tronvillain

shamon:
Well, they appear to be inclined towards eating meat. If you're not after the one percent exception, why are you interested in vegetarians? They amount to a few percent of the population. Are you going to proclaim that eating meat is objectively moral?

shamon

Do people needless kill? Is this idea subjective?

This is my point. ONE person doesn’t mean a thing and proves my point about objective morality. No one agrees that showing ankles is wrong any longer. Why do you think this is so? Everyone may not agree that vegetarianism is right but we ALL can agree that unneeded killing is wrong.

Lions are never immoral which is why they don’t have an issue with it. They kill only when they have to.

shamon

Eating meat is a specific action. Unneeded killing is the moral concept that’s innate. We all agree on this one, don’t we? What animal needlessly kills?

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>

Bill Snedden

I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about this in terms of percentages. IMO, if there exists a proper intersubjective value, then all rational moral agents should hold this value.

However, people are not always rational. That is to say they do not always form their beliefs or restrict their behaviors in a rational manner.

For example, my personal candidate for a proper intersubjective value is "my life." All living humans obviously value their own lives (otherwise they would not be alive), so this would seem to be something everyone values, right?

Unfortunately, people often act as though they don't really value their lives. They'll ignore their health, smoke cigarettes, engage in all manner of risky behaviors, blow themselves up, etc. Does this really mean that people don't value their lives, or does it mean that they define "my life" differently? Is there some deeper value that stands behind "my life?"

So, there are difficulties with identifying or "pinning down" exactly what our foundational values should be. That is where I would say the focus should lie. In order to create intersubjective value, one should present an argument that demonstrates why rational moral agents should accept a particular value or set of values. If one's evidence and argument are sufficiently tied to that "innate" part of our humanity out of which such a value might arise, then all rational moral agents should be persuaded.

As an optimist, I think that this is possible. However, it obviously hasn't happened yet...

So, it would seem to me that if one is interested in presenting an argument for a proper intersubjective value, one should state the value and then provide evidence and argument to convince rational moral agents why they should share this value.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Tom Piper

Bill Snedden,

You said, You have provided a bit of illumination of what you mean by 'existing independently of the mind' when you mention a variety of physical objects as examples. However, this notion is not at all clear to me when applied to discussion of morals. Please point me to the sources that you have read that will help me understand this in the way that you do.

There are phenomena that generate my puzzlement and prompt my question. One example-- traffic laws. The traffic laws are clearly objective in a way that moral principles may be objective-- do traffic laws exist 'independent of minds'. Would there be traffic laws if there weren't any humans?

Tom

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

shamon

If it’s innate we already do it and it doesn’t need to be proven. For example, humans don’t needlessly kill. If you do you’re immoral b/c humans as a species (and all animals for that matter) don’t needless kill. What proof can I give that humans don’t needlessly kill other than the fact that less than 1% do kill?

Humans may think they need meat in their diet, but they still don’t needlessly kill. They just don’t know that they don’t require meat (ADA position). There is no proof that the human diet requires meat b/c what meat gives you can be gotten from non-mammalian sources. Agree?

tronvillain

shamon:
Does the definition of "need" you are using include "want"? If it does, then we probably all do, but it's a pretty trivial innate moral concept.

tronvillain

shamon:
So you're living in a dream world where people are under the impression that they need meat rather than just wanting it. Those of us who do realize we may not need it but insist on acting upon our desire for it are just a tiny aberration.

shamon

It’s not in a dream world. Go to Wal-Mart tonight and ask the first 10 people you see whether meat is required in the human diet. They will all tell you that it is. They want it, but it’s ultimately b/c they think they need it. If the government had a national public service announcement that said unequivocally that meat was not required in the human diet, a lot less people would eat it the NEXT day. This is b/c most people DO think that it’s needed/required for humans to live.

Do you agree the meat isn’t needed/required?

shamon

I said need b/c that’s what I mean. I’m not talking about wanting things. The desire for something doesn’t make it right or wrong but whether or not it’s needed (or required if you like) is essential.

Do we not know the meaning of need? Human infants need to be talked to. If you just feed them and say nothing they ALL will die. They NEED to be talked to. This is what I mean by need. It’s something that’s required for humans to live.