Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FaustWolf on October 04, 2009, 03:05:38 pm
-
I just came across what is probably one of the most horrific Youtube videos I've ever seen; I'm actually surprised it hasn't been taken down. People who can't stand cute furry things being harmed need not apply. I'm not even sure it's safe for work, so viewer discretion advised. You're probably getting visions of a hamster being cut up with a chainsaw or something, but it's much more subtle than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHTkoyw9ss
I've become more interested recently in examining our society's treatment of animals. I've even flirted with the idea that nature is outright immoral on some level by forcing animals to inflict pain upon and to devour one another in the wild.
Of course, we normally give Mother Nature a pass on that one. But what about this situation in the Youtube video -- is it a case of animal abuse? On one level it's just something that would happen in the wild; and yet, the person behind the camera intervened by purchasing a rabbit specifically to be killed in such a way.
What factors separate the cameraman (assuming the cameraman is the snake's owner) from, say, Michael Vick? And why should those factors make the cameraman's actions any less reprehensible than what Vick did? Someone in the comments claims to have actually reported the video, but since it's still up, I can only surmise that our society, in the aggregate, doesn't really care about events like this one.
Should we though? Where do we draw the line separating morality from immorality, and what rubric should we use?
-
EDIT: The link wasn't what I had in mind when I wrote this.
Yeah, I guess it'd be an ethical thing.
It would seem that animals experience consciousness (and even emotion), and that's not surprising considering they have brain tissue. There are efforts to create recognition, such as the Great Apes rights project.
My conscience won't let me pull away from updating the Compendium long enough to do any reading on this, but I will say that off the cuff, if I were Emperor of the World™, I'd put the people involved with this to death immediately and close the book. I'm not even a cat person. There's just something about this (if, as I'm guessing, it is the kitty-killing thing) that reflects a savage lack of empathy or humanity.
-
Here is the thinking that I use to guide my judgments in these matters:
First, I am strict with myself about distinguishing between emotion and reason. I welcome emotion in my life; I've been indulging myself in all kinds of emotional upwellings in the course of watching those Ken Burns videos on the national parks. But when it comes to judgment, I put emotion aside. So, the image of a bunny rabbit being killed and eaten by a slimy serpent, isn't something to which I would immediately object on emotional grounds. (Although I still remember reading a news story a few years ago about these teenagers who, for their personal amusement, grilled live kittens. That one, I admit, broke my discipline.)
Avoiding emotional decisions is an important prerequisite to good judgment, but the real key is clear reasoning. My thinking here goes something like this: Events themselves have no ethical weight, ethics being a creation of humanity. If, in the course of wild life or environmental occurrences, animals capable of suffering should be subjected to a great deal of it and then perish, that is simply the force of nature on the world in which we live. We might judge these occurrences regrettable, if they bring about the demise of exquisite species or the collapse of whole ecosystems, or if they contribute to hardship for the human species and our civilization, but such judgments are contextual only and do not address the physical occurrences themselves--i.e., the proverbial bunny being crushed and eaten.
However, we human beings have an incredible facility for rational decision-making, which, almost by definition (although the premise took much of our history to be consciously recognized and established), makes us culpable for our action in a way that the action of lesser animals and environmental processes is not. Therefore, immediately, the question of motivation arises. Why is a given act committed? "Why" is a fascinating question; we hold it highest in regard among "who, what, when, where, why, and how," probably because it is such a uniquely rational concept--for there is no "why" in nature. There is only "what," and "how," and so forth. Why only applies when a conscious decision has been made. It is our question, the question of the most sapient of sentient beings.
When a controversial action has occurred, such as what you showed us in this video, the first thing you have to do is set aside your emotions--what we call our "personal opinion." The second thing to do is ask why the person(s) who committed the action, committed it. Then, to determine whether a wrongdoing has occurred, we compare the action and its motivation with the contents of our ethics. (Or, among many, the consultation with ethics is supplanted by a consultation with morals. But I afford no validity to moral systems; I deem them invalid.) It is our ethics which determine, personally, whether a wrongdoing has occurred and, if so, how serious it is.
The next question is to search for mitigating or aggravating factors. If we determine a wrongdoing to have occurred, are there mitigating factors which lessen its severity? Was the person responsible for this act mentally ill at the time? Likewise, what about aggravating factors? Could the rabbit have been killed more humanely and then provided to the snake, while still providing the same food utility to the snake?
As more questions are explored and answered, a better judgment can be made as to the ethical character of the action, which then suggests our appropriate response. That's how I work through it. In some ways, this is similar to how our legal system works. In other ways, it differs. The religious among us would point out that, to them, some actions are inherently always wrong or always right--which of course contributes to the rigidity of religion, but that's another story.
I'm not sure whether or not the video you showed us is an example of animal cruelty or not. I am assuming the snake went on to eat that rabbit. If not, then, yes, unless there was some kind of meaningful science project underway, I would consider that to be animal cruelty. (And, even if there was a scientific purpose, I would want to know why it was necessary to feed the rabbit to the snake without sedating it.) But, if that rabbit was snake food, then, to the extent it is ethical for people to keep carnivorous pets at all, I would be hesitant to declare animal cruelty.
The most telling aspect of this is that the person filmed it and put it on the Internet for all to see. Why did they do that? Answer that question, and I suspect I'll be able to tell you whether or not I deem animal cruelty to have occurred.
One last comment. A question, actually, a question for all of you: When you hear the cries of a suffering animal (or person) and object to their suffering, is your objection raised against their plight, or your own? I harbor no small contempt for people who object to unsightliness and injustice elsewhere in the world simply because it makes them uncomfortable to watch. Yet, despite what most people will tell you, I suspect quite strongly that more objections are made in people's own interests than in the interests of the oppressed.
-
J, once again I'm amazed by the depth of your analysis here. What is interesting to me, in light of your comments, is that there are indeed many assessments of this video based on many individuals' ethics. What concerns me is how developed, or undeveloped, these individuals' ethical senses are, given that most of the YouTube comments are based strongly in emotion and weakly, if at all, in rational thought. (And yet so much in this world depends on the development of individuals' ethics.)
Faust, I do not think your concern is unfounded, nor is it yours alone. The fact that the video has been reported shows that people do care. I think I mirror both your opinion and J's opinion when I say that the video is a hostile statement. The camera man is taking pride in his pet's ability to cause another animal's suffering and death, as evidenced by the fact that the video title acknowledges the rabbit's terror. That is wholly unnecessary. The action of feeding the rabbit to the snake, in absence of such a video, is still problematic, but it's more justifiable in my mind than Vick's actions because of the snake's dependence on live meals to survive.
Believe it or not I've had to apply some of the moral questions which arise from this kind of ethical dilemma to myself, the reason being that I have a little dog to feed and have yet to find a decent vegan dog food on the market. The meat component in my dog's food comes from USDA slaughterhouses, and the horrors you'd see within them far exceed those of the relatively merciful death in the posted video. Granted, the slaughterhouses do everything in their power to try not to make the animals' deaths needlessly terrible, but on the scale that we slaughter animals it is impossible to prevent really monstrous occurrences.
When you get right down to it, the pet industry is a pretty horrific scene from all angles. First off, most pets come from pet mills; puppy mills, cat mills, bird mills, snake mills, ferret and chinchilla mills, and so on. The conditions in these pet mills essentially mirror those of factory farms. The animals are kept in filthy conditions, the mothers are impregnated too often and exhausted at a young age, and several animals are "fixed" by unqualified employees under unsanitary conditions (and without proper anesthesia). Secondly, as the video demonstrates, the breeding and keeping of carnivorous pets necessitates the suffering and death of numerous other animals. It's less obvious for pets such as cats and ferrets, which are usually not fed live prey but are fed some form of meat by-product. Thirdly, pets who make it out of the industry are still by no means guaranteed happy lives. I do not think I need to elaborate on that point for everybody to know what I am getting at, sadly.
This is a tricky problem. I think the most we've agreed on so far is that the statement made by this video is more or less disgusting. The big picture here, our society's treatment of animals, is lamentable in almost every facet of our interactions with animals. The inhumanity of animal agriculture is something I can almost excuse for most people involved (consumers and producers), but only because most people are brainwashed into thinking that we need to eat gratuitous amounts of meat lest we shrivel and die. Most of my contempt for that tragedy is directed towards meat and dairy industry lobbyists, and also at "big food" in general for neglecting to cultivate a hemp foods industry to offer better alternatives to animal protein. Our regarding animals as ours to use however we wish for entertainment, by means of circuses, animal fighting, gratuitous pet production, etc. I cannot excuse. This is, essentially, what we see in the YouTube video in which the rabbit's suffering is made into a spectacle. This is where I draw my line separating moral from immoral, because this kind of behavior reflects not only outright lack of consideration for animals, but also seeks to exploit and cultivate human carelessness, to appeal to the inhumanity and the base within us.
-
While I haven't seen any video of a typical modern Western slaughterhouse process gone wrong, I was extremely shocked to see the process of kosher slaughtering -- and I've been responsible on some level for these events since I've eaten kosher beef hot dogs from time to time (they're quite good). I'm sure I'd be just as horrified to see what happens when a metal bolt intended to be shot through a cow's brain misses its mark.
As usual, I'm tempted to find a cop-out solution to these kinds of moral riddles: instead of going through the painful process of realizing one's moral code is fraught with inconsistency and adjusting, let technology solve what I vaguely feel in my gut to be a problem. We could, hypothetically, grow meat slabs directly from stem cells. Imagine meat farms where raw muscles are attached to electrodes and toned to succulent perfection before being shipped to grocery stores. Mmmm. The meat-sans-pain-receptors could also be fed to carnivorous pets and zoo animals.
But as with the birth pods, I realize that this isn't going to happen any time soon, and nor are the kind of meat farms I'm envisioning even an issue on the plate of modern science (badly formulated pun completely intended). I think my concern over animal suffering is ultimately going to drive me into a vegetarian lifestyle. Thanks to my newfound love of white cheeses, I've already managed to cut out half the red meat typically in my diet, and it's not bad at all.
-
Wow, that's cool, Faust! I'm really glad to hear that! Most people don't consider making the switch to a more vegetarian lifestyle in light of these problems.
I felt I should add something here after my last post, which could be seen as coming down hard on meat-eaters. I don't tow the vegangelical line when I can avoid doing so, because I've tried for years and years to be a successful vegan and have yet to succeed. Even now, I only get by with eating a little over an ounce of meat a day with the help of, not one, but two different kinds of plant protein supplements. I realize how hard it is to experiment with a minimally animal-sourced diet. That is why I wish the various food industries would hurry up and produce meat alternatives of better quality than the soy and wheat gluten based ones which dominate the market. (I happen to be allergic to both soy and gluten. In fact, most people are allergic to both to some extent!)
For carnivorous pets and zoo animals that don't need to be fed live prey, I'd definitely prefer they be fed vat meat over real meat. For humans, however, I think plant-based alternatives would still be better except for on special occasions. The reason for that is the green factor, and the health factor. Plant-based foods will always be more sustainable to produce than even laboratory meats, and they'll always be healthier for humans, unless labs can produce meat with fiber, phyto-nutrients, only "omega" fatty acids, and without sulfur-containing amino acids.
-
I won't be able to make a complete switch as long as I'm living with carnivorous family; though I could make a go at turning them on to vegetarian meals. Are there any great vegetarian cooking information resources out there?
-
I eat meat and will continue to.
You can't stop snakes from eating mice and rabbits. But the fact that they filmed it for showing off on youtube doesn't say much good about the owner.
-
Lest I sound like I'm trying to be morally haughty or anything, I'll add that I know I'm engaging in blatant species-ism by treating vegetarianism as if it's something one can casually get into gradually. If I were eating people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MjoPzQUKCU#t=01m37s) and I suddenly realized it, I'd cut that out immediately. A marginal concern to be sure according to society's dictates, but this still gives me serious pause. I'm in no position to judge others according to a moral code I'm trying to fashion for myself -- but perhaps this concept of moral relativism, too, should give us pause.
What I'm gradually getting at (albeit in extremely slow, misguided and wayward fashion) is unraveling the mysteries of fashioning moral codes. Society, becoming less bound by centralized traditional cultural and religious norms, is teeming with individuals essentially left to think about these things on their own to a large degree, and form independent conclusions. Law fashioned democratically can only express the lowest common denominators on which most of us agree. But when it comes to "marginal" things like male circumcision or eating meat, there are a ton of different opinions and justifications out there, as we've seen among ourselves.
But supposing for sake of argument that moral relativism is okay to some extent, I wonder whether developing one's self-applied moral code isn't a critical thinking skill that shouldn't be taught in elementary schools. I'm much intrigued by Lord J's stark legalistic approach; I might be tempted to rely on some kind of pseudo-economic analysis of the situation myself.
-
I won't be able to make a complete switch as long as I'm living with carnivorous family; though I could make a go at turning them on to vegetarian meals. Are there any great vegetarian cooking information resources out there?
It's hard for me to give an emphatic "yes" to this since I have yet to find a website or cookbook that has been of great value to me. Unfortunately, most vegetarian dishes are not going to be appealing to the devoted omnivore, unless the person doing the cooking really knows what they're doing with what they have. Instead of cookbooks, I wish vegetarians and vegans would publish tips on how to make meals that both appeal to omnivores and address certain dietary concerns for people who have trouble getting by on a largely plant-based diet.
I'll just share a few tips here based on my own experimentation in the kitchen: Much of what appeals to omnivores about meat is the kinds of flavors it can add to food. There are few plant foods that can do the flavor of, say, buffalo meat justice. The best flavor combination I've come up with so far (and this works pretty well!) is that of tamari sauce (not soy sauce! Tamari is much more flavorful.), garlic, and white truffle oil. (White truffle oil sounds expensive, but like most things you can get it online for less, and you don't need much of it. Just remember to keep the bottle in the fridge to prevent it from going rancid.) With a good imitation meat flavor, you can add omnivorous appeal to just about any vegetable dish.
High protein dishes are more of a challenge if you don't want to be limited to eating tofu. Tempeh is a better soy-based meat alternative, and if you can cook it right you can make a wide range of appealing dishes. (Tempeh fajitas, tempeh and mushroom burgers, tempeh curry, etc.) Also, you can make your own meat alternatives using ingredients like cooked lentils and chopped almonds, along with wheat flour or xanthan gum and ground flaxseed for binding agents. The easiest way to cook with homemade meat alternatives is to make dishes like stuffed bell peppers. Lentil loaf and homemade lentil burgers take more practice. Also, if you're going to use lentils, consider using red or white lentils which have no outer hull.
Really, the best way to turn anybody on to vegetarian dishes is to have a culinary ace up your sleeve. If you're able to cook something that makes an omnivore say, "Wow, that's vegetarian? (vegan?)" you'll make more of an impact than any over-hyped cookbook ever will! I have a couple of recipes which might be able to accomplish this, and if you're curious I'll PM them to you. If others are interested I'll post them here.
-
I'm definitely interested in what others have tried. It seems spices would play a crucial part, but I didn't even realize it was possible to replicate meat flavors with substitutes like that.
-
But supposing for sake of argument that moral relativism is okay to some extent, I wonder whether developing one's self-applied moral code isn't a critical thinking skill that shouldn't be taught in elementary schools.
I imagine moral relativism is an unavoidable aspect of human society. True, there are issues which most people can agree on (and issues which most people should agree on, but that's another thread), but there will always be gray areas in everybody's moral/ethical reasoning. (To what extent are those words interchangeable, moral and ethical? Umm... J?) Teaching critical thinking skills and subjects like logic and logical fallacies (age appropriate, of course) would help people to develop and question their own moral codes. What is also crucial, in my opinion, is purposefully exposing students, and people in general, to moral gray areas with the intent of open-minded exploration. It is important for everybody to understand that life is riddled with frustrating and bothersome moral gray areas for which nobody has a definitive solution. I think the most important aspect about these gray areas is how people are taught to approach them.
This reminds me of a book by Joseph Marshall III, one of my favorite Native American authors, in which he recounts how Lakota elders exposed their children to troubling moral dilemmas. He says that an elder would ask a child what he or she would do if there were two people drowning in a river, and then would distinguish the two people by saying that one was old and one was young, or one was male and one was female. As part of the moral puzzle, the elder would indicate that the child would only be able to save one person, then he or she would ask the child who they would save. The child would give the answer, and the elder would often neither approve or disapprove, but perhaps ask only for elaboration. The important thing, Marshall says, is that the child thinks. By neglecting to act as an authority figure on the subject, the elder allows the child to feel responsible to find his or her own answer.
To confront moral problems for which there is no suitable logical or human authority is tricky and often scary, especially when potential death or great suffering is involved. But, when faced with these problems we have to know how to stand on our own, for our own sake and perhaps for others'. This seems to me to be a crucial aspect of building character. In schools, children are taught that "character" is synonymous with "good behavior", but I wholly disagree. Character is more akin to backbone, in my opinion, and you don't develop backbone through mere good behavior. Good character is developed by confronting what is problematic and trying to make sense of it, or just trying to deal with it.
I'm going to get back to my original point, that being the unavoidable nature of moral relativism. Consider, what seems problematic to some individuals may not seem problematic to others, just by virtue of the haphazard nature of the formation of our minds and circumstances. Because of this, it is necessary that everybody confronts a set of moral problems throughout their life that is entirely their own. These aren't cut-and-dry moral problems, such as, do I not kill person X today for no reason whatsoever? These are more along the lines of, how much should I go out of my way to help person X (or persons p1, p2, p3, ...) in light of my own difficult circumstances? Or, I really enjoy the company of a co-worker, but is it right to ask him/her out on a date? They're unavoidably personal, and they belong to a moral realm that is unavoidably personal. Often, solutions to these moral problems can be chalked up solely to trial and error, i.e. experience.
I'm definitely interested in what others have tried. It seems spices would play a crucial part, but I didn't even realize it was possible to replicate meat flavors with substitutes like that.
Neither was I, until I tried it and was amazed! If I ever become cutting-edge enough in my experimentation I may have reason to write a worthwhile cookbook. I'll send you those recipes in a few.
-
I flagged it for animal abuse, this reminds me of what Kato was telling us with CC and the whole humans destroying nature, and belittling the demi humans. A disrespect for the world and it's inhabitants.
-
Hah, I've read Lord J Esq's post, and I must say I'm pretty intrigued. Although, pardon me, I haven't read throughout after that. Just bits and bytes.
What I'm gradually getting at (albeit in extremely slow, misguided and wayward fashion) is unraveling the mysteries of fashioning moral codes. Society, becoming less bound by centralized traditional cultural and religious norms, is teeming with individuals essentially left to think about these things on their own to a large degree, and form independent conclusions. Law fashioned democratically can only express the lowest common denominators on which most of us agree. But when it comes to "marginal" things like male circumcision or eating meat, there are a ton of different opinions and justifications out there, as we've seen among ourselves.
Welcome to my world. I've been thinking about this, including the Meaning of Life, ever since I was 8. :lol:
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll place it in simple terms because I'm not much of a wordsman.
I respect Lord J's methods of analysis, because he's right. Though I'd hate to contradict him, I must say that emotion does play an important factor in judgment, but not so to be overwhelmed by it or have your decision biased. But rather to feel the actions of both the parties, think both ways and find the actual truth. And also right that most people would be against something such savagery only for their own selfish interest, but there are many others who would stake their precious time and life for the sake of granting a poor kitten her justice, whether or not human jurisdiction applies to her.
What you see in the video is the harsh reality factor (@FW, you probably know what I mean if you've read my thesis). It's hard to tell WHY the someone would do that. The reasons may be many. But judging by his words it seemed he WANTED the world to witness the helpless cries of the poor bunny. IF it was plain savage, then it's no surprise considering many of our own ancestors were even more brutal than this, making HUMAN slaves fight amongst themselves for the sake of pure entertainment. Such desires and ideas flourished long before humanity did, perhaps at the beginning of sentience or even when we discovered the ability to create music (even before the discovery of speech). Despite our intellectual evolution throughout the ages and awareness of injustice and cruelty, even now somewhere in the hearts of humanity lurks such desires of malice, lust and greed. Some are even overwhelm by it. It seems sentience cannot rid a man from his savage inheritance entirely, but when such desires manifest the possibilities of our intellectual ideology, the result is horrifying to an observer, but a mere sport for those who commit such a deed.
Witnessing one animal prey on another is a common act of hunting carried by everyone bound to nature. But the man a man uploaded a video of it, portraying a deeper and horrible version of it. The question is WHY. WHY would he want people to witness something such as this when they already know? If he'd have said nothing, then I would have considered it as purely scientific. But he MENTIONED something that triggered most of his audience's imagination, and immediately the bunny's torture caught their attention. Was it that he had nothing else to do? Was it that his mind yearned to watch something or someone suffer? Or was it plain curiosity?
Even so, whether or not the motive of the video was for ill or plainly scientific (it's hardly "noble"), one cannot deny that it got us thinking deeply into the matters, ethics and morals of humanity, emotions and justifications. What's more, all at the cost of a bunny rabbit.
And with respect to the reactions of some who feel this is unjust, it brings to mind that no matter what our ethics or morals, those with higher power and intelligence do in a way conquer those with weaker minds, and mankind has already conquered all but themselves. Either for meat, for sport, for sheer entertainment, it doesn't really matter. In the end it all depends on the decisions on an individual. Sometimes it's kinda sickening to watch someone with authority mercilessly enjoying someone else's pain such as... well you know.
-
That's really interesting about the Lakota elders. American children who are in advanced literature and critical thinking classes are probably exposed to that sort of thing from time to time, but it seems odd now that it isn't part of the wider curriculum; at least I don't remember these kinds of discussions featuring heavily in my own elementary school experience.
tushantin, I think you're on to something very important. Empathy could have a huge role to play in measuring the morality or immorality of what the guy did (and even what the snake did); I'm not sure if Lord J would lump empathy together with emotion, but it seems to be a roundabout way of revealing mitigating circumstances, and feeling them viscerally. For example, the fact that the snake is just trying to survive and was confronted with a compatible food source mitigates the pain it inflicted on that poor rabbit. This is why we essentially give Mother Nature a pass on morality I guess. If we were reduced to the same means of survival, we might sink our fangs into live creatures too.
Interesting that moral capacity is sometimes a function of development and technology.
-
Indeed, there is no morality where there is hardly any sentience, but our sentience was developed overtime due to experience. You may have seen the horrors of war. War begins with hatred or selfish deeds. A mere insult could result in bloodlust. It all began with tribes seeking for their own gain, each having a leader, and each warring for survival. That neighbourhood war evolved into large scale with the help of technology. And the result? Devastation. Fear lurked with us before the birth of sentience, but it was THEN that fear and despair after sentience gave birth to morality. Religion also played a major role on that part. To minimize the "fear of living" the leaders decided to convince the masses to stop fighting each other, in some cases even proclaiming that causing fear or hurting someone is an act against God's wishes. Love was spread, and thus morality was spread.
Of course, the exactness of this might vary among places, but this is the truth. And perhaps this was why Lord J deems morality as invalid.
Whut? The snake knows no morals! What the snake DID was what it and its ancestors had experienced and learned since millions of years ago: to stealthily hunt for prey (in fact I'm writing a book on it). When an organism needs to survive it might go to many ends. However, SOME organisms survive on peaceful ends, but when those who survived the hard way tend to become carnivores. For instance, the bunny is peaceful and it doesn't wanna hurt no one. But the snake's learnt to live on meat. "Nothing personal, babe, but you're just so damn delicious." Does the snake feel guilty? No! The rabbit is just some... THING... for it. But what does the rabbit feel? Nothing but despair, fear and agony. Does the snake feel pity? Hell would you expect it to go eat grass?
It's a funny thing that despite being sentient mankind has similar ways of thinking as that snake, while some as that rabbit, but very RARELY a few that actually think every possibility there could be. Among all of the people in the world only 5% seem to thinking either rationally or open-mindedly. Perhaps it is because our progress on evolving ourselves is slowing down? Or perhaps we're not COMPLETELY sentient yet? Well, time will tell (perhaps when I die LOL).
As for the sick twisted bloke who posted that video, all he did was follow his malicious curiosity that developed even before he was born. Was he to blame? Partly yes, partly no. But tell you one thing: Mother Nature gives a pass on anything. It's what you give back to it is what you get in return. If you keep taking, you run out of resources. Technically killing is OK, but morally it is unjust. Like I said, the stronger and intellectual blokes hold the power. If you feel it's wrong, get a stronger power and oppose em. Sometimes the power is money, sometimes weapons, or sometimes just hundreds of people at your side. Unfortunately for the rabbit (dang I coulda saved it if I could) it had no option other than an inevitable death.
-
I imagine moral relativism is an unavoidable aspect of human society.
I don't like to get too caught up in this supposed dilemma between moral relativism and moral absolutism, which I see as primarily a Christian convention used to disparage people who, as they might say, "make up the rules as they go, to best suit themselves." When we ask ourselves what absolute even means in this context, there are only a few places to turn: Do the laws of physics care how they are manipulated by sentient beings? No...I'm not aware of any care particle or decency wave. Do the materials of the world care how they are manipulated by us? No...anthropomorphism and aesthetics aside, rocks and metal don't have any known faculty for caring. What about the living things, then? Now we're on to something. Many animals, at least, do care about what is done to them. Part of their survival drive is an awareness of their own state. They have the ability to care; that's what sets them apart from the rocks and from lower forms of life.
But can "absolutism" be made to fit in such a small space? Especially when considering that, from a religious standpoint, the term moral absolutism is often used to refer to an authority that transcends the entire universe? And not forgetting that, with religion, there is this tendency to disparage the idea of moral relativism? "If something can only be true in certain cases, it is an inferior truth to that of THE LORD!!!"
That is a flaw in logic. I think the dilemma imposed between absolutism and relativism is a distraction, designed to serve those with a religious agenda (i.e., a distraction meant to soothe those who have a hard time getting over themselves). Let me lay it out clearly and neutrally: For a valid statement to be absolute, it must be capable of being delivered with no context, and no qualification, anywhere and at any time, and still retain its validity. This is because absolute validity results inherently from the quantity under consideration. Example: "Humanity possesses a highly evolved curiosity." All other statements are relative, their validity resulting from the relation between quantities. Example: "Curiosity is one of the most important cognitive traits...for humans."
Don't take the wrong message from my topmost paragraph. There are many absolutes out there--physical, philosophical, mathematical, and so forth. The message here is not that they are rare--because they are not rare--but that they are not opposed to that which is relative. The dilemma imposed between the two is meaningless. When tied to the word moral, absolutism and relativism are purely a distraction.
Aside: I base a good deal of my philosophy on absolutes, not moral absolutes but characteristic ones. This is because absolutes are good at tackling specific injustices. I'm opposed to sexism, for instance, because the practical results of sexism are to deprive females of many things whose pursuit or possession are common to the human condition. This is subtly but crucially different from the much more common, moralistic objection to sexism, which is that it causes suffering. Essentially the two statements reach the same conclusion, but mine is better because it describes where the suffering comes from and focuses on that--on the deprivation or abuse which results in suffering--rather than using the suffering itself as the grounds for objections, which is not only negligent in that it prefers symptom over source, but also vulnerable for that same reason. Sexism is a good topic for the introduction of absolutes, because it is such an absolutist form of discrimination.
(To what extent are those words interchangeable, moral and ethical? Umm... J?)
Popularly, they are completely interchangeable. For me, however, they are entirely distinct concepts. I would never interchange them. To spare you the longer explanation, the short-short of it is that, in my philosophy, ethics are individual while morals are cultural.
In schools, children are taught that "character" is synonymous with "good behavior", but I wholly disagree. Character is more akin to backbone, in my opinion, and you don't develop backbone through mere good behavior. Good character is developed by confronting what is problematic and trying to make sense of it, or just trying to deal with it.
I think you're right.
I'm not sure if Lord J would lump empathy together with emotion...
Interesting you should mention that. You're right: Empathy and emotion are two completely different things. They're not even related, like ethics and morals are. They are totally distinct aspects of intelligence. Empathy is the condition of appreciating (accurately or inaccurately) the perspective and experience of some other person or creature. The only emotional part of it would be the attempt to recreate their (likely) emotions in oneself. Emotion, meanwhile, is an entire branch of intelligence--a state of being in which our awareness is colored by physiological responses, to ideas or stimuli, which we describe as the specific emotions (e.g., thrill, anger, etc.), which in turn affect our thoughts and intentions. (Indeed, in drawing a distinction between the other branches of intelligence, I call emotion "affective intelligence," and I think similar terminology is used by the professional psychological community as well.)
For example, the fact that the snake is just trying to survive and was confronted with a compatible food source mitigates the pain it inflicted on that poor rabbit. This is why we essentially give Mother Nature a pass on morality I guess. If we were reduced to the same means of survival, we might sink our fangs into live creatures too.
Aye. There is nothing wrong with killing. All life is built around the eradication of other life for its own survival. Even plants, who feed on sunlight, will mangle one another for the best soil or water. Unless you're prepared to become the world's worst cynic, a la Kefka, you have to reject our society's feel-good notion that life should always be preserved. That's not what life is, and it's not how life works.
-
I don't like to get too caught up in this supposed dilemma between moral relativism and moral absolutism, which I see as primarily a Christian convention used to disparage people who, as they might say, "make up the rules as they go, to best suit themselves."
I think religion deeply plays into what we're discussing, but to call it specifically "Christian" would make it seem like only Christians care about imposing some sort of universal law, and that people of other faiths have no such desire. Although I've read a bit of the Qu'ran and selections from other texts thanks to a college education, I can't really claim to know whether people brought up in other traditions look for a solid, universal moral rubric. But I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some do, and that religion, inasmuch as it is a cultural construct, reflects a deeply rooted desire to find some universal law and thereby eliminate all injustice universally.
Moreover, I have a suspicion that atheists aren't necessarily shielded from the desire to find a universal morality. When I read Sam Harris' arguments against religion, what jumps out at me and most demands my attention is what I feel to be his urgent sense that religion, by its nigh immutable nature, is actually hindering the human quest to find a more perfect morality. A more concrete example is Simone de Beauvoir's (http://books.google.com/books?id=HHZQXq-vwbMC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%2B%22simone+de+beauvoir%22+%2B%22morality+and+freedom%22&source=bl&ots=KwYtWVXQrK&sig=8r-HMWN5qKgQZYJBCZ0717O45_w&hl=en&ei=D8PKSpyFFMO0lAeY7pmSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false) effort to build a universal model of morality based on the concept of freedom. That I could be misinterpreting the basic thrust of Sam Harris' argument and that Beauvoir is still being influenced by past religious heritage are fair charges that could be made.
But it seems to me that the quest to free human minds from religion, just as much as the quest to proselytize, reflects a fundamental concern for spreading ethical modes of action to others; this suggests that moral relativism is not okay to a certain extent. The question, for me, is what that extent is; it might be evil to foment conflict for the sake of destroying female genital mutilation...or would it?
Not that I would ever advocate solving moral disagreements through conflict; a pseudo-economic analysis would suggest in more cases than not the costs would be greater than the net benefit to humanity. But it could sure make for rich thematic material in literature, eh?
All life is built around the eradication of other life for its own survival. Even plants, who feed on sunlight, will mangle one another for the best soil or water. Unless you're prepared to become the world's worst cynic, a la Kefka, you have to reject our society's feel-good notion that life should always be preserved. That's not what life is, and it's not how life works.
Did you mean Kafka? Actually, it would be interesting for someone to roleplay Kefka in this conversation and see where we end up, hahaha! What a riot. I'm going to be embarrassed if I just need to brush up on my FF6...not that I don't need to brush up on Kafka...
Although it sounds absolutely silly on its face, I realize for sake of consistency (if the goal is to indeed find a fully self-consistent morality) that I should be prepared to label nature not only amoral, but immoral, for foisting upon living things the duty of destroying and inflicting pain upon other living things. It's not necessarily the cessation of life processes that gets me, but rather the screams of the poor animals being devoured live. And it's not the fact that I don't like to hear animals scream, but the fact that I don't want to feel pain myself - an empathetic concern - that gives this position at least a semblance of basis in reason.
There are always mitigating factors; the creature being put to death could have attacked the creature doing the killing, or the creature doing the killing must do so in order to survive. However, while mitigating factors will get the killing creature off the hook of responsibility from time to time, they do not erase the injustice of a sentient creature enduring pain.
Obviously there are flaws in using empathy as a universal basis for moral decisionmaking; the person trying to empathize may not be able to empathize with another subject due to some emotional or psychological disconnect (e.g., "dehumanizing" a victim before violence can occur). Although potentially rare, the person trying to empathize may be a masochist who enjoys having pain inflicted upon him or her -- "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" would not necessarily be recommended there. I'm sure other flaws could be pointed out given some time.
EDIT: For those interested in reporting the video I linked earlier, it's an uphill battle: Youtube is riddled with scenes like this. There's even scientifically valid animal studies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=encZArh2wrY) that eclipse the horror I felt watching the first one I linked. If your username is Shee, do NOT watch this one.
Damn, I just can't...fathom the brutality of nature. I know I'm potentially doing a disservice by choosing horrible scenes involving fuzzy, harmless, and wuvable little creatures being victimized; an insect being killed, though it may not be able to vocalize its discomfort, should be considered just as much or just as little an injustice as the rabbits and chicks being devoured for all to see on Youtube.
-
I think religion deeply plays into what we're discussing, but to call it specifically "Christian" would make it seem like only Christians care about imposing some sort of universal law, and that people of other faiths have no such desire. Although I've read a bit of the Qu'ran and selections from other texts thanks to a college education, I can't really claim to know whether people brought up in other traditions look for a solid, universal moral rubric. But I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some do, and that religion, inasmuch as it is a cultural construct, reflects a deeply rooted desire to find some universal law and thereby eliminate all injustice universally.
Moreover, I have a suspicion that atheists aren't necessarily shielded from the desire to find a universal morality. When I read Sam Harris' arguments against religion, what jumps out at me and most demands my attention is what I feel to be his urgent sense that religion, by its nigh immutable nature, is actually hindering the human quest to find a more perfect morality. A more concrete example is Simone de Beauvoir's (http://books.google.com/books?id=HHZQXq-vwbMC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%2B%22simone+de+beauvoir%22+%2B%22morality+and+freedom%22&source=bl&ots=KwYtWVXQrK&sig=8r-HMWN5qKgQZYJBCZ0717O45_w&hl=en&ei=D8PKSpyFFMO0lAeY7pmSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false) effort to build a universal model of morality based on the concept of freedom. That I could be misinterpreting the basic thrust of Sam Harris' argument and that Beauvoir is still being influenced by past religious heritage are fair charges that could be made.
But it seems to me that the quest to free human minds from religion, just as much as the quest to proselytize, reflects a fundamental concern for spreading ethical modes of action to others; this suggests that moral relativism is not okay to a certain extent. The question, for me, is what that extent is; it might be evil to foment conflict for the sake of destroying female genital mutilation...or would it?
Trying to make sense of the concept of moral absolutism is just about enough to make my head spin. While I have to agree with J that there is absolutely no way to pin down any moral absolute, issues like female genital mutilation make me want to try even harder to do just that! Everything inside me wants to find that universal law, that natural constant that says, "That is never okay!"
I want to spread my ethical mode which says that it is never okay, that the relative morality which says FGM is okay is in itself not okay. Okay? Am I allowed? Heh, even so, is that a case for moral relativism being not okay? The idea of moral relativism is scary in that it acknowledges the myriad of relative moral systems which collectively may allow for any conceivable heinous action. But, is the remedy for this frightening prospect necessarily some degree of moral absolutism? Moral absolutism probably seems like a great idea to a number of people, many of whom probably wholly disagree with my wonderful moral construct.
When we see an injustice somewhere, I think we all have the tendency to ask questions about the perpetrators of the injustice, like, "Can't they see that what they're doing is wrong?" We want to believe that if they just tune into some universal constant which matches our wavelength, they will immediately understand that they are mistaken and stop. The problem with this is, as J pointed out, there exists no such universal constant. There is only the strong desire for that constant which is wholly ours.
The desire to end injustices, if it should arise from empathy and good understanding of what J calls "characteristic absolutes", is most beneficial. I think that J's dislike for absolute moral systems arises in part from the fact that they can impede the development of proper empathy and understanding of human characteristic absolutes. Indeed, in trying to pin down any absolute moral we run the dangerous risk of disconnecting from the more beneficial exploration of our human characteristics. In trying to uphold and justify an absolute moral system we almost guarantee this disconnection in ourselves and possibly others as well. People who understand this, and who have a better grasp of what our human characteristics are, thanks to meaningful and free exploration unimpeded by stunning moral systems, will necessarily want to put an end to the moral systems which restrict beneficial freedoms while allowing travesties like FGM. Hence, an atheist like Sam Harris (who may or may not be inclined toward any idea of absolute morality -- admittedly I am unsure where he would stand on this issue) would want to spread his mode of action to cultures where such moral systems are the norm.
Simone de Beauvoir's concept for an absolute morality based on freedom seems more valid in light of the concerns which I presented above. But, it is precisely because of these characteristics of human life that it does seem valid, which makes me want to side with J ultimately and ask why freedom must be called the basis for an absolute morality? Why bring absolute morality into the picture at all? Why can it not just be understood as beneficial?
Damn, I just can't...fathom the brutality of nature. I know I'm potentially doing a disservice by choosing horrible scenes involving fuzzy, harmless, and wuvable little creatures being victimized; an insect being killed, though it may not be able to vocalize its discomfort, should be considered just as much or just as little an injustice as the rabbits and chicks being devoured for all to see on Youtube.
I understand how you feel. I was going home from work one morning and witnessed a very stripped-down deer carcass on the side of the road. It looked like it had been caught by a pack of wolves during the night. The sight was horrifying, and served as a good reminder for why I should not venture out far from any safe-havens at night.
At the same time, savage as it may be for life to face violent death, or death at all, it's what has driven natural selection to produce amazing animals such as ourselves and those around us. All the more reason, in my mind, for us to try to preserve the life around us to the best of our ability. It would be a pity to let a great deal of the product of this perilous existence go to waste.
-
Fascinating. Yes, I understand that major hazards accompany moral absolutism, which is precisely why I started this thread seeking input from other minds. My own methodology seems to have developed into a (moral absolute) + (cost/benefit analsysis) approach, which essentially builds a limiting factor into the desire for absolutism. The practice of using characteristic absolutes still smacks of a certain universalism to me -- is the goal not to get everyone to think like the characteristic absolutist does? -- but it is interesting because it examines wrongdoing from a different perspective.
J, can you expound more on these characteristic absolutes, or is there a body of philosophical works you're drawing from that the rest of us could look up?
Also, I'm curious as to how others feel about how morality changes through time. Looking at how things work in nature and comparing that to Western society has led me to believe that moral capacity -- the abiility to do good or to commit evil -- is at least partly a function of technology and the courses of action it affords. A snake, which has no lifestyle choice, can be forgiven for sinking its fangs into a little critter and causing it pain. A modern-day man or woman could very well be punished on grounds of animal cruelty for the exact same action, precisely because other, "more moral", courses of action are available.
What this suggests to me is that as long as we make it our goal to advance as a species, the range of moral decisions available to us will grow. Where this becomes important is that different moral systems which were not in conflict in earlier times could come into conflict in later times. If a vegetarian scientist develops a perfect and widely available meat substitute one day, will the option to hunt and kill animals disappear, for example?
In this hypothetical, my personal [(moral absolute) + (cost/benefit analysis)] formula, filled with its various biases, would side with eliminating human consumption of animals, because the costs of eliminating the practice -- difficulty finding efficient protein sources -- would no longer be even close to outweighing the benefit, eliminating animal suffering at the hands of humanity. In many cases different moral methodologies happily coincide as to their results, but their shared outcomes could still diverge over time. Or maybe not; what would characteristic absolutes have to say about this hypothetical situation?
EDIT:
Why bring absolute morality into the picture at all? Why can it not just be understood as beneficial?
I forgot to address this earlier. What I mean by universalism in moral standards is not trying to find something that already exists, but the attempt to build something that does not yet exist, and which should apply to all sentient creatures capable of playing by the same rules. I bring it into the picture not because I'm trying to artificially impose it where it doesn't belong, but rather because it's my opinion that it already flows ubiquitously through all our posts, although we might reject the very idea of it. I happen to think there is a certain ugliness to it as well. But when we say that female genital mutilation is a horrible practice and should be obliterated, we're already secretly wishing that our own standard be shared by other people. It's the "shared by other people" part that makes it an absolute, or universal, in the way I interpret absolutism and universalism. It's possible I've used a poor choice in terminology, and "absolutism" and "universalism" are not the concepts I'm trying to describe after all.
One might not call simple rational thought an absolute standard while labeling a strict empathy-based or freedom-based or religion-based model an "absolute." But in the end, we all share in common the fact that we're trying to produce some change in the very way other people think. When J says his system is "better", I take it to mean that others should try it out and see the benefits. The goal of getting everyone to think rationally is universal not because there's an immutable universal law according to which everyone should think rationally, but because we find its outcomes so beneficial we want everyone capable of doing it to do it.
-
I think religion deeply plays into what we're discussing, but to call it specifically "Christian" would make it seem like only Christians care about imposing some sort of universal law, and that people of other faiths have no such desire.
This presents a good opportunity to point out something which I think this thread has not yet appreciated. The very concept of “moral absolutism” and “moral relativism,” as we know it, is a construction of Christianity in the affluent West. Other places do have similar ideas, but those ideas are not important to those peoples on the scale that this idea is important to us, and they do not come from the same sources and they are not played out in the same ways. Our discussion here is not an Islamic one, nor is it a third-world one. It is a Christian one, because our discussion has turned on morality, and, regardless of the fact that many other peoples have their own systems of morality, the system we have been referencing here in this discussion was created by Christian to advance Christian thinking. We can legitimately say that other cultures (and other religions) also care about “imposing some sort of universal law,” and it would have been very easy for me to agree with you that this focus on the Christian factor can be misleading, but ultimately I think it gets closer to the heart of what we're trying to grasp in this thread if I use this opportunity to point out that what we have been talking about is specifically a Christian problem.
This is a point worth dwelling upon, because if we fail to appreciate the relationship between the object world, the concepts we use to interpret it, and the origins and reasons whence these concepts arose, then we are unknowingly shackling ourselves to the boundaries laid out by these concepts. I offered in my previous post that I reject the aforementioned not only the dichotomy between absolute and relative morality, but even the authority of morality itself. However, for whatever reasons, no one went along with me on those ideas. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. Perhaps I was simply not persuasive. Perhaps it was not central enough to the discussion. But it could also be that others were not critical enough in their thinking.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that … religion, inasmuch as it is a cultural construct, reflects a deeply rooted desire to find some universal law and thereby eliminate all injustice universally.
You needn't sneakily suspect. You are very close to the truth. The word “injustice” is mine; I think I was the one who brought it into the discussion. Many people wouldn't invoke the concept of justice if it wasn't suggested to them, and wouldn't be warranted in doing so even if they did, because much of what many people desire is unjust. “Good and Evil” is a more accessible catch-all, as is morality itself (which usually appeals to Good and Evil). But, yes, whatever concept the people invoke, it is a part of the human condition for us to recognize, establish, and be affirmed in, some universal system of judgment and behavior. That is, at least, a relic of our tribal heritage, which itself is a function of our sociable nature as a species. It could also be deeper than any of that, running far into our animal past, but I'm not qualified to say.
But it seems to me that the quest to free human minds from religion, just as much as the quest to proselytize, reflects a fundamental concern for spreading ethical modes of action to others; this suggests that moral relativism is not okay to a certain extent.
Very astute! Or, less charitably, I might say: “Well, duh!” =P
Seriously, though, what you're getting at is an important point. It is very hard to justifiably take an aggressive action without the support of a line of reasoning or faith which tells one that it is okay and perhaps even desirable for them to commit the action. “Moral relativism” when practiced consistently is a doctrine of passive interaction except in the case of defense. We in America are extremely poorly suited to that kind of worldview. We have always been exceptionalists. (And in large part we owe that quality in our national character not to Islam but to Christianity.) Some of it can be laid at the feet of our species itself, as per my comments earlier in this post, but, for the most part, the fact that you keenly want to come up with an effective universal law to impose on others is a testament to the culture into which you were raised.
On a personal note, if anything, I am even more repulsed by moral relativism than by moral absolutism. At least moral absolutism can occasionally be right.
The question, for me, is what that extent is; it might be evil to foment conflict for the sake of destroying female genital mutilation...or would it?
Define “evil” and you'll have your answer. By my definition, no, it wouldn't be evil.
Not that I would ever advocate solving moral disagreements through conflict; a pseudo-economic analysis would suggest in more cases than not the costs would be greater than the net benefit to humanity. But it could sure make for rich thematic material in literature, eh?
Aye.
Did you mean Kafka? Actually, it would be interesting for someone to roleplay Kefka in this conversation and see where we end up, hahaha! What a riot. I'm going to be embarrassed if I just need to brush up on my FF6...not that I don't need to brush up on Kafka...
Nope. I meant Kefka. Let the embarrassment commence. =)
Although it sounds absolutely silly on its face, I realize for sake of consistency (if the goal is to indeed find a fully self-consistent morality) that I should be prepared to label nature not only amoral, but immoral, for foisting upon living things the duty of destroying and inflicting pain upon other living things.
Any worldview which sets up the wind and the waves as your enemy is probably a foolish one. Against nature there is no victory to be won other than the destruction of wildness. Morality itself, along with the very premise of war, as well as those of lesser deliberate conflicts, requires a home in the minds of sapient creatures. War is a device of the civilized, despite its tendency to savagery. Morality is a function of reason, despite its tendency to illogic. Other animals cannot conceive of either, to say nothing of lesser species and inanimate objects. It would make no sense to use a word like “immoral” where the recipient is incapable of retaining the description. Is rain ever moral?
It's not necessarily the cessation of life processes that gets me, but rather the screams of the poor animals being devoured live. And it's not the fact that I don't like to hear animals scream, but the fact that I don't want to feel pain myself - an empathetic concern - that gives this position at least a semblance of basis in reason.
Ah. I mentioned people such as yourself in an earlier post in this thread...although in an unflattering way, so you may not want to go back and reread it. =)
If your own discomfort as an observer is worse to you than the actual suffering and death of the animal, then I would suggest your perspective is unsatisfactory. The issue here is whether the manner of the rabbit's death constituted animal cruelty...not FaustWolf cruelty. If your own discomfort is your biggest objection, then you should simply not observe these kinds of things...and I'm sure you can see the problem presented by such a solution.
Obviously there are flaws in using empathy as a universal basis for moral decisionmaking...
Empathy is important, but to establish it as a “universal basis” for decision-making would be idiotic. From engineering to law, empathy-based decisions would undermine our civilization. Far more appropriate to affect empathy in order to better understand that which is then to be judged using other, more reasonable measurements.
This is also an opportunity for me to point out, once again, my problem with morality. In our culture it is quite popular these days to hold up “empathy” as the loftiest of lofties in human character, which is silly because there is so much else that is also important in determining character. Yet moral systems have given extra life to this foolish notion, and so there is always another person who thinks empathy is the one-word solution to all the world's problems. (An even more common variation on the same idea is “love.” Ugh.)
Damn, I just can't...fathom the brutality of nature.
Ah, then Illumination will elude you.
Trying to make sense of the concept of moral absolutism is just about enough to make my head spin. While I have to agree with J that there is absolutely no way to pin down any moral absolute, issues like female genital mutilation make me want to try even harder to do just that! Everything inside me wants to find that universal law, that natural constant that says, "That is never okay!"
I would encourage you, then, to look outside morality and outside this false dichotomy of relativism and absolutism. You can go a long way toward opposing injustice simply by remarking that many of these injustices willfully deprive people of that which, by human nature, would enable them to enjoy a higher material quality of life or a higher satisfaction with life. You can use the human conditions itself, our genes and our characteristics, to reinforce yourself as you ask villains and abetters the question: “What is the benefit of that which we now undertake?” Usually, their answer is rubbish. Many injustices could be defeated without appealing to any universal law, simply by forcing villains to justify their undertakings.
At the same time, savage as it may be for life to face violent death, or death at all, it's what has driven natural selection to produce amazing animals such as ourselves and those around us.
That is an excellent addition to this discussion.
J, can you expound more on these characteristic absolutes, or is there a body of philosophical works you're drawing from that the rest of us could look up?
Heh. Thank you. All of my philosophy, all of my economic theories, all of my politics, are homemade. People sometimes ask me questions like this. I consider it very flattering that they would think my thinking is drawn from higher learning, because I've done it all myself.
It is a bit frustrating, though, that people seem to expect that our intellectual thinking must necessarily be an expansion pack build onto someone else's work. I had a friend who independently conceived of the derivative, before ever taking calculus. I myself recreated significant swaths of classical Greek philosophy before ever learning about it formally. Of course, we all benefit from the contributions of those who came before us. The education and experiences which enabled me to create some of this stuff on my own, were obviously not my own doing. Yet, there is an important difference between creating a theory from first principles versus building upon the highly particular work of specific philosophers, economists, politicians, scientists, engineers, et cetera.
People should do more original intellectual work, I say! Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
When J says his system is "better", I take it to mean that others should try it out and see the benefits.
My system is better because it works as advertised and isn't filled with nearly as much rubbish and nonsense.
-
Quote from: FaustWolf on Yesterday at 12:44:10 AM
It's not necessarily the cessation of life processes that gets me, but rather the screams of the poor animals being devoured live. And it's not the fact that I don't like to hear animals scream, but the fact that I don't want to feel pain myself - an empathetic concern - that gives this position at least a semblance of basis in reason.
Ah. I mentioned people such as yourself in an earlier post in this thread...although in an unflattering way, so you may not want to go back and reread it. =)
Nah, I knew exactly what you wrote when I wrote the quoted bit. I'm not sure if it gets me out of falling into what you had in mind, but the nuance I was trying to convey is that it's the fact that one can commiserate with the animal's anguish that bothers me, and not the fact that I have seen an animal in anguish. If I stop looking at the Youtube video, that doesn't erase any of the pain animals are inflicting upon one another on a daily basis in the wild. "Out of sight, out of mind" does not equal "out of existence."
I don't worry enough to lose sleep over it because I know there's human suffering out there that outweighs it in importance, but it does concern me -- and the fact that I assign one being's suffering more importance than another's also gives me pause. The thought of drowning in a snake's stomach acid...I mean, jeez. It must be a horrid experience for the animal being devoured, if the animal being devoured is sentient enough to realize that it is experiencing a most unpleasant process.
The fact that a system fraught with pain and suffering has produced wondrous creatures does not necessarily make what happens in nature just. Humanity has developed things like eye glasses precisely out of what must be some desire to escape that rat race. We're about empowering the defenseless -- often times those who have been robbed of defensive ability -- and leveling the playing field; or we should be, I think. When we try to lord power over others, we are in a sense devolving back into a former state of wild being. Whether it's the state of wild being itself that is horrific, or the mere sliding back into it that is horrific, something horrific is occurring. Yes! This might not be your Illumination, J, and maybe it's an embarrassing Captain Obvious moment, but I think this basic realization is something I've been striving to derive since I lunged into this thread.
As a completely random application of what I think I've found in this thread, I now believe we should not, in fact, let the panda go extinct, if we can reasonably prevent this. (http://current.com/items/91043501_let-the-panda-go-extinct.htm)
Nope. I meant Kefka. Let the embarrassment commence. =)
Damn. I'm going to need to play the game again or at least read the script and examine it very closely sometime.
-
This might not be your Illumination, J, and maybe it's an embarrassing Captain Obvious moment, but I think this basic realization is something I've been striving to derive since I lunged into this thread.
Aye, and I hope you aren't discouraged from your strivings if I offer the occasional criticism. I think sometimes my tone of voice gets lost in the written word.
-
Nah, I think it's the point of good debate after all; though the participants may not evolve in the way each other wishes, the evolution itself, minor as it may be sometimes, might just be worth the process. I don't think anyone gets anywhere close to debating with you unless they expect to encounter a serious challenge. I thank you kindly for it.