Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So do you like, eat?

Saving the Tuna is very important, because they are very tasty.

Frazzled wrote:So do you like, eat?

Mainly rice, various pastas and noodles, and occaisonally some fish, usually salmon. Every so often i'll have chicken.

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:

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.

There isn't a lick of logic in that argument.

1. Dolphins use tools.

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

Gailbraithe wrote:

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.

Gailbraithe wrote:

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.

rubiksnoob wrote:

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.

Gailbraithe wrote:

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..."

Frazzled 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? 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 was right.

terribletrygon 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.

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.

ChrisWWII wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

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.