![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 60. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 15, 2005, at 17:31:15
Did people know you can now hunt over the internet?
Apparantly it is a terrible terrible idea because
1) The point of hunting is to get out there and appreciate nature.
2) It will be bad news for tourism in Texas.
Heh heh.
'Theres a bit of nature over their Junior - quick lets shoot it'.
What a farce.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 17, 2005, at 15:12:19
In reply to Internet Hunting, posted by alexandra_k on May 15, 2005, at 17:31:15
Posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 16:46:38
In reply to Did a Texan do anything to you? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 17, 2005, at 15:12:19
AuntieMel...
I have been in a bit of a mood lately...
I'm sorry.
I hope you haven't felt offended or put on the spot or anything by the stuff I have said.
I don't mean to accuse you of the views I talk about...
Maybe I should just leave it be.Nope. No texan has done anything to me.
But...
I guess my point is that either internet hunting is fine and hunting is fine or both of them aren't fine.
IMO there isn't a defensible reason why one of these would be acceptable while the other is not.
The main reason given was the idea that IRL hunting puts us in contact with nature.
But IMO it is man asserting ones dominance over nature.
The fact that we have hunted for many years doesn't justify it.
The same way that the fact that we have been racist and sexist for many years doesn't justify those things either.
And with respect to it being a sport...
How is it a fair sport?
Would it be a fair fight if one person had a gun and the other person had to run away?I'm not picking on Texans...
It is just that the issue came up on the news about whether they were going to make internet hunting illegal or not.
It seems that it is legal at present.
Though you aren't allowed to hunt 'native species' or something like that.Ironically... The guy trying to defend it's being outlawed said that the internet hunter may as well just go buy the meat from a supermarket.
I fail to see why hunting IRL is different.I was trying to get at...
The implicit values that our kids pick up on when we teach them that a perfectly acceptable way to think of our relation to nature is to hunt it down with a gun.
Posted by Nickengland on May 18, 2005, at 5:56:32
In reply to Internet Hunting, posted by alexandra_k on May 15, 2005, at 17:31:15
How can you hunt on the internet????????
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:16:16
In reply to Re: Internet Hunting????, posted by Nickengland on May 18, 2005, at 5:56:32
There are actually web sites where, for a fee, you can shoot an animal by remote control from the comfort of your barcalounger, swilling brews and belching in your boxers.
Not a practice I approve of, if you can't guess.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:45:44
In reply to Re: Did a Texan do anything to you? » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 17, 2005, at 16:46:38
>>>>The main reason given was the idea that IRL hunting puts us in contact with nature.
>>>>But IMO it is man asserting ones dominance over nature.
>>>>The fact that we have hunted for many years doesn't justify it.I guess part of this question depends on how you defind "nature."
I believe that it *is* natural for humans to eat meat, and this is proven to me by the structure of our teeth.
So then there is the question of when does natural quit. Was it when the first spears were developed? Bows and arrows?
I'm not fond of hunting in any form - and I don't even own a gun - but I do see a difference.
The more 'back to nature' the hunting is the least I oppose it.
To Me:
Stalking with bow and arrow is preferable to shooting.
I think it is over the top to set up feeders to lure in the animal.
Even worse is spraying the area with female urine to attract the males.
I personally think internet hunting is sick. So are the places that keep exotic animals in cages and let them out in front of you so you can shoot them.
Sorry you've been down. And maybe I'm too sensitive. It just seems lately you've had only bad to say about America and Americans.
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 16:31:03
In reply to Re: Did a Texan do anything to you? » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:45:44
A few salient facts ...
A majority of American voters elected a Texan who advocates hunting humans via the Internet in Afghanistan i.e. missle-armed Predator drones authorized to shoot "a tall man in a Japanese truck." This defense mission is closer to the purposes for which the Internet was created and subsidized than are social activities such as this site.
Also, Internet hunting is conducted entirely on private game preserves. Discharge of an unattended firearm on public lands would involve liablilities few sporting guides could afford.
And, if you have ever visited the killing floor of a slaughter-house, you might not find much difference between point-blank execution of an animal raised in captivity and remote killing of an animal raised in captivity.
If appreciation of nature is the goal, watching an animal die is more appreciative than hiring the job out to be conducted in the privacy of a kill room.
Finally, while laws can be liberally applied by a democratic majority to acheive any goal attainable by the plenary power of elected bodies, personal perceptions of other's appreciation of nature are best tempered by a deliberate effort to understand why others might hold differing opinions, which might not include mocking of regional dialects.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 0:20:54
In reply to Re: Did a Texan do anything to you? » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2005, at 14:45:44
> I guess part of this question depends on how you defind "nature."
> I believe that it *is* natural for humans to eat meat, and this is proven to me by the structure of our teeth.That looks a lot similar to this:
I believe that is is natural for males to use physical force to control (rape) females as this is proven to me by the fact that males (tend to be) bigger than females.I don't buy either argument.
Just because something is natural (in that sense) doesn't mean it is morally acceptable.
The point (IMO) is that we have this highly developed brain which gets us thinking about certain issues and taking factors into account... Also our brains allow us to create things (agriculture etc) so that we don't *need* to hunt in order to survive anymore.
So. Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it is ethically justifyable.
> Sorry you've been down. And maybe I'm too sensitive. It just seems lately you've had only bad to say about America and Americans.I'm sorry...
I've been trying to think of something people might find interesting. You guys often talk about controversial issues that I don't know anything about. I am fairly ignorant of current affairs... But most of the stuff seems to be about US foreign policy or whatever...I'm sorry...
I take your point.
Maybe I'm disgruntled about not getting into school ;-)In fact... That is probably it.
Please don't take it personally.
(((AuntieMel)))
I love babbling with you.
You are wonderfully kindhearted and often get me thinking about issues in a new way.
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:18:04
In reply to Re: Did a Texan do anything to you? » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 0:20:54
> > I guess part of this question depends on how you defind "nature."
> > I believe that it *is* natural for humans to eat meat, and this is proven to me by the structure of our teeth.
>
> That looks a lot similar to this:
> I believe that is is natural for males to use physical force to control (rape) females as this is proven to me by the fact that males (tend to be) bigger than females.
>What is "natural" as offered in this context is entirely a personal construct. Scientifically, all organic processes are natural. Colloquially, however, "natural" sometimes refers to things that are not anthropocentric. A more informative -- and perhaps democratic -- construct involves appreciaton of what is culturally acceptable.
Eating meat is considered normal becuase it has been culturally accepted by a majority of the human race for tens of thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of years, as is shown by archeological evidence and by anthropoligical study.
Rape is generally considered abhorent by most cultures, even though some individuals and some micro-cultures advocate sexual predation.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 3:26:41
In reply to The difference between eating meat and rape » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 2:18:04
> Eating meat is considered normal becuase it has been culturally accepted by a majority of the human race for tens of thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of years, as is shown by archeological evidence and by anthropoligical study.
Just because something had been 'culturally accepted by a majority of the human race' for however long doesn't make it morally acceptable.
Racism was culturally accepted for a heck of a long time.
Sexism.
These things might be 'normal' in the statistical sense but that doesn't make them morally acceptable.> Rape is generally considered abhorent by most cultures, even though some individuals and some micro-cultures advocate sexual predation.
What seems to have changed is the definition of rape. It used to be that it was impossible to rape your wife BECAUSE SHE WAS YOUR WIFE TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANTED TO DO WITH HER.
That change is actually a fairly recent move...
And if you are looking at actual practice of what human beings do in fact do over thousands or even tens of thousands of years you will find that it is statistically *normal* for males to use force to make females sleep with them because they can (ie they tend to be stronger).But that does not make it morally acceptable.
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 9:03:38
In reply to Re: The difference between eating meat and rape » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 3:26:41
>
> What seems to have changed is the definition of rape. It used to be that it was impossible to rape your wife BECAUSE SHE WAS YOUR WIFE TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANTED TO DO WITH HER.When and in what culture are you referring to? European cultures? Are you saying collegial behavior between the sexes is purely a product of post-industrial revolution and maybe Western culture?
> That change is actually a fairly recent move...
> And if you are looking at actual practice of what human beings do in fact do over thousands or even tens of thousands of years you will find that it is statistically *normal* for males to use force to make females sleep with them because they can (ie they tend to be stronger).I would be interested to see those statistics from a peer-reviewed source.
>
> But that does not make it morally acceptable.
>It made it morally acceptable to those people in that time and place. Or are you suggesting your morals now dictate what is morally acceptable now and always for everybody?
There might be a time when pouring sulfur dioxide into the air is considered immoral, but today few so consider it. Some people today consider dancing immoral, but others don't.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 16:21:04
In reply to Re: The difference between eating meat and rape » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 9:03:38
> It made it morally acceptable to those people in that time and place.
Ah... Moral relativism...
>Or are you suggesting your morals now dictate what is morally acceptable now and always for everybody?
Not *my morals*... But I believe there are universal ethical truths that hold for all times places cultures etc...
One example might be:
Torturing a baby for fun is morally wrong.
> There might be a time when pouring sulfur dioxide into the air is considered immoral, but today few so consider it. Some people today consider dancing immoral, but others don't.Just because people may think morals are relative that doesn't mean morals are relative.
If whatever a culture says goes...
Then the holocaust is only wrong from our perspective now.
If Hitler had won the war then I guess it would still be morally acceptable.
Likewise the notion that black people aren't moral persons (they are no more than animals) and thus we don't really need to take their interests into account.
Likewise the notion that animals (aside from our particular beloved pets) don't require to have their interest in remaining alive taken seriously when it comes to the 'fun' of us killing them.
Do you really want to accept that conclusion???
My specific point about rape was just supposed to illustrate that just because people do do something or just because a culture does think that something is morally ok that doesn't make it morally ok in the greater scheme of things.
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 0:10:43
In reply to Re: The difference between eating meat and rape » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 16:21:04
>
> Not *my morals*... But I believe there are universal ethical truths that hold for all times places cultures etc...
>
> One example might be:
>
> Torturing a baby for fun is morally wrong.
>I think you are saying torturing babies is wrong because it's wrong, not because most people think it's wrong. It is a tempting and popular notion, but I don't find it the only way to see things.
It might be that inhumane behavior weakens a society, so immorality is a set of behaviors known by the informed to be threatening to social structures. But that wouldn't be wrong is wrong because it's wrong ... that would be wrong is wrong because it keeps people from getting what they want e.g. stable societies.
I would prefer to live among people who hold against the torture of babies for any reason, and I am willing to use violence to have my way in that particular matter. Nonetheless, I was born into a world where babies are allowed to suffer for no apparent reason, and their suffering can be described as nothing more than "natural", as described on death certificates citing "natural causes". I don't think many of us would conclude, however, that nature is immoral.
All we can say conclusively is that probably a majority of people throughout history have considered it wrong to severely torture a baby for fun, or to let babies suffer needlessly when it can be avoided. Even the legal standard of moral competency -- "able to appreciate the difference between right and wrong" -- relies on society's notion of right and wrong. A person is not found competent to face prosecution because they felt guilty and knew they were wrong, but rather, because they knew society disagreed with their behavior. That is why evidence of concealment of a crime shamelessly committed in secrecy is evidence of comptency to face trial.
To understand the difficulty of saying anything is anything, we first have to understand that our very language is a construct -- something we made up. We can say an object has a certain portion of carbon because we have described carbon, and declared quantities by which it is a consistently measurable concept. But right and wrong, no matter how definative we might hope those ideas to be, are just that -- constructs describing the right or wrong way toward a certain goal. And that goal is something we choose to construct, unless beliefs about a supernatural entity having goals for our lives are in fact truths.
Moral absolutism seeks to prove that right and wrong are as consistent human concepts, if not more so, than are descriptions of the atomic nature of elements. However, there is far less concensus around any morally absolute standards than there is around basic science.
All we can say for sure is that you and I prefer people not to torture babies for fun, and I bet if I see it happening, no matter what differences we hold on other matters, I might be able to recruit you and others to risk mortal peril to assure that we get what we want in that regard.
then back to your meat eating quandry, which I did not appreciate being compared to rape, a stronger stance for person's who have compassion for animals and who care to protect animals would be to cite benefits of not eating meat, which can include the benefits of compassion to all living things. It's not that lack of compassion is bad, but rather, that if we want certian things such as peace among people, we do best to expand our capacity for compassion. But that's only if we want peace. It doesn't make peace right. It's just something we might want. Declaring it right might win a few converts, but it might also alienate warriors, hunters and carnivores. Espousing the benifits of peace might more likely persuade swing voters.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 5:53:50
In reply to Re: The difference between eating meat and rape, posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 0:10:43
> I think you are saying torturing babies is wrong because it's wrong, not because most people think it's wrong.
Thats the idea, yes.
If most people thought it was morally acceptable - then most people would be wrong ;-)>It is a tempting and popular notion, but I don't find it the only way to see things.
Actually, it is an unpopular notion at present. People don't like moral realism (there are universal, objective moral truths) because they think it leads to cultural insensitivity.
> It might be that inhumane behavior weakens a society, so immorality is a set of behaviors known by the informed to be threatening to social structures. But that wouldn't be wrong is wrong because it's wrong ... that would be wrong is wrong because it keeps people from getting what they want e.g. stable societies.Ok. So on this view you might say that the 'good' is stable society. Anything that promotes stable society is morally acceptable and anything that works to the detriment of stable society is morally wrong. This could be your candidate of a universal moral law. It is a little like utilitarianism where morality is about 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'. They then need to say more about the greatest good and more about how we are supposed to work the stats (figure out the greatest number). You would need to say more about what a stable society is. If you can think of an example of 'inhumane behaviour' that didn't negatively impact on societies stability then your theory might run into problems...
> I would prefer to live among people who hold against the torture of babies for any reason,Lets say you are held at gunpoint...
'Torture this baby - or we will torture fifty babies'.
What should you do?
If you torture the one baby then you have done something morally wrong (if it is a universal law that torturing bables is wrong)...
But if you do not torture the one baby then you will have allowed 49 babies to be tortured when you could have prevented it...
The point is: is it always wrong to torture a baby or can we think an exception. In this case it seems that the morally right desision would be to torture the one to save the 49.Thats why there is the 'for fun' clause.
To rule out the above objection...>and I am willing to use violence to have my way in that particular matter.
Hmm.
Heard of the saying 'violence breeds violence'???>Nonetheless, I was born into a world where babies are allowed to suffer for no apparent reason, and their suffering can be described as nothing more than "natural", as described on death certificates citing "natural causes". I don't think many of us would conclude, however, that nature is immoral.
Of course not. Nature isn't a moral agent. It can't be a moral agent because it isn't even an agent in the first place. Only moral agents are held morally accountable for their actions.
> All we can say conclusively is that probably a majority of people throughout history have considered it wrong to severely torture a baby for fun, or to let babies suffer needlessly when it can be avoided.Sure. But you can't derive an ought from an is. It doesn't follow from any completed description of the way the world is - what people should and shouldn't do. Sometimes people do do wrong. That seems to be a fact.
> To understand the difficulty of saying anything is anything, we first have to understand that our very language is a construct -- something we made up. We can say an object has a certain portion of carbon because we have described carbon, and declared quantities by which it is a consistently measurable concept. But right and wrong, no matter how definative we might hope those ideas to be, are just that -- constructs describing the right or wrong way toward a certain goal. And that goal is something we choose to construct, unless beliefs about a supernatural entity having goals for our lives are in fact truths.
Yes. We do need to choose our goal.
It is arguable whether ethics requires a goal or not. Utilitarianism considers that there is the goal or the desire to 'achieve the greatest good for the greatest number'. Kant didn't like this line. He thought desire / goals had no place in ethics. He thought that ethics was about REASON. He thought that immoral actions were inconsistent in that the moral agent does something that they could not will to be a universal moral law (they could not will that everyone do to them what they just did..). He thought ethics was solely a rational affair.With respect to words...
It is true that we arbitrarily attach words as 'name tags' to things. Some of our words don't seem to refer to anything in the real world, however. Some of our words... like god etc... it can be hard to tell.I think that right and wrong
Good and bad are relative to goals.
But that being said - If I had the goal to kill as many people as possible then we would tend to say that that is a morally reprehensible goal. So maybe goals can be morally evaluated too.. Maybe Kant was right and right and wrong is purely a rational affair...I don't know...
I'm no ethicist.
>However, there is far less concensus around any morally absolute standards than there is around basic science.Just as much.
I dare say. Just as much. Basic science is more controversial than you might think...
> All we can say for sure is that you and I prefer people not to torture babies for fun,But I want to say more than that.
I want to say people SHOULD NOT torture babies.
That torturing babies for fun is morally unacceptable.
Not just 'my preferance is that you don't and your preference is that you do and I can't tell you what to do and everyone is just entitled to their own opinion...'.
Nope.
IMO that is a little too tolerant...> then back to your meat eating quandry, which I did not appreciate being compared to rape,
I prefer the racisism analogy myself... Perhaps I should stick to that one...
>It's not that lack of compassion is bad,
??? Are you sure?
>but rather, that if we want certian things such as peace among people, we do best to expand our capacity for compassion.
>But that's only if we want peace. It doesn't make peace right.Thats a different claim from the one I was making. That claim assumes that morality is dependent on our having certain goals / desires. That wasn't what I wanted to say.
My thought was that there may be an inconsistency between:
Thinking internet hunting is wrong AND that hunting IRL is morally acceptable.
Thinking what people *do* do shows us something about what people *should* do AND considering that things people have done to be morally unacceptable (with respect to individuals and also cultures - e.g., the holocaust)
Thinking racism is unacceptable AND speciesm is acceptable (with regard to the interests of other races / species being taken as seriously as our own).>Declaring it right might win a few converts,
My aim isn't to 'declare it right'. That is too easy. I declare it right you declare it wrong and we haven't gotten anywhere. I try to argue for why it is inconsistent to go one way on one case and a different way on another... If you want to engage you need to come up with some reason why the cases are relevantly different...
>but it might also alienate warriors, hunters and carnivores. Espousing the benifits of peace might more likely persuade swing voters.
I'm not trying to win votes.
Just trying to get people to think...Maybe there is a defensible difference and I just can't see it...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 6:09:49
In reply to Re: The difference between eating meat and rape » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 5:53:50
I'm not a vegetarian anymore.
Sometimes people do do wrong :-(
I think I am being inconsistent...
But there it is.
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 16:06:58
In reply to Re: Just for the record..., posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 6:09:49
> I'm not a vegetarian anymore.
>
> Sometimes people do do wrong :-(
>
> I think I am being inconsistent...
> But there it is.Not to worry. Lots of animals eat other animals.
Their courtships and loyalties don't often approach the sophistication of human sexual negotiations, but sexual predation among animals is much less common than is carnivoury. If our ancestor's behavior is a guide, sexual predation serves much less purpose than does carnivoury.
Enjoy your well-rounded dose of B-vitamins in full confidence that someday, some population of microorganism will flourish on a diet of alexandra_k.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 18:35:16
In reply to Re: Just for the record... » alexandra_k, posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 16:06:58
> Not to worry. Lots of animals eat other animals.
But they don't know any better.
Animals aren't moral agents.
We, on the other hand
With our comparatively developed brains
Should know better.It doesn't excuse the inconsistency...
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 21:27:03
In reply to Re: Just for the record... » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 20, 2005, at 18:35:16
> > Not to worry. Lots of animals eat other animals.
>
> But they don't know any better.
> Animals aren't moral agents.
> We, on the other hand
> With our comparatively developed brains
> Should know better.
>
> It doesn't excuse the inconsistency...
>
>
I would ask the adminstration if it is uncivil to write things that could make animals feel put down, but I'm starting to enjoy the exchange. Of course, animals can't read, but somebody might read your post to their dog or cat.How do we know they don't know any better? Other species have reasonably well developed behavioral cultures.
What I'm implying is that presumption of our own supieriority as moral agents is just that, an assumption. Our cultures of morality finds evolutionary roots in other species, which in turn seem to have codes of behavior.
Maybe if we are moral agents, though, and animals aren't, under your system of cosmology, it's okay to eat them.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 22:03:15
In reply to Re: Just for the record..., posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 21:27:03
> I would ask the adminstration if it is uncivil to write things that could make animals feel put down, but I'm starting to enjoy the exchange. Of course, animals can't read, but somebody might read your post to their dog or cat.
Thats ok. It isn't just that they can't read,
animals don't understand abstract concepts either.
> How do we know they don't know any better? Other species have reasonably well developed behavioral cultures.Sure.
You can find examples of altruistic behaviour in animals. If you look for similarities you can see lots of similarities in the behaviour of humans and animals. But there are also importaint differences too. I was thinking more along the lines of 'lets look at differences'.
> What I'm implying is that presumption of our own supieriority as moral agents is just that, an assumption. Our cultures of morality finds evolutionary roots in other species, which in turn seem to have codes of behavior.Whoa. 'Superiority' as moral agents??? I don't see it as a matter of 'superiority'. What moral agency buys you more often than not is a sense of duty and obligation. Ones actions can be evaluated positively and negatively. Because animals are unable to think about different options (they just act) they aren't able to weigh pros and cons to make moral decisions. They lack an understanding of moral concepts.
There do seem to be rudimentary forms of moral behaviour in animals. But there are also important differences. Most people grant that you have a moral obligation to keep a promise (though it is also true that in some cases one is better to break a promice in some cases because there are greater moral duties).
But animals can't even MAKE promises. So it is silly to say that they are obliged to keep promises when they can't even make them to start with.
> Maybe if we are moral agents, though, and animals aren't, under your system of cosmology, it's okay to eat them.Nope. If something is a moral agent then that means that we can evaluate their actions with respect to whether they *should* or *should not* have done that. Whether what they did was morally required, or morally unacceptable etc etc. That is the notion of moral agency.
What you seem to be thinking of now is 'who are the members of a moral community'? Where the moral community consists in the things whose interests / welfare is worthy of moral consideration. Basically, a moral agent needs to consider the interests of the moral community before deciding what they *should* do.
Moral agents are worthy of moral consideration.
Most people say animals are worthy of moral consideration.
Some people say the environment (eco-system) is worthy of moral consideration.Descartes, for example did not think that animals were part of the moral community. He didn't think that they felt pain. Sure they recoiled from it but he thought that that was because they were wired up to do that. He didn't think they felt pain. Because they didn't actually feel pain he thought it was morally acceptable to kick a dog or a cat. It wasn't harming it so there wasn't a problem.
But. If something is sentient (the subject of experience) then it is part of the moral community. Animals do have an interest in surviving and reproducing and avoiding pain etc. While they themselves aren't moral agents moral agents do have a duty to take their suffering into account when the moral agent decides what the moral agent is to do.
So.
Equal interests deserve to be taken into account equally.I would say that the animal has a greater interest in remaining alive than we have in 'having fun' (shooting them). Therefore - we shouldn't do it. When we had to eat them to stay alive it did come down to a 'them or us' situation. There both creatures have comperable interests. But now the situation is different.
People argue about whether we have a moral obligation to the environment or whether we only have a moral obligation to it in the sense that it will come back to bite our future generations on the *ss if we don't look after it. The environment isn't typically thought of as sentient, so it is unclear whether sentience is required in order for something to be worthy of moral consideration.
Some people think there is an intrinsic value in nature.
Other people think the value of nature is only because we should value our future generations, so it only has instrumental value ie value to us because we need it.
Posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 0:24:48
In reply to Re: Just for the record... » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 22:03:15
Alexandra, I think we are so far apart on appreciating the continuum of motivation that binds humans and animals, it's probably not worth me trying to explain their sentience and the slavery to desires we share with them. Sure humans are as different from other animals as we are similar. But there are as many if not more differences between a bug and a bear than there are between a human and a bear.
I hope you recognize that not all people, especially outside of Western and Christian cultures, are all that impressed with the idea that humans are moral agents. I'm not. I don't consider moral agency relevant to my behavior in the least. I don't believe in right or wrong outside a context of goals and the right or wrong way to get there. And I certainly don't believe we can *sses others by what they should or should not have done. All we have to go on is what we wanted them to do. I believe morals are cultural constructs, and I vote.I'm not alone, and I'm certainly not to be condemned along with millions of fellow animists for holding forth for the similarities we share with the rest of the animal kingdom. I don't think I have a moral obligation to the environment. I don't think we need to preserve it because it is instrumental. I just want to keep it more than I want a Rolls Royce, so that's where I try to invest my effort -- much the same way a stallion tries to maintain his harem of mares or a pack of wolves jealously defend their territory.
Fortunately for the animistic cultures of the world who would otherwise be afforded no more credibility in modern society than animials, each of the notions you represent that separate us from animals -- that they can't hold abstract thoughts, that they can't make and keep promises, that they are not sentient, that they don't have duties or obligations, that they don't have mental capacity to contemplate alternatives, that they are not members of their own ethical communities, has been challenged in scientific literature by people who methodically study animals. I'm probably not going to debate these findings here, because they are too precious to me to represent without doing the kind of research and editing that costs more than I care to invest here.
For sure, there are other ways of looking at things, and most people in industrialized societies hold fast to notions of human moral agency and humans as some pinnacle of evolution. Some of us see it differently, we have for a long time and we will continue see it that way for a long time, and we will be valuable contributors to society all the while.
Heck, I might even hook up a quadrapalegic son of an old farmer with a computer where he can hunt in a private game preserve over the Internet. He's eaten packaged meat so long, I want him to have the opportunity to appreciate the reality of his relationship with an animal, albeit as removed and artificial as is our dialogue here. I hope this isn't a forum where my choice is considered so reprehensible to people who don't share my values that I am fair game.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 3:01:23
In reply to Re: Just for the record..., posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 0:24:48
Just for the record...
I never said that animals weren't sentient.
That was Descartes.
It is a silly view.But at least Descartes was consistent...
That was my thought there. Descartes thought it was okay to kill them because they didn't have interests, and thus we didn't have to take their interests into account.Whereas...
If you say that animals are sentient
That they have goals
They have things they want to do
They have an interest in staying alive
The more you see that they have goals JUST LIKE US
The more it seems a little strange
That you can believe
That it is perfectly fine
Perfectly acceptable
To completely override their interests - their great interest in survival
In favour of the comparatively trivial interest that human beings have in having 'a little fun'.Do you understand my point?????
The notion is that we should treat people as ends in themselves. People have goals and plans and it is thought to be wrong to manipulate or make people do just what we want them to do with no consideration for them having autonomy and being allowed to persue goals that are different from ours.
People are ends in themselves (they have their own goals).
They are not merely means to our ends (to be manipulated for our own goals).But if animals are sentient...
If animals have their own goals...Then how is it that we can override their interest in survival to treat them as a mere means to our goal of having a little fun?
I do not understand.
Posted by gromit on May 23, 2005, at 4:09:44
In reply to Re: Just for the record..., posted by so on May 22, 2005, at 0:24:48
Even in my med induced stupor I just can't let this one go, even if it wasn't addressed to me.
> Alexandra, I think we are so far apart on appreciating the continuum of motivation that binds humans and animals, it's probably not worth me trying to explain their sentience and the slavery to desires we share with them. Sure humans are as different from other animals as we are similar. But there are as many if not more differences between a bug and a bear than there are between a human and a bear.
First off, I find this incredibly condecending. It's not worth your time explaining, ie, you won't ever agree with me, you must be too dumb to understand.
> I hope you recognize that not all people, especially outside of Western and Christian cultures, are all that impressed with the idea that humans are moral agents. I'm not. I don't consider moral agency relevant to my behavior in the least. I don't believe in right or wrong outside a context of goals and the right or wrong way to get there. And I certainly don't believe we can *sses others by what they should or should not have done. All we have to go on is what we wanted them to do. I believe morals are cultural constructs, and I vote.So how else would you judge them then? To a nazi Hitler was a great leader with vision and the cajones to make things happen. Feel free to invoke Godwin's Law.
> I'm not alone, and I'm certainly not to be condemned along with millions of fellow animists for holding forth for the similarities we share with the rest of the animal kingdom. I don't think I have a moral obligation to the environment. I don't think we need to preserve it because it is instrumental. I just want to keep it more than I want a Rolls Royce, so that's where I try to invest my effort -- much the same way a stallion tries to maintain his harem of mares or a pack of wolves jealously defend their territory.I have a child, I believe it is absolutely my moral responsibily to do what I can to make this a livable planet for him and his kids. I also see animals as co-citizens but with no real control over what happens to them, don't we have some responsibility to them?
> Fortunately for the animistic cultures of the world who would otherwise be afforded no more credibility in modern society than animials, each of the notions you represent that separate us from animals -- that they can't hold abstract thoughts, that they can't make and keep promises, that they are not sentient, that they don't have duties or obligations, that they don't have mental capacity to contemplate alternatives, that they are not members of their own ethical communities, has been challenged in scientific literature by people who methodically study animals. I'm probably not going to debate these findings here, because they are too precious to me to represent without doing the kind of research and editing that costs more than I care to invest here.
I had a dog that was smarter than at least 10% of the people I encounter on the freeway every day. I again find your tone condescending.
> Heck, I might even hook up a quadrapalegic son of an old farmer with a computer where he can hunt in a private game preserve over the Internet. He's eaten packaged meat so long, I want him to have the opportunity to appreciate the reality of his relationship with an animal, albeit as removed and artificial as is our dialogue here. I hope this isn't a forum where my choice is considered so reprehensible to people who don't share my values that I am fair game.
This is a public forum, whatever you say here is fair game.
I'll take it further, I don't think consider moral agency relevant to my behaviour in the least after all. Why not a website where we can remotely poke the quadrapalegic with hot sharp objects? Or maybe an auction where the highest bidder gets to eat him? Hell maybe he'd like to remotely hunt you, he's ok with it so where is the problem? (I hope you have a long and happy life)
Some things are just wrong.
I'm too left brained to understand philisophy, contemplating the meaning of triangles and such. If you choose to respond please use small words.
Rick
Posted by AuntieMel on May 23, 2005, at 14:29:20
In reply to Re: Did a Texan do anything to you?, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 16:31:03
And I don't claim him:
"President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut"
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 17:04:37
In reply to Re: He's not a texan, posted by AuntieMel on May 23, 2005, at 14:29:20
> And I don't claim him:
>
> "President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut"Would you then suggest naturalized citizens are not Americans?
Texans elected him governor. That's about as much endorsement of residency as a person can get. In the United States, residency and national citizenship are the sole factors that determine who is a qualified participant in official processes of state jurisdictions.
Posted by so on May 23, 2005, at 17:06:18
In reply to Re: Just for the record..., posted by gromit on May 23, 2005, at 4:09:44
gromit wrote:
>
> ... you must be too dumb to understand.
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.