not only that but to get ahead economically, ie, make his life more bearable and even pleasurable.

In the film, Blade Runner a future is envisioned in which intelligent and physically perfect "replicants" are denied human rights. The character of Batty (Rutger Hauer) shows that even with only four years of life (due to a built in self-destruct mechanism), an artificial intelligent being can develop a sense of wonder and emotion-in a sense, develop a "soul". My hypothetical question to you is this: Does the character of Batty possess the traits necessary to qualify him as "human"? Let's kick this around for the hell of it. (anyone?)

Using the above premise, Batty definitely qualifies as a human because he can contemplate his own death and therefore is striving to find a way to make his life better and longer through his own intelligence.

Might the self-sacrifice of a baboon to save her "tribe" from a leopard constitute a moral dimension?)

The self-sacrifice you perceive in this baboon is instinctual, it has nothing to do with morals. This instinct probably developed due to survival of the fittest through stronger group dynamics in bred in their genes, much like ants.

Guttersnipe

Hope you don't mind if I butt in. It is not, for our instinct is more than propagation of our genes. First, we need to survive long enough to do that as often as possible. Second, phenomenal experience plays a part in our subjective preferences as well. Third, the woman would have every right to complain given that the act of being raped is not in her interests. Is it possible to *objectively* determine that rape is wrong? No, but we can subjectively. For instance, it is ultimately *not* in the interests of the people in our society that rape be permissible (except for rapists, a small minority). One reason for this is that rape causes pain to more people than just the person raped - family and friends are affected as well. Second, who would want to live in a society were they constantly fear being raped? It seems to me that, though we may construct 'objective morals', we do so only because they are ultimately in the interests of the majority of individuals. Though this ethic may sound egoistic, it also contains elements of social contract theory and utiltarianism. Violent confliction and competition is simply not in the interests of the majority, we should instead seek compromise and cooperation.

99Percent

Guttersnipe: It is not, for our instinct is more than propagation of our genes.

I disagree completely. Particularly rapists gene survive because it is extremely effective form of gene propagation as it involves directly with sex.

First, we need to survive long enough to do that as often as possible.

To do what?

Third, the woman would have every right to complain given that the act of being raped is not in her interests.

Not if you deny individual rights. There is also the implied subjective right of the rapist to act in his own interest also, no?

it possible to *objectively* determine that rape is wrong? No, but we can subjectively.

You have it backwards because rape is an act of force, once there is force there cannot be a moral choice.

For instance, it is ultimately *not* in the interests of the people in our society that rape be permissible (except for rapists, a small minority).

You could have a macho dominated society where rape is not (subjectively) frown upon as it has existed for millenia and continues to exist in many societies of today. So the "interests" of the people means nothing but a blurry ideal.

Second, who would want to live in a society were they constantly fear being raped?

People don't chose the society they live in, specially in one where individual rights aren't accepted.

It seems to me that, though we may construct 'objective morals', we do so only because they are ultimately in the interests of the majority of individuals.

No, objective morals should be constructed because it is the interest of all individuals. There should be no minorities taken into account.

Though this ethic may sound egoistic, it also contains elements of social contract theory and utiltarianism.

This where capitalism comes into effect. Because once you have individual rights people are obligated to trade (not steal, rape, murder) in order to gain economically.

Violent confliction and competition is simply not in the interests of the majority, we should instead seek compromise and cooperation.

If you have individual objective rights for everyone there is no need to compromise. Compromise is needed when there are subjective rights granted to specific groups- chaos inevitably ensues.

Guttersnipe

As I was saying, we are a herd animal. Instinct is about more than gene propagation, individuals need to survive long enough to propagate their genes as often as possible. And being that we have always relied on one another in some manner, there needs to be social cohesion. The evolutionary mechanism which allows for this is our empathic feelings towards others in our immediate environment (which can include that which is seen on TV). Note: Empathy is a subjective trait, some people have more of it than others. Some time ago, a couple of evolutionary biologists claimed that a gene propagated by males unable to otherwise get some causes rape. As far as my knowledge goes, there isn't any evidence that the tendency to rape is passed on genetically rather than learned through social interaction. (IE: A child that was raped by his father may well have learned the behavior through the traumatic experience - so there may not be a 'rape gene'.)

It is not that I deny all individual rights - but rather I deny that they exist objective to human beings. Rights and rules have use, so that although we may be their creator, they may still ultimately be beneficial to individuals. They allow for social cohesion, for whereas our instinct accounts for this within our personal environment, our style of life relies on all of the people which make up and contribute in some manner to our society. (This is due to the high level of specialization that accompanies industrialization) So we need something more than empathy, something that can regulate our actions when we form a complex society called a country. This is where government comes in.

Well this sounds quite silly, actually. So all forms of force and violence are amoral? I would say you have it backwards, for it is decisions involving force and violence where morality is most important. Why is it, may I ask, that your ethical system cannot deal with the problem of violence and force? Why should we consider decisions amoral in such circumstances? It is quite clear that violence does have a detrimental impact on both the society and the individual, so it seems to me that your ethical system does not concern itself with that which is important -- the well-being of people. Hence it is not realistic either, for this is what people are concerned with as well.

I don't know if you have an implied premise in there, but I don't see how your conclusion could possibly follow from the premises. If you're saying that rape is accepted by both males and females, and neither dislikes it, then there isn't anything wrong with it - though I'm not sure it should be termed 'rape'. As the saying goes, "You can't rape the willing". Hmmm, sounds like a big orgy! To bad this society is hypothetical...

I said people would not like to live in a society where rape was permissible, hence the people might be prone to creating laws prohibiting it. The people of a society are the society, though the rules and laws of that society may be chosen by a minority.

Well looky here, I actually agree with you. Unfortunately, the nature of democracy seems to make the likelihood of this extremely unlikely. Is there a preferable alternative to democratic creation of 'objective morals' for a society? None that I can think of... By the way, by saying 'objective morals should be constructed...', you are implying that they don't actually exist independent of their creators.

What!?! I can't possibly see how individual rights 'obligates' people to trade rather than steal, rape, and murder (which are certainly not rare in capitalistic countries). Lets take the USA for example. We aren't purely capitalistic here, we have some socialized programs, but on the whole our country leans more towards capitalism than other western industrialized nations. Despite this, we have far higher murder and rape rates than all other western industrialized nations. If capitalism deterred such activities, I would think our rates would be lower. Further, capitalistic countries promote theft by increasing the 'wealth gap', or economic disparity between rich and poor.

First, there are not 'individual objective' right for everyone. What I have been arguing is that morality is not individual objective, rather that rights are created by us, for us. If you want too convince me that these rights are individually objective, you will have to explain how and why they exist in a manner objective to human beings. Further, I would like to point out that you have contradicted your earlier statement: "objective morals should be constructed because it is the interest of all individuals."