VeggieBoards banner

41 - 54 of 54 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
<p>I do something very similar with morals but I don’t think it reflects any objective part of reality. </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Capstan</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221584"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p> </p>
<p>Perhaps this is where faith enters the picture. Some seem to think that reality only consists of what is physically, or tangibly measurable. I disagree. Morality, beauty- even politics- are things that defy scientific scrutiny; nevertheless, they are very real parts of the life experience. Sometimes we just have to have faith in our own ability to make the right calls. Sometimes we just have to trust our own hearts and guts to do the right thing.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electrons would exist even if I wasn’t here and they will exist when I am not here. Their existence is not contingent upon mine. Nor is their nature. Yes my measuring apparatus will change their state while measuring.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If people are free to do as they wish you will allow murder and what not. I prefer that my own subjective morals be followed by others and others prefer that their own morals be followed by others. We all act accordingly. They are not objective, they are <strong>MY</strong> morals and hence <strong>I</strong> would like to enforce them. Yes morals are subjective but I would like to enforce my own. What did you expect? I get up one morning and say: hey you know what, it is such a shiny day I will enforce Joe's morals. I forget, which paradox is that? </p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Mike4891</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221585"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>Really?  You bring up Quantum Physics yourself, yet still do not consider the observer part of the system being observed?  The question is not whether forms exist independent of man, but whether man exists independent of forms.  It's certainly a difficult problem, but I personally favor a phenomenological approach in ethics.  My biggest issue with with postmodern pragmatism like you described is that it is equally scary when there IS enforcement so people are NOT free to do as they wish.  If anyone's beliefs are equal to those of anyone else, how can that belief itself be more correct than the belief of anyone that beliefs are unequal?  And again, if all morals are subjective, then what is "wrong" with enforcing particular morals just as though they <span style="text-decoration:underline;">were</span> objective?  You see, you haven't really escaped the paradox which you objected to at the outset, only distanced it by one remove.  The closest equivalent in empirical tests of moral constructs to theories of physical sciences is history, and history so far has left us with deep uncertainty and led us only to uneasy moderation between liberty and order.  But perhaps more evolved minds will indeed depend less and less on institutions for authority.</p>
</div>
</div>
 

·
Beginner's Mind
Joined
·
645 Posts
<p>If our views are not based on reason, is there any point to discussing them? </p>
<p>I expect, honestly, that in certain situations, you might say "You know, now that I think about it, perhaps Joe has a point." </p>
<p>Otherwise, what are we even talking about?</p>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
<p>I don’t think morality could be based on logic, nor science, nor math for that matter. Logic was one of my majors and I have sort of an insider view of it. It is much poorer than people often imagine. You can derive much less from it than people generally think.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There are some conclusions we can derive from logic/reason with no other basis but they are practically useless. To be practically useful, reason and logic require that we take something for granted (the premises) so that we can derive conclusions from them via the logical/reasoning system. We can base specific morals on other morals and then use logic/reason to show how these morals follow from the other ones, but we have simply taken something else for granted. We cannot base any moral on pure logic. We must take something (a moral statement) for granted.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don’t mean to sound condescending with this. I have heard this often even from very talented senior philosophy students and even serious philosophers (PhDs). I thought that way before studying a lot of logic. But it is important to break that misconception.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is possible that people mean something else by ‘reason’ or ‘logic’ but almost certainly they have simply decided to call their preferences (or common preferences) logical/reasonable unless they have come up with a new system of logic which preserves truth (highly unlikely). Vulcan logic is BS btw :)</p>
<p>I might open a thread about this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>An exercise for yourself if you are not convinced is: use logic or reason as a basis for morality and come up with a simple example. I strongly believe it isn’t possible.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given that logic/reason cannot serve as a basis for our morals, yes there is a point to morality. I think it is strongly related to our emotionality and that is of utmost importance to us as humans. It is funny that I initially wanted to study logic in order to rid myself of emotions only to realize it is completely foolish. Studying logic helped me realize that without emotions there is no point to life.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Mike4891</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221643"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>If our views are not based on reason, is there any point to discussing them? </p>
<p>I expect, honestly, that in certain situations, you might say "You know, now that I think about it, perhaps Joe has a point." </p>
<p>Otherwise, what are we even talking about?</p>
</div>
</div>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
Way to drive the nail home, Kailei!<br><br>
To say both 'human rights' AND 'animal rights' is redundant as humans ARE animals. The question is WHAT are the differences, and whether those differences justify certain actions to those with those differences: if one of the differences was lack of pain, for example, then one may treat them or it differently than someone or something that could feel pain.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
<p>I didn't address this on my previous post. If I did that I will simply have changed my view on morality and will accept new morals. I will still be against those that wish to enforce morals conflicting with my newly accepted morals. At each point in time I wish to enforce my morals at that time whatever they may be and whatever their origin and how long I have held them.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Mike4891</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221643"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>I expect, honestly, that in certain situations, you might say "You know, now that I think about it, perhaps Joe has a point." </p>
<p>Otherwise, what are we even talking about?</p>
</div>
</div>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
<p>For me species would be a difference. For example, if I was in a situation that I would have to hunt or die I would hunt non-human animals although I would prefer suicide over hunting human animals. I imagine if backed into such a corner most vegans would act the same way. I believe that even the vast majority of vegans would be speciesists if it comes to survival. So then we can start by asking vegans what the difference would be for them in such a situation. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>My veganism is ethical and because I would like to minimize violence to sentient beings and be as compassionate as I can. But I am still a speciesist. The only exception I would make would be companion animals or animals I know.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Ewe Nanny</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221649"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Way to drive the nail home, Kailei!<br><br>
To say both 'human rights' AND 'animal rights' is redundant as humans ARE animals. The question is WHAT are the differences, and whether those differences justify certain actions to those with those differences: if one of the differences was lack of pain, for example, then one may treat them or it differently than someone or something that could feel pain.</div>
</div>
 

·
Beginner's Mind
Joined
·
645 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221647"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>To be practically useful, reason and logic require that we take something for granted (the premises) so that we can derive conclusions from them via the logical/reasoning system.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>Ah, yes.  In "the" traditional logic curriculum.</p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
<div>"… it is not reasoning which engages us to suppose the past resembling the future, and to expect similar effects from causes which are, to appearance, similar. …”<br><div style="text-align:right;">~ David <span class="highlight">Hume</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
<p>Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221647"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br>
 </p>
<p>...</p>
<p>It is possible that people mean something else by ‘reason’ or ‘logic’ but almost certainly they have simply decided to call their preferences (or common preferences) logical/reasonable unless they have come up with a new system of logic which preserves truth (highly unlikely). Vulcan logic is BS btw :)</p>
<p>I might open a thread about this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>An exercise for yourself if you are not convinced is: use logic or reason as a basis for morality and come up with a simple example. I strongly believe it isn’t possible.</p>
<p>...</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>I'd be quite interested in such a thread.  I would like this one to get on track.  I am quite interested in animal rights.  I still find your approach to these proceedings problematic, however, so a few points of reply here:  Preserving truth using reason as basis for morality is a work in progress.  To conclude that anything currently not known or comprehended is not possible to comprehend is unscientific.  To maintain strong skepticism is not.  On that, I respect your stated present position.  Ethical reasoning in phenomenological systems is not simple.  This does not make its examples invalid or useless.  Neither are those systems able to derive values from pure logic.  I never desired to do so.  Quantifying moral premises by means comparable to physics experiments was your suggestion, and my difference with you all along was not to argue this is possible, but that it is unnecessary.  Never in my life have I had to learn that ridding myself of emotion would be foolish.  I know it very well.  Intrinsic rights do not have to be isolated through analytic reduction to be recognized.</p>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
<p>There have been different systems of logic and their job is to preserve truth rather than tell you practical truths (and morals don’t even have a truth value for me). Unless you pull a rabbit out of your hat you are not coming up with a system of logic from which you can drive morals. That has nothing to do with being scientific or not. I have studied logic in good detail and know what to expect of it. If logic starts moralizing it is virtually certain that it is a defective system. It proves too much. On top of that I have my own ideas on morals. So you can call me extremely skeptical of any such logic system though by all means feel free to present one :D</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Preserving truth if there was any has been done and is frequently done I am talking about revealing truth. Preserving truth requires some initial truths. And where do they come from? If it is not from pure logic as you are now convinced then at some point you have just taken some morals for granted. To go back to your initial point: If our views are not based on reason, is there any point to discussing them? Obviously they are not based on reason! How do you answer your question now?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The point is that we all moralize frequently and it seems to be internal thoughts. Why must you wait for some fantastic theory which explains these morals when you do it in a daily basis in your head? Do you really need to wait for some (almost certainly erroneous) logical revolution to consider how you do it. So don’t worry so much about the fantastic world of epistemic possibilities, and merely provide one simple example of what you do daily! I am not asking for a worked out system only an example. With this example we will not have a full picture but we can probably make some observations.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seems to me that you are saying: we don’t know what will happen in the future so it must be as I think (even though it is a strange view).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My physics comparison was a very good one!</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Mike4891</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221691"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>Ah, yes.  In "the" traditional logic curriculum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd be quite interested in such a thread.  I would like this one to get on track.  I am quite interested in animal rights.  I still find your approach to these proceedings problematic, however, so a few points of reply here:  Preserving truth using reason as basis for morality is a work in progress.  To conclude that anything currently not known or comprehended is not possible to comprehend is unscientific.  To maintain strong skepticism is not.  On that, I respect your stated present position.  Ethical reasoning in phenomenological systems is not simple.  This does not make its examples invalid or useless.  Neither are those systems able to derive values from pure logic.  I never desired to do so.  Quantifying moral premises by means comparable to physics experiments was your suggestion, and my difference with you all along was not to argue this is possible, but that it is unnecessary.  Never in my life have I had to learn that ridding myself of emotion would be foolish.  I know it very well.  Intrinsic rights do not have to be isolated through analytic reduction to be recognized.</p>
</div>
</div>
 

·
Impeach the gangster
Joined
·
10,052 Posts
<p>Kirk: <strong>Scotty, we need warp-power, now!</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Scott: <strong>Sorry, Captain, but by rrrrights, we shouldn't be moving at all... I'll do what I can!</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Spock: <strong>It is logically impossible for our propulsion system to have rights.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>McCoy: <strong>Dammit, Mr. Spock, I'm a doctor, not an anti-matter infusor!</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Khan: <strong>He tasks me, and I shall have him!</strong></p>
 

·
Beginner's Mind
Joined
·
645 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221712"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>Seems to me that you are saying: we don’t know what will happen in the future so it must be as I think (even though it is a strange view).</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>I'm sorry it seems that way to you.  I hope that I can clarify, because that's NOT what I am saying.</p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221712"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>To go back to your initial point: If our views are not based on reason, is there any point to discussing them?</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>That was not my initial point.  What that was, was merely a side example in response to your rhetorical question:</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221627"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>What did you expect?</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>You are using a double standard.  When I provide references to schools of thought in contemporary ethics, you say:</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221712"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>don’t worry so much about the fantastic world of epistemic possibilities</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>...and when I shift to casual language, you then lecture me with "insider view" of formal logic.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
<p>Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221647"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Vulcan logic is BS btw :)</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>Of course it is.  It's fiction.  An attempt in the 1960s to make more accessible to popular society in the United States Buddhist logic, with which the majority still today barely concern themselves.  But this is the trouble with all metaphors: they have as much potential to obscure as to enlighten.  Buddhism seeks not to repress all emotion, but rather to detach from <span class="Unicode" title="International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration">taṇhā.  And this is not BS.</span></p>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
<p><strong>T'Pol</strong>: Most logical Mr. Spock. Unfortunately, your logic is a fallacious sophistry our people have invented and used to deceive themselves for millennia in order to hide the fact that the true purpose of life is emotional fulfillment - which is beyond our reach due to our savage true nature. We are not the ones to be envied we are the less fortunate ones! :)</p>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
774 Posts
<p>Mike, an epistemic possibility is something that could be true for all we know. For example, there may be an entity 5 billion LY away from here that is bigger than Earth that repeatedly dances to the tune of <em>Smooth Criminal</em>. The epistemic possibility I was speaking of was this moral revolution you have in mind!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="background-color:rgb(253,252,250);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;"> To conclude that anything currently not known or comprehended is not possible to comprehend is unscientific.</span><span style="line-height:1.231;">"</span></p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221653" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221653"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
For me species would be a difference. For example, if I was in a situation that I would have to hunt or die I would hunt non-human animals although I would prefer suicide over hunting human animals. I imagine if backed into such a corner most vegans would act the same way. I believe that even the vast majority of vegans would be speciesists if it comes to survival. So then we can start by asking vegans what the difference would be for them in such a situation. <br><br>
My veganism is ethical and because I would like to minimize violence to sentient beings and be as compassionate as I can. But I am still a speciesist. The only exception I would make would be companion animals or animals I know.<br></div>
</div>
<br>
You should be afraid for, if or when such a time comes, humans shall be my exclusive meat! <img alt="wink3.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.veggieboards.com/images/smilies/wink3.gif"><br><br>
In all seriousness though, non-human animals have suffered enough mainly due to human abuse of both them and their homes, so I would not want to put more of them though suffering; quite the opposite- I'd defend them. Like the original article said, just because they look different doesn't mean they deserve to be mistreated; they feel the same on every surface and anyone that can suffer as much as the next being oughtn't to be treated any differently.<br><br>
Choosing to hurt one person over the other does not make that choice more compassionate. The person who got chosen to get hurt certainly wouldn't thing so.
 

·
Beginner's Mind
Joined
·
645 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Cato</strong> <a href="/t/139872/human-rights-vs-animal-rights/30#post_3221750"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>Mike, an epistemic possibility is something that could be true for all we know. For example, there may be an entity 5 billion LY away from here that is bigger than Earth that repeatedly dances to the tune of <em>Smooth Criminal</em>. The epistemic possibility I was speaking of was this moral revolution you have in mind!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="background-color:rgb(253,252,250);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;"> To conclude that anything currently not known or comprehended is not possible to comprehend is unscientific.</span><span style="line-height:1.231;">"</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Epistemology is one of the actual chief concerns of phenomenology -- applications of it to moral philosophy are an extension.  Perhaps it would have been less distracting if I had presented my list of points in a different order.  By leading with "Ethical reasoning in phenomenological systems is valid and useful." I would have better set the stage to indicate what "a work in progress" referred to: not some rabbit from my own magic hat, but admiration for philosophers in that field.  I thought that I was being reasonable, conceding your right to remain skeptical on the subject, so your "That has nothing to do with being scientific or not." seemed like somewhat of an overreaction.</p>
<p><strong>"It is not reasoning which engages us to suppose the past resembling the future."</strong></p>
<p>This is all quite interesting, and again, I think a thread for going into even more detail would be great. </p>
<p>With any luck, we'll find some resolution on at least the basic purpose of discussion.</p>
<p>In the meantime, maybe you should just leave this one for people who believe that "Human Rights vs. Animal Rights" is a legitimate topic and wish to discuss the original article, while also starting <em>another</em> thread for those who accept that the premise must be deconstructed.  Perhaps entitled, "Human Preferences on Animal Treatment."</p>
 
41 - 54 of 54 Posts
Top