So, while watching Animal Planet, I caught the new documentary Blood Dolphins. It's being made by the same guy who made The Cove, and is more of him trying to stop the dolphin harvesting in Taiji, Japan. I personally think that it's terrible that this man feels like he can break laws and harass people just because he disagrees with their job choice in life. I really feel like these kind of insane animal rights activists are horrible human beings who feel like they should be crusaders against anything they disagree with, and feel like they can ram their ideals down the throats of everyone who disagrees with them, and to even use illegal techniques for that harassment.
But the thing is that the fishermen AREN'T hunting in illegal areas. It's the filmakers who are breaking the law by entering restricted areas to film things they really shouldn't be. The movie is about the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, and how this guy views it as evil and is trying to stop it.
ChrisWWII wrote:Haven't seen the South Park unfortunately.
But the thing is that the fishermen AREN'T hunting in illegal areas. It's the filmakers who are breaking the law by entering restricted areas to film things they really shouldn't be. The movie is about the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, and how this guy views it as evil and is trying to stop it.
I thought this was going to be a discussion on a new Space Marine chapter.
Anyway, I like dolphins as much as the next guy, but I can't get all bent out of shape about a perfectly legal hunt of some particularly cute fish(I know, shut up )
ChrisWWII wrote:Haven't seen the South Park unfortunately.
But the thing is that the fishermen AREN'T hunting in illegal areas. It's the filmakers who are breaking the law by entering restricted areas to film things they really shouldn't be. The movie is about the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, and how this guy views it as evil and is trying to stop it.
Dude i watched the movie "The Cove" and i had to rite a report afterwords, the short version is it envolved a very racist and descriptive rant on why i now hate the asians, the movie was that brutal (note i do not hate all asians, i just severly raged after watching that movie) so before you judge this "nut job" watch the f g cove and see WHY he does this sort of stuff. Please note i am fully prepared to rage response on this subject so tread lightly.
Tazz Azrael wrote:Dude i watched the movie "The Cove" and i had to rite a report afterwords, the short version is it envolved a very racist and descriptive rant on why i now hate the asians, the movie was that brutal (note i do not hate all asians, i just severly raged after watching that movie) so before you judge this "nut job" watch the f g cove and see WHY he does this sort of stuff. Please note i am fully prepared to rage response on this subject so tread lightly.
I have watched The Cove, and as much as dolphins are cute mammals the Japanese have every right to hunt them unmolested, just as I have a right to go to school unmolested. They have a right to not be slandered (or would it be libel in this case? Iono) just because someone doesn't like their job.
Watching it, I can't find a single reason besides 'dolphins are awesome' that was given as to why they should be stopped. More importantly, I can't find a reason why he should be allowed to break the law the way he did. Personally, I wish the police had arrested him and made him persona non grata so that their fishermen can work in peace.
Edit: Blood Dolphins does sound like an interesting chapter... =scribbles down in case I ever collect marines=
I have watched The Cove, and as much as dolphins are cute mammals the Japanese have every right to hunt them unmolested, just as I have a right to go to school unmolested. They have a right to not be slandered (or would it be libel in this case? Iono) just because someone doesn't like their job.
I wouldn't compare it to going to school, but you do make a point.
Watching it, I can't find a single reason besides 'dolphins are awesome' that was given as to why they should be stopped. More importantly, I can't find a reason why he should be allowed to break the law the way he did. Personally, I wish the police had arrested him and made him persona non grata so that their fishermen can work in peace.
Yep. It is exactly like that sometimes. Not all the time, but if these aren't endangered creatures then why the exception?
Edit: Blood Dolphins does sound like an interesting chapter... =scribbles down in case I ever collect marines=
Did you know that being their "cute and friendly mammal" they can have a social behaviour close to the most disgustings human crimes ( collective rape for example)...
I don't like dolphins...have you seen the way they leave Earth without warning us of its imminent destruction?
well, im not sure but do you mean that you hate asians who do bad things, or just alot of asians?
Lol oops i should of made that clearer, i realy hate the ones that doo all the REALY bad things, like the ones who were murdering the doulphins with glee, and there is one line that pretty much sums up my hatred from that movie was(il do my best to qoute it correctly) "we offered to pay the hunters double what the japanese government was for killing the dolphins, and they replied no, they kill them since they are a pest" sure i know dolphines can be mean little buggers, but but does that make it anymore right to kill them over lets say a baby seal (chosen since people also think that they are cute) also it was funny how about hafway into the movie it was showing how high the Asian (sorry cannot remember which specific area) fishing counts were, when the rest of the world fisheries place was thinking "wtf.... how did they get that number" turns out they were including the massive number of dolphines they were slaughtering.
P.S. I know my spelling sucks, sorry for any grevious mistakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I thought this was going to be a discussion on a new Space Marine chapter.
Anyway, I like dolphins as much as the next guy, but I can't get all bent out of shape about a perfectly legal hunt of some particularly cute fish(I know, shut up )
Dude hes the bad part, it was not legal, they corral them so that they cannot exscape and use scare tactics (poles that resonate with loud sound waves were stuck into the water scarring the crap out of the dolphins) i am pretty sure taht anyone who tries to catch smaller fish like this would be sent to court or somethin for ilegal fishing almost anywhere else in the world
I totally forgot about the dolphin gang rape and muder things......All the more reason why this guy is a crazed nut job!
Hmm....Maybe they could be a near heretical faction of Spesh Mehreens who use captured Tau equipment. THE BLOOD DOLPHINS EXIT THEIR DEVILFISH! ...That could be amusing
A defect in the gene seed of the Blood Dolphins causes a blowhole to form in the center of every neophyte's back, between the shoulders. The Chapter also has a genocidal hatred of people of Asian descent.
well, im not sure but do you mean that you hate asians who do bad things, or just alot of asians?
Lol oops i should of made that clearer, i realy hate the ones that doo all the REALY bad things, like the ones who were murdering the doulphins with glee, and there is one line that pretty much sums up my hatred from that movie was(il do my best to qoute it correctly) "we offered to pay the hunters double what the japanese government was for killing the dolphins, and they replied no, they kill them since they are a pest" sure i know dolphines can be mean little buggers, but but does that make it anymore right to kill them over lets say a baby seal (chosen since people also think that they are cute) also it was funny how about hafway into the movie it was showing how high the Asian (sorry cannot remember which specific area) fishing counts were, when the rest of the world fisheries place was thinking "wtf.... how did they get that number" turns out they were including the massive number of dolphines they were slaughtering.
P.S. I know my spelling sucks, sorry for any grevious mistakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I thought this was going to be a discussion on a new Space Marine chapter.
Anyway, I like dolphins as much as the next guy, but I can't get all bent out of shape about a perfectly legal hunt of some particularly cute fish(I know, shut up )
Dude hes the bad part, it was not legal, they corral them so that they cannot exscape and use scare tactics (poles that resonate with loud sound waves were stuck into the water scarring the crap out of the dolphins) i am pretty sure taht anyone who tries to catch smaller fish like this would be sent to court or somethin for ilegal fishing almost anywhere else in the world
...Alright, so basically you think dolphins are awesome and we shouldn't kill them, and that's the only reason you provide as to why we should not kill them. ....No. That's not how it works. There's no law stopping them from hunting dolphins, and the manner they choose to do it is up to them. If they want to use this 'wall of sound' to corall the dolphins then who are we to stop them? It's efficient and it works, that's what's important. Fine you don't like it because you think dolphins are cool, but that doesn't give you the right to harass the dolphin fishers and break trespassing laws in order to illegally record them doing it.
And by your logic it's wrong to kill any animal at any time. Umm, it's just as justified to kill a dolphin for its meat as it is to kill a cow for its or to kill any animal for its coat. More importantly, the Japanese people have a right to eat what they want, and its not our job as to west to go: "OMG!! YOU"RE KILLING CUTE ANIMALS! D: NUUUH YOU EVIL ASIAN PERSON! WE'RE GONNA BREAK LAWS TO STOP YOU FROM KILLING THINGS CAUSE WE THINK THEY'RE CUTE!!!!11!"
ChrisWWII wrote:So, while watching Animal Planet, I caught the new documentary Blood Dolphins. It's being made by the same guy who made The Cove, and is more of him trying to stop the dolphin harvesting in Taiji, Japan. I personally think that it's terrible that this man feels like he can break laws and harass people just because he disagrees with their job choice in life. I really feel like these kind of insane animal rights activists are horrible human beings who feel like they should be crusaders against anything they disagree with, and feel like they can ram their ideals down the throats of everyone who disagrees with them, and to even use illegal techniques for that harassment.
What does everyone else think about this?
It's just people standing up for something they think is wrong, and if you've seen the cove I think you'd be a little bit slower to condemn what they're doing. The dolphin harvesting is cruel and barbaric, and should be stopped.
And also something has to be said for killing an animal that is so trusting and intelligent. Have you ever been up close to a dolphin, not the ones at sea world or parks like it, but dolphins in the wild? I've gone out kayaking in the Atlantic, and I've had dolphins come right up to my kayak, let me touch them. We will have entire pods of dolphins swim with us and we paddle our kayaks. It's a truly amazing experience. They are such curious and trusting, and also intelligent creatures, it should be a crime to kill anything like that.
You may think its cruel and barbaric, and someone else may think that a cow farm is cruel and barbaric. If this guy wants to stand outside the fish market in Taiji with a sign saying "KILLING DOLPHINS IS BAD" then he's welcome to do it! First Amendment rights and all that. However, one group of people thinking something that another group is doing is wrong is now excuse for the first group of people to harass the second group of people ceaselessly. Watching the Cove, I see the filmmaker BLATANTLY violating both trespassing and illegal surveillance laws. He was told by police that he is not allowed to film or take pictures of the dolphin hunt, but he ignores them in his self-righteousness. Believe what you want about the dolphin hunt; it's none of my business. I can't control what you think, but the line is when you start breaking laws to try and ram what you think down someone elses throat. That is illegal, and anyone who does it should be arrested and charged as the criminals they are.
ChrisWWII wrote:You may think its cruel and barbaric, and someone else may think that a cow farm is cruel and barbaric. If this guy wants to stand outside the fish market in Taiji with a sign saying "KILLING DOLPHINS IS BAD" then he's welcome to do it! First Amendment rights and all that.
Yeah, the 1st amendment is American, Mr. Ignorance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:. Watching the Cove, I see the filmmaker BLATANTLY violating both trespassing and illegal surveillance laws. He was told by police that he is not allowed to film or take pictures of the dolphin hunt, but he ignores them in his self-righteousness. Believe what you want about the dolphin hunt; it's none of my business. I can't control what you think, but the line is when you start breaking laws to try and ram what you think down someone elses throat. That is illegal, and anyone who does it should be arrested and charged as the criminals they are.
Just because the law protects something doesn't mean that it is right. Slavery used to be considered lawful, does that mean it was right?
rubiksnoob wrote:Yeah, the 1st amendment is American, Mr. Ignorance.
The guy is American so he is exercising his rights. The point is, even in Japan he has the right to Freedom of Speech. The semantics don't matter.
rubiksnoob wrote: Just because the law protects something doesn't mean that it is right. Slavery used to be considered lawful, does that mean it was right?
That's true, but in this case the law isn't protecting the dolphin slaughter itself. The law he's breaking is that he's not allowed to take video in the national park, and he's not allowed to harass or slander fishermen. The slavery point is a good one, but that also puts us on a slippery slope. If anyone can break any law because they think it's 'unfair' or 'not right' then what would we have? Anarchy. Laws exist for a reason, and if you think they're unfair then the proper way of going about it is to try and change the law through established means, instead of just openly defying it. Defiance of the law is never justified.
rubiksnoob wrote:Yeah, the 1st amendment is American, Mr. Ignorance.
The guy is American so he is exercising his rights. The point is, even in Japan he has the right to Freedom of Speech. The semantics don't matter.
rubiksnoob wrote: Just because the law protects something doesn't mean that it is right. Slavery used to be considered lawful, does that mean it was right?
That's true, but in this case the law isn't protecting the dolphin slaughter itself. The law he's breaking is that he's not allowed to take video in the national park, and he's not allowed to harass or slander fishermen. The slavery point is a good one, but that also puts us on a slippery slope. If anyone can break any law because they think it's 'unfair' or 'not right' then what would we have? Anarchy. Laws exist for a reason, and if you think they're unfair then the proper way of going about it is to try and change the law through established means, instead of just openly defying it. Defiance of the law is never justified.
Wouldn't staging sit ins during the civil rights movement have been defiance of the law? Gandhi's civil disobedience was defiance of the law.
ChrisWWII wrote:So, while watching Animal Planet, I caught the new documentary Blood Dolphins. It's being made by the same guy who made The Cove, and is more of him trying to stop the dolphin harvesting in Taiji, Japan. I personally think that it's terrible that this man feels like he can break laws and harass people just because he disagrees with their job choice in life. I really feel like these kind of insane animal rights activists are horrible human beings who feel like they should be crusaders against anything they disagree with, and feel like they can ram their ideals down the throats of everyone who disagrees with them, and to even use illegal techniques for that harassment.
What does everyone else think about this?
I dont know , do you like dogs or cats? What if its legal for us to abuse and harm them? Would you accept it?
Because some people wont , and they'll even be vigilantes to protect them.
And thats what that guy is doing for the dolphins.
rubiksnoob wrote: Wouldn't staging sit ins during the civil rights movement have been defiance of the law? Gandhi's civil disobedience was defiance of the law.
More importantly, there's a difference between discrimnation against humans and hunting animals. Additionally, both Gandhi and the civil rights movement tried to change things through legal movements first before being forced to violate the law. Additionally, in both movements they did their best to stay within the law. Refusing to work isn't against the law. Sitting in the street isn't against the law. Making speeches isn't against the law. In those cases the ones who were breaking the law were those assaulting and beating those who were going along with the law.
In this case, its the protester breaking the law by ignoring the laws against trespassing and illegal observation. He isn't trying to obey the law to draw attention to an issue he views as unfair, he's flagrantly violating the laws to make his point.
LunaHound wrote:
I dont know , do you like dogs or cats? What if its legal for us to abuse and harm them? Would you accept it?
Because some people wont , and they'll even be vigilantes to protect them.
And thats what that guy is doing for the dolphins.
I do like cats in fact, and despite the fact I've never been allowed to have one (parents are allergic ), and if it was made legal to abuse and harm them I would be saddened, and if I could I'd sue to try and change things. However, if there was a culture out there who stages an annual cat hunt and enjoys eaing cats, I would simply shrug and say, 'oh well'. I wouldn't try and ram my beliefs down their throat, and would let them do what they wish. What people choose to eat is not our concern, and we have no right to force our values on them.
ChrisWWII wrote:Haven't seen the South Park unfortunately.
But the thing is that the fishermen AREN'T hunting in illegal areas. It's the filmakers who are breaking the law by entering restricted areas to film things they really shouldn't be. The movie is about the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, and how this guy views it as evil and is trying to stop it.
Are the Dolphins endangered?
Not that particular species, no.
Then why would the filmmakers be so invasive on fisherman who are doing legal things and catching animals who aren't endangered for profit and food.
Cheesecat wrote:Then why would the filmmakers be so invasive on fisherman who are doing legal things and catching animals who aren't endangered for profit and food.
Because they're a few fruits short of Carmen Miranda's hat?
ChrisWWII wrote:So, while watching Animal Planet, I caught the new documentary Blood Dolphins. It's being made by the same guy who made The Cove, and is more of him trying to stop the dolphin harvesting in Taiji, Japan. I personally think that it's terrible that this man feels like he can break laws and harass people just because he disagrees with their job choice in life. I really feel like these kind of insane animal rights activists are horrible human beings who feel like they should be crusaders against anything they disagree with, and feel like they can ram their ideals down the throats of everyone who disagrees with them, and to even use illegal techniques for that harassment.
What does everyone else think about this?
I dont know , do you like dogs or cats? What if its legal for us to abuse and harm them? Would you accept it?
Because some people wont , and they'll even be vigilantes to protect them.
And thats what that guy is doing for the dolphins.
But those are domestic animals not wild animals they have much different behaviors than wild animals.
India loves 'em too; IIRC there was some cultural clashes back when McDonalds was trying to sell beef burgers over there since cows are respected and beloved creatures there. In fact I think both pork and beef meat are not really eaten there.
Cheesecat wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:Haven't seen the South Park unfortunately.
But the thing is that the fishermen AREN'T hunting in illegal areas. It's the filmakers who are breaking the law by entering restricted areas to film things they really shouldn't be. The movie is about the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, and how this guy views it as evil and is trying to stop it.
Are the Dolphins endangered?
Not that particular species, no.
Then why would the filmmakers be so invasive on fisherman who are doing legal things and catching animals who aren't endangered for profit and food.
What kind of dolphins are being caught anyway? Just because they aren't endangered doesn't mean they're in plentiful supply IIRC especially when it comes to these sea creatures.
And here's what the Blood Dolphins crew said about why they're passionate about this cause FWIW:
"My father is more aware than anyone else of how extraordinary dolphins are," says Lincoln O'Barry. "Having worked almost 50 years with dolphins and as the trainer for the television-star Flipper, he has spent the last four decades trying to redeem himself for the mistake he made by working with the captive dolphin industry."
"Dolphins are highly intelligent, self-aware, complex creatures that should swim free without the threat of slaughter or captivity," says Ric O'Barry. "Dolphins' primary sense is sonar sound, and living within small confines causes sensory deprivation and distress, while also extremely limiting their range of space. The most important thing I can do...that my son can do...is show the world through projects like BLOOD DOLPHINS just how threatened dolphins are so we can all do something about it."
Basically Ric O'Barry seems guilty for his time working with captive Dolphins and wants to raise awareness worldwide about these practices in an effort to deter them.
I'm not exactly sure of the species, but I know Taiji has legal permission to commence their dolphin hunts annually, and is not breaking a single law in the process.
I understand that their passionate about their cause, and more power to them for being passionate. However, he is not just raising awareness and the like. He would be raising awareness by giving speeches and writing pamphlets. He is trespassing, harassing and illegally surveilling these fishermen, even when he's been instructed by police to stop. In the movie, he is seen blatantly ignoring signs that declare areas off limits. I think this is crossing a line, and I really wish he'd be arrested and deported.
Yea he doesn't seem to respect that at all which is understandable considering the treatment of dolphins and his background. Not much of a fan of either camp tbh.
I'm not exactly sure of the species, but I know Taiji has legal permission to commence their dolphin hunts annually, and is not breaking a single law in the process.
Not only that, but all the dolphins harvested are classified as Least Concern and are harvested in a highly regulated and sustainable manner.
Then i guess we have no rights to complain about Koreans eating dogs
Well, I don't. Do you?
Cane wrote:
"My father is more aware than anyone else of how extraordinary dolphins are," says Lincoln O'Barry. "Having worked almost 50 years with dolphins and as the trainer for the television-star Flipper, he has spent the last four decades trying to redeem himself for the mistake he made by working with the captive dolphin industry."
Basically Ric O'Barry seems guilty for his time working with captive Dolphins and wants to raise awareness worldwide about these practices in an effort to deter them.
Wait. His dad worked with Flipper for 50 years (already putting himself near 60-70) and he's been working the past four decades against the industry? Correct me if I'm wrong, but 60-70 + 40 = 100-110. Is his Dad honestly that old?
"My father is more aware than anyone else of how extraordinary dolphins are," says Lincoln O'Barry. "Having worked almost 50 years with dolphins and as the trainer for the television-star Flipper, he has spent the last four decades trying to redeem himself for the mistake he made by working with the captive dolphin industry."
Basically Ric O'Barry seems guilty for his time working with captive Dolphins and wants to raise awareness worldwide about these practices in an effort to deter them.
Wait. His dad worked with Flipper for 50 years (already putting himself near 60-70) and he's been working the past four decades against the industry? Correct me if I'm wrong, but 60-70 + 40 = 100-110. Is his Dad honestly that old?
You misread; he said that he's worked almost 50 years with dolphins including being a trainer for Flipper. Four of the last decades involved raising awareness for the dolphins and he's been a pioneer in that regard. He is an older guy though, according to his wiki he was born in 1941.
ChrisWWII wrote:
I understand that their passionate about their cause, and more power to them for being passionate. However, he is not just raising awareness and the like. He would be raising awareness by giving speeches and writing pamphlets. He is trespassing, harassing and illegally surveilling these fishermen, even when he's been instructed by police to stop. In the movie, he is seen blatantly ignoring signs that declare areas off limits. I think this is crossing a line, and I really wish he'd be arrested and deported.
Speeches and pamphlets aren't going to stop the fishermen from slaughtering dolphins. The whole reason that they have laws against recording these fishermen killing dolphins is because they know that what they are doing is barbaric and wrong and they are trying to hide it. In order to make people aware to what is going on they had to break a few laws. What they are doing to these dolphins is much more of a crime than breaking a few trespassing and surveillance laws.
ChrisWWII wrote:
I understand that their passionate about their cause, and more power to them for being passionate. However, he is not just raising awareness and the like. He would be raising awareness by giving speeches and writing pamphlets. He is trespassing, harassing and illegally surveilling these fishermen, even when he's been instructed by police to stop. In the movie, he is seen blatantly ignoring signs that declare areas off limits. I think this is crossing a line, and I really wish he'd be arrested and deported.
Speeches and pamphlets aren't going to stop the fishermen from slaughtering dolphins. The whole reason that they have laws against recording these fishermen killing dolphins is because they know that what they are doing is barbaric and wrong and they are trying to hide it. In order to make people aware to what is going on they had to break a few laws. What they are doing to these dolphins is much more of a crime than breaking a few trespassing and surveillance laws.
The fishermen are not doing anything illegal. O'Barry was.
Exactly. The fishermen aren't doing anything illegal, they're just doing something that certain people in the world don't like. That doesn't make it evil or wrong, just different. O'Barry is the one breaking the laws by trying to surveil them. Don't you think you have a right to work without a crazy man who thinks your job is evil harassing you and video taping you (without your permission) so he can make a documentary of you that makes you look like a complete monster? Yeah, I didn't think so.
The fishermen are completely allowed to kill dolphins. Japanese law says they are, and there is a demand for the meat. Please explain to me why it's some how sick and wrong ?
ChrisWWII wrote:
I understand that their passionate about their cause, and more power to them for being passionate. However, he is not just raising awareness and the like. He would be raising awareness by giving speeches and writing pamphlets. He is trespassing, harassing and illegally surveilling these fishermen, even when he's been instructed by police to stop. In the movie, he is seen blatantly ignoring signs that declare areas off limits. I think this is crossing a line, and I really wish he'd be arrested and deported.
Speeches and pamphlets aren't going to stop the fishermen from slaughtering dolphins. The whole reason that they have laws against recording these fishermen killing dolphins is because they know that what they are doing is barbaric and wrong and they are trying to hide it. In order to make people aware to what is going on they had to break a few laws. What they are doing to these dolphins is much more of a crime than breaking a few trespassing and surveillance laws.
The fishermen are not doing anything illegal. O'Barry was.
Crime in the sense that is wrong and should be stopped. It's disgusting. What they are doing is akin to raping nature. Do so few people really have an appreciation for the beauty of these creatures and of the oceans in which they live? Are people these days so separated from the natural and wild that they have lost all sense of the beauty and sanctity of nature, pure and untouched? Just because it is legal, does that mean that it is right?
ChrisWWII wrote:
I understand that their passionate about their cause, and more power to them for being passionate. However, he is not just raising awareness and the like. He would be raising awareness by giving speeches and writing pamphlets. He is trespassing, harassing and illegally surveilling these fishermen, even when he's been instructed by police to stop. In the movie, he is seen blatantly ignoring signs that declare areas off limits. I think this is crossing a line, and I really wish he'd be arrested and deported.
Speeches and pamphlets aren't going to stop the fishermen from slaughtering dolphins. The whole reason that they have laws against recording these fishermen killing dolphins is because they know that what they are doing is barbaric and wrong and they are trying to hide it. In order to make people aware to what is going on they had to break a few laws. What they are doing to these dolphins is much more of a crime than breaking a few trespassing and surveillance laws.
The fishermen are not doing anything illegal. O'Barry was.
Crime in the sense that is wrong and should be stopped. It's disgusting. What they are doing is akin to raping nature. Do so few people really have an appreciation for the beauty of these creatures and of the oceans in which they live? Are people these days so separated from the natural and wild that they have lost all sense of the beauty and sanctity of nature, pure and untouched? Just because it is legal, does that mean that it is right?
rubiksnoob wrote:Crime in the sense that is wrong and should be stopped. It's disgusting. What they are doing is akin to raping nature. Do so few people really have an appreciation for the beauty of these creatures and of the oceans in which they live? Are people these days so separated from the natural and wild that they have lost all sense of the beauty and sanctity of nature, pure and untouched? Just because it is legal, does that mean that it is right?
Thats human nature though. If it touches something humans care about , its an issue.
If it touches something they dont care about , its drama.
ChrisWWII wrote:
I understand that their passionate about their cause, and more power to them for being passionate. However, he is not just raising awareness and the like. He would be raising awareness by giving speeches and writing pamphlets. He is trespassing, harassing and illegally surveilling these fishermen, even when he's been instructed by police to stop. In the movie, he is seen blatantly ignoring signs that declare areas off limits. I think this is crossing a line, and I really wish he'd be arrested and deported.
Speeches and pamphlets aren't going to stop the fishermen from slaughtering dolphins. The whole reason that they have laws against recording these fishermen killing dolphins is because they know that what they are doing is barbaric and wrong and they are trying to hide it. In order to make people aware to what is going on they had to break a few laws. What they are doing to these dolphins is much more of a crime than breaking a few trespassing and surveillance laws.
The fishermen are not doing anything illegal. O'Barry was.
Crime in the sense that is wrong and should be stopped. It's disgusting. What they are doing is akin to raping nature. Do so few people really have an appreciation for the beauty of these creatures and of the oceans in which they live? Are people these days so separated from the natural and wild that they have lost all sense of the beauty and sanctity of nature, pure and untouched? Just because it is legal, does that mean that it is right?
It's no different than fishing cod.
It's very different than fishing cod. Dolphins are highly intelligent, self aware, and have a more developed nervous system, meaning they feel pain far more acutely than say, cod. Dolphins can communicate with each other and each dolphin is a unique individual, with it's own personality. Dolphins also display culture and use tools, putting them on the same level as primates and humans. They also are altruistic and will stay with injured individuals to comfort them and help them. Cod don't do any of this.
And in case you didn't know, dolphins are mammals, whereas cod are fish.
rubiksnoob wrote:
And in case you didn't know, dolphins are mammals, whereas cod are fish.
Cows are mammals too and we eat them (and yes I know cod are fish).
The cows people eat (I personally don't) are domesticated and bred to go to the slaughterhouse. These dolphins are not. And dolphins are far more intelligent than your average bovine. Killing dolphins for food is like killing chimpanzees to make chimp burgers. They're so intelligent it is human-like. There are other animals that you can kill for food, like cod or cows.
Dolphins have also observed killing their fellow dolphins and gangraping females. Dolphins are animals just as any other creature, and we can feel free to eat them just the same as we eat any other creature. The fact that they communicate and talk means nothing really. Until there is some kind of ruling that dolphins are sentient animals and should be treated as humans instead of animals (which is unlikely to happen to say the very least) the dolphin is an animal that can be hunted and used for human needs as we see fit.
More importantly YOU and other people think it should be stopped. It's not the law that you can't eat dolphins. Sure they're beautiful. But some people want to eat them, and just because some people think its disgusting why should their protests overwhelm the right of people to eat what they want?
Edit: Alright...but what if I don't want to eat cod or a cow? What if I want....chimpanzee? Or reindeer? (Reindeer meat is actually quite good mind you. Like a mix of beef and veal.....) Do I not have the right to eat what I want? Also remember, it's abhorrent to US. To western civilization. Western civilization is NOT always right. What right do we have to look down on others and say they're 'abhorrent'?
rubiksnoob wrote:
And in case you didn't know, dolphins are mammals, whereas cod are fish.
Cows are mammals too and we eat them (and yes I know cod are fish).
The cows people eat (I personally don't) are domesticated and bred to go to the slaughterhouse. These dolphins are not. And dolphins are far more intelligent than your average bovine. Killing dolphins for food is like killing chimpanzees to make chimp burgers. They're so intelligent it is human-like. There are other animals that you can kill for food, like cod or cows.
So I can't eat non-endangered animals just because I like the taste of them?
rubiksnoob wrote:(trimmed) Dolphins can communicate with each other and each dolphin is a unique individual, with it's own personality. Dolphins also display culture and use tools, putting them on the same level as primates and humans.
If dolphins are so amazingly smart and communicative with each other, would it not follow that they would warn others of their kind to avoid the area of this hunt at this time of year? I mean, I don't have to go to certain areas of L.A., New York, Miami, Chicago, or Detroit to know not to go there, because others have made it known that those areas are DANGEROUS. I know better than to make vacation plans to Somolia, North Korea, or Iran for the same reasons.
It's very different than fishing cod. Dolphins are highly intelligent, self aware, and have a more developed nervous system, meaning they feel pain far more acutely than say, cod. Dolphins can communicate with each other and each dolphin is a unique individual, with it's own personality.
"A 2007 study by the University of Guelph Scientists in Canada suggests that fish may have their own separate personalities.[10] The study examined a group of trout that were visually identical. The study concluded that different fish within the same group exhibited different personality traits. Some fish were more willing to take risks in unknown waters than others when taken from their environment and introduced to a dark tube. Some fish were more social than others while some fish preferred being alone. Fish were also shown to have different preferences as far as eating habits."
The cows people eat (I personally don't) are domesticated and bred to go to the slaughterhouse. These dolphins are not. And dolphins are far more intelligent than your average bovine. Killing dolphins for food is like killing chimpanzees to make chimp burgers. They're so intelligent it is human-like. There are other animals that you can kill for food, like cod or cows.
rubiksnoob wrote:Yeah, the 1st amendment is American, Mr. Ignorance.
The guy is American so he is exercising his rights. The point is, even in Japan he has the right to Freedom of Speech. The semantics don't matter.
rubiksnoob wrote: Just because the law protects something doesn't mean that it is right. Slavery used to be considered lawful, does that mean it was right?
That's true, but in this case the law isn't protecting the dolphin slaughter itself. The law he's breaking is that he's not allowed to take video in the national park, and he's not allowed to harass or slander fishermen. The slavery point is a good one, but that also puts us on a slippery slope. If anyone can break any law because they think it's 'unfair' or 'not right' then what would we have? Anarchy. Laws exist for a reason, and if you think they're unfair then the proper way of going about it is to try and change the law through established means, instead of just openly defying it. Defiance of the law is never justified.
Laws are nothing more than a convenient set of rules so that humans can feel as if they live in a justified moral framework. However, they break those rules whenever it suits them, as their own personal justice and philosophy always over-rules that of societies.
If I were on a fishing vessel in international waters (dunno if this takes place out there or not, but whale wars for example) Id just shoot the crazies. Nuff said, give me my paycheck. Infact, Id shoot the basterds, then take their ships back to port for salvage. No more fishing for this entrepreneur
Hmm how about for an encore the guy heads to Sweetwater, TX to stop the annual corralling, capture, Torture, display and killing of hundreds if not thousands of Rattlesnakes?
Oh.. riiight... Rattlesnakes are not "cute, intelligent, mammallian creatures."
helgrenze wrote:Hmm how about for an encore the guy heads to Sweetwater, TX to stop the annual corralling, capture, Torture, display and killing of hundreds if not thousands of Rattlesnakes?
Oh.. riiight... Rattlesnakes are not "cute, intelligent, mammallian creatures."
I don't see a problem with the fishermen doing this once a year dolphin hunt as long as it's within the laws of their country and the regulations of their fishing department (if they have one). Also, if the dolphin experts are saying that this once a year hunt is not decreasing the population then they are good to go on not endangering the species.
What if these dolphins are akin to deer in certain parts of the US? If people didn't hunt deer (also natural predators) then I remember something about how they would grow and re-populate at a ridiculous rate and would then be a burden on our society.
I understand the guys motives, I think, but I think there is a fine line between breaking laws and not breaking them for your cause.
Truth be told, I haven't seen either of the documentaries, but I'm not one for radical fanaticism on either a right or leftist agenda. I like balance.
The only way to change a law, is to challenge it
If you don't like japonese policy reguards whales and dolphins.
Don't buy japonese products, as a way of showing your dislike.
Edit: Alright...but what if I don't want to eat cod or a cow? What if I want....chimpanzee? Or reindeer? (Reindeer meat is actually quite good mind you. Like a mix of beef and veal.....) Do I not have the right to eat what I want?
What if I want to rape and murder someone? Do I not have the right to rape and murder whomever I want? Well, no.
Applying 'biblical literality' to laws and articles of a constitution is unbelievably shortsighted. Laws can change. They are man-made, after all. You can't expect a situation that benefits a small(ish) group of people to spontaneously change overnight without doing anything about it.
I'd also like to point out that I don't give a gak about dolphins. Or Japan.
Also remember, it's abhorrent to US. To western civilization. Western civilization is NOT always right. What right do we have to look down on others and say they're 'abhorrent'?
So you're OK with honour killings, female circumcision, the right to rape and beat your spouse, Child labour, women being stoned to death for adultery and other such wonderful legal rights? I reserve my right to look down from a great height upon cultures that accept these barbaric practices. I can see that you are trying to have an even-handed view, one which I'm sure you imagine makes you a good person, but to my mind you are incredibly naive and may even have an authority fetish. Something being law doesn't necessarily make something right, and something taking place 'over there' doesn't necessarily make it none of our business.
Also remember, it's abhorrent to US. To western civilization. Western civilization is NOT always right. What right do we have to look down on others and say they're 'abhorrent'?
So you're OK with honour killings, female circumcision, the right to rape and beat your spouse, Child labour, women being stoned to death for adultery and other such wonderful legal rights? I reserve my right to look down from a great height upon cultures that accept these barbaric practices. I can see that you are trying to have an even-handed view, one which I'm sure you imagine makes you a good person, but to my mind you are incredibly naive and may even have an authority fetish. Something being law doesn't necessarily make something right, and something taking place 'over there' doesn't necessarily make it none of our business.
I don't believe that rape and honor killings are equivalent to dolphin hunting.
Also remember, it's abhorrent to US. To western civilization. Western civilization is NOT always right. What right do we have to look down on others and say they're 'abhorrent'?
So you're OK with honour killings, female circumcision, the right to rape and beat your spouse, Child labour, women being stoned to death for adultery and other such wonderful legal rights? I reserve my right to look down from a great height upon cultures that accept these barbaric practices. I can see that you are trying to have an even-handed view, one which I'm sure you imagine makes you a good person, but to my mind you are incredibly naive and may even have an authority fetish. Something being law doesn't necessarily make something right, and something taking place 'over there' doesn't necessarily make it none of our business.
I don't believe that rape and honor killings are equivalent to dolphin hunting.
Also remember, it's abhorrent to US. To western civilization. Western civilization is NOT always right. What right do we have to look down on others and say they're 'abhorrent'?
So you're OK with honour killings, female circumcision, the right to rape and beat your spouse, Child labour, women being stoned to death for adultery and other such wonderful legal rights? I reserve my right to look down from a great height upon cultures that accept these barbaric practices. I can see that you are trying to have an even-handed view, one which I'm sure you imagine makes you a good person, but to my mind you are incredibly naive and may even have an authority fetish. Something being law doesn't necessarily make something right, and something taking place 'over there' doesn't necessarily make it none of our business.
I don't believe that rape and honor killings are equivalent to dolphin hunting.
Bit of a leap there, don't you think?
Likewise with comparing dolphins to crabs
If you say so. Crabs and Dolphins are both sea creatures that can be legally fished for, and rape is generally considered to be a rather serious crime by civilized standards.
I don't see the two issues to be remotely comparable.
Its a "bit of a leap" to compare crabs and dolphins was the point
Wouldn't Dolphin hunting be generally considered a serious crime by civilized standards as well? The morality behind dolphin hunting and captivity leaves a lot to be desired as well.
Also remember, it's abhorrent to US. To western civilization. Western civilization is NOT always right. What right do we have to look down on others and say they're 'abhorrent'?
So you're OK with honour killings, female circumcision, the right to rape and beat your spouse, Child labour, women being stoned to death for adultery and other such wonderful legal rights? I reserve my right to look down from a great height upon cultures that accept these barbaric practices. I can see that you are trying to have an even-handed view, one which I'm sure you imagine makes you a good person, but to my mind you are incredibly naive and may even have an authority fetish. Something being law doesn't necessarily make something right, and something taking place 'over there' doesn't necessarily make it none of our business.
I don't believe that rape and honor killings are equivalent to dolphin hunting.
Bit of a leap there, don't you think?
They are things which are legal and/or widely accepted in other countries. Do you think that they are wrong?
Japanese laws which constantly clash with the rest of the civilized world. Just because its a law, doesn't mean its truly civilized
And yes it is a "bit of a leap" to compare crabs to dolphins beyond just the letter of the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although there are endangered crabs too IIRC, off the coast of Japan nonetheless and across the world...and even a species isn't endangered, doesn't meant the numbers are high enough to sustain such practices. Then there's the morality involved with harvesting and capturing intelligent and complex creatures.
KingCracker wrote:If I were on a fishing vessel in international waters (dunno if this takes place out there or not, but whale wars for example) Id just shoot the crazies. Nuff said, give me my paycheck. Infact, Id shoot the basterds, then take their ships back to port for salvage. No more fishing for this entrepreneur
Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. Let's kill them because they disagree with us killing whales in a protected whale sanctuary. That'll show 'em who's boss. Oh yeah, it'll also land you in jail.
Thirty Ignorance points for you, and an extra moron bonus.
The entire world has laws that conflict with each other. The difference between laws that conflict over fishing and things like honor killing and rape is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That clearly lists down what the rights of human beings are, and the entire world has agreed to that document. And there we have the difference. It's universally recognized that things that you listed are considered violations of the Universal Declaration, and such are universally considered wrong.
However, their is no Universal Declaration of Dolphin Rights that says that they can not be hunted or fished. THAT is the difference between finding laws that allow hunting dolphins 'horrendous' versus laws allowing rape or child labor.
ChrisWWII wrote:The entire world has laws that conflict with each other. The difference between laws that conflict over fishing and things like honor killing and rape is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That clearly lists down what the rights of human beings are, and the entire world has agreed to that document. And there we have the difference. It's universally recognized that things that you listed are considered violations of the Universal Declaration, and such are universally considered wrong.
However, their is no Universal Declaration of Dolphin Rights that says that they can not be hunted or fished. THAT is the difference between finding laws that allow hunting dolphins 'horrendous' versus laws allowing rape or child labor.
So you would accept that if broad agreement was reached by the rest of the world that what the Japanese fishing industry is doing is wrong then that should override their laws?
And how do you imagine such broad agreement is reached? Spontaneously? Or do you think it might take the actions of a few individuals to highlight the issue?
Monster Rain wrote:
No, not really. The species in question isn't endangered and the hunt is being conducted within the bounds of Japan's laws.
If they were doing this to people you would have a case.
True, they aren't endangered. But you say that as if there is no possibility that they will ever become endangered. Elephants weren't always endangered. Neither were great blue whales, gorillas, hundreds of shark species, bird species, species of fish, wolves, etc. Over hunting/fishing what have you, is what caused these species to become endangered, or in the worst cases entirely killed off and extinct. You are kidding yourself if you do not think this is a big deal. If the slaughter of tens of thousands of dolphins a year continues, dolphins may be next. There are already species of dolphin that are endangered, such as Maui's Dolphin which is near exticntion, because people have killed them indiscriminately.
And as for the fact that it is conducted within the bounds of Japan's laws, that doesn't make it any less wrong. History is littered with examples of things that were obviously wrong, but protected by the "law". A large factor of this being legal is that if people don't know that it is going on, they aren't going to try and change it. That's why this guy is breaking trespassing laws, to try and make people aware of what is going on, so that they CAN stop it from continuing. You can't stop something from happening if you don't know that it's happening in the first place.
Cane wrote:Japanese laws which constantly clash with the rest of the civilized world. Just because its a law, doesn't mean its truly civilized
And yes it is a "bit of a leap" to compare crabs to dolphins beyond just the letter of the law.
I happen to think that there is a greater gap between humans and dolphins than between dolphins and crabs, from a standpoint of moral equivalency to their being raped or murdered or what have you. If you don't, it would seem that we have reached a fundamental disagreement.
rubiksnoob wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
No, not really. The species in question isn't endangered and the hunt is being conducted within the bounds of Japan's laws.
If they were doing this to people you would have a case.
True, they aren't endangered. But you say that as if there is no possibility that they will ever become endangered. Elephants weren't always endangered. Neither were great blue whales, gorillas, hundreds of shark species, bird species, species of fish, wolves, etc. Over hunting/fishing what have you, is what caused these species to become endangered, or in the worst cases entirely killed off and extinct. You are kidding yourself if you do not think this is a big deal. If the slaughter of tens of thousands of dolphins a year continues, dolphins may be next. There are already species of dolphin that are endangered, such as Maui's Dolphin which is near exticntion, because people have killed them indiscriminately.
And as for the fact that it is conducted within the bounds of Japan's laws, that doesn't make it any less wrong. History is littered with examples of things that were obviously wrong, but protected by the "law". A large factor of this being legal is that if people don't know that it is going on, they aren't going to try and change it. That's why this guy is breaking trespassing laws, to try and make people aware of what is going on, so that they CAN stop it from continuing. You can't stop something from happening if you don't know that it's happening in the first place.
Out side of a few noisy protesters and horrified people on the internets, I really don't see this being that big of an issue. Westerners think dolphins are cute and smart, so we get mad at Japan for hunting them. Hindus think cows are Sacred, and yet we enjoy or big macs or steak or whatever.
Comparing it to honor killings of humans is just silly, if you'll forgive me for saying so.
Where are the videos from the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific, the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, and Peru in South America. They use similar and sometimes even more barbaric methods such as driving the dolphins onto the beach.
Also Japan has a set quota on ALL dolphin fishing methods.
The quota set by the government for the species that were targeted in drive hunts that year allowed for the capture of 685 Striped Dolphins, 1,018 Bottlenose Dolphins, 541 Risso's Dolphins, and 369 Southern Short Finned Pilot Whales. The quota applies to all hunting methods.
Thats just over 2600 animals per year and this "hunt" takes place in one location once a year, so those numbers are rarely if ever met.
But it is bad because dolphins, porpoises, and small whales are supposedly intelligent, cute, and mammals.
There are no laws on rounding up Rattlesnakes for the purposes of entertainment, abuse, torture, death and consumption. Last year in Stillwater, TX, 13,128 lbs. of Western Diamondbacks were taken, with a 51 year total of over 300,000 lbs taken. At an avreage weight of 2 lbs each, thats over 6500 snakes last year alone.
But snakes are not supposedly intelligent, cute, and mammals.
If you are going to protest one inhumane hunt that is heavily regulated by the laws of the host country, why not protest the carnival like atmosphere that surrounds things like The Rattlesnake Round up? Hell, Stillwater even has Girlscouts selling cookies and such.
Albatross wrote:
So you would accept that if broad agreement was reached by the rest of the world that what the Japanese fishing industry is doing is wrong then that should override their laws?
And how do you imagine such broad agreement is reached? Spontaneously? Or do you think it might take the actions of a few individuals to highlight the issue?
Would you like a clue?
If after discussion in an international forum, and the ruling of the world was that we need to stop hunting dolpins, then yes. I would say that give us the right to override their laws. But I think that in order to get a ruling of that scale there must be extremely DAMNING evidence against dolphin hunting.
You are giving me a false-dilemna fallacy there. It doesn't have to be spontaneous, nor does it have to take the actions of a few individuals. These types of rulings were reached by long, academic debate between politicians, scientists and other experts. That is how you would change these kinds of laws, not flagrant violations of a nations laws to make your point.
helgrenze wrote:
If you are going to protest one inhumane hunt that is heavily regulated by the laws of the host country, why not protest the carnival like atmosphere that surrounds things like The Rattlesnake Round up? Hell, Stillwater even has Girlscouts selling cookies and such.
Who says the guy behind The Cove and Blood Dolphins doesn't protest the rattlesnake roundup? I certainly feel that that is barbaric and cruel and should be stopped.
helgrenze wrote:
If you are going to protest one inhumane hunt that is heavily regulated by the laws of the host country, why not protest the carnival like atmosphere that surrounds things like The Rattlesnake Round up? Hell, Stillwater even has Girlscouts selling cookies and such.
Who says the guy behind The Cove and Blood Dolphins doesn't protest the rattlesnake roundup? I certainly feel that that is barbaric and cruel and should be stopped.
Once again your opinion. You think its cruel and barbaric, but to you they're good animal while others view them as annoying pests. Whose right and whose wrong? We can't tell....and until we can tell we have to give more rights to human beings than to animals.
helgrenze wrote:
If you are going to protest one inhumane hunt that is heavily regulated by the laws of the host country, why not protest the carnival like atmosphere that surrounds things like The Rattlesnake Round up? Hell, Stillwater even has Girlscouts selling cookies and such.
Who says the guy behind The Cove and Blood Dolphins doesn't protest the rattlesnake roundup? I certainly feel that that is barbaric and cruel and should be stopped.
Once again your opinion. You think its cruel and barbaric, but to you they're good animal while others view them as annoying pests. Whose right and whose wrong? We can't tell....and until we can tell we have to give more rights to human beings than to animals.
I'm sorry, but anyone who tortures animals for amusement should have the same tortures inflicted upon them. But then again, that's just my opinion.
As far as I can tell the 'rattlesnake roundup' is just a gathering of hunters who cull the local rattlesnake population. Even going off of an anti-roundup website, there is no evidence they torture them in any way besides killing them. More importantly if you consider rounding up fish and killing them to be 'torture' than I assume you would also want to close down every ranch and slaughter house in the world as they all do the same thing.
Gathering animals for food than killing them to get that food is not torture. It is a behavior that humanity has done since we evolved as a species.
ChrisWWII wrote:As far as I can tell the 'rattlesnake roundup' is just a gathering of hunters who cull the local rattlesnake population. Even going off of an anti-roundup website, there is no evidence they torture them in any way besides killing them. More importantly if you consider rounding up fish and killing them to be 'torture' than I assume you would also want to close down every ranch and slaughter house in the world as they all do the same thing.
Gathering animals for food than killing them to get that food is not torture. It is a behavior that humanity has done since we evolved as a species.
Where did i say killing animals for food is torture?
Gathering animals for food then killing them to get that food is not torture. It is a behavior that humanity has done since we evolved as a species.
^this^
And the point I was trying to make is that people want to protest the killing of a relatively small percentage of dolphins that is being done in a controlled and sustainable manner. They claim it is cruel and torturous due to the methods used, but then see little wrong with similar gatherings of less cute creatures.
Personally, I think Rabbit, rattlesnake, shark, gator and even squirrel are tasty morsels that should be tried by anyone.
Of course, I do stay clear of dolphin, but that is due to the high mercury levels found in the meat.
I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.
Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.
Also, this rattlesnake argument is just stupid. Rattlesnakes and dolphins are not remotely comparable. Rattlesnakes are stupid creatures, whereas dolphins are almost as intelligent as human beings. No drowning sailor has ever been rescued by a rattlesnake, and rattlesnakes don't interact and play with humans. Kind of an important difference there.
Gailbraithe wrote:I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.
Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.
Gailbraithe wrote:There is no reason to kill dolphins.
Yeah there is, for food, for the same reason we kill cod, cows, crab, sanke, etc, etc...
I could eat you. You're nutritious enough to provide a hearty meal.
Is that a reason to kill you? Because its the reason you just gave for killing dolphins. So I can only assume that you'd find it acceptable for me to kill you, your entire family, and all your friends and serve them up as a banquet dinner for my friends and family.
Gailbraithe wrote:There is no reason to kill dolphins.
Yeah there is, for food, for the same reason we kill cod, cows, crab, sanke, etc, etc...
I could eat you. You're nutritious enough to provide a hearty meal.
Is that a reason to kill you? Because its the reason you just gave for killing dolphins. So I can only assume that you'd find it acceptable for me to kill you, your entire family, and all your friends and serve them up as a banquet dinner for my friends and family.
Right?
Dolphins aren't humans and I like to keep my human rights and animal rights as two different things.
The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.
Cheesecat wrote:Dolphins aren't humans and I like to keep my human rights and animal rights as two different things.
Okay.
But if the aliens ever show up, I get to talk to them, not you. Because they may find your inability to see beyond the confines of your species and respect the suffering of other clearly sentient beings threatening. And I don't want to give them a reason to make us all into pets or worse.
There is something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it clearly delineates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable to do to human beings. Animal rights are not the same. It is not alright to murder another human being, but humans do have the right to eat what they want. As the saying goes: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." So it is with this. I have a right to eat dolphin, chimp, or whatever I want, but I don't have a right to violate your rights in order to satisfy my rights.
Additonally, whether or not its morally bad is debatable. Some things are definitely bad, but this? THis isn't. This is a cultural difference, as the West views dolphins as cute cuddly creature, but on the other hand Japan (or this village in particular, i don't really know) view them as another food source. Who are we to judge them for what they eat? If a group of Hindus from India came to the United States to harass cattle ranchers and tried to shut them down would you applaud them as visionaries trying to put an end to a despicable practice, or would you want them to realize that eating beef in the West is a cultural difference that they should respect?
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.
So what you're saying is they're very much like humans. More so than, say, a tuna.
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.
So what you're saying is they're very much like humans.
Which is more reason for me to care less about them, or just hate some of them.
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.
So what you're saying is they're very much like humans. More so than, say, a tuna.
Which is precisely my point.
I do believe earlier in the thread, a post was made that demonstrated regular fish had distinct personalities, yet we still choose to eat and kill them. Just because something demonstrates a few characteristics that hark of intelligence doesn't make that creature a sentient being that should be granted human rights. Chimpanzees and certain birds have been known to use tools, and many many animals are known to teach. You don't see people racing to defend them, do you?
Besides, a few human like characteristics do not a sentient creature make. Well, I suppose that's the wrong semantics...sentience just implies the ability to feel and react. What makes a creature truly intelligent and deserving of human rights is sapience, or basically the ability to reason or use logic. Dolphins clearly don't have that, do they? If they could reason wouldn't they look at this village and say, "Y'know, we should avoid this area since the humans kill us here. Instead, let's go elsewhere where the humans treat us like cute pets!"
Gailbraithe wrote:I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.
Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.
Also, this rattlesnake argument is just stupid. Rattlesnakes and dolphins are not remotely comparable. Rattlesnakes are stupid creatures, whereas dolphins are almost as intelligent as human beings. No drowning sailor has ever been rescued by a rattlesnake, and rattlesnakes don't interact and play with humans. Kind of an important difference there.
OH.. so its only ok to kill STUPID creatures.... got it. As for the drowning sailors bit..... hogwash, the incidence of dolphins rescuing drowning people is fairly low.
Gailbraithe wrote:I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.
Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.
Also, this rattlesnake argument is just stupid. Rattlesnakes and dolphins are not remotely comparable. Rattlesnakes are stupid creatures, whereas dolphins are almost as intelligent as human beings. No drowning sailor has ever been rescued by a rattlesnake, and rattlesnakes don't interact and play with humans. Kind of an important difference there.
OH.. so its only ok to kill STUPID creatures.... got it. As for the drowning sailors bit..... hogwash, the incidence of dolphins rescuing drowning people is fairly low.
This. In fact, the reports of dolphins raping people is rather a lot higher.
Slap endangered species on the dolphins in question and arguments against the hunt amount to a whole lot more than emotionally based anthropomorphism.
Water filled with blood, slaughterhouses hung with carcasses, both and all associated with that type of imagery can be linked to the animal rights movement. At one point in history people had to look their food in the eye before eating, not that it matters. Comparisons to and concerning people being similar to dolphins fall pretty flat overall. I have more reason to be concerned about primates being hunted than I do for dolphins. If you are going to bring solid reason behind an anthropomorphic, emotionally charged argument, framing intelligence takes a very long time. Longer than a thread on the internet would allow.
Gailbraithe wrote:I'm totally cool with this guy breaking the law to film people killing dolphins. There is no reason to kill dolphins. I don't care if they aren't endangered, or if it's legal. Dolphins are the second or third most intelligent animal on this planet, and the respect we show to dolphins is respect we show to ourselves.
Breaking the law in defense of what is morally right is no crime. And when the law exists only to protect an immoral act, then the law is wrong and good people should not obey it.
Also, this rattlesnake argument is just stupid. Rattlesnakes and dolphins are not remotely comparable. Rattlesnakes are stupid creatures, whereas dolphins are almost as intelligent as human beings. No drowning sailor has ever been rescued by a rattlesnake, and rattlesnakes don't interact and play with humans. Kind of an important difference there.
OH.. so its only ok to kill STUPID creatures.... got it. As for the drowning sailors bit..... hogwash, the incidence of dolphins rescuing drowning people is fairly low.
This. In fact, the reports of dolphins raping people is rather a lot higher.
If I was ever raped by a dolphin, you'd better believe I'd be on the next plane to Taiji. feth you, dorphin!
ChrisWWII wrote:I do believe earlier in the thread, a post was made that demonstrated regular fish had distinct personalities, yet we still choose to eat and kill them. Just because something demonstrates a few characteristics that hark of intelligence doesn't make that creature a sentient being that should be granted human rights. Chimpanzees and certain birds have been known to use tools, and many many animals are known to teach. You don't see people racing to defend them, do you?
Actually, I know many people who would leap to their defense. I have many vegetarian and vegan friends.
It's also worth noting (mostly to annoy) that many of the Enlightenment philosophers who created the intellectual foundation of the American experiment were advocates of vegetarianism specifically because of the
Besides, a few human like characteristics do not a sentient creature make. Well, I suppose that's the wrong semantics...sentience just implies the ability to feel and react. What makes a creature truly intelligent and deserving of human rights is sapience, or basically the ability to reason or use logic. Dolphins clearly don't have that, do they? If they could reason wouldn't they look at this village and say, "Y'know, we should avoid this area since the humans kill us here. Instead, let's go elsewhere where the humans treat us like cute pets!"
Dolphins most definitely demonstrate the ability to reason. Dogs demonstrate the ability to reason, and dolphins are far smarter than dogs. Even crows demonstrate the ability to reason.
But that dolphins reason does not mean they reason like us. Humans are time-binders, we record things and it shapes the way e think of the world, how we interact with it. Dolphins may exist in an entirely different perceptual universe, something akin to dreamtime, and may have no sense of a "future" and a "past" which would allow for the kind of complex reasoning that shifting locales would mean. Plus such voyages may be physically impossible for the dolphins, requiring them to swim through stretches of sea they aren't adapted to survive. And it seems extremely unlikely that pods of dolphins in Japan could possibly know of the affairs of pods of dolphins on the other side of the world. It's not like they have global communication networks.
Alright, sure you have vegan and vegetarian friends. So do I. But if they tried to shut down meat processing plants, or tried to stop the farming of cows, chickens or pigs what do you think would happen? Would they be cheered on as fighting an injust law,and be applauded? Or would they be smashed down and told that they need to respect the difference in people? That's the biggest thing I see here. The West sees dolphins one way, and other people another. The Wests view is not necessarily the right one, and we should most definitely not smash down another's view point just because it's different.
As for your second post I have one response. Evidence? You go on a long tirade listing a long list of possible cop-outs for dolphins not displaying what we would view as sapience, and you provide not a single word of evidence for them. Where are the research papers proving that dolphins are really sapient creatures? They don't exist, and the burden of proof is on you to prove your points. Occam's Razor honestly, as right now we have: 1) Dolphins are unusually intelligent animals but animals none the less or 2) Dolphins are sapient creatures that experience reality in a completely different way from humanity, and that is why they do not display sapience. Which one of these is simpler?
Did you know that whale was on special today at the local supermarket?
Right or wrong, I can tell you all in all honesty, the Japanese do not give a toss about what any animal rights activists think. Buddy, the guy who filmed the slaughter, was lucky if he got deported seeing as the fishermen's union is run by the Yakuza.
Personally, I wouldn't eat dolphin. I've had Whale jerky once. It was like chewing on a tire. I'd never try it again.
ChrisWWII wrote:Alright, sure you have vegan and vegetarian friends. So do I. But if they tried to shut down meat processing plants, or tried to stop the farming of cows, chickens or pigs what do you think would happen? Would they be cheered on as fighting an injust law,and be applauded? Or would they be smashed down and told that they need to respect the difference in people? That's the biggest thing I see here. The West sees dolphins one way, and other people another. The Wests view is not necessarily the right one, and we should most definitely not smash down another's view point just because it's different.
I don't think the point of either of the films/documentaries is whether or not there is a moral/cultural issue at hand. Both the films have people who have emotionally invested themselves in these animals. I will give them that dolphins show many signs of being 'self aware' they recognize that they are living beings. But comparing the psychosocial behavior of a dolphin to a human isn't going to equate to the same kinds of behaviors, so we can't really make that comparison at all. But scientifically they have many signs of 'self awareness'. Which is important in this argument. If a cow could walk and talk like a man I don't believe we would eat them, the same goes for any sapient or sentient creature. Because a dolphin might be using a very different sophisticated form of communication, a very different form of locomotion, and may possibly have a very different cultural/moral view on the world we cannot comprehend them as anything close to being 'human' because they lack qualities we consider human. A communication barrier, if dolphins are actually capable of advanced communication near our level, is present.
A more important question to ask one's self when watching either of these films is "Why do this?". Dolphin is not good for you, it is heavily laden with mercury a known cancer causing substance. Not in small amounts either, large enough to cause problems for people. A majority of the Japanese people, presumably those outside the smaller fishing communities, view dolphins much as we do in the west. They are 'human-like' enough to them as to us to not be eaten knowingly. There are underhanded tactics being used to market dolphin as 'superior' cuts of meat. But that isn't really the issue I'm getting at. For some reason, they keep doing this. Mercury poisoning as a disease was discovered in the mid to late 50's in Japan because of heavy consumption of dolphin meat. We know the effects of mercury on the unborn child, which is severe physical and mental retardation. So, outside of these small communities, eating dolphin is not considered by most Japanese to be a quality of being 'Japanese'. Eating whale might be, but whale are a protected species and that's really another argument. It just seems very strange that the Japanese government would go to such lengths to basically subsidize poison into a portion of their populations diet and do it with extreme fervor.
ChrisWWII wrote:As for your second post I have one response. Evidence? You go on a long tirade listing a long list of possible cop-outs for dolphins not displaying what we would view as sapience, and you provide not a single word of evidence for them. Where are the research papers proving that dolphins are really sapient creatures? They don't exist, and the burden of proof is on you to prove your points. Occam's Razor honestly, as right now we have: 1) Dolphins are unusually intelligent animals but animals none the less or 2) Dolphins are sapient creatures that experience reality in a completely different way from humanity, and that is why they do not display sapience. Which one of these is simpler?
Sapience and sentience are very different qualities, I don't think you should confuse the two. And just as a reminder- one day you're going to run into a researcher on the internet and he will crush you with stacks and volumes of papers and reports proving his point. But you'll handwave it away. As evidence for something mounts, the populace simply ignores it if it is a problem. Honestly, if you really care about this argument go look into it just a little bit. You can google dolphins+sentient and it'll probably turn up something with some sources cited somewhere. But if you're just taking a stance on something just type "I don't care, I hope they kill more dolphins" and we won't need to continue this.
Cane wrote:Japanese laws which constantly clash with the rest of the civilized world. Just because its a law, doesn't mean its truly civilized
And yes it is a "bit of a leap" to compare crabs to dolphins beyond just the letter of the law.
I happen to think that there is a greater gap between humans and dolphins than between dolphins and crabs, from a standpoint of moral equivalency to their being raped or murdered or what have you. If you don't, it would seem that we have reached a fundamental disagreement.
Both are pretty horrible (slaughter and captivity of dolphins versus murder/raping humans) and seems like international opinion largely agrees to such (maybe not so much on the captivity part but the methods behind it) but of course human suffering takes the cake; sorry if I led on otherwise
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:The argument for not ever killing Dolphins, just because they're some of the smarter animals, just seems odd. Dolphins will kill for fun, dolphins will rape etc. they're not 100% wonderful perfect creatures.
Yea they're one of the few animals outside of humans to do so. I imagine dolphins held in captivity are much more susceptible to such behavior as well due to the stress involved. You'll find such with intelligent and self-aware creatures at zoo's and aquariums worldwide as well. Like humans, they don't like being held against their will.
Khornholio wrote:Did you know that whale was on special today at the local supermarket?
Right or wrong, I can tell you all in all honesty, the Japanese do not give a toss about what any animal rights activists think. Buddy, the guy who filmed the slaughter, was lucky if he got deported seeing as the fishermen's union is run by the Yakuza.
Yea he mentioned such in "The Cove" and acknowledged it for this series as well; two of his associates have been murdered FWIW. Interesting that abnormally high to toxic levels of mercury are found in dolphin and whale meat yet they're still part of school lunches for children in Japan. Barry's definitely crossing boundaries but on the other hand without such actions there wouldn't be such awareness about the brutal slaughter of dolphins, about 20k annually in that region, or the dubious and secretive manner in which its conducted and supported. And by international standards the Japanese dolphin and whaling harvesters are arguably crossing boundaries as well. Then there's the view of animal captivity in general especially for intelligent and self-aware wild animals.
There's probably less than 1% or so in Japan that really care about the whaling/dolphin practices but for those people its deeply ingrained; in those villages 25% of their last names trace to such history. Also the whole gaijin attitude, its human nature not to like being told what to do by foreigners no matter the issue especially when it comes to whats "right" and "wrong". Yakuza, gaijin, tradition, perceived racism, etc makes for a tall order to have a successful compromise although new generations seem to be moving out of those villages.
Barry's actions cross cultural and legal lines but his intentions seem noble and supported internationally. I support the intentions but both camps leave a lot to be desired when it comes to their methods although there's far less deaths on Barry's side
I do think that the films have a moral/cultural issue at heart, as if it wasn't a cultural thing, or something else why would they do that? Dolphin meat is based on a supply-demand economy just like any product, and obviously, there is a demand for dolphin meat that is fueling this hunt. Why do we look down on this cultural difference as an evil thing? Yes, dolphins show some signs of intelligence, and they have shown some self aware abilities, but that doesn't make them senitent/sapient/whatever word you want to use to define the trait that makes human human. More importantly, dolphins don't walk and talk like humans, they show the ability to be trained, and they recognize their reflections in a mirror. And yes, if we can communicate with dolphins then we can determine that they are in fact sapient/sentient and should be granted whatever rights humans are granted. Until then, however, they are animals, and animal rights do NOT overwhelm human rights no matter what the case.
I don't know why they do this. I'm not a fisherman in Taiji, I'm a student in California. I don't know why they choose to hunt dolphins, but they do. Is it a cultural thing? Is it an economic thing? Probably a combination of both. I'm not sure honestly. Sure, not a lot of people do eat it, and the like, but obviously enough do to support the industry. More importantly, this is not a debate over Japanese government policy, and why they choose to do what they do. If you want to debate the merits of Japanese policy, you can start your own thread to debate it. My question, and what I want to debate is whether or not its justified for these anti-dolphin fishing activists to break laws and the like in order to try and effect a halt to the dolphin hunt. Personally, watching the documentary and seeing what he's done, I'm amazed he hasn't been tossed in jail and held there on a variety of charges. The Japanese alone could charge him with slander, trespassing and unlawful surveillance. The US has charged and convicted him of violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and I swear in the documentary it seems that he is cutting nets (Property Damage) and releasing government dolphins (Defacement of Government Property). I don't think he's justified in his action.
Yes, sentience and sapience are different, and I don't even pretend to understand the philosophical differences between the two terms. I'm using them colloqiually, and trying to use them in their proper forms. And I try to ignore personal attacks, and respond only to actual points, but here I have to rise. How can you insinuate that about me? You have no idea who I am beyond some posts on a random internet forum. I will ask you to refrain from such attacks in the future, but for the record you are completely wrong. If an internet researcher were to come here and show me with peer reviewed scientific articles that I am wrong, and that dolphins are sentient creatures deserving of human rights then I will bow out and accept that I'm wrong, as I'm not as educated in this as a proper scientist and could not possibly refute them. I try to look into the data about what I debate in a casual manner, but I don't see the need to sacrifice hours of my life exhaustively looking into something for an internet debate. I will continue to debate this, and I will keep my debates more intelligent as the point you suggested. I do not think that they should just 'kill more dolphins, lol'. I think that they should be allowed to hunt up to a certain level as determined by the law. I think the real crime is that this activist is allowed to commit flagrant violations of the law and walk off scot free.
ChrisWWII wrote:I will ask you to refrain from such attacks in the future, but for the record you are completely wrong. If an internet researcher were to come here and show me with peer reviewed scientific articles that I am wrong, and that dolphins are sentient creatures deserving of human rights then I will bow out and accept that I'm wrong, as I'm not as educated in this as a proper scientist and could not possibly refute them. I try to look into the data about what I debate in a casual manner, but I don't see the need to sacrifice hours of my life exhaustively looking into something for an internet debate. I will continue to debate this, and I will keep my debates more intelligent as the point you suggested. I do not think that they should just 'kill more dolphins, lol'. I think that they should be allowed to hunt up to a certain level as determined by the law. I think the real crime is that this activist is allowed to commit flagrant violations of the law and walk off scot free.
Chris, your position appears to be based on denying the possibility that the activist is in the right. If you are really interested in coming to open and fair minded perspective, then I would suggest you read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism. If you are going to read one book on animal rights, it should be this book.
And if you're going to argue animal rights on the internet, you should at least read one book on the subject.
And I haven't read it, but if you want a book on dolphin intelligence, this looks interesting.
ChrisWWII wrote:I will ask you to refrain from such attacks in the future, but for the record you are completely wrong. If an internet researcher were to come here and show me with peer reviewed scientific articles that I am wrong, and that dolphins are sentient creatures deserving of human rights then I will bow out and accept that I'm wrong, as I'm not as educated in this as a proper scientist and could not possibly refute them. I try to look into the data about what I debate in a casual manner, but I don't see the need to sacrifice hours of my life exhaustively looking into something for an internet debate. I will continue to debate this, and I will keep my debates more intelligent as the point you suggested. I do not think that they should just 'kill more dolphins, lol'. I think that they should be allowed to hunt up to a certain level as determined by the law. I think the real crime is that this activist is allowed to commit flagrant violations of the law and walk off scot free.
Chris, your position appears to be based on denying the possibility that the activist is in the right. If you are really interested in coming to open and fair minded perspective, then I would suggest you read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism. If you are going to read one book on animal rights, it should be this book.
And if you're going to argue animal rights on the internet, you should at least read one book on the subject.
And I haven't read it, but if you want a book on dolphin intelligence, this looks interesting.
Peter Singer is a raging ass.
Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Chris, your position appears to be based on denying the possibility that the activist is in the right. If you are really interested in coming to open and fair minded perspective, then I would suggest you read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism. If you are going to read one book on animal rights, it should be this book.
And if you're going to argue animal rights on the internet, you should at least read one book on the subject.
And I haven't read it, but if you want a book on dolphin intelligence, this looks interesting.
I am open minded. I looked at both sides of the issue, and my decision on the matter is that the activists ARE in the wrong for the reasons I have listed multiple times before. I'm sorry, but reading the other sides propaganda is not the same as being open minded and fair. And I will choose for myself what I spend my time on, thank you very much. Animal rights is a hot button issue for me, something I will discuss in an informal setting, and not something I want to write a thesis on. And in all honesty, even reading a summary of the book I find the very thesis of that work as one I fundamentally disagree with. I think I am speciesist if that's the proper word. I am. I think that humans are the top of the food chain, and as such no animal is as important as a human. If I can save one human life by sacrificing 20 dolphins then I'll do it. I can't believe in the viewpoint that an animal is equal to a human in any way shape or form. I'm sorry, but we've reached the point of a fundamental disagreement that is unlikely to be resolved in one sides favor.
I'm sorry, but reading the other sides propaganda is not the same as being open minded and fair.
And this is why. As soon as you claim that the argument from one side of the issue -- which you have supposedly looked into both sides of -- is "propaganda," you lose any credibility. Your claim that you are open minded falls flat.
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Singer is a raging ass.
Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.
Peter Singer never said anything of the sort, but dishonest right-wing hacks such as yourself love to spread lies about anyone who disagrees with your philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is the book that presents the argument for animal rights, introduces the concept of specisim -- which is the devaluation of the suffering of other species by citing human qualities as the requirement for one's suffering to "count" -- and explains why specisim is a logical fallacy, and finally presents the case for the need for animal rights activism.
First, Singer didn't coin the term Specieism.
Second, Singer never claims that Specieism is a logical fallacy. Indeed, he plainly states that ascribing characteristics to a species is at the heart of actually defining what a species is and that, as such, there is nothing inherently wrong with having inconsistent standards of 'rights' based on the capacities of any given sort of creature. Instead, Singer argues that 'intelligence' is not a reasonable criteria on which to predicate the importance of one things suffering. If something can suffer, then its suffering is as important as the suffering on any other thing that can suffer.
Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.
Peter Singer never said anything of the sort, but dishonest right-wing hacks such as yourself love to spread lies about anyone who disagrees with your philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all.
Yeah, me and Simon Weisenthal are just picking on poor Peter Singer for no reason at all, right?
I guess he didn't write Rethinking Life and Death then?
Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.
Gailbraithe: I have indeed come to the conclusion that animal rights activists are wrong in the way they pursue their goals, and coming to that conclusion is not close mindedness. If I immediately dismissed the idea as being LOLWUT stupid, that is close mindedness, but deciding my stance and sticking to my guns about it? That is not close mindedness. And honestly, how can you make the claim that I haven't looked into both sides of the issue? Have you followed me around for the last eighteen years observing everything I do? Have you spent a moment talking to me as a person? No. You know me as a few posts on an internet forum, and you can't claim that I am close minded. More importantly, to me nearly everything is propaganda. All forms of modern media are propaganda. Propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Propaganda; Noun; 1: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2: the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. (Credits to dictionary.com))
Moreover, there is a fine criticism of Singer's ideas as given here . Quote: "[The] radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly slowed child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees."
That is not right wings hack spreading a "philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all." In fact, if you call me close minded than you yourself are just as close minded, as you seemed to have reached a conclusion after looking at both sides, just like me.
ChrisWWII wrote:Gailbraithe: I have indeed come to the conclusion that animal rights activists are wrong in the way they pursue their goals, and coming to that conclusion is not close mindedness. If I immediately dismissed the idea as being LOLWUT stupid, that is close mindedness, but deciding my stance and sticking to my guns about it? That is not close mindedness. And honestly, how can you make the claim that I haven't looked into both sides of the issue?
Because you called Animal Liberation by Peter Singer "propaganda," which it's a stupid thing to say. It shows an absolute contempt for the foundation of the entire animal rights movement, and it makes it abundantly clear that you have no intention of approaching the question with an open mind. You dismiss what is widely recognized as the best argument for the case without even considering it, and then you want to claim you are open-minded? Please dude.
Have you followed me around for the last eighteen years observing everything I do? Have you spent a moment talking to me as a person? No. You know me as a few posts on an internet forum, and you can't claim that I am close minded. More importantly, to me nearly everything is propaganda. All forms of modern media are propaganda. Propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Propaganda; Noun; 1: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2: the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. (Credits to dictionary.com))
Moreover, there is a fine criticism of Singer's ideas as given here . Quote: "[The] radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly slowed child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees."
Being open to critiques of Singer's ideas, but refusing to read his book because it's "propaganda" is pretty much the exact opposite of being open-minded. That actually demonstrates extreme prejudice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Peter Singer is a raging ass.
Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.
Peter Singer never said anything of the sort, but dishonest right-wing hacks such as yourself love to spread lies about anyone who disagrees with your philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all.
Yeah, me and Simon Weisenthal are just picking on poor Peter Singer for no reason at all, right?
I guess he didn't write Rethinking Life and Death then?
Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.
Total dick.
You are of course quoting entirely out of context. The quote comes from a longer essay on reproductive rights and abortion, and makes a case for why abortion is not immoral, and specifically why it is not murder. He then acknowledges that the criteria for personhood that he has cited deny newly born infants a right to life. So he writes:
Peter Singer wrote:Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus.
Must we accept this shocking conclusion? Or does birth somehow make a difference, in some way that has so far been overlooked? Perhaps our focus on the status of the fetus and the infant has led us to neglect other aspects of the situation. He re are two ways in which birth may make a difference, not so much to the fetus/infant and its claim to life, but to others who are affected by it.
First, after birth the pregnant woman is no longer pregnant. The baby is outside her body. Thus her claim to control her own body and her own reproductive system is no longer enough to determine the life or death of the newborn baby. ….
The second different birth makes is that if the baby's mother does not want to keep her child, it can be cared for by someone else who does..."
So as you can see, the statement Monster Rain is dishonestly trying to pass off as representative of Singer's belief is in actuality an idea that Singer quickly rejects as invalid.
Furthermore, Singer is a bioethicist who deals intellectually with the morality of cutting edge medical technlogies, and if you actually read his work and understand his statement in the full context of the actual issues being raised by modern technology, it's hard not to accept his reasoning. Right now medical professionals do many things that are violations of traditional ethical decisions, but are based on sound medical science and compassion reasoning. Like terminating the life support of people who've had their brains turned irreversibly to jelly. If you reject Singer's reasoning, you're left with a DNA-based sanctity of life that says a irreversibly brain dead person whose vital functions can be maintained by machines must be maintained until their organs wear out or the get an infection that can't be treated. It just has to sit there, being alive with no mind, until it gives out of "natural causes." Because that's the "right" thing to do.
It's morbid. It's Golden Thrones for everyone who suffers a traumatic head injury but doesn't have the good fortune to stop breathing before the Apothecaries get to 'em.
ChrisWWII wrote:Haven't seen the South Park unfortunately.
But the thing is that the fishermen AREN'T hunting in illegal areas. It's the filmakers who are breaking the law by entering restricted areas to film things they really shouldn't be. The movie is about the annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan, and how this guy views it as evil and is trying to stop it.
If the fishermen just caught the filmakers in nets, they probably could sell them at a good price. Could call it-pigfish. Just saying.
Gailbraithe... Holding up Singer as a paragon of animal rights is shortminded and shows incomplete study of the cause. Singer is not a rights theorist, but believes in judging the rightness of an act by its effects on the thing acted upon. His views can be applied equally to a man, a dolphin or a tree.
You have to go further back; In the mid 1600s the first "animal rights" laws were passed based on the writings of Nathaniel Ward. Then there are the writings of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau to be studied and discussed.
Of course if you want a foundation for Singers ideas you have to look to Jeremy Bentham, who is one of the originators of Singers utilitarianism.
However, to bring the discussion back on course.... What O'Barry was doing violated Japanese law. Period. It falls into the same catagory as breaking and entering and defiant trespass.
There are ways to get the kind of footage he wanted. He chose to violate the laws of another country. Whether or not any of us feel it is right or wrong for citizens of Japan to hunt dolphins is inmaterial. O'Barry violated the published laws of that country and is wrong for doing so.
Gailbraithe wrote:
So as you can see, the statement Monster Rain is dishonestly trying to pass off as representative of Singer's belief is in actuality an idea that Singer quickly rejects as invalid.
What was that about quoting out of context?
...This reason for preserving infant life is strong in a society in which there are more couples wanting to adopt a baby than there are babies needing adoption. It is no reason at all for preserving infant life if there are babies in need of adoption, and no-one willing to adopt them. The coming of effective contraception and safe legal abortion have moved m ost developed nations sharply into the former status (though not, unfortunately, if we focus on babies with major disabilities, whom very few couples are willing to adopt). In these societies there is an important reason to protect the lives of babies, e ven those unwanted by their parents. In societies that have difficulty killing unwanted children and so have traditionally accepted infanticide, this is not a reason for preserving infant life."
Singer's argument is that there is no intrinsically compelling distinction between a fetus, and a newborn. The differences he outlines are environmental, rather than a natural characteristics of children. This in and of itself is not controversial, but when it is taken in the context of an argument that grants the capacity to hold preferences to things like cows and pigs, it begins to look very suspect. This is particularly true given that Singer does not follow the ultimate implication of his postulate, that an infant of any species has a weaker claim to life than a fully grown member of that species; a fact that says some interesting things about eating veal.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you reject Singer's reasoning, you're left with a DNA-based sanctity of life that says a irreversibly brain dead person whose vital functions can be maintained by machines must be maintained until their organs wear out or the get an infection that can't be treated. It just has to sit there, being alive with no mind, until it gives out of "natural causes." Because that's the "right" thing to do.
That's utter nonsense. Singer is not the only bioethicist in the world, and his argument is certainly not the only means of arriving at a conclusion which permits the systematic consideration of human life from a utilitarian perspective. Even something as classically defined as an argument from rights can be used to allow the right to life to be trumped in certain situations. All you're indicating here is that you aren't anywhere near as well read as you seem to believe.
Once someone says that we should kill disabled newborns they can go feth off as far as I'm concerned. The man is certifiably insane, and should only be cited as a source of amusement and/or derision.
Peter Singer never said anything of the sort, but dishonest right-wing hacks such as yourself love to spread lies about anyone who disagrees with your philosophy of selfishness and hatred for all.
Yeah, me and Simon Weisenthal are just picking on poor Peter Singer for no reason at all, right?
I guess he didn't write Rethinking Life and Death then?
Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.
Total dick.
You are of course quoting entirely out of context. The quote comes from a longer essay on reproductive rights and abortion, and makes a case for why abortion is not immoral, and specifically why it is not murder. He then acknowledges that the criteria for personhood that he has cited deny newly born infants a right to life. So he writes:
Peter Singer wrote:Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus.
Must we accept this shocking conclusion? Or does birth somehow make a difference, in some way that has so far been overlooked? Perhaps our focus on the status of the fetus and the infant has led us to neglect other aspects of the situation. He re are two ways in which birth may make a difference, not so much to the fetus/infant and its claim to life, but to others who are affected by it.
First, after birth the pregnant woman is no longer pregnant. The baby is outside her body. Thus her claim to control her own body and her own reproductive system is no longer enough to determine the life or death of the newborn baby. ….
The second different birth makes is that if the baby's mother does not want to keep her child, it can be cared for by someone else who does..."
So as you can see, the statement Monster Rain is dishonestly trying to pass off as representative of Singer's belief is in actuality an idea that Singer quickly rejects as invalid.
Furthermore, Singer is a bioethicist who deals intellectually with the morality of cutting edge medical technlogies, and if you actually read his work and understand his statement in the full context of the actual issues being raised by modern technology, it's hard not to accept his reasoning. Right now medical professionals do many things that are violations of traditional ethical decisions, but are based on sound medical science and compassion reasoning. Like terminating the life support of people who've had their brains turned irreversibly to jelly. If you reject Singer's reasoning, you're left with a DNA-based sanctity of life that says a irreversibly brain dead person whose vital functions can be maintained by machines must be maintained until their organs wear out or the get an infection that can't be treated. It just has to sit there, being alive with no mind, until it gives out of "natural causes." Because that's the "right" thing to do.
It's morbid. It's Golden Thrones for everyone who suffers a traumatic head injury but doesn't have the good fortune to stop breathing before the Apothecaries get to 'em.
Who's being dishonest? I do understand his statement of the full context of the overarching theme of his book that I cited.
He doesn't actually refute, from an ethical standpoint, the quote that I posted. He only points out reasons that could be cited to disagree with it. That doesn't mean that he doesn't believe it. His conclusion(his word) is that they are "not persons."
You can call me all the names you want, dude. I'm still right.
Gailbraithe: Yes, I still believe I am open minded because quite simply? I've stuck my foot in the ground at this point and said quite simply: THIS is what I believe in, and I defy anyone to prove me wrong. In fact, here, the main reason I don't want to go out and buy this book is because: 1) When I go buy books I'd prefer getting something that I find interesting or fun, 2) I have enough things to do on my hands without getting a new animal rights book to read. But here, I defy you. If Singer's arguments for animal rights are so good that upon reading them even a heartless meat eating monster like me would start worshiping them please, enlighten me. You've read the book, no? So enlighten us all and tell us what arguments you believe disprove our position that human laws and rights trump animal rights. I will happily debate each and every one of his points, but it is not open mindedness to simply bow down and shut up when an opposing viewpoint is presented. THAT is an inability to stand up for what you believe in.
Additionally why the line of facepalms? I use the definition of propaganda as originally intended, with no negative connotations attached. You can at least respond to the point made instead of dismissing it out of hand....isn't that close mindedness?
Monster Rain wrote:Ghandi was awesome and all, but not everything someone important says is necessarily correct.
Although i personally love this quote, my intention was showing that it isn't just the west looking down on the east like some people are saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
As for your second post I have one response. Evidence? You go on a long tirade listing a long list of possible cop-outs for dolphins not displaying what we would view as sapience, and you provide not a single word of evidence for them. Where are the research papers proving that dolphins are really sapient creatures? They don't exist, and the burden of proof is on you to prove your points.
Monster Rain wrote:Ghandi was awesome and all, but not everything someone important says is necessarily correct.
Although i personally love this quote, my intention was showing that it isn't just the west looking down on the east like some people are saying.
Yeah, East vs. West is just the easy way to generalize. I think the point is just that it's cultural differences that make people disagree on what is a protected species and what is lunch.
I apologize for earlier, I thought we were discussing more about dolphins and how they relate to this case than a man breaking the laws of another nation.
I'm sure most nations feel it is illegal for another nation to send combat troops to it. I'm sure some nations consider it legal to beat your wife. I'm not familiar with Sharia Law, but I'd wager freeing a woman from an abusive household is specifically illegal within it.
Just because something is illegal or legal doesn't mean it is moral or immoral. I feel that abortion is immoral, but it is legal and a right in my nation. While in some other nations it is not. Assisted suicide is illegal in most states in my nation, although I feel it is moral, in other nations it is not illegal and seen in a different moral light. In China it used to be within the law to 'get rid of' female children because they lacked the rights a man had. You might view the life of another being, specifically an animal, as worth less than economic non-profit for the Japanese and not actually cultural preservation (Because, as I stated earlier- it appears the Japanese don't consider eating dolphin meat as being a Japanese quality and the Japanese government loses money in an economic and healthcare sense on its fight to continue hunting dolphins) but I think it'd be better to leave them alone rather than go through all this effort to pawn dolphin meat off as whale and make a portion of your population suffer cancer, deformity and mental handicap. I think this fella is justified in what he is doing. He may not be going about it in the way you'd please, but he is making a great effort to do what he believes is right. If you believe the opposite, I support your right to buy as much dolphin meat as you can eat.
Monster Rain wrote:
You can call me all the names you want, dude. I'm still right.
I don't really agree that Singer is a tool, though I think he gets more attention than he deserves given that his argument isn't hugely original. Still, outside that normative judgment, you are right.
Monster Rain wrote:
You can call me all the names you want, dude. I'm still right.
I don't really agree that Singer is a tool, though I think he gets more attention than he deserves given that his argument isn't hugely original. Still, outside that normative judgment, you are right.
I just think he's a rather extreme example to give to someone to prove why they should not want dolphins being killed, n'cest pas?
I'd never argue that the man isn't intelligent or an authority on bioethics. I just think some of his views on human life and animal life are a little, ummm... outside of the mainstream to say the least.
Monster Rain wrote:
I just think he's a rather extreme example to give to someone to prove why they should not want dolphins being killed, n'cest pas?
I'd never argue that the man isn't intelligent or an authority on bioethics. I just think some of his views on human life and animal life are a little, ummm... outside of the mainstream to say the least.
Yeah, no doubt. He gets cited a lot because his views are so controversial, and I think that tends to make some people think that he's more representative of the discipline than he really is, but he certainly isn't what I would consider a mainstream philosopher; not even with regard to Specieism.
ChrisWWII wrote:
As for your second post I have one response. Evidence? You go on a long tirade listing a long list of possible cop-outs for dolphins not displaying what we would view as sapience, and you provide not a single word of evidence for them. Where are the research papers proving that dolphins are really sapient creatures? They don't exist, and the burden of proof is on you to prove your points.
Reading through that paper, it does indeed provide an interesting arguments in favor of dolphins being self-aware creature, and of dolphins being similar to primitive human networks in many ways. However, I do note that the paper was published not by a scientific journal, but by an ocean conservation group dedicated to protecting dolphins and other marine mammals. To me, this casts doubt on its legitimacy. For me, I want to see proof published in a scientific journal instead of by a NGO conservation group.
Additionally, for me one of the proofs of true intelligence and deserving of human rights would be this. I am stating this openly and clearly so that I have established a personal benchmark that will be fixed. For me that point is the use of technology to shape an environment. Yes, lots of creatures use tools in a way. But how many creatures can pick up a rock and realize that they can change the rock to something more useful? To me, that is what the dividing line is. To be a part of a species that has shown a repeatable ability to both create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit.
Personally, my prime concern regarding the consumption of dolphin meat is the high levels of mercury in it. I think the fact that they sell this stuff without warning people of the potential risk is criminal. They should put a label on it like they do on cigarettes. It won't really do too much to damage the demand. I mean, smokers know that cigarettes might give them cancer, and they still smoke, so I am sure a lot of frequent consumers of dolphin meat might still eat the stuff even if they do know the risks of gradual mercury poisoning.
I doubt it would hurt to eat it occasionally, but for children, it is playing with fire. Young children should avoid eating swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, but dolphin meat, which has higher mercury levels then those, is served to kids in Japan as school dinner.
ChrisWWII wrote:Gailbraithe: Yes, I still believe I am open minded because quite simply? I've stuck my foot in the ground at this point and said quite simply: THIS is what I believe in, and I defy anyone to prove me wrong. In fact, here, the main reason I don't want to go out and buy this book is because: 1) When I go buy books I'd prefer getting something that I find interesting or fun, 2) I have enough things to do on my hands without getting a new animal rights book to read. But here, I defy you. If Singer's arguments for animal rights are so good that upon reading them even a heartless meat eating monster like me would start worshiping them please, enlighten me. You've read the book, no? So enlighten us all and tell us what arguments you believe disprove our position that human laws and rights trump animal rights. I will happily debate each and every one of his points, but it is not open mindedness to simply bow down and shut up when an opposing viewpoint is presented. THAT is an inability to stand up for what you believe in.
In other words, rather than consider Singer's ideas directly, you want to debate Singer's ideas as presented by me, despite the fact that I am far from an expert in Singer, haven't read the book in 15 years, and am highly unlikely to be able to synthesize a convincing argument in 1/100th of the space from memory. That's real fair of you, Chris. Or maybe you're paying me a high compliment, assuming that I could do Singer's arguments - which he takes 352 pages to lay out - justice in a Dakka post.
Furthermore, I am not a particularly ardent supporter of animal rights. I am, for example, neither a vegetarian or a vegan, nor do I engage in any sort of animal rights activism. I occasionally give some money to the World Wildlife Fund, but that is the extent of my own activism. I also don't necessarily agree wholeheartedly with Singer's conclusions, but I also don't find his arguments easy to dismiss entirely. I find his arguments compelling enough to question the merit of hunting wild dolphins, even if I don't find the compelling enough to want to ban raising cattle for meat (as an example). But by the same measure, I do find his arguments compelling enough to justify questioning certain practices in animal husbandry -- such as factory farming -- if not compelling enough to justify questioning animal husbandry entirely.
So here you are demanding that I present arguments to you so that justify an extreme animal rights position ("animal right trump human rights") that I don't even find reasonable myself -- and which even Singer would question. Singer never proposes that animal rights trump human rights, he only proposes that the characteristics of humans from which we derive a need for rights also apply in varying degrees to non-human sentients, which implies that -- like humans -- animals have rights.
Finally, no one has asked you to "bow down and shut up." All you have been asked to do is to actually consider the opposing argument before arriving at a conclusion. And yet, you insist on portraying a request to consider both sides of the question fairly to be a request to "bow down and shut up." That's ridiculous, and strongly undermines your claim that you are open-minded.
Additionally why the line of facepalms? I use the definition of propaganda as originally intended, with no negative connotations attached. You can at least respond to the point made instead of dismissing it out of hand....isn't that close mindedness?
The facepalms were a reaction to your ridiculous claim that all media (including, apparently, significant works of modern philosophy of ethics) is propaganda, then citing an overly simplistic definition of propaganda to justify that wacky claim, then compounding the wackiness by claiming that propaganda isn't necessarily bad, but still using the claim that Singer's treatise on animal rights is propaganda and thus you won't consider reading it.
So you are stuck in an indefensible position, claiming that a work being propaganda is reason to dismiss it without consideration, but simultaneously claiming that calling a work propaganda says nothing disparaging about the work. But if there is nothing wrong with a work being propaganda, then it being propaganda cannot be a reason to dismiss the work. Which means your attempt to defend your claim that the work is propaganda completely undermines your reason for calling it propaganda in the first place!
terribletrygon wrote:Personally, my prime concern regarding the consumption of dolphin meat is the high levels of mercury in it. I think the fact that they sell this stuff without warning people of the potential risk is criminal. They should put a label on it like they do on cigarettes. It won't really do too much to damage the demand. I mean, smokers know that cigarettes might give them cancer, and they still smoke, so I am sure a lot of frequent consumers of dolphin meat might still eat the stuff even if they do know the risks of gradual mercury poisoning.
I doubt it would hurt to eat it occasionally, but for children, it is playing with fire. Young children should avoid eating swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, but dolphin meat, which has higher mercury levels then those, is served to kids in Japan as school dinner.
Agreed that's the only problem I really see with this dolphin fishing is that's it's poisonous and it probably isn't advertised well. Mind you Japan might not have much other choice over other meats, but then again I don't know much about Japanese
ChrisWWII wrote:Additionally, for me one of the proofs of true intelligence and deserving of human rights would be this. I am stating this openly and clearly so that I have established a personal benchmark that will be fixed. For me that point is the use of technology to shape an environment. Yes, lots of creatures use tools in a way. But how many creatures can pick up a rock and realize that they can change the rock to something more useful? To me, that is what the dividing line is. To be a part of a species that has shown a repeatable ability to both create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit.
Your personal benchmark seems entirely arbitrary. You have crafted a benchmark that seems to have no actual connection to the question of rights, but does conveniently seem to exclude animals, and I believe you are engaging in a not particularly subtle version of bait-and-switch.
I would argue that you are claiming that humans have rights because they are human, not because they have the capacity to create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit. Your argument would seem to imply that the mentally handicapped have no rights, because they do not have the capacity to create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit.
In order to defend the rights of the mentally handicapped, you must then claim that the rights granted to tool-capable humans transfers to the mentally disabled by virtue of their shared humanity. But as soon as that claim is made, then rights are no longer based on the capacity to create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit, but rather based on being human.
Which means you're left claiming that humans have rights because they are human, and animals don't have rights because they are not human, and the tool-using argument is revealed as spurious hand-waving to obfuscate the true source of rights by your calculation: species.
Of course, if you wish to argue that infants, children, and the mentally disabled have no human rights because they are not tool-users, then you can save your argument, but you'll end up defending a position far more extreme than Singers. I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to defend the position that its okay to eat babies because they don't know what hammers are for...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote:Gailbraithe... Holding up Singer as a paragon of animal rights is shortminded and shows incomplete study of the cause. Singer is not a rights theorist, but believes in judging the rightness of an act by its effects on the thing acted upon. His views can be applied equally to a man, a dolphin or a tree.
You have to go further back; In the mid 1600s the first "animal rights" laws were passed based on the writings of Nathaniel Ward. Then there are the writings of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau to be studied and discussed.
Of course if you want a foundation for Singers ideas you have to look to Jeremy Bentham, who is one of the originators of Singers utilitarianism.
I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned that the concept of animal rights dates back to the Enlightenment philosophers in this conversation, but it's always worth mentioning again. Anyways, I think reading Singer will give one a much better understanding of the modern animal liberation movement than reading Benthem. If one wants to really dig into the whole intellectual foundation of Singer's work, sure, read Benthem. But Singer's work is of more direct and immediate relevance to the actions of groups like ALF, PETA, or the filmmaker in question.
Gailbraithe wrote:Your personal benchmark seems entirely arbitrary. You have crafted a benchmark that seems to have no actual connection to the question of rights, but does conveniently seem to exclude animals, and I believe you are engaging in a not particularly subtle version of bait-and-switch.
Replace 'pick up' with understand (alternatively, be capable of understanding as a species, not an individual), the argument is entirely sound. You are arguing against a benchmark with the concept of universal comparisons. Dolphins are like whales are like humans are like elephants. They aren't. We eat a lot of different animals and while I am not personally inclined to agree entirely with the premise that intelligence = do not eat, it is certainly more focused than the idea that we have no concept of regulation on what to digest. We do have limitations and the main one is that you can't eat people. It would be considered murder and cannibalism.
Shock and horror about society having laws against eating other people, where the concepts of eating animals varies by culture.
Which means you're left claiming that humans have rights because they are human, and animals don't have rights because they are not human, and the tool-using argument is revealed as spurious hand-waving to obfuscate the true source of rights by your calculation: species.
Funny.
Of course, if you wish to argue that infants, children, and the mentally disabled have no human rights because they are not tool-users, then you can save your argument, but you'll end up defending a position far more extreme than Singers. I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to defend the position that its okay to eat babies because they don't know what hammers are for...
LOL. You took that all the way to eating babies, freaking classic.
Gailbraithe: Read the last line of what I laid down as my benchmark. "To be a part of a species that has shown a repeatable ability to both create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit." That right there clearly shows that yes, a mentally disabled person or an infant still has rights because they are a member of Homo sapiens sapiens, a species that has shown previously listed ability. That right there, I believe, debunks your whole claim that I do not believe in rights for handicapped or w/e. So yes, the rights transfer on behalf of being human HOWEVER if another species demonstrates the same capability than said labeling as an intelligent species deserving of human rights transfers to their species as well. And yes, my benchmark is arbitrary. It's my benchmark. It's not going to be official policy of the human race, but I think it makes a nice one. I've drawn my line in the sand, and I want to be shown why dolphins belong on the human side of it instead of the animal side.
And yes. Instead of reading Singer's ideas because I have monetary and other reasons why I can not read them I want you to present them to me. I don't want you to recite them to me by memory, that'd be dumb. You're welcome to quote and discuss about the ideas as much as you'd like, but yes. I want you to present them to me. You can't just wave a book in the air and say "THIS DISPROVES YOU!" you have to use that book to back up arguments or quote arguments from that book as part of the debate. Additionally, I'm sorry that I exagerrated slightly with the 'animal rights trump human rights' thing, what I want from you is to display arguments as to why animal suffering should be held equal to human suffering, as that is the gist of Singer's work from summaries of it.
And yes, I believe all media is propaganda. There are very few things in this world that are not propaganda as nearly EVERYONE has a bias, and unless something is written by a completely unbiased entity, it is propaganda as it is pushing one side of an issue over another. And I am not using some 'overly simplistic' definition of propaganda, I am using its official dictionary definition. Look it up for yourself if you want. And as I have already explained the reason I do not want to read Singer's work is because I have other concerns. I do not want to expend the time and money to read his work when I have better things I can do with it. I'm not going to be a philosophy major, I'm going to be an International Relations major, and I am much more inclined to spend my money and time on that then I am on animal rights. As such, my challenge to you remains. I want you to argue Singer's case for him. Why do you claim that'd be unfair? It's perfectly fair. I've argued for people writing much more detailed and longer works several times before, and is not unfair to you to ask you to do the same.
Finally, once again, I repeat. I am not close minded, I have simply taken a stance on this issue and challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I've even given you a definition of exactly what my line in the sand IS, and I want you to tell me why its wrong.
Edit:
Wrexasaur wrote:
LOL. You took that all the way to eating babies, freaking classic.
Gailbraithe wrote:Singer's work is of more direct and immediate relevance to the actions of groups like ALF, PETA, or the filmmaker in question.
Which given recent newsworthy actions by said groups and their constituants, is more of a condemnation of the works, writer, and general philosophy than an endorsement:
Wrexasaur wrote:Replace 'pick up' with understand (alternatively, be capable of understanding as a species, not an individual), the argument is entirely sound. You are arguing against a benchmark with the concept of universal comparisons. Dolphins are like whales are like humans are like elephants. They aren't. We eat a lot of different animals and while I am not personally inclined to agree entirely with the premise that intelligence = do not eat, it is certainly more focused than the idea that we have no concept of regulation on what to digest. We do have limitations and the main one is that you can't eat people. It would be considered murder and cannibalism.
It's not really a question of eat/do not eat. It's a question of kill/do not kill. The premise is also not "intelligence = do not kill," but rather "capacity to suffer = right not to suffer." Dolphins are like whales are like humans are like elephants in one regard: all are capable of suffering, all show a desire to avoid suffering, and all demonstrate symptoms of depression and declining health when made to suffer extensively. Put a dolphin in a small tank, like a backyard swimming pool, and no matter how well fed and treated he is, he will become depressed, anxious and even suicidal. Same thing happens if you put an elephant in too small a cage. Or a human..
Shock and horror about society having laws against eating other people, where the concepts of eating animals varies by culture.
Ahem. There are, point of fact, many human societies that have featured benevolent attitudes towards cannibalism.
Which means you're left claiming that humans have rights because they are human, and animals don't have rights because they are not human, and the tool-using argument is revealed as spurious hand-waving to obfuscate the true source of rights by your calculation: species.
Funny.
But it's accurate. Consider the following, all true under Chris's stated worldview:
Handyman Bob is a tool-user and a human. Bob has rights.
Disabled Ed is incapable of using tools and a human. Ed has rights.
Bobo is a tool-user and a dolphin. Bobo has no rights.
Looking at these facts, from whence do rights appear to originate? Is it from tool use, or is it from humanity? Clearly it is from humanity.
Of course, if you wish to argue that infants, children, and the mentally disabled have no human rights because they are not tool-users, then you can save your argument, but you'll end up defending a position far more extreme than Singers. I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to defend the position that its okay to eat babies because they don't know what hammers are for...
LOL. You took that all the way to eating babies, freaking classic.
Delicious.
Reductio ad absurdum is my favorite rhetorical tactic.
Gailbraithe wrote:Singer's work is of more direct and immediate relevance to the actions of groups like ALF, PETA, or the filmmaker in question.
Which given recent newsworthy actions by said groups and their constituants, is more of a condemnation of the works, writer, and general philosophy than an endorsement:
Yeah, and Jesus comes off pretty badly if you judge him by his followers. It's easy to attack the animal rights movement for the worst of them, but the more mainstream movement is pretty reasonable. It's easy to find fault with PETA. But what about the SPCA? What about World Wildlife Fun? You really want to go after the group that is pretty much the #1 reason America isn't infested with packs of wild dogs? Or a group that's primary means of saving animals is funding reserves and doing educational work with children? What monsters!
But you won't get any argument from me that PETA and ALF are egregiously stupid. I understand where they are coming from, but I think they're totally asinine in how they go about achieving those ends. This filmmaker seems far more reasonable. I'm a big believer in the freedom of investigative journalism to expose unpopular and highly questionable activities. Like hunting dolphins.
Which means you're left claiming that humans have rights because they are human, and animals don't have rights because they are not human, and the tool-using argument is revealed as spurious hand-waving to obfuscate the true source of rights by your calculation: species.
Funny.
But it's accurate. Consider the following, all true under Chris's stated worldview:
Handyman Bob is a tool-user and a human. Bob has rights.
Disabled Ed is incapable of using tools and a human. Ed has rights.
Bobo is a tool-user and a dolphin. Bobo has no rights.
Looking at these facts, from whence do rights appear to originate? Is it from tool use, or is it from humanity? Clearly it is from humanity.
You missed something there.
Handyman Bob is a tool user that uses tools to alter his enviroment and a human. Bob has rights.
Disabled Ed is in capable of tool use but is human. Ed has rights.
Bobo is a tool user but does not alter his enviorment and is a dolphin. Bobo has no HUMAN rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
This filmmaker seems far more reasonable. I'm a big believer in the freedom of investigative journalism to expose unpopular and highly questionable activities. Like hunting dolphins.
So, you would also advocate wiretapping as an investigative tool, if it were to expose "questionable activities"? In this country, it is considered so illegal that we started to impeach a sitting president over it.
There are legal ways to get the footage used to expose things that others find objectionable. O'Barry chose to violate the law. To me that makes him less like a journalist and more like a bank robber.
ChrisWWII wrote:Additionally, for me one of the proofs of true intelligence and deserving of human rights would be this. I am stating this openly and clearly so that I have established a personal benchmark that will be fixed. For me that point is the use of technology to shape an environment. Yes, lots of creatures use tools in a way. But how many creatures can pick up a rock and realize that they can change the rock to something more useful? To me, that is what the dividing line is. To be a part of a species that has shown a repeatable ability to both create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit.
Your personal benchmark seems entirely arbitrary. You have crafted a benchmark that seems to have no actual connection to the question of rights, but does conveniently seem to exclude animals, and I believe you are engaging in a not particularly subtle version of bait-and-switch.
I would argue that you are claiming that humans have rights because they are human, not because they have the capacity to create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit. Your argument would seem to imply that the mentally handicapped have no rights, because they do not have the capacity to create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit.
Although I disagree with it i do not find Chris' benchmark to be that outrageous. I certainly don;t see how he is in anyway claiming that mentally handicapped people have no rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
As for your second post I have one response. Evidence? You go on a long tirade listing a long list of possible cop-outs for dolphins not displaying what we would view as sapience, and you provide not a single word of evidence for them. Where are the research papers proving that dolphins are really sapient creatures? They don't exist, and the burden of proof is on you to prove your points.
Reading through that paper, it does indeed provide an interesting arguments in favor of dolphins being self-aware creature, and of dolphins being similar to primitive human networks in many ways. However, I do note that the paper was published not by a scientific journal, but by an ocean conservation group dedicated to protecting dolphins and other marine mammals. To me, this casts doubt on its legitimacy. For me, I want to see proof published in a scientific journal instead of by a NGO conservation group.
Additionally, for me one of the proofs of true intelligence and deserving of human rights would be this. I am stating this openly and clearly so that I have established a personal benchmark that will be fixed. For me that point is the use of technology to shape an environment. Yes, lots of creatures use tools in a way. But how many creatures can pick up a rock and realize that they can change the rock to something more useful? To me, that is what the dividing line is. To be a part of a species that has shown a repeatable ability to both create and use technology to alter their environment to their own benefit.
One thing I'd like to point out from this paper is that they mention that the dolphins are sometimes killed as "pest control" because they eat some of the same fish and squid that fishermen are after. This disgusts me more than killing them to be eaten. Killing a sentient, socially complex creatures like dolphins because they are "pests" is horrifying, and killing them in such numbers. . . it is absolutely despicable.
One thing I'd like to point out from this paper is that they mention that the dolphins are sometimes killed as "pest control" because they eat some of the same fish and squid that fishermen are after. This disgusts me more than killing them to be eaten. Killing a sentient, socially complex creatures like dolphins because they are "pests" is horrifying, and killing them in such numbers. . . it is absolutely despicable.
I too think Japan is...overestimating the problems that dolphins cause to their fisheries. If there is a danger of fishery collapse, then it would be the human's fault, I have no complaint to that. However, I do believe that since dolphin hunting in Taiji seems to be a cultural tradition (as it is in many parts of the world) that is the major reason why they hunt dolphins.
One thing I'd like to point out from this paper is that they mention that the dolphins are sometimes killed as "pest control" because they eat some of the same fish and squid that fishermen are after. This disgusts me more than killing them to be eaten. Killing a sentient, socially complex creatures like dolphins because they are "pests" is horrifying, and killing them in such numbers. . . it is absolutely despicable.
I too think Japan is...overestimating the problems that dolphins cause to their fisheries. If there is a danger of fishery collapse, then it would be the human's fault, I have no complaint to that. However, I do believe that since dolphin hunting in Taiji seems to be a cultural tradition (as it is in many parts of the world) that is the major reason why they hunt dolphins.
Cultures the world over have had traditions that are cruel and barbaric, and cannot be defended by the fact that they are "traditions". I'm sorry but Japan is part of the civilized world, and killing thousands of dolphins like this is not what is generally thought of as civilized. I am not saying that we should tell Japan how to run their country, but any tradition that is based around the killing and prolonged suffering of animals like this, should be stopped. What possible reasons does the Japanese government have to protect this practice?
1. Dolphin meat is unhealthy due it's high levels of mercury, and demand for it is lower than ever.
2. Dolphins are not in reality cheating fishermen out of their catches.
3. It is cruel in the extreme.
So there is no real economic benefit in the industry, dolphins are not harming any other fishing industries, it is INCREDIBLY unhealthy and can lead to cancer, mercury poisoning, and it is horribly cruel. So why are they protecting this? That is what I don't understand.
And surely some Indians view the West's practice of killing and eating the holy animal of Hinuism cruel and barabaric, wouldn't they? Does that mean that just because they perceive us as cruel and barbaric for our practices we are? The West has a tradition of killing vast numbers of cows, chickens, pigs and a dozen other type of animals, and did it for thousands of years. What's the difference between hunting a deer or farming a cow and doing the same to dolphins? There simply is none.
1) Dolphin meat in that part of the world is unhealthy due to industrial output. That is a completely seperate issue from the one here, and if the government of Japan has deemed dolphin meat safe for its people to consume who are we to dispute them?
2) Potentially true, but that is the point of view of the Japanese fishermen, and apparently the Japanese government. It may not be popular, but we just have to live with it.
3) Once again, debatable. Cruel in the extreme is not a fixed phrase and can be debated endlessly.
My best answer is tradition. Humans tend to keep traditions even if it doesn't make sense for them to do it. If it's part of their culture, who are we to judge them for it? MOre importantly why are we only focusing on the Japanese? Other peoples around the world hunt dolphins, but no one focuses on them.
ChrisWWII wrote:And surely some Indians view the West's practice of killing and eating the holy animal of Hinuism cruel and barabaric, wouldn't they? Does that mean that just because they perceive us as cruel and barbaric for our practices we are? The West has a tradition of killing vast numbers of cows, chickens, pigs and a dozen other type of animals, and did it for thousands of years. What's the difference between hunting a deer or farming a cow and doing the same to dolphins? There simply is none.
1) Dolphin meat in that part of the world is unhealthy due to industrial output. That is a completely seperate issue from the one here, and if the government of Japan has deemed dolphin meat safe for its people to consume who are we to dispute them?
2) Potentially true, but that is the point of view of the Japanese fishermen, and apparently the Japanese government. It may not be popular, but we just have to live with it.
3) Once again, debatable. Cruel in the extreme is not a fixed phrase and can be debated endlessly.
My best answer is tradition. Humans tend to keep traditions even if it doesn't make sense for them to do it. If it's part of their culture, who are we to judge them for it? MOre importantly why are we only focusing on the Japanese? Other peoples around the world hunt dolphins, but no one focuses on them.
1) Just because Japan has deemed the meat safe to eat, that doesn't change the fact that mercury is toxic, and the meat being sold and fed to school children does have mercury in it. Feeding mercury to schoolchildren is a tad bit outrageous.
2) So what if they decide that dolphins are such pests that they are going to do they're damnedest to kill them off? It is unacceptable to let a species be hunted almost to extinction, which is what will happen if this is not stopped, just to respect someone's backwards laws.
3) Yes, debatable, but almost undeniable. Tell me that rounding these dolphins up and dooming them to slow painful deaths is not cruel.
The japanese aren't the only ones that are under the spotlight for killling dolphins, they are just the ones that kill the most, so they are recieving most of the attention.
^^Rubiksnoob (editted - man you guys are fast - 2 posts above)
1. I agree. It's full of mercury and it's unhealthy. I'd never knowingly eat it.
2. According to my fishermen friends (coughing joke here), there are little to no fish around this area of Japan. I live about 400 yards or so from the ocean. They all sing the same refrain whenever we meet up: there are no fish. I'm sure that the dolphins, which I've never seen around here anyway, are not cheating the fishermen out of their catches, but are competing with them for what fish are left. That is the fishermen's viewpoint. The fishermen are run by the Yakuza. The Yakuza like money and are criminals, so I'm not too surprised they're doing this.
3. Yeah. It's lame. I remember seeing an article about it in a 1970s article in National Geographic as a kid and freaking out about it.
Somewhere deep in the thread it was stated that Whale is still used in school lunch. I know that it used to be on the regular menu as late as the 70s, but I haven't seen it on the kyushoku (lunchtime menu) at any school I've been at. The kids generally eat rice, soup, pork, chicken and this horrible burnt cold fish. I don't eat the school lunches as they are high calorie schisse disguised to be 'healthy'. They do still sell whale in supermarkets though. I've only had Whale jerky, but I've heard the meat tastes like eating greasy old shoes.
"Why are they protecting this?" - A little inside joke for those with experience in Japan or Japanese spouses - "You don't understand because you're not Japanese.
Khornholio wrote:
"Why are they protecting this?" - A little inside joke for those with experience in Japan or Japanese spouses - "You don't understand because you're not Japanese.
I have heard this one before, but find it a little hard to accept. And just out of curiosity, what is the Yakuza? Some sort of corrupted government agency or something?
rubiksnoob wrote:
2) So what if they decide that dolphins are such pests that they are going to do they're damnedest to kill them off? It is unacceptable to let a species be hunted almost to extinction, which is what will happen if this is not stopped, just to respect someone's backwards laws.
I think that largely depends on how far you're willing to push the issue. Sure, you may not agree with the idea that dolphins should be hunted, but there's more to it than morality involved. You also have to consider international relations, the severity of the issue with respect to people out of immediate contact with it, and what can be realistically done to move public opinion and state policy.
In general, I don't think there's a compelling reason to hunt dolphins. They aren't a particularly useful foodstuff, there isn't a large amrket for their meat, and their population is far from sustainable. However, I'm not willing to go all that far in course of preventing people from hunting them. I think my time is better spent on other things. And this comes from someone who has, in the past, worked for Greenpeace.
Khornholio wrote:
"Why are they protecting this?" - A little inside joke for those with experience in Japan or Japanese spouses - "You don't understand because you're not Japanese.
I have heard this one before, but find it a little hard to accept. And just out of curiosity, what is the Yakuza? Some sort of corrupted government agency or something?
I found it hard to accept to until I heard it repeated for the 10 millionth time and then stopped asking. Anything you find flawed about Japanese Culture from eating Whale to their collective hard on for winnie the pooh will get this answer.
The Yakuza are the mob. They do the dirty work for the cops (i.e. import drugs, rough up foreigners (especially Chinese), act tough, have punch perms, wear tacky tracksuits and carry Louis Vuitton Man bags. oh, and run the fishing and porno industries.
Khornholio wrote:
"Why are they protecting this?" - A little inside joke for those with experience in Japan or Japanese spouses - "You don't understand because you're not Japanese.
I have heard this one before, but find it a little hard to accept. And just out of curiosity, what is the Yakuza? Some sort of corrupted government agency or something?
I found it hard to accept to until I heard it repeated for the 10 millionth time and then stopped asking. Anything you find flawed about Japanese Culture from eating Whale to their collective hard on for winnie the pooh will get this answer.
The Yakuza are the mob. They do the dirty work for the cops (i.e. import drugs, rough up foreigners (especially Chinese), act tough, have punch perms, wear tacky tracksuits and carry Louis Vuitton Man bags. oh, and run the fishing and porno industries.
Not even going to ask about winnie the pooh.
So is Japan run by the mob, or do they just tolerate them and let them do whatever they want?
And why would they care about killing dolphins so much? it's not exactly lucrative.
Greenpeace used to have a wider focus. Now it's all about dolphins and whales because of these vigilante posers who go out on boats and make television shows so that they can afford the repair bills when they are deservedly rammed.
I used to be a sponsor because they had a message worth hearing. It's still worth hearing, but they're all bunked up with animal rights activists now and it's eight fathoms deep in pure crap.
Khornholio wrote:
"Why are they protecting this?" - A little inside joke for those with experience in Japan or Japanese spouses - "You don't understand because you're not Japanese.
I have heard this one before, but find it a little hard to accept. And just out of curiosity, what is the Yakuza? Some sort of corrupted government agency or something?
I found it hard to accept to until I heard it repeated for the 10 millionth time and then stopped asking. Anything you find flawed about Japanese Culture from eating Whale to their collective hard on for winnie the pooh will get this answer.
The Yakuza are the mob. They do the dirty work for the cops (i.e. import drugs, rough up foreigners (especially Chinese), act tough, have punch perms, wear tacky tracksuits and carry Louis Vuitton Man bags. oh, and run the fishing and porno industries.
Not even going to ask about winnie the pooh.
So is Japan run by the mob, or do they just tolerate them and let them do whatever they want?
Well, I wouldn't say Japan is run by the mob, but they are intimately involved with the government and cops. Just as a quick example, the ultra-nationalists, the Aikokuto, are "the" Yakuza party. They would like to see Japan return to its pre-war empire status. They drive around in big black buses, play old navy songs and scream gak over megaphones, all the time professing their love for their Emperor of Japanese-kind. But at the same time, they bring in all the really hard drugs from North Korea (heroin, ecstasy, chemical stuff) and sell it to the broads who work in their brothels, clubbers, ex-pat business men, etc. They have loan sharking businesses which charge like 20% interest and stuff, they run gambling fronts through "North Korean" Korean nationals living in Japan and launder money for Kim Jong Il. I heard a story from City hall here that there were 11 Chinese guys working at the fish packing plant, run by the Yakuza, that had the same name. Just a bunch of shady stuff. Kill dolphins, you know. The Cops are basically armed information booth attendants. They use the Yakuza to beat up foreigners who are a problem for the authorities, especially asian ones. That stuff happens mostly in the big cities like Tokyo or Osaka. The cops never bust the Yakuza ever. They even have magazines for sale at the local 7-11 about the Yamaguchi gun, the big time Yakuza gang down south. They own the politicians with drugs and broads. It's like a triangle, I guess, but all one in the same. The cops are the friendly neighbourhood face who'll help grandma get her cat out of the tree, the politicians/bureaucrats who are the international business face to the world, and the Yakuza who do all the dirty work. And it's all for the Emprah! Ask any 75 year old Chinese or Korean survivor of the Pacific War, they'll tell you.
As for Disney - they've been brainwashed into liking Winnie the Pooh and Stitch. Did you know you can't even buy a beer at Disneyland in Tokyo?! That's why I won't go; I'd have to be drunk to maintain sanity. Can you imagine spending $400 to go stand in lines all day? But most Japanese love it.
Yakuza fall into that "tradition" catagory, though they have really only been around, to greater notice, since the 1930s or so.
As I have posted before, these dolphin hunts have set limits on the numbers allowed to be caught... @2600 animals per year, regardless of method, with specific numbers for specific types.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Greenpeace used to have a wider focus. Now it's all about dolphins and whales because of these vigilante posers who go out on boats and make television shows so that they can afford the repair bills when they are deservedly rammed.
I used to be a sponsor because they had a message worth hearing. It's still worth hearing, but they're all bunked up with animal rights activists now and it's eight fathoms deep in pure crap.
When I worked there, going on 2-3 years ago now, the big campaigns were Kimberly Clark, polar bears, whaling, and green energy.
I was basically the numbers guy in the office, but I did some canvassing too. All our canvassers had to keep track, not only of their contributions, but what methodology they used to solicit those contributions. These weren't the most accurate statistics (+-7% when accounting for expected human error), but about 40% of our income came off the Kimberly Clark pitch (admittedly, it was better written than most of them), with whaling in second at 25%, Polar bears at 20%, and green energy at 15%.
I know the national office really pushes the whaling agenda, but from all the data I've seen its not especially effective. However, my office was in Chicago, and the largest contribution areas are, by far, the Pacific Northwest where for some reason people are apparently less concerned about the forrests in their backyards than whaling. Though that may relate to the fact that a lot of Pacific Northwest people are at least indirectly employed by Kimberly Clark.
I stopped sponsoring about 2.5 years ago... sounds about right. The agenda is pretty much the same in Oz, except for the Kimberly Clark angle. The newsletters will have a small article hidden in the back about deforestation, salinity and erosion issues, but the front cover and 90% of everything else is a picture of a whale, or a boat doing something illegal and ineffective.
It's a matter of both sides saying, "I don't get these guys."
I personally understand the Japanese position a lot better - it's rational.
Gailbraithe wrote:Handyman Bob is a tool-user and a human. Bob has rights.
Disabled Ed is incapable of using tools and a human. Ed has rights.
Bobo is a tool-user and a dolphin. Bobo has no rights.
Looking at these facts, from whence do rights appear to originate? Is it from tool use, or is it from humanity? Clearly it is from humanity.
You missed something there.
Handyman Bob is a tool user that uses tools to alter his enviroment and a human. Bob has rights.
Disabled Ed is in capable of tool use but is human. Ed has rights.
Bobo is a tool user but does not alter his enviorment and is a dolphin. Bobo has no HUMAN rights.
I didn't miss anything. First of all, you have changed the formulation so that Bobo has no HUMAN rights, which is a circular argument -- you're arguing that rights are human rights because only humans have them, which puts us right back at claiming that humans have rights because they are human. Second, Bobo's tool use does alter his environment, and Disabled Ed is incapable of tool use.
So, you would also advocate wiretapping as an investigative tool, if it were to expose "questionable activities"? In this country, it is considered so illegal that we started to impeach a sitting president over it.
I don't know, are you making the claim that a journalist and the government are indistinguishable from each other?
Gailbraithe wrote:Handyman Bob is a tool-user and a human. Bob has rights.
Disabled Ed is incapable of using tools and a human. Ed has rights.
Bobo is a tool-user and a dolphin. Bobo has no rights.
Looking at these facts, from whence do rights appear to originate? Is it from tool use, or is it from humanity? Clearly it is from humanity.
You missed something there.
Handyman Bob is a tool user that uses tools to alter his enviroment and a human. Bob has rights.
Disabled Ed is in capable of tool use but is human. Ed has rights.
Bobo is a tool user but does not alter his enviorment and is a dolphin. Bobo has no HUMAN rights.
I didn't miss anything. First of all, you have changed the formulation so that Bobo has no HUMAN rights, which is a circular argument -- you're arguing that rights are human rights because only humans have them, which puts us right back at claiming that humans have rights because they are human. Second, Bobo's tool use does alter his environment, and Disabled Ed is incapable of tool use.
So, you would also advocate wiretapping as an investigative tool, if it were to expose "questionable activities"? In this country, it is considered so illegal that we started to impeach a sitting president over it.
I don't know, are you making the claim that a journalist and the government are indistinguishable from each other?
He's not, and you know it. That's not even remotely related to the issue.
He's pointing out the disparity between the law-breaking that you find acceptable and that which you do not. And it's an excellent point.
ChrisWWII wrote:And surely some Indians view the West's practice of killing and eating the holy animal of Hinuism cruel and barabaric, wouldn't they? Does that mean that just because they perceive us as cruel and barbaric for our practices we are? The West has a tradition of killing vast numbers of cows, chickens, pigs and a dozen other type of animals, and did it for thousands of years. What's the difference between hunting a deer or farming a cow and doing the same to dolphins? There simply is none.
1) Dolphin meat in that part of the world is unhealthy due to industrial output. That is a completely seperate issue from the one here, and if the government of Japan has deemed dolphin meat safe for its people to consume who are we to dispute them?
2) Potentially true, but that is the point of view of the Japanese fishermen, and apparently the Japanese government. It may not be popular, but we just have to live with it.
3) Once again, debatable. Cruel in the extreme is not a fixed phrase and can be debated endlessly.
My best answer is tradition. Humans tend to keep traditions even if it doesn't make sense for them to do it. If it's part of their culture, who are we to judge them for it? MOre importantly why are we only focusing on the Japanese? Other peoples around the world hunt dolphins, but no one focuses on them.
1) Just because Japan has deemed the meat safe to eat, that doesn't change the fact that mercury is toxic, and the meat being sold and fed to school children does have mercury in it. Feeding mercury to schoolchildren is a tad bit outrageous.
2) So what if they decide that dolphins are such pests that they are going to do they're damnedest to kill them off? It is unacceptable to let a species be hunted almost to extinction, which is what will happen if this is not stopped, just to respect someone's backwards laws.
3) Yes, debatable, but almost undeniable. Tell me that rounding these dolphins up and dooming them to slow painful deaths is not cruel.
The japanese aren't the only ones that are under the spotlight for killling dolphins, they are just the ones that kill the most, so they are recieving most of the attention.
Edit: Never mind just read the argument over again.
Gailbraithe wrote:...you're arguing that rights are human rights because only humans have them, which puts us right back at claiming that humans have rights because they are human. Second, Bobo's tool use does alter his environment...
No, that's not what he's arguing. His contention is the standard critique of Singer, that being from Singer's admission that different species can be treated differently when there are legitimatel grounds for doing so. Given that, it doesn't make sense to talk about rights (even as the extremely lose manner that Singer treats his right-like ideas) as a general concept, but instead only as specifically limited categories; eg. human rights, dog rights, cat rights...
Gailbraithe wrote:
...and Disabled Ed is incapable of tool use.
That's in and of itself an odd premise given that all but the most physically disabled humans appears capable of tool use.
rubiksnoob wrote:
1) Just because Japan has deemed the meat safe to eat, that doesn't change the fact that mercury is toxic, and the meat being sold and fed to school children does have mercury in it. Feeding mercury to schoolchildren is a tad bit outrageous.
2) So what if they decide that dolphins are such pests that they are going to do they're damnedest to kill them off? It is unacceptable to let a species be hunted almost to extinction, which is what will happen if this is not stopped, just to respect someone's backwards laws.
3) Yes, debatable, but almost undeniable. Tell me that rounding these dolphins up and dooming them to slow painful deaths is not cruel.
The japanese aren't the only ones that are under the spotlight for killling dolphins, they are just the ones that kill the most, so they are recieving most of the attention.
1) Their government has deemed it safe, and deeming it unsafe is a completely different case. Even then, testing and deeming dolphin meat unfit for human consumption is something that can be done without Mr. O'Barry's blatant violation of Japanese law.
2) For one, the Japanes are only harvesting dolphins in their small corner of the world, and there is no danger of the dolphin being hunted to extinction around the world due to the actions of this one village. As evidence, I present Mr. O'Barry's documentary itself where he points out that another dolphin fishing village further along the coast has exhausted its dolphin population out, and no has no dolphins. Doesn't the fact that Taiji still has dolphins prove that this level of hunting is sustainable? More importantly, it's not a backwards law, it's a long time tradition of this village in Japan. I don't know what it's equivalent in Western culture would be, for that you'd have to ask someone from Taiji.
3) Finally, do you think hunters in the US are any crueller? Do you think it's somehow less cruel to shoot a deer and let it die from that wound than to kill a dolphin in this way? The West does similar things, but we react harshly to Japan hunting dolphins simply because it's foreign to us, and not something we're used to, and thus must be evil.
rubiksnoob wrote:Although I disagree with it i do not find Chris' benchmark to be that outrageous. I certainly don;t see how he is in anyway claiming that mentally handicapped people have no rights.
If rights are derived from the ability to use tools to alter one's environment, and thus dolphins do not have rights because they do not use tools, then a mentally handicapped person incapable of using tools has no rights. Chris is taking the position that animals have no rights because all rights are human rights. He claims that these rights derive from their ability to use tools, and not from their humanity. But if that claim is true, then Chris must agree that people incapable of using tools have no rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
helgrenze wrote:So, you would also advocate wiretapping as an investigative tool, if it were to expose "questionable activities"? In this country, it is considered so illegal that we started to impeach a sitting president over it.
I don't know, are you making the claim that a journalist and the government are indistinguishable from each other?
He's not, and you know it. That's not even remotely related to the issue.
He's pointing out the disparity between the law-breaking that you find acceptable and that which you do not. And it's an excellent point.
How is that not related to the issue? He's trying to get me to say that because I'm okay with a crusading journalist/activist trespassing to shine light on a wrong, I must therefore also be okay with Nixon's wiretaps? That's ridiculous, and anyone who says otherwise is also ridiculous.
rubiksnoob wrote:Although I disagree with it i do not find Chris' benchmark to be that outrageous. I certainly don;t see how he is in anyway claiming that mentally handicapped people have no rights.
If rights are derived from the ability to use tools to alter one's environment, and thus dolphins do not have rights because they do not use tools, then a mentally handicapped person incapable of using tools has no rights. Chris is taking the position that animals have no rights because all rights are human rights. He claims that these rights derive from their ability to use tools, and not from their humanity. But if that claim is true, then Chris must agree that people incapable of using tools have no rights.
Incorrect, if you read my benchmark you will see that I specifically accounted for that. I said that those who are members of a species that have shown a repeatable ability to use tools to alter their environment are the ones deserving the rights. Human rights are something that must be granted on a species level instead of an individual level, and dolphins have not shown the ability as a species to use tools and technology.
So yes, a disabled human being has human rights as they are a member of a species who have shown a repeatable ability to use technology, even though they themselves lack such an ability.
So yes, a disabled human being has human rights as they are a member of a species who have shown a repeatable ability to use technology, even though they themselves lack such an ability.
"Personal Rule. No experiments on species with members capable of calculus."
ChrisWWII wrote:Incorrect, if you read my benchmark you will see that I specifically accounted for that. I said that those who are members of a species that have shown a repeatable ability to use tools to alter their environment are the ones deserving the rights. Human rights are something that must be granted on a species level instead of an individual level, and dolphins have not shown the ability as a species to use tools and technology.
So yes, a disabled human being has human rights as they are a member of a species who have shown a repeatable ability to use technology, even though they themselves lack such an ability.
rubiksnoob wrote:Although I disagree with it i do not find Chris' benchmark to be that outrageous. I certainly don;t see how he is in anyway claiming that mentally handicapped people have no rights.
If rights are derived from the ability to use tools to alter one's environment, and thus dolphins do not have rights because they do not use tools, then a mentally handicapped person incapable of using tools has no rights. Chris is taking the position that animals have no rights because all rights are human rights. He claims that these rights derive from their ability to use tools, and not from their humanity. But if that claim is true, then Chris must agree that people incapable of using tools have no rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
helgrenze wrote:So, you would also advocate wiretapping as an investigative tool, if it were to expose "questionable activities"? In this country, it is considered so illegal that we started to impeach a sitting president over it.
I don't know, are you making the claim that a journalist and the government are indistinguishable from each other?
He's not, and you know it. That's not even remotely related to the issue.
He's pointing out the disparity between the law-breaking that you find acceptable and that which you do not. And it's an excellent point.
How is that not related to the issue? He's trying to get me to say that because I'm okay with a crusading journalist/activist trespassing to shine light on a wrong, I must therefore also be okay with Nixon's wiretaps? That's ridiculous, and anyone who says otherwise is also ridiculous.
Good thing no one is saying that.
What was said, again, is that you are hypocritical in that you accept law-breaking when it's being done to further an end that you happen to agree with but would condemn someone who broke the law with whom you disagreed.
Gailbraithe wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:Incorrect, if you read my benchmark you will see that I specifically accounted for that. I said that those who are members of a species that have shown a repeatable ability to use tools to alter their environment are the ones deserving the rights. Human rights are something that must be granted on a species level instead of an individual level, and dolphins have not shown the ability as a species to use tools and technology.
So yes, a disabled human being has human rights as they are a member of a species who have shown a repeatable ability to use technology, even though they themselves lack such an ability.
ChrisWWII wrote:Incorrect, if you read my benchmark you will see that I specifically accounted for that. I said that those who are members of a species that have shown a repeatable ability to use tools to alter their environment are the ones deserving the rights. Human rights are something that must be granted on a species level instead of an individual level, and dolphins have not shown the ability as a species to use tools and technology.
So yes, a disabled human being has human rights as they are a member of a species who have shown a repeatable ability to use technology, even though they themselves lack such an ability.
2. Are you arguing that individuals do not have rights, only species?
3. Why does being the member of a species that can make tools grant one rights? Why is tool-making the source of rights?
4. Who grants rights? Are rights not inalienable?
5. No one cares if dolphins have human rights, dolphins are not humans. The question is: Do dolphins have dolphin rights?
1) Yes, dolphins use tools, but do they use technology? Technology is different from simple tool use, as many many creatures use tools, but technology implies that they use those tools to alter their environment for their own benefit. E.g. Picking up a rock and using it to get food is tool use but not technology, as you are not altering your environment. Picking up a rock, and shaping it into a rudimentary knife or axe? THAT is technology, and that is what I label as the line between an animal and a sentient/sapient creature like a human.
2) I am arguing that the rights of the individual come from the intelligence/sentience/sapience of the species.
3) Because showing the ability to develop and use technology is a sign of true intelligence. It shows that a creature is a true sentient/sapient creature and thus is deserving of human rights, additionally this is the benchmark I laid out for myself, and seems to have been adopted overall by this debate. If you disagree, please tell me what your own line is.
4) Rights are inalienable, and who grants them is a question for a philosophical debate, not this one. Ask different people and you'll get different ones, some will say nature and others will say God. How can we know?
5) I'm using human rights as a basis for what kind of rights dolphins would get if they were proven to be another sentient/sapient form of life. It's easier for people to know what I'm referring to if I say human rights, as that is a well known term. Dolphin's have dolphin rights, and those rights are currently those of animals.
Gailbraithe wrote:
There isn't a lick of logic in that argument.
The absence of logic from an argument is not a euphemism for misinformation, or ignorance. Please try to use the word consitently, or do not pretend as though its a word you understand.
Gailbraithe wrote:
5. No one cares if dolphins have human rights, dolphins are not humans. The question is: Do dolphins have dolphin rights?
Actually, if we posit that human's have human rights it follows that dolphins have dolphin rights. Therefore the question is not whether or not dolphins have rights, but what thoes rights happen to be.
Monster Rain wrote:Good thing no one is saying that.
Then why the reference to Nixon? Or is there some other president who was almost impeached for wiretapping?
What was said, again, is that you are hypocritical in that you accept law-breaking when it's being done to further an end that you happen to agree with but would condemn someone who broke the law with whom you disagreed.
So if I think that Rosa Parks was a hero for breaking the law and sitting at the front of the bus (law-breaking done to further an end that I happen to agree with), but I think John Wayne Gasey should be condemned for murdering little boys and burying them in his basement (someone who broke the law with whom I disagreed), then I am a hypocrite?
ChrisWWII wrote:
1) Yes, dolphins use tools, but do they use technology? Technology is different from simple tool use, as many many creatures use tools, but technology implies that they use those tools to alter their environment for their own benefit.
Actually, that's what tool use implies. G-baby hasn't been fair in his use of the word 'tool' thus far, but that isn't an excuse for you to misuse it as well.
To simplify, technology and tools are one and the same for the purposes of this argument, and dolphins do use tools.
ChrisWWII wrote:
2) I am arguing that the rights of the individual come from the intelligence/sentience/sapience of the species.
That's also what Singer argues. However, he would addend that suffering is not contingent upon sapience (well, insofar as we are discussing animals).
ChrisWWII wrote:
3) Because showing the ability to develop and use technology is a sign of true intelligence.
Word to the wise: the use of 'true' anything in an argument is like critic bait. I would refrain from it were I you.
ChrisWWII wrote:
4) Rights are inalienable, and who grants them is a question for a philosophical debate, not this one.
Sorry, dude, but if rights are inalienable then no one grants them.
ChrisWWII wrote:
5) I'm using human rights as a basis for what kind of rights dolphins would get if they were proven to be another sentient/sapient form of life. It's easier for people to know what I'm referring to if I say human rights, as that is a well known term. Dolphin's have dolphin rights, and those rights are currently those of animals.
That's not unreasonable. Dolphins are not human, and the only widely acknowledged sapient lifeform is the human being. I would hesistate, however, to refer to huma nrights and animal rights as though they were equivalent on a categorical level. They aren't.
1) Eh, I think that there is a difference between tool use and technology as is. Don't you agree that there is a difference between using a rock as a make-shift club and shaping that rock into something more useful? I think there is, and I apologize if my terminology is wrong. This isn't really my area of expertise, and I tend to switch a lot between colloquial meanings and literal ones... Apologies.
2) I'm guessing I'll have to surrender that point, but I did draw my line in a different place. From what I've grasped, Singer draws the line of granting rights at the ability to feel pain. I draw the line much closer to humanity. Like I said, I think that if the species shows the ability to use technology repeatably, then even if an individual does not show that ability (e.g. mentally disabled human) that individual has access to the same rights as any other member of the species.
3) Agreed, once again apologies. I suppose I should say a sign of deserving rights equivalent to human ones, yes?
4) =Shrugs= Like I said, it's a philosophical debate, and one far beyond me. WHere do rights come from? Are they inalienable? Or are they granted? Who knows? I'm going to keep my mouth shut on my personal viewpoint, as it will only send this debate off in a completely different direction.
5) Agreed, human and animal rights are different, and on a different level. Human rights are superior to animal rights, and I guess the best (and rather awkward sounding) terminology for this debate would be: 'rights equivalent to human rights'. I find it easier to just say human rights, and I think we can all agree to that.
ChrisWWII wrote:1) Yes, dolphins use tools, but do they use technology? Technology is different from simple tool use, as many many creatures use tools, but technology implies that they use those tools to alter their environment for their own benefit. E.g. Picking up a rock and using it to get food is tool use but not technology, as you are not altering your environment. Picking up a rock, and shaping it into a rudimentary knife or axe? THAT is technology, and that is what I label as the line between an animal and a sentient/sapient creature like a human.
Tools are technology. Dolphins, lacking hands and being underwater, would not be able to demonstrate intelligence in the manner you demand. Nor would they have any need for tools, being well-adapted to their surroundings.
2) I am arguing that the rights of the individual come from the intelligence/sentience/sapience of the species.
3) Because showing the ability to develop and use technology is a sign of true intelligence. It shows that a creature is a true sentient/sapient creature and thus is deserving of human rights, additionally this is the benchmark I laid out for myself, and seems to have been adopted overall by this debate. If you disagree, please tell me what your own line is.
Why does intelligence indicate that a species is deserving of rights?
Also, you didn't answer the question: Why does being a member of a species that makes tools grant rights to members of the species that don't make tools? What is it about shared species that creates shared rights?
It is irrelevant that you have laid this benchmark for yourself, that doesn't mean you aren't wrong. It also doesn't matter how many people agree with you -- that's the bandwagon fallacy.
4) Rights are inalienable, and who grants them is a question for a philosophical debate, not this one. Ask different people and you'll get different ones, some will say nature and others will say God. How can we know?
We are having a philosophical debate about rights. If rights are inalienable, then they are not granted. Things simply have them.
If rights are inalienable, and animals have rights (see below), then you've pretty much lost this argument. Since the point I'm defending is that animals have rights that are inalienable...
5) I'm using human rights as a basis for what kind of rights dolphins would get if they were proven to be another sentient/sapient form of life. It's easier for people to know what I'm referring to if I say human rights, as that is a well known term. Dolphin's have dolphin rights, and those rights are currently those of animals.
Well okay, then what are the rights of animals? Where do animal rights come from?
ChrisWWII wrote:
1) Eh, I think that there is a difference between tool use and technology as is. Don't you agree that there is a difference between using a rock as a make-shift club and shaping that rock into something more useful? I think there is, and I apologize if my terminology is wrong. This isn't really my area of expertise, and I tend to switch a lot between colloquial meanings and literal ones... Apologies.
Oh, no, I agree with you. I'm just saying that what you describe as 'technology' is in fact a 'tool'. Tool use implies a sort of design.
ChrisWWII wrote:
From what I've grasped, Singer draws the line of granting rights at the ability to feel pain. I draw the line much closer to humanity. Like I said, I think that if the species shows the ability to use technology repeatably, then even if an individual does not show that ability (e.g. mentally disabled human) that individual has access to the same rights as any other member of the species.
Alright. Well, Singer actually draws the line at the ability to determine preference, which is distinct from simply feeling pain. He also chooses to explicitly reject things like 'tool use' as valid criteria for the ability to suffer (he doesn't really believe in rights). In his mind, and mine as well, the ability to suffer should be grounds for the right to not suffer. However, simply because something suffers does not imply that all suffering is the same, and many critics of Singer indicate this fact. I feel like that latter line would be a better method of critique.
ChrisWWII wrote:
3) Agreed, once again apologies. I suppose I should say a sign of deserving rights equivalent to human ones, yes?
Much better.
ChrisWWII wrote:
4) =Shrugs= Like I said, it's a philosophical debate, and one far beyond me. WHere do rights come from? Are they inalienable? Or are they granted? Who knows? I'm going to keep my mouth shut on my personal viewpoint, as it will only send this debate off in a completely different direction.
Well, some people do believe that rights are inalienable. I'm merely stating that if someone can take those rights away, then they are not inalienable; which is to say that they can be taken away, or alienated.
ChrisWWII wrote:
5) Agreed, human and animal rights are different, and on a different level. Human rights are superior to animal rights, and I guess the best (and rather awkward sounding) terminology for this debate would be: 'rights equivalent to human rights'. I find it easier to just say human rights, and I think we can all agree to that.
You should look into guys like Carl Cohen, they are advocates of the sort specieism you are advertising.
Note also that, despite what G-baby says, specieism is difficult to lay out as intrinsically bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:Nor would they have any need for tools, being well-adapted to their surroundings.
Do dolphins use tools, or not? You have said both thus far, which is correct?
(OT: I rather like this points system of debate....it makes things much easier for all of us, don't you think?)
Gailbraithe:
1) I disagree. Tools and technology are related but different all technology comes from tools, but not all tools are technology. Do you not agree that there is a difference between a bird smashing open a hard shell with a rock (tool use) and a primitive human turning a similar rock into something different completely? (Technology) And yes, they could demonstrate their grasp of the concept of technology quite simply. One of the examples of tool use by an animal is the fact that they use ocean sponges as a fishing aide. Now, could they not shape that sponge in a way as to make it much more effective for their purpose than it arrives naturally?
In fact, your point that they have no need for tools is one of the things that truly separate humans and other sentient creature from their animal cousins. A creature that becomes intelligent uses its grasp of technology to make up for deficiencies in its own evolution. Without that, I don't see an evolutionary reason why intelligence would develop.
2) I explained earlier my line in the sand that is intelligence, or the like. My reasoning behind it is that if an animal demonstrates that it is intelligent through the use of technology, then they have crossed the line that separates humans from the apes, and is thus deserving of rights equivalent to the ones granted to humans. However, if you disagree with my line in the sand then what's yours? Where is your line that, once pass, an animal becomes a sentient/sapient creature and not just a mere animal?
Finally, being a member of a species that can make tools grants you the rights deserving of those species to avoid the claim made earlier that a disabled human who could not use tools would therefore lack human rights. No one would argue that a disabled human should be stripped of human rights because the are still human. This in fact helps you as if you can demonstrate a dolphin using technology in the manner described, I would concede that dolphins are sentient/sapient and thus deserving of human equivalent rights (hereafter referred to as HER).
3) True, I may be wrong. And yes, it doesn't matter if most people agree with me, but me laying that line is for your benefit moreso than mine. If I didn't lay down the line, then you could prove dolphins are sentient/sapient and I could just backstep and say 'nah, not enough'. By drawing a line, I'm giving a point I'm taking a stand on. Push me past it, and you are proven right.
4) Animals have rights, but that doesn't mean you've won. A dolphin has a right to live until it interferes with a human's right to eat it/hunt it for tradition/whatever. If you agree to that then yeah, this debate is over, but I doubt it. We are not debating whether or not animal's have rights. We are debating what those rights are and where they stand in relation to human rights, and if certain species of animals (namely dolphins) deserve HER. Whether or not rights are given or possessed is an age old philosophy question that humanity has struggled with for centuries and never resolved. We can not hope to resolve it here, we can only debate certain aspects of it.
5) And that is what we are debating. I say that animals have basic rights such as a right to live, but these are not equivalent to human rights. Aka, a human has a right to not be killed for food, but an animal does not. A human has the right to not be transported against their will (unless convicted by due process of law), but an animal doesn't. To me, animal rights are completely subservient to human rights. As to where they come from...where do human rights come from? God? Nature? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher or a theologian.
Dogma:
1) I think we disagree here....as I said earlier in this post to Gailbraithe, I view a difference between tools and technology, and while technology is built off of tools not all tools are technology.
2) Ahhhh, alright then. Well, not having read Singer, I can't really argue with you on what he says or the implications of it, and will simply have to accept what you say about his position.
3) Thank you.
4) Hmmm, that's true, but in that case yes. I guess I don't believe in the concept of completely inalienable rights, as I believe there is no such thing as an absolute law. I personally support the death penalty, thus saying that in certain cases it is justified to remove someones right to life. I believe in imprisonment for crimes, and thus believe in the ability of the right to freedom of travel to be alienable. I think there are exceptions to every rule, and we can't make any absolute statements.
5) Agreed, speciesm isn't necessarily bad, and thanks for the recommendation. I may read Singer and Cohen once I get some freetime after this.
ChrisWWII wrote:1) I disagree. Tools and technology are related but different all technology comes from tools, but not all tools are technology. Do you not agree that there is a difference between a bird smashing open a hard shell with a rock (tool use) and a primitive human turning a similar rock into something different completely? (Technology) And yes, they could demonstrate their grasp of the concept of technology quite simply. One of the examples of tool use by an animal is the fact that they use ocean sponges as a fishing aide. Now, could they not shape that sponge in a way as to make it much more effective for their purpose than it arrives naturally?
In fact, your point that they have no need for tools is one of the things that truly separate humans and other sentient creature from their animal cousins. A creature that becomes intelligent uses its grasp of technology to make up for deficiencies in its own evolution. Without that, I don't see an evolutionary reason why intelligence would develop.
That you disagree just means you are choosing to be wrong. Tools are technology.
I'm not going to get into your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
2) I explained earlier my line in the sand that is intelligence, or the like. My reasoning behind it is that if an animal demonstrates that it is intelligent through the use of technology, then they have crossed the line that separates humans from the apes, and is thus deserving of rights equivalent to the ones granted to humans. However, if you disagree with my line in the sand then what's yours? Where is your line that, once pass, an animal becomes a sentient/sapient creature and not just a mere animal?
Finally, being a member of a species that can make tools grants you the rights deserving of those species to avoid the claim made earlier that a disabled human who could not use tools would therefore lack human rights. No one would argue that a disabled human should be stripped of human rights because the are still human. This in fact helps you as if you can demonstrate a dolphin using technology in the manner described, I would concede that dolphins are sentient/sapient and thus deserving of human equivalent rights (hereafter referred to as HER).
You're dancing around the salient question: Why intelligence? Why not manual dexterity (equally important to tool making)?
And I really hope you know that saying "being a member of a species that can make tools grants you the rights deserving of those species to avoid the claim made earlier that a disabled human who could not use tools would therefore lack human rights" is completely disingenuous. You are essentially waving a magic wand to avoid the logical conclusion of your argument.
Q: If tool-using is the criteria by which rights are granted, why do non-tool using beings that are the same species as a tool using being granted the the rights of a tool-using being?
A: Because if they weren't, you'd have backed me into a corner logically and I would have to reconsider my position!
3) True, I may be wrong. And yes, it doesn't matter if most people agree with me, but me laying that line is for your benefit moreso than mine. If I didn't lay down the line, then you could prove dolphins are sentient/sapient and I could just backstep and say 'nah, not enough'. By drawing a line, I'm giving a point I'm taking a stand on. Push me past it, and you are proven right.
But why draw the line there? And why intelligence?
4) Animals have rights, but that doesn't mean you've won. A dolphin has a right to live until it interferes with a human's right to eat it/hunt it for tradition/whatever. If you agree to that then yeah, this debate is over, but I doubt it. We are not debating whether or not animal's have rights. We are debating what those rights are and where they stand in relation to human rights, and if certain species of animals (namely dolphins) deserve HER. Whether or not rights are given or possessed is an age old philosophy question that humanity has struggled with for centuries and never resolved. We can not hope to resolve it here, we can only debate certain aspects of it.
The question of whether slavery is wrong can be argued, and some people do not believe that slavery is wrong (modern slavers for example), but I think its reasonable to say that the issue of whether slavery is immoral has been resolved. Do you disagree?
Also, if a dolphin has a right to live until a human decides it doesn't, then a dolphin has no right to live and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. Either a dolphin has a right to live, or it does not. You are trying to have it both ways.
5) And that is what we are debating. I say that animals have basic rights such as a right to live, but these are not equivalent to human rights. Aka, a human has a right to not be killed for food, but an animal does not. A human has the right to not be transported against their will (unless convicted by due process of law), but an animal doesn't. To me, animal rights are completely subservient to human rights. As to where they come from...where do human rights come from? God? Nature? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher or a theologian.
And you won't read philosophy. Because its propaganda. But you'll argue philosophy. From ignorance apparently.
1) Simply saying I'm wrong does not make me wrong. You have not responded to the reason I'm saying there's a difference even if my semantics are not perfectly right. You have yet to respond to this point.
Yes, I don't have a 100% perfect grasp of evolutionary theory and neither do you. More importantly this spur has no line on this debate, my point on evolution was simply me explaining why I think tool use developed in humans, and why intelligence develops in animals at all. It's my opinion and not something relevant here.
2) Because there are creatures with greater dexterity than humans, but they do not have the mental ability to conceive the use of technology, and thus is not a reliable measure of whether or not a creature is 'intelligent'. Humans possess a trait that no other animal has demonstrated, and that's the ability to take basic tools and change them from their natural state to make them into BETTER tools. This, I guess, is better than my definition I gave earlier. Tool using is picking up a rock and using it to help you kill your meal. Technology is taking that rock, changing it, and inventing the knife. I think that is a significant enough difference to draw a line between basic tool using and technology, and thus a line between animals and humans.
No, I included that in the originally line I drew regarding rights. It was not made in response. You simply ignored it, and are trying to create a strawman to make my idea look silly and dumb. If you want the answer to your question as I would give it, instead of the strawman you created. The answer is that they deserve the same rights, as being a member of a species that has shown the repeatable ability to use technology also means that, even though you are disabled, your species has the ability to use technology, and you are an exception to the rule. And since access to HER is granted by a species showing the ability to use technology, all individuals within that species would also have those same rights.
3) Because that's what I consider the line. If you don't like it, too bad. It's my point of view, and you're welcome to your own. I've explained multiple times why intelligence and thus the ability to use technology is the line between humans and animals, and thus the dividing line between granting a creature HER or animal rights.
4) ....I have no idea what you're trying to say with this slavery point so I'll simply say that yes, slavery is immoral. So what? It's immoral to own a human, as humans have HER. It is not immoral to own an animal as the animal does not have HER. And you're assuming that human rights and animal rights exist side by side, and neither can violate the other's rights. That's not true. Animal rights are subservient to human rights, thus a dolphin has a right to live until it comes in conflict with a human's right to eat what it wants. That is not ridiculous, and just makes sense.
5) I'll debate what I believe, even though I don't expend hours researching it, nor have a degree in it. I can argue philosophy without reading others works or ideas, because philosophy is not like math or science or other things. There are no sure fire things in philosophy. There is no 1+1=2. There is no E=MC^2. It's all open to debate, and the difference between a philosopher and me? A philosopher has had a good enough idea and their thoughts are more respected than mine. I can come up with my own ideas to debate you, without running or turning to someone elses ideas.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I'm not going to get into your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
No, sorry, but that's not evolutionary theory. The idea you're looking for is progressive anthropology.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Also, if a dolphin has a right to live until a human decides it doesn't, then a dolphin has no right to live and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
No, then a dolphin has a right to live until a human says it does. You have a completely untenable understanding of rights.
All this talk of 'Rights' is really only going in circles in this conversation. Rights do not exist for anything or anyone. If a human wants to capture and eat another human, or rape them, or murder them, or enslave them and no one else cares then it can happen. It's like Darfur, those are humans and they have human rights. But people aren't going to really do much to stop them from being raped, killed and enslaved because it's just too hard to get their government or anyone else to care. The rest of the world doesn't live in America land where there is a little piece of paper people argue over and invoke to stir up votes in election cycles.
Monster Rain wrote:Good thing no one is saying that.
Then why the reference to Nixon? Or is there some other president who was almost impeached for wiretapping?
What was said, again, is that you are hypocritical in that you accept law-breaking when it's being done to further an end that you happen to agree with but would condemn someone who broke the law with whom you disagreed.
So if I think that Rosa Parks was a hero for breaking the law and sitting at the front of the bus (law-breaking done to further an end that I happen to agree with), but I think John Wayne Gasey should be condemned for murdering little boys and burying them in his basement (someone who broke the law with whom I disagreed), then I am a hypocrite?
The Nixon reference was to illustrate the extreme illegality of wiretapping. It is illegal for anyone, be they a reporter or a president. My point was that what Mr.O'Barry did not only IN his film but also to make his film is equal, under the law, to wiretapping.
However you seem to see the guerilla 'journalism' of Mr. O'Barry as a good thing, even though he violated the laws of a sovereign nation he is not a citizen of. He even went as far as to publically, through his own film, scoff at those laws he was violating.
The arguement has been made that Dolphins have some form of "rights" due to their alleged intelligence. And that killing an intelligent animal for the purpose of consumption is also somehow "wrong".
Ok, Pigs have been proven to be as intelligent as dogs, in the cases of some breeds, even moreso. In the West, the eating of dog is considered taboo. In Southeast Asia, dog meat is not an eating taboo. In some European countries, Horse is used for meat, but in the US it is not. It does not mean it is inherently wrong for anyone to do so, it is what people of differing backgrounds view differently.
Referencing Singer helps no-ones position in this debate. His philosophy of suffering = the right to not suffer can be applied equally to any animal, including insects, and even some plants. Do trees "suffer"? Maybe, it is difficult to tell as trees have no sounds or other obvious signals that they are suffering. It can even be applied to the Earth itself, which opens up a whole different debate concerning "rights".
The claim that dolphins use tools to alter their enviroment is almost laughable. They can be trained to pile rocks to build a wall underwater, but they6 have little, if any, idea why such a thing needs to be done.
If this is a standard of animal intelligence, then Beavers are by far more intelligent than dolphins. They use tools and even some basic technology to modify their sorroundings to make them more suited to their needs. They build not only complex housing structures, but also walls and dams that require a person with a degree in engineering to replicate. Some beaver dams have even survived repeated use of explosives. Beavers build to a purpose, they use tools to alter their enviroment, and adapt to changes to the world around them. A much better candidate for assumed sentience/sapience than a dolphin.
Monster Rain wrote:Good thing no one is saying that.
Then why the reference to Nixon? Or is there some other president who was almost impeached for wiretapping?
What was said, again, is that you are hypocritical in that you accept law-breaking when it's being done to further an end that you happen to agree with but would condemn someone who broke the law with whom you disagreed.
So if I think that Rosa Parks was a hero for breaking the law and sitting at the front of the bus (law-breaking done to further an end that I happen to agree with), but I think John Wayne Gasey should be condemned for murdering little boys and burying them in his basement (someone who broke the law with whom I disagreed), then I am a hypocrite?
Lolwhut?
Yes, that's exactly the same thing as wiretapping. Well done.
I see by your deliberately missing the point that you are unable to refute what I said.
And being trainable doesn't make a creature so intelligent that they need to be protected from all forms of harm. FFS, I've seen a chicken play the piano.
If tool-using is the criteria by which rights are granted, why do non-tool using beings that are the same species as a tool using being granted the the rights of a tool-using being?
While I don't necessarily consider tool-use as proof of anything, I think there's a pretty obvious answer that's being overlooked.
The SPECIES is a tool-using species. The vast majority of humans use tools, thus making us a tool-using species. If a given human is a vegetable, and thus cannot use tools, they're still a member of a tool using speciies, and thus are afforded the rights of that species.
The reason that this is relevant, is because it's generally more moral to recognize rights categorically. "All humans have xyz rights." Not "all humans that live up to my standards." I'm sure you can agree with that. So we afford rights based humanity, and "humanity" is another word for "of the human speciies."
Not that I expect any of this to change your opinion, I'm just saying, there's a perfectly reasonable way to allow it to make sense.
Typeline wrote:All this talk of 'Rights' is really only going in circles in this conversation. Rights do not exist for anything or anyone. If a human wants to capture and eat another human, or rape them, or murder them, or enslave them and no one else cares then it can happen. It's like Darfur, those are humans and they have human rights. But people aren't going to really do much to stop them from being raped, killed and enslaved because it's just too hard to get their government or anyone else to care. The rest of the world doesn't live in America land where there is a little piece of paper people argue over and invoke to stir up votes in election cycles.
If that's the case then we're all really just wasting our time because nothing is going to help anyway. However, we're debating over the idea of whether or not they have rights, and thus deserve protection (even if they are unable to get it, e.g. the humans in Somalia).
Phryxis wrote:
While I don't necessarily consider tool-use as proof of anything, I think there's a pretty obvious answer that's being overlooked.
The SPECIES is a tool-using species. The vast majority of humans use tools, thus making us a tool-using species. If a given human is a vegetable, and thus cannot use tools, they're still a member of a tool using speciies, and thus are afforded the rights of that species.
The reason that this is relevant, is because it's generally more moral to recognize rights categorically. "All humans have xyz rights." Not "all humans that live up to my standards." I'm sure you can agree with that. So we afford rights based humanity, and "humanity" is another word for "of the human speciies."
You're quite right, and tool use is not being overlooked. However, tool use in and of itself is not enough to prove sentience/sapience. To do that, for me at least, you'd have to show a creature learning the ability to alter that tool into something more effective. E.g. The difference between picking up a rock, and sharpening that rock to invent the knife. Additionally, said behavior must be learned and not just instinctive. As said before beavers build highly complex structures that the basic human couldn't understand. So do honeybees. What they share in common though, is that their behaviors are instinctive and not a learned technology like a knife or something similar.
Typeline wrote:All this talk of 'Rights' is really only going in circles in this conversation. Rights do not exist for anything or anyone. If a human wants to capture and eat another human, or rape them, or murder them, or enslave them and no one else cares then it can happen. It's like Darfur, those are humans and they have human rights. But people aren't going to really do much to stop them from being raped, killed and enslaved because it's just too hard to get their government or anyone else to care. The rest of the world doesn't live in America land where there is a little piece of paper people argue over and invoke to stir up votes in election cycles.
If that's the case then we're all really just wasting our time because nothing is going to help anyway.
rubiksnoob wrote:
1) Just because Japan has deemed the meat safe to eat, that doesn't change the fact that mercury is toxic, and the meat being sold and fed to school children does have mercury in it. Feeding mercury to schoolchildren is a tad bit outrageous.
2) So what if they decide that dolphins are such pests that they are going to do they're damnedest to kill them off? It is unacceptable to let a species be hunted almost to extinction, which is what will happen if this is not stopped, just to respect someone's backwards laws.
3) Yes, debatable, but almost undeniable. Tell me that rounding these dolphins up and dooming them to slow painful deaths is not cruel.
The japanese aren't the only ones that are under the spotlight for killling dolphins, they are just the ones that kill the most, so they are recieving most of the attention.
1) Their government has deemed it safe, and deeming it unsafe is a completely different case. Even then, testing and deeming dolphin meat unfit for human consumption is something that can be done without Mr. O'Barry's blatant violation of Japanese law.
2) For one, the Japanes are only harvesting dolphins in their small corner of the world, and there is no danger of the dolphin being hunted to extinction around the world due to the actions of this one village. As evidence, I present Mr. O'Barry's documentary itself where he points out that another dolphin fishing village further along the coast has exhausted its dolphin population out, and no has no dolphins. Doesn't the fact that Taiji still has dolphins prove that this level of hunting is sustainable? More importantly, it's not a backwards law, it's a long time tradition of this village in Japan. I don't know what it's equivalent in Western culture would be, for that you'd have to ask someone from Taiji.
3) Finally, do you think hunters in the US are any crueller? Do you think it's somehow less cruel to shoot a deer and let it die from that wound than to kill a dolphin in this way? The West does similar things, but we react harshly to Japan hunting dolphins simply because it's foreign to us, and not something we're used to, and thus must be evil.
1) But will it be done unless individuals such as O'Barry take action to highlight the issue? For some reason the Japanese government is trying to hide this and in the process poisoning their citizens.
2) True dolphins the world over will not go extinct, but they will eventually be eradicated from that area. The fact that Taiji still has dolphins is not proof of sustainability, but simply that they haven't killed them all off yet. There is the intriguing possibility that the dolphins, being sentient and highly intelligent creatures, have learned to avoid the other fishing village and have told others of the dangers there, thus there are no more dolphins to be found there. However there is no evidence of this and it is mere speculation, but still an interesting possibility. Whaling and dolphin hunting in other parts of the world was once a longtime tradition yet most countries no longer allow it. Tradition didn't stop other countries from banning barbaric practices such as this, so what is stopping the Japanese?
3) Well with the example of the deer, the bullet usually kills the animal faster (if not immediately) than a cut to the throat or a thrust of a spear, as the dolphins are killed. And the deer are not being forced out of their habitat, corralled and then slaughtered one by one in front of their fellow deer. If the deer were herded into a corral in their hundreds and then stabbed to death with spears, this example might be similar to the dolphin drives. And furthermore, deer are not even close to the intelligence level of dolphins, and do not have the same strong familial and social bonds that dolphins develop over their lives. Yet another reason as to why you cannot compare deer hunting to the dolphin drives.
More importantly, deer probably tastes better and keeps in the freezer really well. However, Bambi is way cuter than some punk ass dolphin, which is what we're really talking about. Plus, there's something about broiled flipper that is intriguing.
Frazzled wrote:More importantly, deer probably tastes better and keeps in the freezer really well. However, Bambi is way cuter than some punk ass dolphin, which is what we're really talking about. Plus, there's something about broiled flipper that is intriguing.
Dear Frazzled,
I should hope that you would not stoop so low as to make light of this issue, however it seems that such hopes would be in vain.
Frazzled wrote:More importantly, deer probably tastes better and keeps in the freezer really well. However, Bambi is way cuter than some punk ass dolphin, which is what we're really talking about. Plus, there's something about broiled flipper that is intriguing.
Dear Frazzled,
I should hope that you would not stoop so low as to make light of this issue, however it seems that such hopes would be in vain.
So Shut yer trap!
I'm making light of the issue only in your cmparison of deer to dolphin. I'm betting you don't give a bleep about chickens or tuna. Dolphins are cute so they must be saved. Now I am all for as humane as possible a kill, I will indeed give you that. But don't get between me and broiled flipper. It just sounds awesome . In fact, I bet Aweomse spider has been secretly munching on dolphin caught in his nefarious Awesome Web.
Frazzled wrote:More importantly, deer probably tastes better and keeps in the freezer really well. However, Bambi is way cuter than some punk ass dolphin, which is what we're really talking about. Plus, there's something about broiled flipper that is intriguing.
Dear Frazzled,
I should hope that you would not stoop so low as to make light of this issue, however it seems that such hopes would be in vain.
So Shut yer trap!
I'm making light of the issue only in your cmparison of deer to dolphin. I'm betting you don't give a bleep about chickens or tuna. Dolphins are cute so they must be saved. Now I am all for as humane as possible a kill, I will indeed give you that. But don't get between me and broiled flipper. It just sounds awesome . In fact, I bet Aweomse spider has been secretly munching on dolphin caught in his nefarious Awesome Web.
Actually I'm a big fan of Sea Shepherd's operation Blue Rage.
helgrenze wrote:The Nixon reference was to illustrate the extreme illegality of wiretapping. It is illegal for anyone, be they a reporter or a president. My point was that what Mr.O'Barry did not only IN his film but also to make his film is equal, under the law, to wiretapping.
The Nixon example is an extremely poor example then, because it is not in any way (that I can see) similiar to the O'Barry question. Unless one wants to argue that some objective good was being served by Nixon's wiretapping (which I assume no one does), then it seems irrelevant to the question of whether it can be considered heroic to break a law in service of good ends (which is my point, and thus the only point I need to defend).
A better, though still flawed, example might be Oksana Grigorieva's quasi-legal taping of her private conversations with Mel Gibson and their subsequent release to the press, or Linda Tripp's unauthorized and illegal taping of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. The Tripp case in particular would be the best example to use of the two, since as a confirmed Democrat one would expect my bias to lie towards condemning Tripp.
However you seem to see the guerilla 'journalism' of Mr. O'Barry as a good thing, even though he violated the laws of a sovereign nation he is not a citizen of. He even went as far as to publically, through his own film, scoff at those laws he was violating.
That's correct. More specifically, I consider Mr. O'Barry's actions to be heroic in the same sense I regard Rosa Park's defiance of segregation to be heroic, and consider the trespassing and destruction of property inherent in the acts of the Boston Tea Party to be heroic. Also, in the same sense I regard the actions of Robin Hood to be heroic. My position, stated as a principle, is: It is acceptable to break the law in pursuit of a good end when the consequences of breaking the law only result in a criminal act and not an immoral act.
Anyone can feel free to argue against that principal, but to deny that principle would seem to necessarily affirm the principle "It is not acceptable to break the law in pursuits of a good end when the consequences of breaking the law only result in a criminal act and not an immoral act."
Unless someone can demonstrate that it's false dichotomy, I'm fairly certain either it is acceptable to break the law in pursuit of a good end when the consequences of breaking the law only result in a criminal act and not an immoral act or it is not acceptable to break the law in pursuits of a good end when the consequences of breaking the law only result in a criminal act and not an immoral act.
Which means that if you disagree with me, then you must -- if you are consistent -- also agree that Germans who hid or helped smuggle out Jews during the Nazi regime were criminals who deserved to be punished. Also, you must agree that the Sheriff of Nottingham was the good guy and Robin Hood was a murderous, thieving bandit.
The arguement has been made that Dolphins have some form of "rights" due to their alleged intelligence. And that killing an intelligent animal for the purpose of consumption is also somehow "wrong".
That argument has indeed been made, and presumably motivates O'Barry's actions. If one accepts that argument, then it follows that O'Barry was engaging in a criminal act only because the law had been used (incorrectly, imho) to protect an immoral act.
Ok, Pigs have been proven to be as intelligent as dogs, in the cases of some breeds, even moreso. In the West, the eating of dog is considered taboo. In Southeast Asia, dog meat is not an eating taboo. In some European countries, Horse is used for meat, but in the US it is not. It does not mean it is inherently wrong for anyone to do so, it is what people of differing backgrounds view differently.
I'm sorry, I reject moral arguments based in cultural relativity out of hand. I am not a moral relativist, and would lean more towards the opinion that acts are either morally wrong or not, regardless of the cultural background of the actor.
If it is morally wrong to kill a dog (to use one example), then it is morally wrong to kill a dog regardless of whether you are from Seoul or St. Louis.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Unless someone can demonstrate that it's false dichotomy, I'm fairly certain either it is acceptable to break the law in pursuit of a good end when the consequences of breaking the law only result in a criminal act and not an immoral act or it is not acceptable to break the law in pursuits of a good end when the consequences of breaking the law only result in a criminal act and not an immoral act.
No, that's not a false dichotomy, but the not component encompasses any formulation of that statement which is not consistent with yours. You haven't forced this into a restrictive critique in which the parameters of your argument push people into explicit categories.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Which means that if you disagree with me, then you must -- if you are consistent -- also agree that Germans who hid or helped smuggle out Jews during the Nazi regime were criminals who deserved to be punished. Also, you must agree that the Sheriff of Nottingham was the good guy and Robin Hood was a murderous, thieving bandit.
No, that's false. There is no reason that any particular individual must assign 'good' and 'bad' to individual actors in the course of making moral judgments. Neutrality is also an option, as are argument from mixed 'principles'.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I'm sorry, I reject moral arguments based in cultural relativity out of hand. I am not a moral relativist, and would lean more towards the opinion that acts are either morally wrong or not, regardless of the cultural background of the actor.
If it is morally wrong to kill a dog (to use one example), then it is morally wrong to kill a dog regardless of whether you are from Seoul or St. Louis.
See, now that's just lazy. Moral relativism merely concludes that valuation must influence any moral calculus. It does not conclude that said moral calculus only applies in instances where the dominant cultural perspective agrees with that valuation.
ChrisWWII wrote:Incorrect, if you read my benchmark you will see that I specifically accounted for that. I said that those who are members of a species that have shown a repeatable ability to use tools to alter their environment are the ones deserving the rights. Human rights are something that must be granted on a species level instead of an individual level, and dolphins have not shown the ability as a species to use tools and technology.
So yes, a disabled human being has human rights as they are a member of a species who have shown a repeatable ability to use technology, even though they themselves lack such an ability.
2. Are you arguing that individuals do not have rights, only species?
3. Why does being the member of a species that can make tools grant one rights? Why is tool-making the source of rights?
4. Who grants rights? Are rights not inalienable?
5. No one cares if dolphins have human rights, dolphins are not humans. The question is: Do dolphins have dolphin rights?
1) Yes, dolphins use tools, but do they use technology? Technology is different from simple tool use, as many many creatures use tools, but technology implies that they use those tools to alter their environment for their own benefit. E.g. Picking up a rock and using it to get food is tool use but not technology, as you are not altering your environment. Picking up a rock, and shaping it into a rudimentary knife or axe? THAT is technology, and that is what I label as the line between an animal and a sentient/sapient creature like a human.
Actually, the definition of technology is defined as "the knowledge and usage of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization." This is along the lines of Read Bain's definition: "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices". So I think dolphins would fall squarely into the category of using technology.
dogma wrote:No, that's not a false dichotomy, because the not component encompasses any formulation of that statement which is not consistent with yours. You have forced this into a restrictive critique in which the parameters of your argument push people into explicit categories.
FIFY
Gailbraithe wrote:
Which means that if you disagree with me, then you must -- if you are consistent -- also agree that Germans who hid or helped smuggle out Jews during the Nazi regime were criminals who deserved to be punished. Also, you must agree that the Sheriff of Nottingham was the good guy and Robin Hood was a murderous, thieving bandit.
No, that's false. There is no reason that any particular individual must assign 'good' and 'bad' to individual actors in the course of making moral judgments. Neutrality is also an option, as are argument from mixed 'principles'.
"There is no reason that any particular individual must assign 'good' and 'bad' to individual actors in the course of making moral judgments." is plainly wrong, since the process of making a moral judgment consists entirely in identifying moral (good) and immoral (bad) actors. I also don't think neutral is an option, because it appears to me that if an action is not immoral, then it is good. Which would imply that neutral is good.
For example, there is no answer to the seeming moral quandary "Should I lean on my left foot or on my right foot?" Both acts are morally neutral, there is no rational principle one could explicate that would determine the more moral of the two options. But if the question is "Should I lean on my left foot or eat this baby?" then clearly it is good to lean on your left foot and bad to eat the baby. Hence, neutral is good.
Gailbraithe wrote:I'm sorry, I reject moral arguments based in cultural relativity out of hand. I am not a moral relativist, and would lean more towards the opinion that acts are either morally wrong or not, regardless of the cultural background of the actor.
If it is morally wrong to kill a dog (to use one example), then it is morally wrong to kill a dog regardless of whether you are from Seoul or St. Louis.
See, now that's just lazy. Moral relativism merely concludes that valuation must influence any moral calculus. It does not conclude that said moral calculus only applies in instances where the dominant cultural perspective agrees with that valuation.
Whatever. The point is: If it is morally wrong to kill a dog (to use one example), then it is morally wrong to kill a dog regardless of whether you are from Seoul or St. Louis
helgrenze wrote:The Nixon reference was to illustrate the extreme illegality of wiretapping. It is illegal for anyone, be they a reporter or a president. My point was that what Mr.O'Barry did not only IN his film but also to make his film is equal, under the law, to wiretapping.
The Nixon example is an extremely poor example then, (edit)A better, though still flawed, example might be Oksana Grigorieva's quasi-legal taping of her private conversations with Mel Gibson and their subsequent release to the press, or Linda Tripp's unauthorized and illegal taping of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. The Tripp case in particular would be the best example to use of the two, since as a confirmed Democrat one would expect my bias to lie towards condemning Tripp.
First: I alluded to the Nixon case as an extreme example of the crime of wiretapping. I did not mention it as a specific instance.... The best would be the actual FBI case that led to wiretapping being ruled illegal without a warrant Katz vs The United States.
Then you want to compare O'Barry to Rosa Parks. You do know she was arrested for her actions. O'Barry was not. Ms. Parks was also not the only, or even the first to defy bus segragation. In fact two Supreme Court rulings against such practices were already on the books. Ms. Parks also did not actually break any laws, she was in point of fact, sitting in the designated seating on that bus. The driver decided that the line segragating his bus needed to be moved, and insisted that MS> Parks and three others relocate further back on the bus. This invalidates your comparrison.
The Boston Tea party was a staged protest and reparations for the act were offered but rejected by The Prime Minister, Lord North.
In both of these cases, Ms. Parks and the Boston Tea Party, there were consequences for the actions of the individuals involved. Mr. O'Barry has faced none that have been offered as evidence.
As for Robin Hood..... There is little evidence that there was an actual "Robin" and the actions attributed to that name were most likely romanticized by writers decades and even centuries removed from the actual events they are based on.
Next and throughout your post, you repeat your mantra..... However you fail to recognise that an criminal act is, due to its very nature, an immoral one as well. Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct (aka LAWS) or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in human society. Many Legal codes are based on existing Moral codes and in many cases are one and the same, though Legal codes include penalties not usually found in moral codes.
The decission to defy a code of law, especially after being informed of said law, either in writing or from an individual charged with enforcing said law, is considered an act of immorality.
And given your personal perspective, I am not surprised you Godwin'd this thread. The rounding up of Jews in Germany was not done according to any actual "Law". It was instituted by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, and carried out by military units initially dressed as "riotting civilians" with improvised weapons.
On your final point about cultural morality.... Any discussion of morality must include recognition of cultural biases. You cannot discuss the morality of eating , say, pork, without including the cultural beliefs of Muslims and Jews. In their case it is considered "Illegal" for them to consume the flesh of swine.
By taking a stand that an act is immoral "regardless of the cultural background of the actor", you make an insistance on forcing All people to adhere to the same moral code you hold. This would be the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong for enjoying a BLT.
helgrenze wrote:Then you want to compare O'Barry to Rosa Parks. You do know she was arrested for her actions. O'Barry was not. Ms. Parks was also not the only, or even the first to defy bus segragation. In fact two Supreme Court rulings against such practices were already on the books. Ms. Parks also did not actually break any laws, she was in point of fact, sitting in the designated seating on that bus. The driver decided that the line segragating his bus needed to be moved, and insisted that MS> Parks and three others relocate further back on the bus. This invalidates your comparrison.
The Boston Tea party was a staged protest and reparations for the act were offered but rejected by The Prime Minister, Lord North.
In both of these cases, Ms. Parks and the Boston Tea Party, there were consequences for the actions of the individuals involved. Mr. O'Barry has faced none that have been offered as evidence.
As for Robin Hood..... There is little evidence that there was an actual "Robin" and the actions attributed to that name were most likely romanticized by writers decades and even centuries removed from the actual events they are based on.
And for the record, I never said that O'Barry should get a free pass from the law, or that he shouldn't be tried for breaking the law. Only that he gets a from me for having the balls to risk jail to let the world know about dolphin torture, and that I wouldn't throw him in jail. But I don't make the laws.
Next and throughout your post, you repeat your mantra..... However you fail to recognise that an criminal act is, due to its very nature, an immoral one as well. Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct (aka LAWS) or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in human society. Many Legal codes are based on existing Moral codes and in many cases are one and the same, though Legal codes include penalties not usually found in moral codes.
No. I have taken enough classes on criminal law in theory and practice to know that no one who is serious about the concept of law believes that what is legal is the same as what is moral. That's ridiculous. I mean hello: Nazis. Any argument that the law is morality will lead you straight to the wonderful world of Defending The Holocaust. Trust me, don't go down that road. At best one can say that the law attempts to codify morality into a practical and applicable code for enforcement. But the law is at best a charcoal rubbing of morality.
The decission to defy a code of law, especially after being informed of said law, either in writing or from an individual charged with enforcing said law, is considered an act of immorality.
Not in any criminal justice text I've ever read. Defying the law is an act of illegality or criminality. Different terminology is used depending on the nature of the law -- we don't call traffic violators criminals, for example -- but no one considers breaking a law to be an act of immorality. Again, at best you can say that when the law functions properly, immoral acts are also illegal acts.
And given your personal perspective, I am not surprised you Godwin'd this thread. The rounding up of Jews in Germany was not done according to any actual "Law". It was instituted by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, and carried out by military units initially dressed as "riotting civilians" with improvised weapons.
Godwining only occurs when a person says that the person they are arguing against is a Nazi. Bringing up Nazis as something one would be forced to defend if one were to make an argument is not Godwining, it's just a reductio ad Nazium. The reductio ad Nazium is an argument against a principle wherein one shows that consistently defending the principle will require one to defend Nazis -- specifically Nazi war crimes. A reductio ad Nazium is not to be confused with the reductio ad Hitlerum, which is the proper name for a Godwin.
On your final point about cultural morality.... Any discussion of morality must include recognition of cultural biases. You cannot discuss the morality of eating , say, pork, without including the cultural beliefs of Muslims and Jews. In their case it is considered "Illegal" for them to consume the flesh of swine.
By taking a stand that an act is immoral "regardless of the cultural background of the actor", you make an insistance on forcing All people to adhere to the same moral code you hold. This would be the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong for enjoying a BLT.
I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.
However you fail to recognise that an criminal act is, due to its very nature, an immoral one as well.
Yeah, I was going to take issue with how Galby defined things, but then I wasn't sure what I objected to. This reminds me what it is.
"It is acceptable to break the law in pursuit of a good end when the consequences of breaking the law only result in a criminal act and not an immoral act."
It's not that the act is "only criminal" is that the act is of a lesser moral weight than what it prevents. It's immoral to break a law, period. But it may be vanishingly so, especially compared with a serious moral transgression.
Even a Nazi who defies his orders is committing the immoral act of disloyalty, but compared to mass murder, this is an understandable choice.
I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to.
The former has been made abundantly clear. The latter is not so much.
I have an opinion of what is right and what is wrong, certainly, but I don't require that the rest of the world adhere to it. I think it's wrong to lie, for example, but I don't demand that others refrain. It's their decision. I would prefer they didn't, but if they feel lying is the best thing for them, I won't demand that they change, and I wouldn't force them if I could.
It might be argued that this is because I consider people's freedom of action to be of greater importance than most any other value, so I'm simply prioritizing that higher than my desire to tell the truth, but it still seems to me that it's quite possible to have one set of standards for oneself, and a different set of standards for everyone else.
One might even have different standards for different categories... For example, I think it's fairly immoral for people to poop on my floor, but when my 1 year old does it, I don't judge him. He's nearly as surprised by it as I am.
dogma wrote:No, that's not a false dichotomy, because the not component encompasses any formulation of that statement which is not consistent with yours. You have forced this into a restrictive critique in which the parameters of your argument push people into explicit categories.
FIFY
Anyone considering the question with the intent to answer, is forced to answer your question. However, choosing the 'not' option does not force people to take the stance that you have outlined; therefore your critique is not restrictive. You haven't created a false dichotomy, but you haven't illustrated why a 'not yes' response to your first question implies a 'yes' response to your second one either.
Gailbraithe wrote:
"There is no reason that any particular individual must assign 'good' and 'bad' to individual actors in the course of making moral judgments." is plainly wrong, since the process of making a moral judgment consists entirely in identifying moral (good) and immoral (bad) actors.
Just about every utilitarian from Mill forward (including Singer) postulates that neutrality is a viable moral stance.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I also don't think neutral is an option, because it appears to me that if an action is not immoral, then it is good. Which would imply that neutral is good.
How are you defining 'good'? I know that some people like to think that it means 'not bad', but I think that's a poor argument. Good things, in my philosophy, are those that produce positive outcomes (or are intended to do so, depending on the stance of the speaker regarding consequentialism).
Gailbraithe wrote:
For example, there is no answer to the seeming moral quandary "Should I lean on my left foot or on my right foot?" Both acts are morally neutral, there is no rational principle one could explicate that would determine the more moral of the two options. But if the question is "Should I lean on my left foot or eat this baby?" then clearly it is good to lean on your left foot and bad to eat the baby. Hence, neutral is good.
That only implies that a neutral option is better than a bad one; ie. neutral is not bad. You're essentially begging the question here by concluding that neutral is good because anything that's not bad is good.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Whatever. The point is: If it is morally wrong to kill a dog (to use one example), then it is morally wrong to kill a dog regardless of whether you are from Seoul or St. Louis
Given that you're stating that circumstance is irrelevant, you must also conclude that its morally wrong to kill a dog in order to survive. You could presume that certain actions that are morally wrong may be absolved in certain instances, but then you're already arguing from moral relativism.
Actually, the definition of technology is defined as "the knowledge and usage of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization." This is along the lines of Read Bain's definition: "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices". So I think dolphins would fall squarely into the category of using technology.
Alright, fine. My semantics were off, so be it. Still, you have to admit there is a key difference between using a rock to bash something open, and turning that rock into a knife, yes? As I've said many times it's this line that seperates humans from the animals.
Additionally, resuming our points debate.
1) There are legal ways to draw attention to an issue other than flagrant violations of the law. Smoking was limited and regulated in the United States, over the protests of massive tobacco companies without protesting burning tobacco plantations to the ground or harassing tobacco farmers. Why can't Mr. O'Barry do the same?
2) To me it is proof of sustainability. Obviously, the village up the coast over fished and extinguished their supply of dolphins, while Taiji has managed to stick to its quotas and still harvests a number of dolphins each year. Your line of thought is once again, subject to Occam's Razor. In order for it to be valid, you must provide evidence in support of it, and the simpler idea holds true.
3) Not all bullet wounds are instantly fatal. As far as I know only a few hits will instantly kill you, and those are limited to direct hits to the brain, heart or other vital organs. Other wounds will leave you or animal slowly drowning in your own blood, or dieing as your stomach acids dissolve your internal organs. Unlike Hollywood shows us, bullets are not instant death machines. In fact, a knife or spear may be easier to inflict a wound to an instantly lethal point on the body, as you are much closer to the animal. Does anyone with real world experience with guns, hunting, knives or spears have any answer to our quandary here?
Additionally, deer and dolphins are both animals until proven otherwise, and I can compare them to each other. Deer show parental caring do they not? Is that not an example of the familial relationships you talked about that make killing dolphins so abhorrent? In that case do you also believe that killing deer is abhorrent?
I notice you have not responded to points 4 and 5, and as such will consider them conceded.
helgrenze wrote:
On your final point about cultural morality.... Any discussion of morality must include recognition of cultural biases. You cannot discuss the morality of eating , say, pork, without including the cultural beliefs of Muslims and Jews. In their case it is considered "Illegal" for them to consume the flesh of swine.
By taking a stand that an act is immoral "regardless of the cultural background of the actor", you make an insistance on forcing All people to adhere to the same moral code you hold. This would be the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong for enjoying a BLT.
I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.
Wow, I didn't even read that until you cited it EF.
I wonder how G-baby feels about the field of ethical theory if he thinks that rational ethics are based on irrefutable principles. I bet it makes him very angry.
I just saw that too, and wow...(Rolls for understanding. Huh...)
Is he actually saying that Jews and Muslims moral codes are "wrong" because they don't agree with his? And that his moral code is the only correct one out there? What the ?
Emperor's Faithful and dogma are right, morality is not an exact science and there are exceptions to every rule, and those exceptions vary from person to person, and those exceptions are what cause a lot of debate in the world. Additionally, please elaborate, how is your moral code based on non-absurd, testable premises? Even more so how do you test morality? It's really quite confusing, and I'd like to believe you're more intelligent/saner than the way your message has come across.
@dogma: Is it even possible to rationalise something decided by an outside force? (Such as immutable moral standards) And if so who is setting this standard?
ChrisWWII wrote:I just saw that too, and wow...(Rolls for understanding. Huh...)
Is this a leadership test or armour saves?
Is he actually saying that Jews and Muslims moral codes are "wrong" because they don't agree with his? And that his moral code is the only correct one out there? What the ?
I think...so.
Emperor's Faithful and dogma are right,
My Posts = 1 Picture and a few unhelpful comments
Dogma's post = A fething essay
Please give the guy with the Platypus more credit.
morality is not an exact science and there are exceptions to every rule, and those exceptions vary from person to person, and those exceptions are what cause a lot of debate in the world. Additionally, please elaborate, how is your moral code based on non-absurd, testable premises? Even more so how do you test morality? It's really quite confusing, and I'd like to believe you're more intelligent/saner than the way your message has come across.
Is there such a thing as an immoral culture? Or is it the individuals within the culture/civilisation that are immoral due to their refusal to follow laws they believe to be immoral?
As an example: Were the Aztecs an Immoral society due to their beliefs(laws?) regarding Human Sacrifice in order to ensure the rising of the sun and beginning of a new day? Or was it only those members of Aztecs who refused to condone Human Sacrifice the immoral ones, as they were going against the belief of the civilisation as a whole?
Emperors Faithful wrote:@dogma: Is it even possible to rationalise something decided by an outside force? (Such as immutable moral standards) And if so who is setting this standard?
Well, you can use rationality to determine what is, and is not, proscribed by the outside force, but that's about the limit. Its also basically elementary Platonism. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it isn't a difficult position to critique.
As far as who, or what is setting the standards: that depends on what you believe. A theist would obviously say God, but just about anyone else would simply say that morality is determined by characteristics of reality. Thing is, even if that's true it still isn't clear what may, or may not, be subject to the terms used to describe what is, and is not moral.
Was it murder when person X shot person Y? Or was it manslaughter? Self-defense? Can we ever even know? There are a metric ton of answers to such questions, and there is an entire field of study dedicated to determining what answers are possible to attain; the aforementioned ethical theory.
Hence the attractiveness of relativism. We don't have to judge other cultures by our standards as they are only expected to live up to their own standards. But surely that can only stretch so far. If a country was to openly practice human sacrifice or caniballism then they would be viewed as immoral, no? Hell, you're probably a Uni student studying theism or other philosphical fanciness, I'm just a Form 12 trudging through my last year of school.
In any case I am most definitely out of my depth Out of my depth. BTW, this picture was taken within 30km of where I live. I gak you not.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hence the attractiveness of relativism. We don't have to judge other cultures by our standards as they are only expected to live up to their own standards. But surely that can only stretch so far. If a country was to openly practice human sacrifice or caniballism then they would be viewed as immoral, no? Hell, you're probably a Uni student studying theism or other philosphical fanciness, I'm just a Form 12 trudging through my last year of school.
In any case I am most definitely out of my depth Out of my depth. BTW, this picture was taken within 30km of where I live. I gak you not.
Thats Australia right? Thats a brave shark, getting that close to an Aussie. "Here fishie fishie..."
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hence the attractiveness of relativism. We don't have to judge other cultures by our standards as they are only expected to live up to their own standards. But surely that can only stretch so far. If a country was to openly practice human sacrifice or caniballism then they would be viewed as immoral, no? Hell, you're probably a Uni student studying theism or other philosphical fanciness, I'm just a Form 12 trudging through my last year of school.
In any case I am most definitely out of my depth Out of my depth. BTW, this picture was taken within 30km of where I live. I gak you not.
Thats Australia right? Thats a brave shark, getting that close to an Aussie. "Here fishie fishie..."
Hmm... is the surfer infringing on the sharks right to eat surfers... or is the shark infringing on the surfers right to not be eaten?
Gailbraithe's and my moral compasses apparently point in differing directions.... widely differing directions. I would assume it to be difficult to live up to the moral standard he has seemingly set for himself.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hence the attractiveness of relativism. We don't have to judge other cultures by our standards as they are only expected to live up to their own standards. But surely that can only stretch so far. If a country was to openly practice human sacrifice or caniballism then they would be viewed as immoral, no?
I would certainly say yes, and there isn't anything in particular that prevents the creation of some sort of consistently applicable category by which those sorts of things could be discerned. Indeed, that's pretty much the purpose of Kant's categorical imperative.
I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.
So basically I'm right and you're all wrong cause I say so.
I can live that
Being right because I say so, I decree today Big Silly Hat Wednesday. Everyone put on a ridiculously oversized hat to please the Hat spirits and bring forth a bountiful harvest
I can prove it works because for the past 5 years crops have vastly improved on Big Silly Hat Wednesday as our big silly hats pleased the hat spirits and brought us good but not to heavy rain fall!
I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.
I was auctually going to call this out when it was posted, but then I figured; you guys are probably better at grilling then me.
I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.
I was auctually going to call this out when it was posted, but then I figured; you guys are probably better at grilling then me.
I was right.
Same here, bro.
What's crazy is that G-Baby doesn't understand that Jews and Muslims also think that their morality is irrefutable. He doesn't hold a monopoly on the belief that his moral code is the correct one.
It is almost as if this is a complicated issue that will require some serious consideration and nuanced thinking rather than simple platitudes such as "save the dolphins" or "we'll it's their country". Going to need more than a bumper stick mentality.
Ahtman wrote:It is almost as if this is a complicated issue that will require some serious consideration and nuanced thinking rather than simple platitudes such as "save the dolphins" or "we'll it's their country". Going to need more than a bumper stick mentality.
You haven't really been following along, have you?
The nature of morality and sentience aren't on many bumper stickers that I'm aware of.
Ahtman wrote:It is almost as if this is a complicated issue that will require some serious consideration and nuanced thinking rather than simple platitudes such as "save the dolphins" or "we'll it's their country". Going to need more than a bumper stick mentality.
Quiet Kermit or those legs are going on the grill next to Flipper!
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Is this a leadership test or armour saves?
Armor saves, it would be an insane success if it was a morale check.
My Posts = 1 Picture and a few unhelpful comments
Dogma's post = A fething essay
Please give the guy with the Platypus more credit.
Alright then. Ahem. =Clears throat. dogma, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM AND SMITER OF HERETICS and Emperors Faithful are right.
Better?
Is there such a thing as an immoral culture? Or is it the individuals within the culture/civilisation that are immoral due to their refusal to follow laws they believe to be immoral?
As an example: Were the Aztecs an Immoral society due to their beliefs(laws?) regarding Human Sacrifice in order to ensure the rising of the sun and beginning of a new day? Or was it only those members of Aztecs who refused to condone Human Sacrifice the immoral ones, as they were going against the belief of the civilisation as a whole?
It really is hard to tell, hence I believe you're correct when you say that relativism is a much more attractive philosophy. A strong theist would of course say that their is a moral absolute (God's Laws) and that any who does not follow those laws is violating the true moral code of the universe. However, while I believed that while I was younger, over time I've come to realize that the world is far too complicated for any one set of systems. It only seems simple when you're looking at it from one cultural point of view.
You bring up a good point with the Aztecs. Now, I would think they'd be attacked as immoral, but back then who know? Not that there are any of them left to ask, mind you. They were all wiped out by Spaniard who firmly believed that the Catholic moral system was the only true one in existence. (Yes I know that wasn't the only reason, but its the reason relevant to this debate.) Just like our friend G-baby here.
dogma wrote:
Was it murder when person X shot person Y? Or was it manslaughter? Self-defense? Can we ever even know? There are a metric ton of answers to such questions, and there is an entire field of study dedicated to determining what answers are possible to attain; the aforementioned ethical theory.
You are exactly right. Any moral system needs to be flexible in order to adapt to this changing world. I guess we can thank the fact that we've rejected the divine right of kings and other such things by now....Otherwise this would be very simple. It's wrong because the King says it's wrong, or it's right because the King says so. Fortunately though, by now we can't rely on such absolutes, and need to factor all the extenuating circumstances before judging someone.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Hmm... is the surfer infringing on the sharks right to eat surfers... or is the shark infringing on the surfers right to not be eaten?
I'd have to say the latter, as I firmly believe human rights trump animal rights. Of course that's just me, and not the absolute moral truth for the world. But I do have to agree with you....Totally out of our depth here. Dogma, may I ask, are you studying this subject area for a college degree? You certainly seem to be very knowledgeable and well read on philosophy and ethics.
Actually, the definition of technology is defined as "the knowledge and usage of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization." This is along the lines of Read Bain's definition: "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices". So I think dolphins would fall squarely into the category of using technology.
Your line of thought is once again, subject to Occam's Razor. In order for it to be valid, you must provide evidence in support of it, and the simpler idea holds true.
I understand that the idea is pretty far fetched, and would be difficult, if not impossible to prove. It's just that earlier in the thread a few people suggested that if dolphins are so intelligent why don't they just avoid the villages where they are slaughtered. I just thought that hey, maybe that IS what they've done. It's a possibility. I personally don't believe that that is the case, however. It is, unfortunately, far more likely that they have just killed all the dolphins in the area.
Additionally, deer and dolphins are both animals until proven otherwise, and I can compare them to each other. Deer show parental caring do they not? Is that not an example of the familial relationships you talked about that make killing dolphins so abhorrent? In that case do you also believe that killing deer is abhorrent?
Deer have nowhere near the level of complexity that is found in dolphin societies and social bonds. And there is also the manner in which the dolphins are killed that makes the drive hunts abhorrent.
I notice you have not responded to points 4 and 5, and as such will consider them conceded.
Your fourth and fifth points seemed more along the line of what you were debating with gailbraithe, so i decided not to respond to them.
I suggest that we cease our debate here. We have both presented our views on the topic in a very thorough manner, and there is not much more we can do besides arguing the same points over and over.
The basis for our debate seems to be rooted in a very fundamental difference: You seem to hold an anthropocentric worldview, whereas I hold a firmly biocentric stance. We are not going to convince each other of anything. I respect your difference of opinion however and respect you for defending it. Until we meet again good sir.
rubiksnoob wrote:I suggest that we cease our debate here. We have both presented our views on the topic in a very thorough manner, and there is not much more we can do besides arguing the same points over and over.
The basis for our debate seems to be rooted in a very fundamental difference: You seem to hold an anthropocentric worldview, whereas I hold a firmly biocentric stance. We are not going to convince each other of anything. I respect your difference of opinion however and respect you for defending it. Until we meet again good sir.
As you wish, you may choose to reply or not, and that's your right, but I will still respond to your post. Darn right we hold different world views, and it's highly unlikely that's going to change. I respect your opinion as well, even though I disagree with it highly. I like to think I live life by the phrase: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But ta ta for now.
Now...final refutations.
Deer have nowhere near the level of complexity that is found in dolphin societies and social bonds. And there is also the manner in which the dolphins are killed that makes the drive hunts abhorrent.
I showed you a way that the death of deer is potentially just as painful and tortuous as the death for the dolphins, and you've ignored that argument, only repeating that it is bad without pausing to justify or explain why its bad by refuting me. Moreover, while you've demonstrated that dolphins potentially show familial traits and ties, how do we know deer don't? Deer do show parental care for their young, is that not evidence of a social relationship between deer?
Deer have nowhere near the level of complexity that is found in dolphin societies and social bonds. And there is also the manner in which the dolphins are killed that makes the drive hunts abhorrent.
I showed you a way that the death of deer is potentially just as painful and tortuous as the death for the dolphins, and you've ignored that argument, only repeating that it is bad without pausing to justify or explain why its bad by refuting me. Moreover, while you've demonstrated that dolphins potentially show familial traits and ties, how do we know deer don't? Deer do show parental care for their young, is that not evidence of a social relationship between deer?
ahhhhh. . must . . resist urge. . to respond. . GARGHHJGHJGDOHFASDNVJVJBKLBKLBKLBKLBKLBKLBKLSDFJJO!
Gailbraithe wrote:I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.
ChrisWWII wrote:Is he actually saying that Jews and Muslims moral codes are "wrong" because they don't agree with his? And that his moral code is the only correct one out there?
What I wrote is in plain English and is easily comprehended. I clearly did not say that Judean and Islamic moral codes are wrong because they disagree with me. That would be an asinine claim to make, and to draw the conclusion that I think as much iis not remotely supported by the text. Either you are making a deliberate effort to misunderstand me or you have very poor reading comprehension skills. Then again, since you think all books are propaganda, and refuse to read propaganda, perhaps your reading skills just aren't very developed?
As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Specifically they are predicated on the premise that God exists and communicates moral teachings to man through prophets. This claim can never be verified, so the truth value of any moral statement made by these religions is always "Maybe?"
I did not say that the systems of morals I believe in is the only correct one, though clearly I believe it is the only correct one, or I would not believe in it. Any person who claims to believe in a moral philosophy and then also claims that they do not believe it is the only correct one is either a) lying, b) deeply confused about what it means to believe in something, or c) deeply confused about what is meant by a moral philosophy/moral code/system of morals.
Monster Rain wrote:What's crazy is that G-Baby doesn't understand that Jews and Muslims also think that their morality is irrefutable. He doesn't hold a monopoly on the belief that his moral code is the correct one.
I do understand that many Jews and Muslims (and Christians) believe their morality is irrefutable. There is no reasonable way you could deduce from my comment that I do not understand this.
My personal belief is that moral reasoning is fundamentally similar to mathematical reasoning, and that moral problems can be solved just as mathematical problems are solved. That once one understands the fundamentals of moral reasoning, then all moral quandaries can be solved with relative ease. I also believe that operating in a truly moral capacity at all times is impossible for most people, and that moral action is often not pragmatic action. Finally I believe that most people are sloppy and irrational when discussing morality, and that they say things that display a gross misunderstanding of what morality is.
For example, one often hears people expressing the opinion that they have a moral code they live by, that they recognize other people live by their own codes, and that they think every individuals moral code is personal. But this displays a failure to comprehend the concept of morals, which must always be universal. Any moral system that is not universal is not a moral system, it is something else.
What is meant by universal? That it applies to all actors at all times. For example, a system o morals that claims that an act is immoral if performed by a citizen of America but not immoral if performed by a citizen of Japan is a fundamentally flawed moral system. A moral system must be tested always against a hypothetical rational actor that has no identifying characteristics -- neither nationality, gender, sex, orientation, ideology or religion. If your moral system cannot handle a question phrase as "Would a good person do X?" then your moral system does not work. It fails the first and most obvious test of a moral system, it lacks universality.
The moral system I subscribe to is based on two apparent facts:
1) All persons are objectively equal.
2) All persons capable of suffering or dieing desire to not suffer or die without their express consent.
The first fact is completely irrefutable. No person can claim knowledge of a system of objective valuation, thus any claim that any person is of greater value than any other person must necessarily be based on a subjective system of valuation. Thus objectively all persons have null value. Since null = null, it follows inescapably that all persons are objectively equal.
The second fact appears to be irrefutable, but if someone would like to claim otherwise -- that is assert that they desire to suffer and die without express consent -- then I invite you to come to Seattle and say it while standing on my porch. I have a gun, we can test your commitment to that claim quite easily.
Your entire claim is built around the concept that there IS a universal moral code out there, and I firmly believe it is not possible to have a strict universal moral code, hence why I do not follow any religous moral codes.
Here is a question which I think breaks the concept of a universal moral code, and I will use your format.
Would a good person KILL? Not murder kill.
If the answer is: Yes then that is saying that it is alright to kill and thus moral to murder, which is quite obviously an immoral action
If the answer is: No then it says that there is no chance when killing is justified, even if it is done to save your own life, which is also obviously not correct.
Any moral system has to be able to be flexible, and must recognize the existence of extenuating circumstances, and other loopholes. It must be flexible. Almost the entire world has recognized this, and that's why we have trial by jury among other t hings. If our moral system was a simple wall that one side is moral the other side is not, we would not need a trial by jury. We would just need a judge to say: you did x, and you are hereby sentenced to x. And there would be no complaints. However, the jury enables us to be flexible, and to allow there to be a sense of debate over whether or not extenuating circumstance exist that would either reduce the punishment, or acquit all together.
Gailbraithe wrote:I do insist that the whole world adhere to the same moral code I hold. It would be bizarre not to. But this is not the same as a Jew or Muslim telling me I am morally wrong, because Judean and Islamic morality are wrong. They are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Rational ethics are based on irrefutable premises and facts of existence that are verifiable (to the extent that existence is verifiable), and thus of a wholly different nature than religious moral systems.
ChrisWWII wrote:Is he actually saying that Jews and Muslims moral codes are "wrong" because they don't agree with his? And that his moral code is the only correct one out there?
What I wrote is in plain English and is easily comprehended. I clearly did not say that Judean and Islamic moral codes are wrong because they disagree with me. That would be an asinine claim to make, and to draw the conclusion that I think as much iis not remotely supported by the text. Either you are making a deliberate effort to misunderstand me or you have very poor reading comprehension skills. Then again, since you think all books are propaganda, and refuse to read propaganda, perhaps your reading skills just aren't very developed?
As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.
ChrisWWII wrote:Your entire claim is built around the concept that there IS a universal moral code out there, and I firmly believe it is not possible to have a strict universal moral code, hence why I do not follow any religous moral codes.
It's entirely possible there is one. There's an entire school of thought devoted to finding it. I just doubt any human being will ever find it
Then again Gail doesn't really seem to know what morality is, but that doesn't surprise me. As is typical for him he's attached his own opinion of morality to the concept to the exclusion of all other views. Universality is a school of thought on morality and perfectly valid one depending on what you're trying to achieve, but it isn't the only line of thought and being universal is hardly a requirement for a moral code.
What he seems to be trying to say is that too him a morality that can't be universally applied is flawed. He's just for some reason muddled down on the idea that if a moral system can't be universally applied and is flawed then it isn't a moral system at all, which is silly. A flawed moral code is still a moral code, of course I'd argue all moral codes have flaws when you look at them from outside that code. When you're inside it and subscribe to it obviously makes perfect sense to you
Have to agree with you. It is possible there is one, I suppose. But if humans can never discover or acheive it then it functionally doesn't exist, no?
Exactly...that comment about how the entire world should follow his morality system is what really kills me still. I happen to not believe in the universality of any moral code, but that's just me. Anyone can think differently, and I don't judge them as wrong for it. Hell, I'd guess that on most issues most peoples moral code would be quite similar if not the same. It's only on fringe issues like this where they begin to disagree with each other.
Totally agreed....Most moral codes appear perfect from inside, but once you go out? THEN you start noticing the inconsistencies.
Totally agreed....Most moral codes appear perfect from inside, but once you go out? THEN you start noticing the inconsistencies.
I wouldn't say perfect. They suit the needs of the individual or group in question. But moral codes are built to define proper behavior. They're social constructs. A moral code that doesn't address a given situation doesn't address it because the situation never came up. If it comes up the code is either expanded to included or changed to adapt to a new view on right and wrong. Likewise sometimes people within a moral code find fault in it, and try to address their concerns by changing it, replacing it, etc etc. Societies evolve and likewise their moral codes evolve to fit their needs.
When you take someone with one moral code built for their needs and have them observe the moral code built for the needs of another, it's easy for them to look at it and think "WTF? They're doing it wrong!" This doesn't make one right or one wrong they could easily both be wrong or even both be right depending on how you view morality and its role in the world and to people.
For example, the past two paragraphs are looking at morality in a historical context, defining morality as the standards by which societies and groups determined right and wrong within themselves. There are other ways, like Gail's, the view morality. There are multiple ways to approach any given problem. Some work better than others depending on what you want to achieve.
LordofHats wrote:
I wouldn't say perfect. They suit the needs of the individual or group in question. But moral codes are built to define proper behavior. They're social constructs. A moral code that doesn't address a given situation doesn't address it because the situation never came up. If it comes up the code is either expanded to included or changed to adapt to a new view on right and wrong. Likewise sometimes people within a moral code find fault in it, and try to address their concerns by changing it, replacing it, etc etc. Societies evolve and likewise their moral codes evolve to fit their needs.
When you take someone with one moral code built for their needs and have them observe the moral code built for the needs of another, it's easy for them to look at it and think "WTF? They're doing it wrong!" This doesn't make one right or one wrong they could easily both be wrong or even both be right depending on how you view morality and its role in the world and to people.
Well, that's what I was going for. Each person personalizes and specializes their moral code according to their own point of view, self tailoring it as they need. To them they know what the true moral path is, while from the outside someone could say that they're acting immoral.
Of course, such a conflict would usually occur on the outskirts of morality. I'm perfectly willing to be that most people's moral code would agree on most things. Killing, stealing, etc. is generally wrong, and that most people wouldn't notice such inconsistencies within others moral code until we get to something like this debate. THEN things get serious.
ChrisWWII wrote:Your entire claim is built around the concept that there IS a universal moral code out there, and I firmly believe it is not possible to have a strict universal moral code, hence why I do not follow any religous moral codes.
If you firmly believe it is not possible to have a universal moral code, then you do follow any moral code and are either a nihilist, ammoral, or morally bankrupt. Given your comments so far in this thread, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply very confused and have no idea what you're saying.
Here is a question which I think breaks the concept of a universal moral code, and I will use your format.
Would a good person KILL? Not murder kill.
If the answer is: Yes then that is saying that it is alright to kill and thus moral to murder, which is quite obviously an immoral action
If the answer is: No then it says that there is no chance when killing is justified, even if it is done to save your own life, which is also obviously not correct.
Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.
Any moral system has to be able to be flexible, and must recognize the existence of extenuating circumstances, and other loopholes. It must be flexible. Almost the entire world has recognized this, and that's why we have trial by jury among other t hings. If our moral system was a simple wall that one side is moral the other side is not, we would not need a trial by jury. We would just need a judge to say: you did x, and you are hereby sentenced to x. And there would be no complaints. However, the jury enables us to be flexible, and to allow there to be a sense of debate over whether or not extenuating circumstance exist that would either reduce the punishment, or acquit all together.
None of these claims make sense or are true. We do not have trials by jury because of a need for "moral flexibility," we have juries in order to determine whether or not the accused is guilty. I'm afraid you really don't understand how juries work at all. Extenuating circumstances are not considered by juries, they are considered by the law itself.
Also, you seem to not understand the difference between law and morality.
Monster Rain wrote:
As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.
And they could say the same thing about yours.
Who's right?
I'm right. That they can say it is meaningless. They can't prove it, nor can they demonstrate that the source cause of their moral systems -- God -- even exists. One can hardly claim that there is a universal moral code created by an entity who cannot be demonstrated to exist in any sense and expect to be taken seriously.
LordofHats wrote:Then again Gail doesn't really seem to know what morality is, but that doesn't surprise me. As is typical for him he's attached his own opinion of morality to the concept to the exclusion of all other views. Universality is a school of thought on morality and perfectly valid one depending on what you're trying to achieve, but it isn't the only line of thought and being universal is hardly a requirement for a moral code.
It's a requirement for a valid moral code, which are the only kind worth considering. A moral code that is not universal will inevitablely be flawed.
What he seems to be trying to say is that too him a morality that can't be universally applied is flawed. He's just for some reason muddled down on the idea that if a moral system can't be universally applied and is flawed then it isn't a moral system at all, which is silly. A flawed moral code is still a moral code, of course I'd argue all moral codes have flaws when you look at them from outside that code. When you're inside it and subscribe to it obviously makes perfect sense to you
No, you're being silly. Imagine I build a machine that is intended to allow me to fly like a bird. A flying contraption. I build the contraption and attempt to launch off the ground. This happens:
According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right. The failure to realize an idea is not the same thing as the successful realization of an idea. So a flawed moral code is not a moral code anymore than a failed flying contraption is an airplane. A flawed moral code is a failure. It's not a moral code, it's wrong. It was an attempt at a moral code/flying contraption, but it's failure to conform to the necessary properties of a moral code/achieve sustained flight means it was a failed attempt.
Gailbraithe wrote:It's a requirement for a valid moral code, which are the only kind worth considering. A moral code that is not universal will inevitablely be flawed.
It's still a moral code.
According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right.
Yep. You've invented a flying machine. It just doesn't work Leonard Da Vinci invented one, whether or not it would have ever worked is generally considered no. Eilmer of Malmesbury certainly invented some kind of "flying contraption" but we all know how that turned out for him.
That's somewhat of a false analogy. A better analogy for this subject: "I built and flying machine (the USS Morality ) and it flies. But once it hits 3000 feet it explodes for some reason... I should probably figure out why and fix that. " Being flawed does not imply failure, or that something isn't what it is. A flawed flying machine can still fly. A flawed person doesn't cease to be a person (unless we count death as a flaw and even then we still grant rights to corpses in a sense).
You seem to be a universalist and believe there is universal moral code that is correct. Which is fine. But then that leaves the question of what are the countless moral codes that span throughout history if they're not moral codes? Did the Aztecs not have a moral code? Of course they did. To us it just seems horribly twisted and baffling, and it probably is , But it worked for them in the time they lived until times changed and their moral code became more detrimental than beneficial (The Spanish didn't help). Moral codes in a historical sense are built to suit the needs of the people that subscribe to them. If the moral code no longer works then it is either abandoned and replaced (A process that usually happens over time) or the society that uses it or adapts n the wrong way collapses entirely (moral failings are often a contributing factor the decline of nations).
You're definition of morality is a definition used by a particular school of thought on the subject. Broadly universality is not needed for something to be a morality.
ChrisWWII wrote:You bring up a good point with the Aztecs. Now, I would think they'd be attacked as immoral, but back then who know? Not that there are any of them left to ask, mind you. They were all wiped out by Spaniard who firmly believed that the Catholic moral system was the only true one in existence. (Yes I know that wasn't the only reason, but its the reason relevant to this debate.) Just like our friend G-baby here.
I´ll just come to the thread to point out that Cortes was not alone and that a bunch of Nahuatl speaking indigenous allies tired of being the target of the Aztec´s moral system with their own moral systems that apparently didn´t condone wide spread human sacrifice were very happy to help defeating the Aztec Triple Alliance. (so you point still stands other than there were more moral codes involved)
Edit: If I've misunderstood your personal moral code, please correct me; I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but you claiming to believe any moral code is perfect grates me.
I do not have a universal moral code, and I firmly believe that all moral codes require some degree of flexibility in them. This does not make me amoral, morally bankrupt or anything else. I am perfectly clear on what I'm saying, thank you very much. I'm saying that a moral code require flexibility and thus can not be 100% universal.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.
Just because a bunch of people agree with you, even a major religous figure, does not make you right. I don't believe it's ALWAYS morally wrong to kill. What about my example situation? You see someone charging you with a knife, obviously intent on killing you. You have a gun. What are you to do? Close your eyes and let him murder you? Or do you defend yourself and shoot the attacker, potenitally killing him? To me this type of situation is why a universal moral code is completely impossible. There will always be a situation that defies the rules, and makes it difficult to establish whether or not the action was immoral.
None of these claims make sense or are true. We do not have trials by jury because of a need for "moral flexibility," we have juries in order to determine whether or not the accused is guilty. I'm afraid you really don't understand how juries work at all. Extenuating circumstances are not considered by juries, they are considered by the law itself.
I'll give you that I mispoke. What I meant to say is that PART OF a juries duty is not only to determine guilt, but also to give a suggestion of punishment. This is an example of moral flexibility in action. And I am not confused between the law and morality, I just believe that the law tries to follow morality as much as possible, and as such is flexible. It can bend slightly to account for extenuating circumstances.
I'm right. That they can say it is meaningless. They can't prove it, nor can they demonstrate that the source cause of their moral systems -- God -- even exists. One can hardly claim that there is a universal moral code created by an entity who cannot be demonstrated to exist in any sense and expect to be taken seriously.
So what if they can't prove the source of their moral code exists? Why does that make you automatically right...and why can't you take it seriously? The last 5 of the 10 COmmandments central to the Abrahamic religions all seem to be tenets of a moral code that most humans on the planet would agree to. Is this somehow not allowable because they're based on the words of an unprovable entity? What is your moral code based on, what G-baby thinks is right and wrong? In that case what right do you have to apply your judgment on every action commited by every human at every time? What gives you that right?
According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right. The failure to realize an idea is not the same thing as the successful realization of an idea. So a flawed moral code is not a moral code anymore than a failed flying contraption is an airplane. A flawed moral code is a failure. It's not a moral code, it's wrong. It was an attempt at a moral code/flying contraption, but it's failure to conform to the necessary properties of a moral code/achieve sustained flight means it was a failed attempt.
a) All the flying machines in the video you posted are still flying machines. They're just really really bad flying machines, but flying machines nonetheless.
b) So, your logic is that if a moral code is not universal then it is flawed, and if it is flawed it is wrong. I'm sorry, I can't accept EITHER of those premises. A code can't apply to anyone due to different cultural backgrounds and a host of other factors. Outside the killing in self defense example provided above, allow me to provide a different (slightly sillier) example.
Suppose a universal moral code goes like this: Would a good person steal a hat? A: No.
Now, let's say we have a human from a hypothetical culture where it is the greatest compliment in the entire universe to steal someones hat. If someone steals your hat in this culture then it is a sign of such utmost respect and love that it would warm even the coldest man's heart. This man comes to your nation, and....steals your hat. Now to him, he's paying you a great GREAT compliment and showing great respect to you. But your inflexible moral code has no leeway for a situation like this, and thus this person is immoral and evil.
...That doesn't really make sense to me, and in a flexible non-universal moral system the cultural background would be an extenuating circumstance, and you could turn to man and be thankful for the compliment. (And probably explain to him the cultural differences as well. Just in case he runs into a universal moralist who prosecutes him for his attempted act of kindness.)
Miguelsan wrote:
I´ll just come to the thread to point out that Cortes was not alone and that a bunch of Nahuatl speaking indigenous allies tired of being the target of the Aztec´s moral system with their own moral systems that apparently didn´t condone wide spread human sacrifice were very happy to help defeating the Aztec Triple Alliance. (so you point still stands other than there were more moral codes involved)
Yep, and I just didn't factor in the other natives. Glad you agree the point stands though.
As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.
And they could say the same thing about yours.
Who's right?
I'm right. That they can say it is meaningless. They can't prove it, nor can they demonstrate that the source cause of their moral systems -- God -- even exists. One can hardly claim that there is a universal moral code created by an entity who cannot be demonstrated to exist in any sense and expect to be taken seriously.
They still have a moral code, whether or not the God they believe it came from can be demonstrated to exist.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I did not say that the systems of morals I believe in is the only correct one, though clearly I believe it is the only correct one, or I would not believe in it. Any person who claims to believe in a moral philosophy and then also claims that they do not believe it is the only correct one is either a) lying, b) deeply confused about what it means to believe in something, or c) deeply confused about what is meant by a moral philosophy/moral code/system of morals.
So you don't believe your way is the only right way, you just believe that...your way is the only right way?
And if you say that your way is the only right way, then you fundamentally believe that everyone else is wrong because they believe in something different.
You may add further reasoning, but the point stands that their belief is not compatible with your own, so therefore they must be wrong.
I'd like to introduce you to the colour Gray, it usually sits between black and white, y'know...the middle ground?
Gailbraithe wrote:According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right.
Yep. You've invented a flying machine. It just doesn't work Leonard Da Vinci invented one, whether or not it would have ever worked is generally considered no. Eilmer of Malmesbury certainly invented some kind of "flying contraption" but we all know how that turned out for him.
A device envisioned as a flying machine that does not fly is not a flying machine. Your attempts to deny what is a clearly evident fact are humorous, but you're still wrong. There is a reason that the Wright Brothers are credited as being the inventors of the first flying machine: they built the first (popularly documented) machine intended to be a flying machine that was, in fact, a machine that flew.
That's somewhat of a false analogy.
It's not an analogy. I was demonstrating a logical principle, the law of contradiction. That failure is by definition not success because failure is defined as the absence of success, thus a thing that fails to be what it is intended to be is not what it intends to be, as if it were what it was intended to be then it would be a success, and that is a logical paradox. Thus the reasoning is wrong, and it is not reasonable to continue to argue as if the point were true.
You seem to be a universalist and believe there is universal moral code that is correct. Which is fine. But then that leaves the question of what are the countless moral codes that span throughout history if they're not moral codes?
Taboos.
Did the Aztecs not have a moral code? Of course they did. To us it just seems horribly twisted and baffling, and it probably is , But it worked for them in the time they lived until times changed and their moral code became more detrimental than beneficial (The Spanish didn't help). Moral codes in a historical sense are built to suit the needs of the people that subscribe to them. If the moral code no longer works then it is either abandoned and replaced (A process that usually happens over time) or the society that uses it or adapts n the wrong way collapses entirely (moral failings are often a contributing factor the decline of nations).
I don't know anything of substance about the Aztecs, and have no idea how developed their society was. My understanding is that they lived under a religious authority and were motivated by superstition. In which case they would not have a moral code, they would have taboos. Taboos are arbitrary rules and customs of pre-rational societies. Only a society that has discovered reason can have a rational moral code, and an irrational moral code is arbitrary and mutable (as you note), thus flawed, thus not actually a moral code. It is taboos.
You're definition of morality is a definition used by a particular school of thought on the subject. Broadly universality is not needed for something to be a morality.
Correct, I subscribe to Kantian humanism. It is the standard basis for almost all modern law in the West, the foundation of human rights, the default ethical system of the European Union and the United Nations, etc. As for universality's necessity: It is if you intend for the word morality to mean anything, then it must be universal. A non-universal system of morals will inevitably be arbitrary -- whomever the moral system does not apply to, there can be no rational reason to exclude them because of the quality of objective equality that all persons have.
Gailbraithe wrote:According to you, my failure to launch as resulted in the invention of a flying machine, but that's clearly not right.
Yep. You've invented a flying machine. It just doesn't work Leonard Da Vinci invented one, whether or not it would have ever worked is generally considered no. Eilmer of Malmesbury certainly invented some kind of "flying contraption" but we all know how that turned out for him.
A device envisioned as a flying machine that does not fly is not a flying machine. Your attempts to deny what is a clearly evident fact are humorous, but you're still wrong. There is a reason that the Wright Brothers are credited as being the inventors of the first flying machine: they built the first (popularly documented) machine intended to be a flying machine that was, in fact, a machine that flew.
.
the law of contradiction is a mathematical concept that only applies when you can only judge things through true/false values. It ceases to function as a concept once you have a scale of values or more results then only true or false.
Gailbraithe wrote:
What I wrote is in plain English and is easily comprehended. I clearly did not say that Judean and Islamic moral codes are wrong because they disagree with me. That would be an asinine claim to make, and to draw the conclusion that I think as much iis not remotely supported by the text.
No, that's pretty much what you said. I very much doubt that Jews and Muslims consider the premises on which their faiths are based to be untestable, which means that the foundation of your rejection of them is based on a fundamental disagreement regarding what you believe to be true. I know you want to believe that philosophy is like math, but it really isn't. Theoretical mathematics can reach a given set of conclusions because the fundamental elements that constitute it are all equivalent by abstract necessity. This same property is not present in philosophy, where the initial premises (analogous to real numbers) are always up for debate and consideration.
Gailbraithe wrote:
As it states very clearly in the comment quoted above, Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises. Specifically they are predicated on the premise that God exists and communicates moral teachings to man through prophets.
See, you would be hard pressed to find uniform agreement on that particular topic. Moreover, even if you could, to predicate an argument on an untestable premise is not sufficient to invalidate the argument. If it were, then the physical sciences would be in an awfully uncomfortable position, and so would the utilitarian philosophy of which you are an exponent.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I did not say that the systems of morals I believe in is the only correct one, though clearly I believe it is the only correct one, or I would not believe in it.Any person who claims to believe in a moral philosophy and then also claims that they do not believe it is the only correct one is either a) lying, b) deeply confused about what it means to believe in something, or c) deeply confused about what is meant by a moral philosophy/moral code/system of morals.
No, sorry. If you claim that, in order to believe in a moral philosophy, you must also believe that it is the only correct moral philosophy, then your first statement is impossible unless you fulfill any of the three criteria you outline in consequence.
Gailbraithe wrote:
It fails the first and most obvious test of a moral system, it lacks universality.
Why is that the first and most obvious test of a moral system?
I mean, you may not consider that to be an earth-shattering claim, but I assure you that many people who do philosophy for a living would disagree.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The first fact is completely irrefutable. No person can claim knowledge of a system of objective valuation, thus any claim that any person is of greater value than any other person must necessarily be based on a subjective system of valuation. Thus objectively all persons have null value. Since null = null, it follows inescapably that all persons are objectively equal.
It also follows that all persons are irrelevant on an objective level, which leaves us to wonder why we're talking about objectivity at all. To even reach the level of objective consideration you must first subjectively conclude that persons are worth considering at all, and that such consideration is one of objective merit. This is where ethical theory comes in.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The second fact appears to be irrefutable, but if someone would like to claim otherwise -- that is assert that they desire to suffer and die without express consent -- then I invite you to come to Seattle and say it while standing on my porch. I have a gun, we can test your commitment to that claim quite easily.
It does not follow from the idea that someone might feel that people desire to suffer and die without their express consent, that the person holding that belief must himself desire to suffer and die without his express consent.
Gitzbitah wrote:My curiosity is piqued. What is the universal moral code, Galbraithe? By what standard should we live to be moral human beings?
^This
I'd like to know what exactly Galbraithe would have us all live by, since he's apparently the only one with a true moral code in the world. Additionally, care to refute me, my good sir, or shall I consider your silence a concession?
del'Vhar wrote:Galibraithe - Given that you claim your moral code is perfect, and that you value all life as equal, provide a morally correct solution to:
Edit: If I've misunderstood your personal moral code, please correct me; I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but you claiming to believe any moral code is perfect grates me.
I'm actually not claiming that one moral code is perfect. I'm claiming that there is such a thing as morality, that it is universal, and that it can be understood through the use of the faculty of reason. I'm also not claiming it's my moral code. It's no one's moral code, it's simply morality.
I would only say that it is perfect in the same sense that math is perfect. I am not even claiming that I have a perfect understanding of morality -- my moral reasoning may not be perfect, and I may arrive at a wrong conclusion. But I have gotten math problems wrong, and no one would claim that I got those problems wrong because math is imperfect, but rather because my understanding or application of math is imperfect.
For example, sitting here kind of stoned on a Wednesday night, I can't figure out the answer to the Trolley problem. But I'm certain there is a right answer, just as I'm certain there are right answers to equations my housemate is always writing on his whiteboard (he's going for his masters in mathmatics), but damned if I know what those answers are.
Gitzbitah wrote:My curiosity is piqued. What is the universal moral code, Galbraithe? By what standard should we live to be moral human beings?
don't be a dick
Works for me....though somehow I expected his moral code to be somewhat more....complex than that.
Gilbraithe wrote:
For example, sitting here kind of stoned on a Wednesday night, I can't figure out the answer to the Trolley problem. But I'm certain there is a right answer, just as I'm certain there are right answers to equations my housemate is always writing on his whiteboard (he's going for his masters in mathmatics), but damned if I know what those answers are.
Really? That...that doesn't seem to go along with your early claim that all true proper universal moral codes should be answerable by the question. "Would a good man do X?" Now...with the trolley problem would a good man pull the lever? Push the fat man onto the tracks? Do any of those? From your previous statements, it seems that there should be a clear easy answer available to us. If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.
ChrisWWII wrote: If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.
You can also conclude that there is no right answer in that all options are morally equivalent (or at least nearly so), which is an acceptable idea given the mathematical analogy.
In essence, as the set of possible solutions approaches a net value of zero, the ability of any given actor to meaningfully solve the problem also approaches 0.
ChrisWWII wrote: If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.
You can also conclude that there is no right answer in that all options are morally equivalent (or at least nearly so), which is an acceptable idea given the mathematical analogy.
In essence, as the set of possible solutions approaches a net value of zero, the ability of any given actor to meaningfully solve the problem also approaches 0.
....Conceded. I'm honestly out of my depth at this point. I've never studied morality or ethics in depth, and thus am just going off my gut feeling with my posts.
ChrisWWII wrote: If not then clearly you concede that there are such things as extenuating circumstances, and a moral code must be flexible.
You can also conclude that there is no right answer in that all options are morally equivalent (or at least nearly so), which is an acceptable idea given the mathematical analogy.
In essence, as the set of possible solutions approaches a net value of zero, the ability of any given actor to meaningfully solve the problem also approaches 0.
....Conceded. I'm honestly out of my depth at this point. I've never studied morality or ethics in depth, and thus am just going off my gut feeling with my posts.
Which funnily enough is what most morality and ethics is based on
ChrisWWII wrote:I do not have a universal moral code, and I firmly believe that all moral codes require some degree of flexibility in them. This does not make me amoral, morally bankrupt or anything else. I am perfectly clear on what I'm saying, thank you very much. I'm saying that a moral code require flexibility and thus can not be 100% universal.
It's perfectly clear that you have no idea what you're saying.
Gailbraithe wrote:Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.
Just because a bunch of people agree with you, even a major religous figure, does not make you right. I don't believe it's ALWAYS morally wrong to kill. What about my example situation? You see someone charging you with a knife, obviously intent on killing you. You have a gun. What are you to do? Close your eyes and let him murder you? Or do you defend yourself and shoot the attacker, potenitally killing him? To me this type of situation is why a universal moral code is completely impossible. There will always be a situation that defies the rules, and makes it difficult to establish whether or not the action was immoral.
I point the gun at him and tell him to stop, if that is feasible. If it is not, I shoot him. But let's be clear: I do not shoot him because that is the moral thing to do. I shoot him because I have a very strong desire to not be stabbed to death, and my desire to not be stabbed to death is a lot stronger than my desire to be moral.
Killing a person is immoral. This situation does not "defy the rules." You simply do not want to accept the conclusion. You want morality to be flexible so that you can feel that its sometimes okay to kill someone else. But its never okay to kill someone. Sometimes its necessary, and sometimes its legally sanctioned, but it is always a wrong.
I'll give you that I mispoke. What I meant to say is that PART OF a juries duty is not only to determine guilt, but also to give a suggestion of punishment. This is an example of moral flexibility in action. And I am not confused between the law and morality, I just believe that the law tries to follow morality as much as possible, and as such is flexible. It can bend slightly to account for extenuating circumstances.
Juries do not give suggestions of punishment. Punishment is decided by the judge. Juries are triers of fact. The jury's sole responsibility is to hear the facts of the case and decided if the law the defendant is accused of was in fact broken by the defendant.
So what if they can't prove the source of their moral code exists? Why does that make you automatically right...and why can't you take it seriously?
It doesn't make me right, and I never said that it did. It makes them wrong.
The reason it is relevant that they can't prove the source of their moral code exists is because I can say "There is a being named Nutlicker Divine. He is invisible, intangible, omnipresent, and responsible for everything you like. He says it is immoral to wear shoes on both feet, unless both shoes are open-toed." and that statement carries the exact same weight as any of their statements.
The last 5 of the 10 COmmandments central to the Abrahamic religions all seem to be tenets of a moral code that most humans on the planet would agree to.
Most religions get a lot of things right. But just because you shouldn't kill people, and it says you shouldn't kill people in the Ten Commandments doesn't make Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality correct. For example, there is no rational reason one should not wear blended fabrics, but the Bible says it's an abomination to God. So that's kind of arbitrary, yeah?
What is your moral code based on, what G-baby thinks is right and wrong?
No Chrissy-poo, what "G-baby" thinks is right and wrong is based on his moral reasoning, and his moral code is comprised of those principles he thinks are right. Moral reasoning is how one determines what is right and what is wrong. I'm sorry this is all so clearly way over your head.
And my moral reasoning starts from two principles:
1) Every person is equal.
2) Everything that knows suffering desires not to suffer.
But often I like to keep it simple and just use Kant's original formulations:
1) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
2) Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
3) Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
In that case what right do you have to apply your judgment on every action commited by every human at every time? What gives you that right?
I don't have any right to apply my judgments, if that means taking action to punish people for immoral acts. But I have every right to make moral judgments. I can think, therefore I will think. No one has any right to stop me from thinking.
b) So, your logic is that if a moral code is not universal then it is flawed, and if it is flawed it is wrong. I'm sorry, I can't accept EITHER of those premises. A code can't apply to anyone due to different cultural backgrounds and a host of other factors. Outside the killing in self defense example provided above, allow me to provide a different (slightly sillier) example.
It doesn't matter if you accept them, those premises are true.
Suppose a universal moral code goes like this: Would a good person steal a hat? A: No.
Now, let's say we have a human from a hypothetical culture where it is the greatest compliment in the entire universe to steal someones hat. If someone steals your hat in this culture then it is a sign of such utmost respect and love that it would warm even the coldest man's heart. This man comes to your nation, and....steals your hat. Now to him, he's paying you a great GREAT compliment and showing great respect to you. But your inflexible moral code has no leeway for a situation like this, and thus this person is immoral and evil.
...That doesn't really make sense to me, and in a flexible non-universal moral system the cultural background would be an extenuating circumstance, and you could turn to man and be thankful for the compliment. (And probably explain to him the cultural differences as well. Just in case he runs into a universal moralist who prosecutes him for his attempted act of kindness.)
Of course it doesn't make sense. But all you've demonstrated is that it possible for you to make up a nonsensical universal moral code that makes no sense given a ludicrous set of circumstances. And this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. The real problem here is that the man never stole my hat. He engaged in a custom for showing respect from his country. I, being a Westerner, might perceive his act as stealing my hat, but it is not the perception of the act that determines its moral quality. It is the intent of the act.
The man in your example is not operating under the maxim "One should steal other people's hats." but rather the maxim "One should acknowledge feelings of loving respect through appropriate gestures." And since this maxim, following from the categorical imperative, is good, then this man's action was good.
@Gilbraithe: So...it's okay to commit immoral acts under given circumstances? I'm not really following your example with the gun and the knife wielder.
dogma wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hence the attractiveness of relativism. We don't have to judge other cultures by our standards as they are only expected to live up to their own standards. But surely that can only stretch so far. If a country was to openly practice human sacrifice or caniballism then they would be viewed as immoral, no?
I would certainly say yes, and there isn't anything in particular that prevents the creation of some sort of consistently applicable category by which those sorts of things could be discerned. Indeed, that's pretty much the purpose of Kant's categorical imperative.
Dogma, whenever you post I either have to bring a thesuarus or a link to Wiki.
ChrisWWII wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Is this a leadership test or armour saves?
Armor saves, it would be an insane success if it was a morale check.
Hey, it takes insane courage to throw out blanket comments like that. (I notice, Gilbraithe, that you didn't have the guts to throw Christians in that mix until later)
My Posts = 1 Picture and a few unhelpful comments
Dogma's post = A fething essay
Please give the guy with the Platypus more credit.
Alright then. Ahem. =Clears throat. dogma, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM AND SMITER OF HERETICS and Emperors Faithful are right.
Better?
Much.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Hmm... is the surfer infringing on the sharks right to eat surfers... or is the shark infringing on the surfers right to not be eaten?
I'd have to say the latter, as I firmly believe human rights trump animal rights. Of course that's just me, and not the absolute moral truth for the world. But I do have to agree with you....Totally out of our depth here. Dogma, may I ask, are you studying this subject area for a college degree? You certainly seem to be very knowledgeable and well read on philosophy and ethics.
1) I didn't post that 2) In that posistion morals and ethics go out the fething window. As a surfer I am wondering whether I should try to catch this wave or thow my lot in with the next one. I would also be keeping all hands and legs inside the vehichle at all times.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Gilbraithe: So...it's okay to commit immoral acts under given circumstances? I'm not really following your example with the gun and the knife wielder.
Define "okay." You can commit immoral acts whenever you want. If the law wherever you are is in concordance with morality regarding whatever immoral thing you've and you are caught engaging in that act, then you may suffer a punishment. But there is no inherent penalty for doing something immoral, at least not as far as anyone can prove. There doesn't not appear to be any means by which Cosmic Justice is fulfilled.
The point of the gun and the knife is that we often do what is pragmatic, not what is moral.
But here's an interesting twist on the gun and knife hypothetical that shows why acts need to be considered separate from context:
A man with a knife, Bob, charges a man with a gun, Dave, intent on killing Dave. Dave shoots Bob dead.
Chris tells us this is moral, that what Dave has done is not immoral.
But Dave is a burglar and he has broken into Bob's house to steal something.
If Dave was justified in attacking Bob, then isn't Bob now justified in attacking Dave? If Bob is justified in attacking Dave, is Dave still justified in attacking him?
The thing that Dave broke into Bob's house to steal was stolen from Dave the night before.
Is Bob still justified in attacking Dave? Is Dave now once again justified in defending himself?
The thing that Bob stole from Dave is a giant bag full of crack.
Who is justified now? Bob? Dave? Neither? Both?
Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.
Who is justified now?
Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.
Who is justified now?
Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.
Who is justified now?
If your answer ever changed as I added more context, then you have started to recognize the problem with context-dependent ethics. There is always more context that can be added.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey, it takes insane courage to throw out blanket comments like that. (I notice, Gilbraithe, that you didn't have the guts to throw Christians in that mix until later)
That's not fair. The question put to me only concerned Muslims and Jews. I didn't exclude Christians originally because I was afraid, but because Christians weren't part of the question asked. And I didn't add them in later because I suddenly found courage, I added them in because I don't like Christians and think mostly they have cabbages for heads.
Gailbraithe wrote:A device envisioned as a flying machine that does not fly is not a flying machine. Your attempts to deny what is a clearly evident fact are humorous, but you're still wrong. There is a reason that the Wright Brothers are credited as being the inventors of the first flying machine: they built the first (popularly documented) machine intended to be a flying machine that was, in fact, a machine that flew.
Contrary to popular belief the Wright Brothers did not create the first machine capable of flight. The Wright brothers are credited with the first powered (human) flight, even though all they really did was glide using power to keep their machine in the air long enough to call it gliding. Other people had achieved gliding before them. See kites.
You made an analogy that was false as to my intention (what I actually said may well be in line with the analogy) which is why I attempted to clarify with an analogy of my own.
That failure is by definition not success because failure is defined as the absence of success, thus a thing that fails to be what it is intended to be is not what it intends to be, as if it were what it was intended to be then it would be a success, and that is a logical paradox. Thus the reasoning is wrong, and it is not reasonable to continue to argue as if the point were true.
Flawed is not synonymous with failure.
To make an analogy (or law of contradiction as you put it) of my own, by your description Newton's laws were a failure because we now know them to be flawed. But most scientists won't call Newton's Laws failures, because when you're not dealing with speeds approach light speed, the error produced by the calculations is so miniscule that it's negligible. They can't be universally applied but they still have use and hold true on a macro scale.
Taboos.
Taboos exist within a moral system.
I don't know anything of substance about the Aztecs, and have no idea how developed their society was. My understanding is that they lived under a religious authority and were motivated by superstition. In which case they would not have a moral code, they would have taboos. Taboos are arbitrary rules and customs of pre-rational societies. Only a society that has discovered reason can have a rational moral code, and an irrational moral code is arbitrary and mutable (as you note), thus flawed, thus not actually a moral code. It is taboos.
The Aztecs were more advanced than hunter-gatherers, less advanced than Western Europeans and civilizations on other civilizations in the middle east and central asia. It can be a bit confusing because like the Mayan's, a lot of what the Aztecs had was directly picked up from the civilization before them. Mayan's picked up (literally) stuff left behind by the Olmecs, and the Aztecs picked up stuff left by the Mayans. I'm not sure exactly how much the Aztecs developed on their own. The Aztec capital city was built by the Mayans. I don't know if the Aztecs added onto it or just left it as it is and lived there.
But again. You're applying your own definition to morality to exclude it from being anything that you don't think it is, even though just about any philosopher or historian will tell you what morality actually is; a system of norms, behaviors, and conduct that are used by societies/individuals to differentiate right from wrong. Taboos are part of a moral code. You can't have taboos without a moral code of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors or actions. Taboos exist, because the moral code of a group has determined something to be wrong, or not wrong but less than right.
Aztec morality had no problem ripping people's hearts out for the sun god (or whoever they were sacrificing people too, I don't know if it was just one god or multiple gods). Now the Aztecs weren't really unique in this. Lots of cultures in the area did human sacrifice. The Aztecs just took it to an extreme compared to everyone else and did it in a sort of grand stage on their nice fancy Mayan step pyramids. European morality of course had long decided ritual sacrifice of human beings was morally wrong. Moral codes that are flawed don't cease to be moral codes and there's always the argument to be made that there is no such thing as a flawless moral code.
It is if you intend for the word morality to mean anything, then it must be universal. A non-universal system of morals will inevitably be arbitrary -- whomever the moral system does not apply to, there can be no rational reason to exclude them because of the quality of objective equality that all persons have.
That's a perfectly valid position to hold. But you should be able to recognize that not all moral codes are universal. They are a staple of civilization and there's plenty of evidence pre-civilization humans also had moral codes of some degree. While some day there may well be a universal moral code, today we don't have one. There are certain moralities that are near universal (Do not kill, do not steal, etc) but a full moral code that applies to all human beings has yet to exist. Take stealing for example. Most people can agree that stealing isn't right. But there's always some scenario out there that can make you wonder if it is appropriate to steal. While broadly most moralities in the modern world agree on a lot of things, they end up differing on circumstances, when is it okay to do this. What is the motivation, acceptable threshold for error, etc etc. Specifics vary wildly even from one person to another within the same social group.
Gailbraithe wrote:Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.
Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.
Contradict yourself much? Since Christianity is based mainly on the teachings of Jesus, your stand here appears contradictory.
2...
Gailbraithe wrote:The moral system I subscribe to is based on two apparent facts:
1) All persons are objectively equal.
2) All persons capable of suffering or dieing desire to not suffer or die without their express consent.
And my moral reasoning starts from two principles:
1) Every person is equal.
2) Everything that knows suffering desires not to suffer.
I noted the difference in wording here. It explains much, You have quoted, with near perfection, Singer and have used his ideas to define your own "code".
I have heard a similar code... "And it harm none, do what thou wilt." Also known as the Wiccan Rede.
3... On the gun/knife issue... adding additional information to the equation does not change the immeadiate circumstance that being each person being in a situation of having their life and/or health threatened by the other. But lets change the init6ial situation.
A starving Lion charges a person, the person has a gun. The lion is acting on instinct. As a meat eater, it is required by its nature to kill to feed. There is no "Moral code" at work within the lion. It needs meat to survive and thus must kill to survive. The person, on the other hand, must make a decission... Kill the lion, which, depending on species, may be endangered, and preserve his own life, or forfeit his own existance by allowing the lion to act according to its nature and instincts.
4... On the Flying machine issue.... there is a great quote from Thomas Edison, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Also, if you know anything about the clip you posted, you would know that many of the machines in that film were ideas for improving or making a "better" flying machine not a new machine. Going back to Edison, they simply found what did not work.
Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
True. I guess I jumped down his throat a bit there.
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
True. I guess I jumped down his throat a bit there.
Oh I wouldn't say you were overly hostile. There are plenty of examples of "jumping down his throat" throughout the thread to compare with.
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
True. I guess I jumped down his throat a bit there.
Oh I wouldn't say you were overly hostile. There are plenty of examples of "jumping down his throat" throughout the thread to compare with.
Yeah, I'm about done with this thread. It really comes down to biocentrism vs. anthropocentrism, and people on both sides feel pretty strongly about their opinions. No one's convincing anyone.
Ah good good, the bait was taken. /jk And a +1 to ^ there really are better examples of throat jumping here, I was prepared with such an aggressive sounding statement. I'll be doing a bit of devil's advocate with morality here so please ignore or take with salt.
I didn't say humans were superior to animals, I mean to say we a superior type of animal. We are also a resource to be used, and as much as Whale Wars enjoys whale watching, I enjoy people watching. Very serious business you know. Very silly too. We can do instinct, we can also ignore it and change the outcome. You see it in nature; we're living longer so new diseases and problems crop up killing us. Another solution and another way to die shows up. There's a system and we can really mess it up by changing the rules of how we deal with it. New exceptions/codexes if you get my drift.
To quote George Carlin: *edited per Dakka decorum
I realized some time ago that I'm not separate from nature just because I have a primate brain - an upper brain - because underneath the primate brain, there's a mammalian brain, and beneath the mammalian brain, there's a reptilian brain; and it's those two lower brains that made the upper brain possible in the first place. Here's the way it works: The primate brain says, "Give peace a chance." The mammalian brain says, "Give peace a chance, but first let's kill this guy." And the reptilian brain says, "Let's just kill the guy, go to the peace rally and get laid."
It's in us, instinct and free will. That makes us superior. Better? Maybe, maybe not. But we can change and choose.
*edited if this is dead I'm keeping my track record of posting at the tailend of threads before they die. Maybe I should post in these types sooner to 'kill' them off.
All this talk of 'rights' but really all we have are privileges. Another Carlin quote:
"And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter."
If someone can take them away. In my argument, we're animals and animals can take those 'rights' away too. I can be killed by a predator. I can kill it too. I can 'cheat' a snake bite with anti venom. Change the rules, but I keep the privilege to live to tomorrow. I don't have a right to eat, but I can work to have the privilege to eat and even choose what to eat and when. Couldn't do that too long ago. But we changed the rules and that, I feel, is what makes us stand apart form other animals.
I think the problem is that they were their with cameras filming the whole thing. If the crew hadn't been, I imagine the Japanese that were there probably would have just frolicked with the dolphins. By observing the events, they changed them. Science says so.
Gailbraithe wrote:
But here's an interesting twist on the gun and knife hypothetical that shows why acts need to be considered separate from context:
A man with a knife, Bob, charges a man with a gun, Dave, intent on killing Dave. Dave shoots Bob dead.
Chris tells us this is moral, that what Dave has done is not immoral.
But Dave is a burglar and he has broken into Bob's house to steal something.
If Dave was justified in attacking Bob, then isn't Bob now justified in attacking Dave? If Bob is justified in attacking Dave, is Dave still justified in attacking him?
The thing that Dave broke into Bob's house to steal was stolen from Dave the night before.
Is Bob still justified in attacking Dave? Is Dave now once again justified in defending himself?
The thing that Bob stole from Dave is a giant bag full of crack.
Who is justified now? Bob? Dave? Neither? Both?
Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.
Who is justified now?
Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.
Who is justified now?
Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.
Who is justified now?
If your answer ever changed as I added more context, then you have started to recognize the problem with context-dependent ethics. There is always more context that can be added.
And by universal morality, if Dave was morally justified to kill Bob at the start then Dave always has the moral justification to kill.
If he has no moral justification to kill, then Dave is suddenly a morally bankrupt person by your logic?
That is the fundamental problem with using universality to provide a solution to complex problems, I believe Kant himself recognised this and stated that the individual must act based upon the situation if the Categorical Imperative fails. (This is based off what I remember, I have a passing knowledge of Kantian morality from uni)
del'Vhar wrote:And by universal morality, if Dave was morally justified to kill Bob at the start then Dave always has the moral justification to kill.
If he has no moral justification to kill, then Dave is suddenly a morally bankrupt person by your logic?
What? None of what you just said makes any kind of sense.
What does "And by universal morality," mean? Universality is a property of systems of morality, but saying "by universal morality" you're implying that universality is a system of morality. That doesn't make any sense. Universality only means that all persons are equal when considered as moral actors, that the rules -- whatever they are -- are the same regardless of who the actor is. So universality tells you whom the rules apply to (everyone) but not what the rules are.
For example Christianity is a (flawed) morality system that features universality. Sex outside the confines of marriage is a sin in the Christian schema. Because sin is universal, even if one if discussing a culture where sex outside the confines of marriage is considered no different than sex inside the marriage, sex outside of marriage remains a sin.
That is the fundamental problem with using universality to provide a solution to complex problems, I believe Kant himself recognised this and stated that the individual must act based upon the situation if the Categorical Imperative fails. (This is based off what I remember, I have a passing knowledge of Kantian morality from uni)
So you basically completely failed to get the point of the entire comment you were responding to, didn't you? The point is that one can't base moral judgments of an action off the circumstances in which the action occurred because every situation is infinitely complex. As soon as one asserts that the situation determines the morality of an act, one must begin arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation one will consider (plus there's ignorance to consider). But since every new fact changes the morality of the act, by arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation we will consider we arbitrarily determine the morality of the act.
del'Vhar wrote:And by universal morality, if Dave was morally justified to kill Bob at the start then Dave always has the moral justification to kill. If he has no moral justification to kill, then Dave is suddenly a morally bankrupt person by your logic?
What? None of what you just said makes any kind of sense.
What does "And by universal morality," mean? Universality is a property of systems of morality, but saying "by universal morality" you're implying that universality is a system of morality. That doesn't make any sense. Universality only means that all persons are equal when considered as moral actors, that the rules -- whatever they are -- are the same regardless of who the actor is. So universality tells you whom the rules apply to (everyone) but not what the rules are.
For example Christianity is a (flawed) morality system that features universality. Sex outside the confines of marriage is a sin in the Christian schema. Because sin is universal, even if one if discussing a culture where sex outside the confines of marriage is considered no different than sex inside the marriage, sex outside of marriage remains a sin.
That is the fundamental problem with using universality to provide a solution to complex problems, I believe Kant himself recognised this and stated that the individual must act based upon the situation if the Categorical Imperative fails. (This is based off what I remember, I have a passing knowledge of Kantian morality from uni)
Apologies for using an incorrect phrase, of which the intent was perfectly clear to the point where you identified it.
I meant of course a Moral System or Code that features Universality, such as your own Kantian Humanism (by my understanding)
The point stands, Dave is either morally justified or not in killing Bob. Employing Universality: If he is justified, then Dave (and everyone else) can kill anyone, anytime. In fact by killing Bob, Dave was impeding Bobs right to kill Dave.
If he is not justified, is he now morally bankrupt because he has acted immorally?
So you basically completely failed to get the point of the entire comment you were responding to, didn't you? The point is that one can't base moral judgments of an action off the circumstances in which the action occurred because every situation is infinitely complex. As soon as one asserts that the situation determines the morality of an act, one must begin arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation one will consider (plus there's ignorance to consider). But since every new fact changes the morality of the act, by arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation we will consider we arbitrarily determine the morality of the act.
Claiming I don't understand what you said because I disagree is an odd stance, especially when you don't actually address what I said at all.
My view of universality is that it works for hypothetical situations, provided they have a clear answer. It tends to fall over when faced with a conundrum, such as the Trolley Problem I linked earlier.
If there is no morally acceptable action, and taking no action is equally immoral, what do you do? Does the universe explode because there are no "rules" you can apply?
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Gilbraithe: So...it's okay to commit immoral acts under given circumstances? I'm not really following your example with the gun and the knife wielder.
Define "okay." You can commit immoral acts whenever you want. If the law wherever you are is in concordance with morality regarding whatever immoral thing you've and you are caught engaging in that act, then you may suffer a punishment. But there is no inherent penalty for doing something immoral, at least not as far as anyone can prove. There doesn't not appear to be any means by which Cosmic Justice is fulfilled.
The point of the gun and the knife is that we often do what is pragmatic, not what is moral.
But here's an interesting twist on the gun and knife hypothetical that shows why acts need to be considered separate from context:
A man with a knife, Bob, charges a man with a gun, Dave, intent on killing Dave. Dave shoots Bob dead.
Chris tells us this is moral, that what Dave has done is not immoral.
But Dave is a burglar and he has broken into Bob's house to steal something.
If Dave was justified in attacking Bob, then isn't Bob now justified in attacking Dave? If Bob is justified in attacking Dave, is Dave still justified in attacking him?
The thing that Dave broke into Bob's house to steal was stolen from Dave the night before.
Is Bob still justified in attacking Dave? Is Dave now once again justified in defending himself?
The thing that Bob stole from Dave is a giant bag full of crack.
Who is justified now? Bob? Dave? Neither? Both?
Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.
Who is justified now?
Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.
Who is justified now?
Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.
Who is justified now?
If your answer ever changed as I added more context, then you have started to recognize the problem with context-dependent ethics. There is always more context that can be added.
First of all, I would like to point out that your approach was similarily unhelpful. If your answer NEVER changed (If your moral forbids Killing absolutely) then how can that be applied appropriately?
Secondly, I'd like to point out a couple of flaws in your moral flowchart.
Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.
This makes little sense, as wouldn't you report this? You may steal it for evidence (perhaps) but you certainly wouldn't keep it in your home.
Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.
So...why does he want it back?
Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.
From what I've gathered, Bob is acting out of reaction to a breaking and entering into his home. As you've said he doesn't know that Dave is a child molestor.
However, while the death of child molestor (I guess) is a good thing, this was not in any way the reason behind Bob's act. Perhaps Dave's death is a fortunate occurence, but Bob did not commit a moral act.
This raises interesting questions on Execution. We want them dead, but few would willingly kill them. (Apart from ITG's)
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey, it takes insane courage to throw out blanket comments like that. (I notice, Gilbraithe, that you didn't have the guts to throw Christians in that mix until later)
That's not fair. The question put to me only concerned Muslims and Jews. I didn't exclude Christians originally because I was afraid, but because Christians weren't part of the question asked. And I didn't add them in later because I suddenly found courage, I added them in because I don't like Christians and think mostly they have cabbages for heads.
Hoo, boy. You dun fethed up now.
I share your dislike for much of the christian religeon and followers, but this is Dakka. The place where gaking on Muslims is okay, but the moment someone makes a pass at Israel or Christianity then you're in deep doo doo. In that same line of thought it is apparently okay to say 'Dirty Sand Arab' (or words to that effect), but God/Extentionalist Super-being help you if you use the 'N' word.
del'Vhar wrote:[Apologies for using an incorrect phrase, of which the intent was perfectly clear to the point where you identified it.
I meant of course a Moral System or Code that features Universality, such as your own Kantian Humanism (by my understanding)
The point stands, Dave is either morally justified or not in killing Bob.
Employing Universality:
If he is justified, then Dave (and everyone else) can kill anyone, anytime.
In fact by killing Bob, Dave was impeding Bobs right to kill Dave.
If he is not justified, is he now morally bankrupt because he has acted immorally?
Dave is never morally justified in killing Bob, under any circumstance, because at all times the maxim "One should not kill a person." is true.
If Dave does kill Bob in self-defense, he is not morally bankrupt by any definition of morally bankrupt I would recognize. Taking an immoral action does not make one morally bankrupt. A person is morally bankrupt when they present or act on amoral reasoning as if it moral reasoning. Ayn Rand and by implication all Objectivits are morally bankrupt because they present selfishness as morality.
So you basically completely failed to get the point of the entire comment you were responding to, didn't you? The point is that one can't base moral judgments of an action off the circumstances in which the action occurred because every situation is infinitely complex. As soon as one asserts that the situation determines the morality of an act, one must begin arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation one will consider (plus there's ignorance to consider). But since every new fact changes the morality of the act, by arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation we will consider we arbitrarily determine the morality of the act.
Claiming I don't understand what you said because I disagree is an odd stance, especially when you don't actually address what I said at all.
But you didn't disagree. You responded by saying something that makes no sense at all.
My view of universality is that it works for hypothetical situations, provided they have a clear answer.
It tends to fall over when faced with a conundrum, such as the Trolley Problem I linked earlier.
Then your view of universality is wrong. Because the Trolley Problem doesn't point out a flaw in universality at all, and if you think it does then you do not understand the concept of universality. The Trolley Problem doesn't even address universality. Only the Fat Villain variant of the Trolley Problem addresses universality. None of the other variants do. Because only the Fat Villain variant asks if the identity of the person who must be killed to save the five is relevant to the outcome.
If there is no morally acceptable action, and taking no action is equally immoral, what do you do? Does the universe explode because there are no "rules" you can apply?
Who said there was no morally acceptable action? I only said that I couldn't figure it out last night, but no one has ever claimed that I'm the smartest guy that ever lived or that I know everything. The reason I'm having trouble figuring it out is because the Trolley Problem, and especially its variants, all suffer from a fundamental problem in their presentation in that all presume perfect knowledge of the outcome of actions before the actions are taken. And while perfect prediction of the outcome is possible in a hypothetical, it's not possible in reality.
The Fat Man, Fat Villain and Man in the Yard variants in particular invoke this problem. Why would anyone assume that shoving a fat man on the tracks would stop an out of control trolley? If one knew for certain that it would stop the trolley, then I can see how it might influence one's decision making, but one couldn't know it for certain. And to act on that assumption seems highly irrational. I'm pretty sure in reality it wouldn't work.
Beyond that problem, it ultimately it seems to me that it comes down to a question of whether being able to affect the outcome obligates one to act to affect the outcome. If we assume that being able to affect the outcome obligates one to act to affect the outcome, then we could assert a general maxim: When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.
But there may be arguments I'm failing to consider.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:First of all, I would like to point out that your approach was similarily unhelpful. If your answer NEVER changed (If your moral forbids Killing absolutely) then how can that be applied appropriately?
I don't follow. My approach doesn't consider the situation, only the act. My answer never changes because it never considers any of the points of data I offered, because my answer only considers the act itself, not the situation in which the act occurs.
Secondly, I'd like to point out a couple of flaws in your moral flowchart.
None of the question you ask point out flaws, you've only continued to illustrate my point that as soon as one allows for the situation one is set on a path of infinite regress as one attempts to determine what precisely the situation is.
Wow, that pamphlet is so misleading. First page/pic is a completely red pool whereas in the next page/pic there's a clear(er) view that shows the water isn't just drenched in carnage but that it's buoyed off from the ocean. Yes, the area where you actually kill the animal will be bloody. Anyone who's cut themselves shaving can attest to how little blood it takes to make water blood red.
On the bottom of the second page it pulls another fast one.
ALMOST ALL DOLPHIN MEAT SOLD IN STORES AND SERVED IN
RESTAURANTS IS CONTAMINATED WITH POLLUTANTS SUCH AS MERCURY, METHYL MERCURY, CADMIUM, DDT, AND PCBS.
How much contamination would be my question. Humans have a natural mercury level, are we contaminated? (yes it's a tiny amount but it's there.)
In 1999, scientists reported that in samples
of meat from dolphins and small whales
(the same kind slaughtered in Taiji):
But it doesn't cite where those samples were taken; 10 years ago! Yes the dry cleaner property has high levels of contaminants, so the grocery store across the street must too. the same kind indeed....recalls of bad peanut butter shipped to America don't affect the product shipped to England. Location matters!
• More than 91% of the samples exceeded
the health limits for one or more pollutants.
• One sample had more than 1,600 times
the maximum permitted amount of mercury
And I would call this misdirection. So what if a sample has 1600 times the allowed amount of anything? Did it go to market? A picture of a meat shelf next to these bullet points makes it seem like these samples came from the local butcher, not out at sea where they likely came from. Remember this is the same kind of meat, not the meat in Taiji itself.
3rd page
REWARD: Sea Shepherd has an offer of $10,000 to the person who can obtain
the most graphic photographic evidence of the carnage, including still photographs
and video footage.
Great, they want the most graphic photographic evidence of the carnage. Way to show an objective view, oh wait, that's not the point. You want shock value. Because as I pointed out, it doesn't take much blood to turn the water red. And that second pic where it shows the buoys cordoning off the water was about half clear water. Can't have that, need all the pics to have blood. Oh but there are pics of happy live dolphins right above that picture so referencing the store picture that had contaminated meat samples this must mean that the dolphins cut themselves shaving
If we could avoid the snappiness and personal attacks that are seeping into the thread, that's be much easier for all concerned. I fear the thread might not have that much life in it anyway, but the optimist hat is firmly on today.
Well, I've heard of him, problem was I was born in 82 and doing a wiki check; yeah he went to the Super Bowl in 85 and lost to San Fran. Man, 3 and I was already having alcoholic black outs
Emperors Faithful wrote:First of all, I would like to point out that your approach was similarily unhelpful. If your answer NEVER changed (If your moral forbids Killing absolutely) then how can that be applied appropriately?
I don't follow. My approach doesn't consider the situation, only the act. My answer never changes because it never considers any of the points of data I offered, because my answer only considers the act itself, not the situation in which the act occurs.
Galibraithe, can you please tell me clearly and succintly what moral code you would apply to this act. Or is self-preservation the moral? You're pointing out the problem with changing opinions with the situation, but you are not offering an alternative. (BTW, being informed of the act is data itself. The rest of the data is the other aspects surrounding the act. Are you saying that you only need a minimal amount of data to come to a decision?)
Secondly, I'd like to point out a couple of flaws in your moral flowchart.
None of the question you ask point out flaws, you've only continued to illustrate my point that as soon as one allows for the situation one is set on a path of infinite regress as one attempts to determine what precisely the situation is.
I was pointing out flaws with your scenarios, not the moral standard being applied to them. What was your opinion on evil acts (which are duely punished) resulting in good occurences?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Dave is never morally justified in killing Bob, under any circumstance, because at all times the maxim "One should not kill a person." is true.
... ...
If we assume that being able to affect the outcome obligates one to act to affect the outcome, then we could assert a general maxim: When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.
But there may be arguments I'm failing to consider.
Your ethics seem to have developed a contradiction, sir. I urge you to move from Universality to Utilitarianism, where you try to maximize the good in any situation. It even permits a modicum of selfishness- after all, a known moral agent would ultimately provide more good than an unknown or questionable moral agent.
Back on topic- The Dolphins get slaughtered every year by the Jets. I blame their color scheme myself. Orange and teal doesn't look good on anything.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Galibraithe, can you please tell me clearly and succintly what moral code you would apply to this act. Or is self-preservation the moral? You're pointing out the problem with changing opinions with the situation, but you are not offering an alternative.
Dude, I've already said several times that killing another person is not moral. I'm applying Kantian Humanist moral reasoning to the act, and there is no way to justify killing other people using Kantian moral reasoning. It can't be done.
Seriously, what do you mean I'm not offering an alternative? I think my position has been pretty clear this entire conversation.
(BTW, being informed of the act is data itself. The rest of the data is the other aspects surrounding the act. Are you saying that you only need a minimal amount of data to come to a decision?)
Yes. Any system of moral reasoning that requires consideration of "aspects surrounding the act" can never come to a conclusion that itsn't arbitrary.
I was pointing out flaws with your scenarios, not the moral standard being applied to them.
You really weren't though. You were asking questions about the scenarios, looking for more detail, and making a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't constitute flaws. And it also completely misses the point.
What was your opinion on evil acts (which are duely punished) resulting in good occurences?
gak happens? Sometimes doing evil results in good, sometimes doing good results in evil.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Galibraithe, can you please tell me clearly and succintly what moral code you would apply to this act. Or is self-preservation the moral? You're pointing out the problem with changing opinions with the situation, but you are not offering an alternative.
Dude, I've already said several times that killing another person is not moral. I'm applying Kantian Humanist moral reasoning to the act, and there is no way to justify killing other people using Kantian moral reasoning. It can't be done.
Seriously, what do you mean I'm not offering an alternative? I think my position has been pretty clear this entire conversation.
My apologies if I seem like I'm ignoring you, this the first I've heard of Kantian Humanism, and I will be looking it up, so I actually didn't (and still don't really) grasp what you were trying to say.
Let me get this straight. Your posistion is:
Killing anyone is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. I'm going to look this up before I get into any more detail, but so far I'm just relaying this info back to you. Am I completely barking up the wrong tree here?
(BTW, being informed of the act is data itself. The rest of the data is the other aspects surrounding the act. Are you saying that you only need a minimal amount of data to come to a decision?)
Yes. Any system of moral reasoning that requires consideration of "aspects surrounding the act" can never come to a conclusion that itsn't arbitrary.
That's pretty rich, given the extreme arbitrary nature of your moral code. Your code implies that there is no difference between someone who kills for fun and a mother killing to defend her newborn child. What does this blanket Kantian Humanist code have to offer? I need to read up more on the subject, but so far it sounds far more arbitary than Relativism.
I was pointing out flaws with your scenarios, not the moral standard being applied to them.
You really weren't though. You were asking questions about the scenarios, looking for more detail, and making a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't constitute flaws. And it also completely misses the point.
Look, I was just pointing out the flaw in the actions behind the characters. I was arguing that your later examples were a bit far-fetched, the initial examples were solid enough. I wasn't trying to address your arguement concerning the bigger picture. The feasibility of some of the actions regarding the characters struck me as irrational though.
What was your opinion on evil acts (which are duely punished) resulting in good occurences?
gak happens? Sometimes doing evil results in good, sometimes doing good results in evil.
Fair enough. So what was with your point on Dave being a Child Molestor?
I feel like a Kid who's stumbled into the Adult Philosophical Play Center.
)
g cove and see WHY he does this sort of stuff. Please note i am fully prepared to rage response on this subject so tread lightly.
), and if it was made legal to abuse and harm them I would be saddened, and if I could I'd sue to try and change things. However, if there was a culture out there who stages an annual cat hunt and enjoys eaing cats, I would simply shrug and say, 'oh well'. I wouldn't try and ram my beliefs down their throat, and would let them do what they wish. What people choose to eat is not our concern, and we have no right to force our values on them.
Apologies.
