Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Gould · 03-14-2002, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
David Gould,

I am wondering why a moral system has to be consistent.

If it's not consistent, it will be of very limited use in guiding one's actions. Having said that, I see nothing inconsistent about your views, as you have presented them.

If I rank humans as being better than animals due to the fact that I am a human and use that as the basis for making arbitrary decisions based on that initial premise, in what way am I being immoral?

How are the decisions arbitrary? They are founded on your initial premise.

For someone to be able to get me not to eat cows they would have to convince me to like cows more than I like beef.

That's one way. Presumably, you would also stop eating cows if it could be demonstrated to you that eating cows would have some negative impact on you that outwieghed the pleasure you got from eating beef.

With regard to consistency, I guess that I was caught on the idea of having to treat all animals, including humans, consistently as a group - in other words, the idea that killing and eating animals should be treated the same way as killing and eating humans. That is the consistency that I was looking at. I got my ideas a bit muddled.

I guess by arbitrary I guess I meant in the way I decided to treat various non-human animals - for example, as I have ranked all animals besides cats equally, I can simply choose to eat some and not eat others on any basis that I like - I can even roll dice. I wasn't clear on that.

You are correct about the negative impact thing.

spin · 03-15-2002, 12:30 AM

SK,

Thanks for showing the qualitative improvement in your attempt to mimick.

---------------------------
Some gems from spin early in this thread:

"If you eat other meat then you can't really see any problems with Dalmer eating the meat of his preference."

"Your intestines are too long meaning that meat starts decaying and becoming foetid..."

"Human evolution should show you that eating meat was pure opportunism..."

"If tofu gets equal rights then I guess PJPSYCOs should as well. Sentient beings."

"...there is nothing 'moral' about your 'contract theory'. It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha."

"Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own."

That's within the first five pages.

spin · 03-15-2002, 12:44 AM

spin:
------------------------------
What makes Osama Bin Laden's decisions "right" is the result of comparable analyses by other people (within the society he moves).
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
Yes, and what makes his decisions "wrong" is the result of comparable analyses by the rest of the world.
------------------------------

Then you reduce the problem to a matter of numbers. Naturally, numbers are responsibile for the maintenance of ignorance through religion, for the burning of books such as those of Porphyry, for attacks on scientific advancements which contravene "common sense" positions such as the flat world, "righteous" lynchings or executions such as those of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, even Giordano Bruno.

spin:
------------------------------
Morality is not a matter of numbers.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
Actually, that appears to be exactly what morality is. It's possible that appearances are wrong, but that that would have to be shown.
------------------------------

See above.

spin:
------------------------------
The analogy is not apt. You have removed all the other factors involved, which I have argued are relevant to the rationality of the situation.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
Which of these factors are not addressed in my argument? As far as I can tell, none.
------------------------------

The views form the animal side for starters.

spin:
------------------------------
I have noted what you said. I don't find it an argument.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
It remains an argument whether or not you find it one.
------------------------------

Reciting one's views is not an argument per se.

spin:
------------------------------
The shields were already up before you entered the thread, Mr Spock.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
I'm not exactly sure what this statement is supposed to mean though, except to say that it's not surprising that your opinion has no impact on my opinion.
------------------------------

That you had put on your defensive blinkers before entering the debate. That's why you are ostensibly not surprised. You had no intention of letting your opinion be put to risk, but, by entering the debate, it would seem that it was already at risk, as shown by your need to ridicule and swear from the beginning.

spin · 03-15-2002, 12:52 AM

David:
-----------------------
If I rank humans as being better than animals due to the fact that I am a human and use that as the basis for making arbitrary decisions based on that initial premise, in what way am I being immoral?
-----------------------

From your point of view on the matter, you are not being immoral. You simply have no context in which you are able to talk about morality in the matters unrelated strictly to humans meaningfully at all. The word I would use instead of immoral in your statement is "amoral".

spin · 03-15-2002, 01:09 AM

Along those lines, accusing people of "wantonness" and the "brutality of eating meat" is not likely to win their favor.
-----------------------

Little fly
Thy summer's play
My thoughtless hand
Has brushed away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
And art thou not
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink and sing
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength and breath
And the want
Of thought is death,

Then am I
A happy fly
If I live
Or if I die.

-- William Blake

tronvillain · 03-15-2002, 02:02 AM

spin:

Quote:

Then you reduce the problem to a matter of numbers.

Yes. What do you think the problem reduces to, if not a matter of numbers?

Quote:

Naturally, numbers are responsibile for the maintenance of ignorance through religion, for the burning of books such as those of Porphyry, for attacks on scientific advancements which contravene "common sense" positions such as the flat world, "righteous" lynchings or executions such as those of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, even Giordano Bruno.

Probably true, but that has no bearing on whether morality is essentially a matter of numbers. While the number of people that hold a belief does not change a fact, if the only fact is that a certain number of people hold a belief, then it is a matter of numbers.

Quote:

The views form the animal side for starters.

This point is addressed in my argument: "The enjoyment I derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals." In what other way should I address the views from the animals side when making a decision myself?

Quote:

Reciting one's views is not an argument per se.

They are the premises from which I reason. You apparently hold different premises, probably almost the opposite of mine since you reach the opposite conclusion.

Quote:

That you had put on your defensive blinkers before entering the debate. That's why you are ostensibly not surprised.

I have no idea what you mean by "defensive blinkers." Also, what was I supposed to be surprised by?

Quote:

You had no intention of letting your opinion be put to risk, but, by entering the debate, it would seem that it was already at risk, as shown by your need to ridicule and swear from the beginning.

I have no idea what it would mean for me to have the intention of letting my opinion be put to risk - perhaps you could elaborate on that. Now, could you provide an example of ridicule? I don't think you can.

As for the swearing, it bears repeating: "
Hey, fuck you too you little bitch. I'm in no mood to tolerate being compared to racists, sexists, or Jeffrey Dalmer."

spin · 03-15-2002, 02:14 AM

David Gould:
--------------------
For someone to be able to get me not to eat cows they would have to convince me to like cows more than I like beef.
--------------------

Nobody wants to get you to do anything. Only you can get you not to eat cows. Nobody wants to convince you of anything. I would be interested in getting past the sanatized approach to the animal, which might be explained by the psychological analysis of "Buffalo Bill" (in "Silence of the Lambs") using "it" to the girls he murders. "First it rubs the lotion on its skin..." to soften the skin for when BB removes it after killing the girl. BB makes a separation between his own status in the world and that of his victims, just as you do. He skins them; you eat them.

The distinction you make between liking cows and liking beef is derived from the society's distancing of your relationship with the animals you eat. You don't have to see them; you are not directly there to see them killed; you take no part in the killing and therefore have no awareness of your responsibility for their deaths.

I don't like cows. I think liking the animal is irrelevant to the predicament we are in. Taking the life of another animal when it is not necessary is what I consider the predicament is.

David:
-----------------------
Murdering another human being in order to eat them is of course wrong
-----------------------

Any more wrong than murdering another animal in order to eat them?

spin · 03-15-2002, 02:33 AM

spin:
------------------------------
Then you reduce the problem to a matter of numbers.
------------------------------
tronvillain:
--------------------
Yes. What do you think the problem reduces to, if not a matter of numbers?
--------------------

The subject of this forum is morality, not counting.

spin:
------------------------------
Naturally, numbers are responsibile for the maintenance of ignorance through religion, for the burning of books such as those of Porphyry, for attacks on scientific advancements which contravene "common sense" positions such as the flat world, "righteous" lynchings or executions such as those of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, even Giordano Bruno.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
--------------------
Probably true, but that has no bearing on whether morality is essentially a matter of numbers.
--------------------

Morality works outside numbers, often initiated by minorities.

tronvillain:
--------------------
While the number of people that hold a belief does not change a fact, if the only fact is that a certain number of people hold a belief, then it is a matter of numbers.
--------------------

spin on what tronvillain doesn't consider:
------------------------------
The views from the animal side for starters.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
--------------------
This point is addressed in my argument: "The enjoyment I derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals." In what other way should I address the views from the animals side when making a decision myself?
--------------------

I don't ask you to feel for the animal. Did you ask in any way whether the animal wanted to die for your stomach? You don't need the animal to be able to communicate as a human does to get an answer (or even to imagine what that answer must be). I have no empathy per se for animals.

spin:
--------------------
Reciting one's views is not an argument per se.
--------------------

tronvillain:
--------------------
They are the premises from which I reason.
--------------------

I was aware of this dismal fact.

spin:
------------------------------
That you had put on your defensive blinkers before entering the debate. That's why you are ostensibly not surprised.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
--------------------
I have no idea what you mean by "defensive blinkers." Also, what was I supposed to be surprised by?
--------------------

Blinkers stop a horse from getting stimuli which would distract it from its business. Defensive blinkers are ones which protect you from stimuli which might distract you from your opinions.

(And you used the term "surprising" in your post.)

spin:
------------------------------
You had no intention of letting your opinion be put to risk, but, by entering the debate, it would seem that it was already at risk, as shown by your need to ridicule and swear from the beginning.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
--------------------
I have no idea what it would mean for me to have the intention of letting my opinion be put to risk - perhaps you could elaborate on that.
--------------------

To put your opinion at risk involves having an open mind on the subject to which your opinion relates.

tronvillain:
--------------------
Now, could you provide an example of ridicule? I don't think you can.
--------------------

Sorry, if I have wrongfully included you in that category. It's a little hard to remember who specifically are the ridiculers, the sayers of non sequiturs, the grandstanders, the swearers, the empty-headed provocateurs and the intangibly aloof and who are not.

tronvillain:
--------------------
As for the swearing, it bears repeating: "
Hey, fuck you too you little bitch. I'm in no mood to tolerate being compared to racists, sexists, or Jeffrey Dalmer."
--------------------

If you are not prepared to analyse what there is in a comparison, then of course I can understand your above statement.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]

spin · 03-15-2002, 02:46 AM

spin:
-----------------
Morality works outside numbers, often initiated by minorities.
-----------------

Sorry, on further reflection, it's not "often" but "always".

Aethernaut · 03-15-2002, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
SK,

Thanks for showing the qualitative improvement in your attempt to mimick.

---------------------------
Some gems from spin early in this thread:

"If you eat other meat then you can't really see any problems with Dalmer eating the meat of his preference."

"Your intestines are too long meaning that meat starts decaying and becoming foetid..."

"Human evolution should show you that eating meat was pure opportunism..."

"If tofu gets equal rights then I guess PJPSYCOs should as well. Sentient beings."

"...there is nothing 'moral' about your 'contract theory'. It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha."

"Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own."

That's within the first five pages.

How exactly does making up facts with no basis in reality and a holier-than-thou attitude qualify as "qualitative improvement"?

-SK

03-15-2002, 02:33 AM	#388
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ------------------------------ Then you reduce the problem to a matter of numbers. ------------------------------ tronvillain: -------------------- Yes. What do you think the problem reduces to, if not a matter of numbers? -------------------- The subject of this forum is morality, not counting. spin: ------------------------------ Naturally, numbers are responsibile for the maintenance of ignorance through religion, for the burning of books such as those of Porphyry, for attacks on scientific advancements which contravene "common sense" positions such as the flat world, "righteous" lynchings or executions such as those of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, even Giordano Bruno. ------------------------------ tronvillain: -------------------- Probably true, but that has no bearing on whether morality is essentially a matter of numbers. -------------------- Morality works outside numbers, often initiated by minorities. tronvillain: -------------------- While the number of people that hold a belief does not change a fact, if the only fact is that a certain number of people hold a belief, then it is a matter of numbers. -------------------- spin on what tronvillain doesn't consider: ------------------------------ The views from the animal side for starters. ------------------------------ tronvillain: -------------------- This point is addressed in my argument: "The enjoyment I derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals." In what other way should I address the views from the animals side when making a decision myself? -------------------- I don't ask you to feel for the animal. Did you ask in any way whether the animal wanted to die for your stomach? You don't need the animal to be able to communicate as a human does to get an answer (or even to imagine what that answer must be). I have no empathy per se for animals. spin: -------------------- Reciting one's views is not an argument per se. -------------------- tronvillain: -------------------- They are the premises from which I reason. -------------------- I was aware of this dismal fact. spin: ------------------------------ That you had put on your defensive blinkers before entering the debate. That's why you are ostensibly not surprised. ------------------------------ tronvillain: -------------------- I have no idea what you mean by "defensive blinkers." Also, what was I supposed to be surprised by? -------------------- Blinkers stop a horse from getting stimuli which would distract it from its business. Defensive blinkers are ones which protect you from stimuli which might distract you from your opinions. (And you used the term "surprising" in your post.) spin: ------------------------------ You had no intention of letting your opinion be put to risk, but, by entering the debate, it would seem that it was already at risk, as shown by your need to ridicule and swear from the beginning. ------------------------------ tronvillain: -------------------- I have no idea what it would mean for me to have the intention of letting my opinion be put to risk - perhaps you could elaborate on that. -------------------- To put your opinion at risk involves having an open mind on the subject to which your opinion relates. tronvillain: -------------------- Now, could you provide an example of ridicule? I don't think you can. -------------------- Sorry, if I have wrongfully included you in that category. It's a little hard to remember who specifically are the ridiculers, the sayers of non sequiturs, the grandstanders, the swearers, the empty-headed provocateurs and the intangibly aloof and who are not. tronvillain: -------------------- As for the swearing, it bears repeating: " Hey, fuck you too you little bitch. I'm in no mood to tolerate being compared to racists, sexists, or Jeffrey Dalmer." -------------------- If you are not prepared to analyse what there is in a comparison, then of course I can understand your above statement. [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2002, 12:30 AM	#382
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	SK, Thanks for showing the qualitative improvement in your attempt to mimick. --------------------------- Some gems from spin early in this thread: "If you eat other meat then you can't really see any problems with Dalmer eating the meat of his preference." "Your intestines are too long meaning that meat starts decaying and becoming foetid..." "Human evolution should show you that eating meat was pure opportunism..." "If tofu gets equal rights then I guess PJPSYCOs should as well. Sentient beings." "...there is nothing 'moral' about your 'contract theory'. It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha." "Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own." That's within the first five pages.

03-15-2002, 12:44 AM	#383
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ------------------------------ What makes Osama Bin Laden's decisions "right" is the result of comparable analyses by other people (within the society he moves). ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ Yes, and what makes his decisions "wrong" is the result of comparable analyses by the rest of the world. ------------------------------ Then you reduce the problem to a matter of numbers. Naturally, numbers are responsibile for the maintenance of ignorance through religion, for the burning of books such as those of Porphyry, for attacks on scientific advancements which contravene "common sense" positions such as the flat world, "righteous" lynchings or executions such as those of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, even Giordano Bruno. spin: ------------------------------ Morality is not a matter of numbers. ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ Actually, that appears to be exactly what morality is. It's possible that appearances are wrong, but that that would have to be shown. ------------------------------ See above. spin: ------------------------------ The analogy is not apt. You have removed all the other factors involved, which I have argued are relevant to the rationality of the situation. ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ Which of these factors are not addressed in my argument? As far as I can tell, none. ------------------------------ The views form the animal side for starters. spin: ------------------------------ I have noted what you said. I don't find it an argument. ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ It remains an argument whether or not you find it one. ------------------------------ Reciting one's views is not an argument per se. spin: ------------------------------ The shields were already up before you entered the thread, Mr Spock. ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ I'm not exactly sure what this statement is supposed to mean though, except to say that it's not surprising that your opinion has no impact on my opinion. ------------------------------ That you had put on your defensive blinkers before entering the debate. That's why you are ostensibly not surprised. You had no intention of letting your opinion be put to risk, but, by entering the debate, it would seem that it was already at risk, as shown by your need to ridicule and swear from the beginning.

03-15-2002, 12:52 AM	#384
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	David: ----------------------- If I rank humans as being better than animals due to the fact that I am a human and use that as the basis for making arbitrary decisions based on that initial premise, in what way am I being immoral? ----------------------- From your point of view on the matter, you are not being immoral. You simply have no context in which you are able to talk about morality in the matters unrelated strictly to humans meaningfully at all. The word I would use instead of immoral in your statement is "amoral".

03-15-2002, 01:09 AM	#385
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Along those lines, accusing people of "wantonness" and the "brutality of eating meat" is not likely to win their favor. ----------------------- Little fly Thy summer's play My thoughtless hand Has brushed away. Am not I A fly like thee? And art thou not A man like me? For I dance And drink and sing Till some blind hand Shall brush my wing. If thought is life And strength and breath And the want Of thought is death, Then am I A happy fly If I live Or if I die. -- William Blake

03-15-2002, 02:14 AM	#387
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	David Gould: -------------------- For someone to be able to get me not to eat cows they would have to convince me to like cows more than I like beef. -------------------- Nobody wants to get you to do anything. Only you can get you not to eat cows. Nobody wants to convince you of anything. I would be interested in getting past the sanatized approach to the animal, which might be explained by the psychological analysis of "Buffalo Bill" (in "Silence of the Lambs") using "it" to the girls he murders. "First it rubs the lotion on its skin..." to soften the skin for when BB removes it after killing the girl. BB makes a separation between his own status in the world and that of his victims, just as you do. He skins them; you eat them. The distinction you make between liking cows and liking beef is derived from the society's distancing of your relationship with the animals you eat. You don't have to see them; you are not directly there to see them killed; you take no part in the killing and therefore have no awareness of your responsibility for their deaths. I don't like cows. I think liking the animal is irrelevant to the predicament we are in. Taking the life of another animal when it is not necessary is what I consider the predicament is. David: ----------------------- Murdering another human being in order to eat them is of course wrong ----------------------- Any more wrong than murdering another animal in order to eat them?

03-15-2002, 02:46 AM	#389
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ----------------- Morality works outside numbers, often initiated by minorities. ----------------- Sorry, on further reflection, it's not "often" but "always".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.