A what if question to everyone?
Offline It has been postulated in psychology. A national magazine article, Time or Newsweek, I forget which it was, postulated the following and of course I am paraphrasing. I want to expound on this example with something more long term as far as our species's future.
The article was not postulating a right or wrong answer but speculating what personality types would do what?
The example was if there was a train out of control barreling down the track and the passengers were sure to die, but the only way you could save them was to push a fat man off the bridge above to derail it to stop it from hitting another train, sure to kill more than the one person you shoved off the bridge? Would you do it?
Now, while I thought Bush was an asshole of a President, I myself, if it had been possible to do at the time, WOULD have given the order to shoot down the passenger liners on 9/11 to prevent them from hitting their targets.
NOW, that is just me, and the article never claimed right or wrong either way.
TO EXPOUND on this example.
Lets say as far as the future of humanity as an example.
If you knew the only way to save the species as a whole was to submit it to the likes of Kim Jong Ill, or have the entire species obliterated by a nuclear war, would you surrender?
Now, I am NOT postulating the permanent existence of such tyranny as a result of surrender. Just the thought that if it gave a future possibility for our species survival short term, would you surrender if it meant long term saving the species?
PLEASE PEOPLE, do not make this about labels or nationality. I am strictly talking about human psychology. You can replace Kim Jong Ill with Darth Vader, it is just a "what if" example.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Mostly I agree with your post. Doing the research would give us something else to argue about.
BUT --- NO CORPORATE SPEAK. Deal? People who actually say "low hanging fruit" should get prodded with a cattle prod.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I'm a tree-hugger/animal lover. Yes, really.
I buy organic milk, raise my own chickens eggs (the feed isn't organic), almost never buy meat although I do enjoy a Sonic burger now and then and I love a juicy med-rare steak occasionally. I don't have the time or inclination to grow my own beef - besides, I couldn't eat an animal I know by name.
There is a huge difference between animal cruelty and slaughter for food - and there are humane ways of raising animals for food. Being thankful that the animal you are eating was sacrificed so you could live is important, imo. Also, eating only what you need, not wasting food and not being a pig is important.
People who are cruel to animals should be shot, imo.
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/first_strike_the_connection_between_animal_cruelty_and_human_violence/
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I didn't know that was corporate speak, and I work in a corporation! Besides, cattle prods are inhumane...I grew up on a farm with an older brother, so I know what they feel like.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Why is it important that we care though? I grew around a slaughter house, I've killed beef in a humane way. It isn't pretty, even when it is 'humane'. I certainly wouldn't be eager to go through that process. I guess a question: Is human murder more acceptable when the murderer kills in a painless manner?
Also, we certainly don't need to eat animals to live, we have not needed that for quite some time. Heck, they are more expensive in almost every way, individually and to a society.
Most atheists think animals are biological machines. We don't believe in souls. Why is it wrong to cause pain to a biological machine? With humans you can justify it because you want an environment where *you* won't be harmed, and so you are looking out for your own self interest. Where is the motivation for animals? Is it just empathy? If empathy is the rational basis for morality you run into a lot of problems.
I looked at the website, I don't see anything that is causal about linking animal abuse to human violence, only corollary, but I certainly might have missed something.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
You think I don't know that a cattle prod is inhumane? Why do you think I said.....
The offensive phrase is number 11 on this list: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7457287.stm
I had a boss who said "low hanging fruit" at least once in every meeting-even the obligatory staff meetings. I got to the point I was thrilled when he couldn't make a meeting because then I wouldn't have to hear him say it again.
From the list:
33. "I once had a boss who said, 'You can't have your cake and eat it, so you have to step up to the plate and face the music.' It was in that moment I knew I had to resign before somebody got badly hurt by a pencil."
Tim, Durban
Has anyone heard anything more absurd? I wouldn't want to throw a pencil, I'd be too busy trying to not fall on the floor laughing.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Good questions!
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
@Sandy: Do you understand what I'm saying though, about if those beliefs are rational? This is what I've got so far:
1. "People who are cruel to animals should be shot." I imagine this is hyperbole, but for the sake of argument, the actual meaning of this is, "Unnecessary 'animal' pain is worth at least as much as human life."
2. "I raise chickens."
3. "I eat the occasional burger and steak."
4. "We have a responsibility to protect animals from harm."
5. "There is a huge difference between animal cruelty and raising food for slaughter."
6. etc
I don't see how those statements can all belong to the same moral system. Now you've got a situation where:
1. A person who kicks a puppy because they are mad at it, or just mean, hard enough to kill it deserves death, or prison time.
2. A person who has dogs fight to the death for money deserves death, or prison time (even if that makes him happy).
3. Imprisoning chickens so we can eat their unborn babies is ok.
4. Murdering cows and pigs is OK, because their flesh tastes good to us, even though their flesh uses more resources to generate than a nutritionally equal plant.
5. We should be legally obligated to be kind to animals, right up to the point where we pull them away from their homes, throw them in a metal cage on the back of a truck and take them to a factory where they are shot in the head. But we should be as nice about the last part as we can.
6. etc
It just seems off to me. The idea is that your pleasure at eating juicy steak outweighs the moral cost of the animal's pain and death, at least if you appreciate what the animal used to be. What if the machine responsible for killing the cow you ate malfunctioned, and the cow had to be shot twice? What if (seriously: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/12/dog-depression-study.html), the cow you ate was genetically pre-disposed towards depression, and so felt miserable the entire time it was alive? Does that mean your pleasure needs to be greater for things to balance? Is hunting OK as long as the kill is clean, but if a person misses and the animal suffers the hunter goes to jail, or dies?
Don't think I'm upset or anything, I just like to argue.
You would get along great with my wife, her views are almost identical to your own...needless to say, I keep my mouth shut when this stuff comes up at home.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
@cj: Wow, another list that lowers my hope for humanity. Lol.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
and I was right, you have seen this debate before!
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I remembered her name: Temple Grandin: http://www.grandin.com/
Which from an evolutionary standpoint and psychological standpoint, makes sense. But when the rubber meats the road, our natural desires and instincts do not always pan out to the best results.
What if whom you save, whom you know personally later on becomes a serial killer?
Ted Bundy once saved a boy from drowning.
Life is a crap shoot, which is what this thread's message should send. Dawkins "moth" to the light bulb describes aptly the error in your logic.
That is not to say that we don't have morals or want harm to come to us. But tribalism from the family unit to the political unit to the national unit are not absolute, much less always pan out to a greater outcome that benefits the most. These are simply our base instinct that by protecting our family, our politics or our nation, the safety in numbers is always good. It isn't.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The disconnect I see is right at the point where death and pain (I guarantee you've eaten animals that died in a state of pain) is OK as long as you have a trivial reason you approve of (liking the taste), but when someone else has a reason you don't approve of (sport, anger, monetary gain, amusement, etc.) then it reverses the equation. The entire system of morality you've built seems subjective with the bedrock assumption being that your own emotional state is the arbiter of right and wrong.
You've said humans and animals are in the same class, eye for an eye, etc. By that logic, anyone killing an animal deserves death, right? You didn't *need* to eat that steak, you did it because you *wanted* to eat that steak. But you claim animal well being is critical and takes precedence over every human desire except the desire to have pepperoni pizza instead of mushroom pizza.
I just don't understand how you rationalize so simply something with such a heavy (for you) moral weight.
With your core beliefs I think you can rationally be a vegetarian as long as animals are treated humanely. You could also eat meat from animals that died naturally. I understand how you support your position emotionally, but I don't see how you can support it rationally.
One more tact: Is the life of an animal, by itself, of any importance to you? It seems to me that you put large value on the pain of an animal, but almost no value on the life of an animal. Can you explain why pain matters so much when it comes from a creature who's life is only as valuable to you as the pleasure you get from a bite of well cooked steak? Animals killed for commercial food are almost always killed when they are young. In human terms, most animals are slaughtered when they are in their late teens or early twenties...when they are fully grown and still in their prime. Older meat is tougher, stringier, has less taste, etc. Plus it is expensive to feed an animal for no gain after maturity, since you are buying food with no increase in mass. Cows can live upwards of 20 years, they are almost all slaughtered (due to regulations about certain diseases) at under 30 months of age. So every time you eat beef you are killing a cow 16 years before the end of it's natural life-span, just because you like the taste.
I know, it sounds like I'm some kind of backwards meat eating spokesman for PETA
Eventually, for meat consumption, I doubt it will matter either way. I think we're pretty damned close to being able to close flesh using stem cells. I think it will eventually be cheaper than raising animals for food. Vat grown meat has long been a staple of sci-fi and I think I'll see it easily within my life. Once it gets to that point, I imagine the hippies will finish the meat eaters off legally in a couple generations. People can deal with the, "We need to eat them" argument better than the, "They're just a resource" argument, even if it isn't rational. Once that argument is gone that will be that, reason be damned.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Either you are being sarcastic and poking fun at me or, I have not made myself clear...maybe both.
Did you see the movie Avatar? I loved that movie. I guess you could say I have a similar philosophy on life (minus the Tree of Souls, of course.
).
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Getting back on track (pun intended)...
Yes.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Alright, so we mostly agree- just not on the numbers.
When you say "most", that leads me to believe you are saying "at least slightly more than 50%"- maybe you just mean most people around you, or most people you know.
If you go by city folk- narrowing down the demographic to which your "most" applies- then you'd probably be right.
I know it's not a perfect statistic, but hunters and pro-hunters in the states make up about 67% of the population (in your camp), and vegetarians maybe 5 - 10%, so those "middle ground hypocrites" really aren't *most* by that standard.
They are, however, a noticeable minority. I think because they are so noticeable, we tend to remember them more, and forget all of the people who were being more consistent. It certainly "feels like" most, but my point is simply that it really doesn't seem to be most, looking at the numbers.
Right, though it's a bit of a simplification, I'm mostly in agreement with the logical consistency, though diametric opposition, of these general standpoints.
The simplification comes in here:
First, if a hard line/threshold is drawn, where that line is drawn can range from pure social contract (in which case many HUMANS are left out) all the way down to some as of yet unknown.
That line is subjective- and that's why your simplification is a bit of a false dichotomy. There are many standpoints of stability between the two (and even to the other sides of your suggestions).
The point you are right about is in our consideration for what's under our respective personal lines.
If we draw 'the line' at a certain threshold of brain activity, then we damn well better be consistent in respecting things "above" that line, and being apathetic to things "under" it.
If the draw the line at pure social contract, then we shouldn't be complaining about somebody running around and killing orphaned children (for example), because those children aren't part of the social contract yet (and because they have no parents which are part of it to complain on their behalves).
No matter where we draw the line, consistency means treating those above the line with consideration, and not protesting the lack of consideration shown by others for those below that line- whether what's below the line is a retarded human or child, a dolphin or great ape, a pig, a dog, a cow, an amoeba, or even a creationist.
Second, of course, there can be "different kinds of lines"- one could draw two or three, or a dozen, or even consider it a continuum as long as it was based off something concrete and rational, wherein the things at each point deserve a certain consideration.
There are more potentially internally consistent systems than could really be counted.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that protesting hunting or animal testing while eating meat from similar animals is still idiocy
There have been more controlled studies on prison populations fed vegetarian foods. However, of course there are a few problems with that:
1. The prisoners didn't choose it, so it doesn't have anything to do with elective animal treatment
2. There were reported reductions in aggression, if I remember, but I think the researchers attributed that to hormones- which again is pretty irrelevant to the question.
Freegans eat meat, but they only eat discarded meat, so they're usually as anti-animal cruelty as any vegans.
Also probably just as likely that the diminished capacity for empathy caused the enjoyment of dog fighting, rather than the other way around.
There is a strong correlation between animal abuse and aggressive/antisocial and sociopathic behavior- VERY strong- but it's presumed to be from the same cause; the person's brain function.
Animal welfare laws could serve to identify these kinds of people and remove them from society before they graduate to hurting other humans.
There are pragmatic reasons to argue for *permanently* removing people who are particularly abusive of animals- by life sentence or otherwise- just issuing fines or short jail terms isn't going to fix these people, but instead make them more careful about not getting caught.
That's more politics, though- my approach to criminal punishment tends to lean more all-or-nothing. (Machiavellian much? Yes.)
Taste is not a trivial reason. It is worth setting several moral ideals aside to eat a great steak.
I'm an avid hunter and I don't see a conflict between it being ok to kill animals for food but wrong to physically abuse them for kicks and giggles. Even when you bring in the human comparison there are plenty of cases where I would consider it moral to kill a person, but generally it is immoral to put a person through weeks of torture without a really good reason. So yes, in many cases, causing useless pain is morally worse than causing death in both animals and people. If my dog has terminal cancer I'm shooting her as much as I love her (of course I would have to get my ex out of the way....) If I am a vegetable my family has orders to pull the plug. There are things worse than death.
As far as killing animals translating to killing people I don't think there is any correlation other than seeing death first hand and killing would make it easier. You know how much blood to expect, what it will look like, where to shoot to make it quick, you are probably better shot than average and perhaps most importantly you have experience controlling the adrenaline rush that comes with killing especially if you have experience hunting dangerous game.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Those who don't also think the same about humans are being idiots
This is social contract- as I explained in my post above, this doesn't protect all humans.
If you only subscribe to this, you can not complain about people being killed when they are not in a position of sufficient power to threaten you.
Women were long excluded from the social contract, because they aren't as physically strong as men, and as men were able to dominate them, they didn't need to be given rights in order for men to establish mutual self protection and society.
Is this acceptable?
The same with slaves who were kept uneducated and forbidden weapons.
The same with retarded individuals and children who are too young to pose a threat- unless they are the property of somebody who *is* in the social contract.
What problems? That people empathize differently?
That's pretty much the problem we're in now. By empathizing with women in Islamic countries, we're making problems because we're violating the social contract wherein it assures mutual autonomy.
They can't tell us not to give "our women" freedom, and we can't tell them not to abuse theirs.
Social contract is the most primitive and minimalist basis for "morality", and it's entirely self serving.
In order to really qualify as morality, doesn't it have to be a little *not* self serving?
Empathy is the only reasonable basis for modern morality- the trouble is that empathy is subjective, and we're left with the problem of finding something objective that approximates empathy which everybody can agree on.
Other than that, mellestad, I agree with pretty much everything you've said in your argument with Sandycane- you sound almost like me
Mellestad explained the triviality of this with is pizza reference (which is just an example).
Unless there is not anything else to eat, it is trivial. You could have eaten mushroom pizza, but you chose to eat pepperoni instead.
If you don't eat pepperoni pizza, replace this with burgers and veggie burgers, or steak v.s. some other vegetarian food. It's an example.
If you were starving, and there was literally nothing else to eat, this would be a justification. If you were a lion, and were anatomically incapable of being vegan, this would be a justification.
You are a human omnivore, you can eat all meat, some meat, or no meat, as you choose and be perfectly healthy (less healthy in the first case, but none the less survive). You also live in a world overflowing with cheap and readily available vegetarian food.
It is your choice to eat meat instead of vegetables every time you do so- this choice is made for a trivial reason; taste preference.
He didn't miss that, it's irrelevant. Being raised for food doesn't magically transform an animal into some other form of being- it's still an animal that feels pain, frustration, isolation, hunger, fear.
If I started a farm in Africa and raised humans as food, then that would be O.K. because they were raised for food their entire lives?
One living thing taking on a purpose to another does not make that purpose objectively true.
I can't just claim that "Oh, I've decided I'm raising the people in this apartment for food- they don't know it yet, but that makes it O.K. for me to kill and eat them now"
No, I really don't think he did- I think he skipped it because it wasn't a coherent or rational argument
In early America, blacks were raised to be slaves- did that make it O.K.?
In other parts of the world, dogs, cats, and other animals are raised for food.
Some children in the states are "raised to be doctors" by their parents- doesn't mean that's the universe's purpose for them, it just means some dipshit decided that's what they should be on their behalf and without their consent or knowledge. It doesn't make it anymore right or wrong than it would have been if that person never imposed that "purpose" upon them.
How some people can actually think that this is a rational argument is baffling.
I don't think he's 'forgetting' anything; he's probably just in denial that you could actually be using that as an argument. I can't blame him.
If I hadn't seen the argument made with a straight face in person at least dozens of times, I wouldn't believe it either.
I hate to reference popular culture, but have you seen the movie "my sister's keeper"?
The little girl in the movie was born specifically to serve as spare parts for her sick older sister. Does that make it right for her parents to dissect her and harvest her organs?
According to your reasoning, it does- because if anybody imposes a purpose on somebody else, then it's right to do it regardless of the necessity of the action or the pain it causes- because somehow the universe tunes in and says "Yeah, that was totally your purpose, now take it and shut up!"
Have you every heard of personal autonomy? What you're saying equates to the idea of somebody else having a "purpose" or vested interest in mind for others when they were born completely obliterating any concept of personal autonomy for the latter parties.
The the reason of pleasure is relatively trivial. I believe that mellestad and I were both referring to it as compared to, say, self-preservation if you were starving to death. Pleasure can be taken or left, and found in many different places- taste is just one of them, and regardless of the amount, it's a trivial fact.
Flavour of meat = pleasure (to some people)
Thrill of the hunt = pleasure (to some people)
Bestiality = pleasure (to some people)
Sadism = pleasure (to some people)
No matter what specific action is bringing about that pleasure (eating something yummy, enjoying a hunt, enjoying making nasty with a critter, or enjoying the pain of others), it's all bringing about pleasure in some measured amount.
In killing animals for food, one is accepting the pain of the animal in exchange for one's own pleasure. Who is to say that your pleasure is wrong and my pleasure is right? These are not different.
The action is no more justified based on what kind of pleasure it brings about- the bottom line is that you're doing it for your pleasure, and not out of real necessity.
If you didn't have any other means of access to a viable food source, that would be necessity for self preservation- that's different (and I highly doubt that this is the case in the modern world). If you are hunting deer *exclusively* for population control because the local predator population has been killed off and your state doesn't use other birth control methods (which are perfectly viable) to save the deer from starvation in the winter, and the meat is a mere side effect of that process- then that's different as well (although you could use that hunted meat to displace farmed meat instead of consuming it yourself).
But what if you do have a reason to put the person through weeks of torture? Such as, say, you're a sadist and you find enjoyment in it? That's no different from finding enjoyment in a steak- pleasure is pleasure.
X amount of personal pleasure for a cost of Y amount of pain in another.
If you consider personal pleasure (such as enjoying meat) to be a "really good reason", you don't have any basis for criticizing somebody who is likewise causing pain for personal pleasure, but merely of a different form. You're using your sense of taste and smell, the sadist is using his sense of sight and hearing- you enjoy the taste and smell of meat, and the sadist enjoys the sight and sound of suffering.
If you want to hurt animals for your personal pleasure, that's your prerogative. You have no place to judge somebody who is merely doing the same thing, but using different sense, and enjoying different experiences.
Now, if you make the argument that we should kill the sadist because he or she is probably a threat to other humans as well, that's a fine argument- but you still have no place criticizing his or her actions.
What you don't seem to understand is that nobody is causing useless pain- they're getting something out of it too, just like you are: personal pleasure.
EDIT:
mellestad,
Sorry, you were right- it *is* most people. Apparently the hunters are contradictory too. So, there's just the 5% - 10% of the population who are vegetarian, and an extremely small number of meat eaters who really don't judge others who aren't being hypocrites
Pleasure is very much a reason for living. I would not want to live without it so I don't consider it trivial.
I am. I am talking about morality not laws and I find sadism repulsive and immoral unless performed with a consenting person. (Although, one time I did see a cat that apparently liked to be beat with a newspaper. It literally ran up to you when you picked up a newspaper wanting to be beat and would sit there and purr the whole time. I guess animals can be masochists too.) So while I would help expose a farm that abused animals to the world and join in a boycott of that farm, I'm not with Sandy on shooting the farmer or throwing them in jail.
I reserve the right to judge anyone an immoral scumbag but that doesn't mean I believe immoral scumbags should be thrown in jail for being immoral scumbags. Although, if you are an immoral scumbag and the fat man on the bridge the odds of me pushing you over have just increased.
I have the place to judge because that is what you do when you meet a person. You judge them and decide the character traits that you like or dislike and then decide how to treat that person based on that judgement. I think that the confusion is coming in that you interpreted my comments as support for making laws, which isn't what I intended but I see how it came across like that.
As far as which laws we ought to have I would agree with your social contract argument. But even absent of laws I can say you are an immoral scumbag and treat you as such which means I'm probably not going to be very polite to you and we certainly aren't going to be friends. I don't think laws should be based on morality. For example, I outlined an argument in another thread where I would consider moral to track down and kill a serial killer on my own. But, for society to work we can't have a bunch of vigilantes so such an act needs to be illegal. So what I find immoral should not necessarily be illegal and what I find moral should not necessarily be legal.
I guess my main disagreement with you and mellestad is that morality is or should be based on rationality. There isn't anything rational about morality anymore than there is anything rational about emotions. I view the statement "I believe x is immoral" is an emotional verdict as opposed to a rational one. The statement "I believe x should be illegal" is a rational verdict. Morality is very much a preference of taste and at the root isn't anything more than me saying x is beautiful but y is ugly. X is moral but y is immoral. X is a good person but y is a bad person. To me all of these statements are essentially the same. And arguing about what is moral is the same as arguing about what is beautiful. We can find some general consensus on what is beautiful but your not going to find 100% agreement so you can't conclusively prove that x is more beautiful than y. Ultimately it is a matter of taste.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
If you're a mere hedonist, then pleasure can be your reason for living, sure.
But one can choose one's form of pleasure- you could eat something equally delicious that was not produced from animal suffering, or eat something bland and do something else entirely for pleasure (say, watching a movie).
It's fine if you don't like it, but your opinion on it is no more objectively valid than the sadist's opinion. Your statements amounted to what sounded like an objective moral judgment- saying that a sadist who likes beating animals for fun is worse than you- but they aren't, it's just hurting animals for a different kind of pleasure.
That is, it's not your place to say the sadist's morality is wrong and yours is right- neither is right or wrong, they're just opinions, not facts. There is no absolute morality in the world, and the universe certainly doesn't defer to your opinions as you were making it sound.
Then you agree that the same actions of boycott are the only ones that should be taken against societies that abuse and control women as property, keep slaves or human livestock, or do something else that you find objectionable to your very arbitrary personal moral preferences?
So wait, do you recognize that the person is only immoral in your opinion, which is worthless beyond its affect on your actions within the bounds of the law, or are you prescribing vigilantism and that, ultimately, the de facto law of the land bend to your moral whim?
It really seems like the latter, because you're talking about violating the otherwise neutral social contract in order to meek out your vengeance against people you don't like.
When people do that, it effectively BECOMES law. If you're going to advocate social contract, you should hold your own actions to the same standards.
But you kind of are...
This may be a bit hard to follow, but I'll try to lay it out as clearly as I can (though my time is limited here):
1. You said you'd be more likely to push somebody you found immoral onto the train tracks- how is that not vigilantism? You're suggesting that the law would NOT serve as deterrent here because you'd be more likely to do it to this person than another.
2. In order to prevent vigilantism, a jury must sentence you more severely for murdering that guy because he was, in your opinion, immoral (lets say he keeps human children as slaves to rape and torture to death for fun- whatever), because punishments have to be an adequate deterrent to violation of the law (instead of cost of doing business). That is, we're talking hate-crime laws - If the law doesn't do that, then you are prescribing a society of vigilantes, and de facto, you are prescribing a moral law (just a very unpredictable one). So if the law really was social contract based, you wouldn't be more likely to push that guy, because the penalties would be more severe to just the right degree to stop you.
Therefore:
In your scenerio, if the law was working ideally on a social contract basis, you would -not- be more likely to push this guy off the bridge onto the train tracks due to the more severe penalty for doing so. As you said that you would be more likely to do this, you must be failing to take into account this principle in your ideal scenario, and this rejecting the consequences of a legal system founded on the social contract out of hand.
So, do you want a moral law, or don't you?
Or were you mistaken in your evaluation that you would be more likely to push this guy off the bridge?
No, my disagreement is that you seem to be being internally inconsistent. Either we can accept a law based on some rational (albeit still inherently arbitrary) source of morality, or we need to accept raw social contract, and be ambivalent to others' actions beyond our ability to boycott them- which you seem very not to be (given your inclination to vigilantism).
If you believe that, then I think you need to do a better job of highlighting that it is merely your opinion, objectively without any value and neither objectively more or less correct than the opinion of a sadist or any other you disagree with, and that you aren't going to act on it in any way that would be a violation of social contract (rather than suggesting the contrary on both points with absolutist statements and suggestions of vigilantism).
@Blake:
Heh, that is the problem when we discuss this...our reasoning is nearly identical. The parts where it is not identical are at a 'basic' enough level that the discussion goes to social contract and personal sovereignty issues. One of these days I'm sure we'll argue about that too. I'll just say though, you are right, the consequences of basing morality on social contract are far reaching when you approach it academically (as opposed to anything I would commit to in public, and yes, there is a difference).
I'm not in denial, honestly I just don't know how to respond. I hear the argument often as well, and it is so *clearly* wrong at a logical level I'm not sure how to get it to sink in when plain language doesn't work. It is like talking to someone who says 2+2=5...you take two groups of two apples, and demonstrate that, no, 2+2=4. And they say, "No....2+2=5, haha, I win!". Now, I do understand part of it: Can you imagine what your mind would do if you'd spent a lifetime killing/eating animals, only to realize your moral system meant you'd been guilty of mass murder and you were the moral equivalent of a serial killing cannibal running a murder farm? Yikes. So I can understand the strength of the denial mechanism.
Good luck, it looks like you are using the same arguments I would use in your discussion with Beyond Saving and Sandycane. Maybe your methods will have more of an impact. More likely you'll just piss them off though
I do have to say that I was hoping you would show up as soon as I wrote the line about animal rights being one of my favorite moral debates! And yes, it really is most people. I can only think of a handful of people I know who have something even close to internal consistency when it comes to animal welfare.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Neither of you, Blake and Mellested, have stated how you personally feel about animal abuse or eating meat. All you've done is try to show how my opinion is illogical or, idiotic....which means nothing to me. What would piss me off is if either of you admitted to participating in animal abuse for fun.
It really boggles my mind that you can't see a difference between humanely raising and slaughtering/killing an animal for food and intentional, vicious animal abuse. Whether or, not I eat meat is totally beside the point....unless I tortured the animal to death and then ate it. In fact, one of you implied that it would be okay to eat meat if it were roadkill or died of natural causes. So, as long as the animal I eat has not been tortured to death before I eat it, what's the difference??
Look into my eye and tell me you really see nothing wrong with animal abuse and feel we shouldn't punish those who do it...
Unbelievable.
ps, I don't have to be a Master-de-bater to know that abusing an animal is wrong...even if I do lose the debate.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Blake is not a meat eater...we use many of the same arguments but our conclusions are nearly opposite. Wait to say you're not pissed until you've gone a few rounds with him. He has a gift.
Also, either you see the value of a moral system that is internally consistent or you don't. I *attempt* to have morality that makes sense. I don't always make it, but ideally the things I think are right and wrong have a good reason. If I did not think this way I would simply accept the moral system my parents gave me, or do whatever felt right, which would lead to something rather...unpredictable.
You are paying for it. By doing so you are paying people to do the dirty work for you. The fact that you've said you would be unwilling to kill your own cows, but have no problem eating cows that someone else killed already says there is an internal conflict somewhere. Again, you're putting a value on the pain of an animal, but not of the life of an animal. The line you draw between food animals and non-food animals seems totally arbitrary. By your own reasoning if you step into a Hindu country they would be totally justified in throwing you in prison because you've paid someone to kill a non-food animal just because you have a whim.
Animal abuse bothers me, but I cannot criticize it since I am perfectly willing to murder an animal in pursuit of my own transitory pleasure. Homosexuals used to bother me when I was a teenager. I thought they were sinners, and deserved to be punished. It felt dirty and wrong. I don't think that any more because I try and make my morality internally consistent...and I can't be consistent and treat a class of people as second class just because of their sexuality. If I used my feelings as my primary source of morality I never would have escaped that bigotry.
I can't imagine believing what you believe and not being a strict vegan, I think I would cry every time I saw someone eating meat. I'd probably feel nausea at the thought of eating it.
I think the only way people can have the contradictory ideas that animals deserve protection from pain, but not trivial murder...well, if I used that reasoning for other parts of my life I'd wind up on death row.
Sort of like the first point...I see a value in being able to justify my own actions. If I said abusing an animal is wrong, I would want to be able to say *why* it is wrong in a way that fits my overall belief system.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yes I realize how it sounded and didn't mean it that way. I don't believe there is an objective morality in the universe. It is simply made up by us. So objectively in the scientific sense my opinion is no more valid than the sadists.
No. I believe we should go kill those people, but it isn't based solely on morality reasons. People who enslave others are a danger because one day they may decide to enslave me, my family or someone I care about. So in the interest of self and family preservation, those types of people should be killed. Basically, the best way to ensure your own freedom is to help protect the freedoms of others you might not care about.
Just my opinion. I was just pointing out that some actions I believe are moral should not be legal. For the most part I follow the law and if I was in the situation where I wanted to kill a serial killer I would attempt to restrain myself in the interest of the social contract.
Yes, and if I did so I should be brought up on murder charges. In addition to murdering the fat man I would be deciding that my jail time is a worthy price to pay to save the people. It is quite clearly murder to push someone to their deaths who isn't threatening you no matter how many people you save.
I don't see why the penalty should be more severe if I kill him because he is immoral than if I kill him just because I felt like it. Either way, I murdered a random person and should go to jail for a very long time if not life. Neither motivation is sufficient enough for society to say I did the right thing. I don't see why my motivation would be important in determining my punishment. I would consider that by pushing the man I would likely go to jail for a long time regardless. It is just if I liked the man there is no way I am going to push him. If I intensely disliked him there is a slightly better chance that I will risk going to jail or whatever other punishment society had for me.
I am ambivalent to others' actions as long as they do not infringe on me. I do have a natural vigilantism streak in me which if I was ever put in the situation where someone had killed someone I loved it would be very hard for me to restrain my instincts. But I fully recognize that if I failed to restrain myself that society can and should punish me. As I said, I wouldn't find my actions immoral but they should be illegal. And while I might have sympathies with the father who castrates the man who raped his daughter and don't find anything inherently immoral about the act, it should be illegal and he should be punished. Part of having a social contract is giving up the freedom to take justice into your own hands, even though your instincts might be otherwise.
So it is only inconsistent to the extent that my natural instincts conflict with what the laws of society need to be. I recognize that conflict and will restrain my impulses to the best of my ability. But if I see a serial killer murder my mother I don't make any promises, someone should keep a close eye on me because at that point in time I will not be rational and I sure as hell wouldn't be considering any social contract.
Yeah, I posted before I had my coffee. Can't expect me to be too clear before my coffee.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
In the first example, I think I wouldn't throw the fat man to the rails. I can't explain why, it's just not in me. Call me a coward if you want, but I guess it should be better to the greater good throwing the fat man.
As for Kim Jong Ill, yes I would surrender. In this aspect I have a Gandhi like position. I believe that sooner or later the best in human spirit will prevail.
Nontheless I can't see a real life example where the fat man/train example could be applied. In that scenario we could never be certain of the outcome of the train colision nor we could make such an important decision in a spit second.
You're a doctor. You are in a primitive hospital in Afghanistan, you are the only person at the clinic.
You've got three kids, triplets, who were hurt, you know you could save them if you had blood.
Your blood is the wrong type and there are no supplies.
A fat man (haha) is unconcious in another room, in a coma, but he should recover. Of course, his blood is the correct type. If you take a significant amount of his blood, say, enough to help the kids, he'll die.
What do you do?
(I did the best I could, lol)
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Leave the fat man alone! First you want to toss him off a bridge and now, you want to drain all his blood!
I would tell the parents of the kids to say their Good-byes'.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Good example. Thanks. I still wouldn't kill the fat man... at least I think I wouldn't. I have this kind of personality.
Still I also think that if killed the man I would be in violation of the Code of Medical Ethics (I'm not sure)
Funny! This is just like the ethical dilemmas we've been working in class. The teacher said to use the following principles to solve any dilemma:
Autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere).
Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality).
Dignity - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity.
Truthfulness and honesty - the concept of informed consent has increased in importance since the historical events of the Doctors' Trial of the Nuremberg trials and Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
The problem is both of those examples are the same, they are both very personal. Most people would say no to that.
Again, to do it the 'right' way you ask two questions, the first is a very impersonal choice, the second is a very personal choice. Even if the person answers in a consistent way, if the listener pays attention to the way they *feel* when the questions are asked you learn something about yourself. Both situations have identical outcomes for the choices made. For most people, the first, impersonal questions gets a neutral reaction, it is just a cost/benefit analysis. The second question almost always gets a 'gut' reaction. You *feel* it is wrong to push the person/drain their blood, whatever, and you can actually watch yourself make that choice then start thinking of justifications after the fact. It is a neat psych exercise in that it shows us how many of our moral choices are made before we even have a chance to think them out logically because we have strong instincts about our behavior towards other humans...and those instincts don't kick in if the question is impersonal.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Makes sense. But the Fat man is different than Kim Jong Ill. The first is a die/die situation. The second is an immense scale suffer/die situation.
I guess these instincts are stonger than I thought them to be...
I'm not sure if anyone reasonable would pick die in the Kim Jong Ill scenario. Maybe some sort of hyper-nationalist? I dunno. I would hope there aren't many people who would *really* make that call if it came down to it.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Against my better judgment, I'll try again...
I strongly believe that we are stewards of this Earth, being at the top of the food chain and all, and that while we are to enjoy the benefits of living here, we also have a greater responsibility to care for it all. Care for all life and if you choose to eat some of it, give thanks to it for the sacrifice.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I'm just curious: why a fat man? Does this have any bearing on the argument? Is it more or less ethical to kill a fat man as opposed to a skinny one? Does the unhealthy lifestyle of the fat man justify killing him? What if it was a fat woman? Or a skinny woman? Or a child? Or an animal? Maybe I'm just nitpicking.
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
I think the idea is a very large person would more likely stop the train that a small person. And it may be a reflection of the prejudice all overweight people are subject to. As I said in my earlier post, it doesn't matter how fat the person is, they would not be large enough to stop any train. The entire exercise is nonsense - again, IMNSHO.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
OK, new question (especially for cj but anyone can take this):
You are on the bridge with the fat man. There are a bunch of people on the tracks ahead who will die if the train goes down.
There is a switch that can move the train to another track. However, you do not have time to run down and hit that switch. There is exactly one option open here. If you push the fat man over, his body will trigger the switch but he will die from the fall.
Do you send the fat man to his death with the full knowledge that you don't have the option of any other choice (apart from letting everyone else die)?
Corollary question: You know for a fact that the fat man sabotaged the train. What then?
=
What, no rocks to throw? No purse? The people can't hear the train engineer lay on the horn? Blind corner? You bet s/he sounds off before the turn. The people can't feel the wheels and vibrations, can't hear the clickity clack? But! It's Pauline and the fat man is Jones!
No, wait, I forgot, it can't be Jones since the poor guy sabotaged the train.
Portland has a commuter train system. And every once in a while we lose another pedestrian/potential passenger. The last one was talking on a cell phone while crossing the tracks at a very busy and park-like station. In other words, plenty of line of sight. The driver blew the horn, tried to stop, and had to ask for a transfer to a desk job. I truly feel sorry for the person's family, but sometimes a little chlorine in the gene pool is not a bad idea.
I would do my best to save the people, save the fat or not-so-fat guy, save the guys on the train, and myself. Though I'm beginning to think throwing you onto the tracks might be a good idea. Maybe you can quick change into your Superman costume and stop the train.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Sandycane,
Did you ignore my post where I explained that imposing upon another a purpose, or 'raising' another with a purpose in mind does not make that purpose a universal moral fact?
That they were "raised for it" is irrelevant. Please read my post, and respond to that point.
If you claim that it's O.K. to kill if pain and suffering is not caused, then that's another matter- but please don't pretend it's O.K. to kill them because that was their 'purpose'.
If you are claiming that it is the pain that is wrong, and not the death, then we should discuss that- anything else is a red herring.
cj,
(just for the sake of absurdity)
You're tied to a chair, and have been injected with a paralytic drug which inhibits all voluntary muscle function. You have electrodes attached to your head that allow you to control an arrow on a computer screen that can move left or right only. Fatty is on a space station orbiting Mars- he has enough food and resources to last him his entire life. If you move the arrow left, Fatty's space station will blow up and Fatty will die. If you move the arrow right, the Earth will blow up and everybody on it will die. If you don't move the arrow at all, both the Martian space station and the Earth will blow up after a one minute timer goes off*. You're on another space station orbiting Venus, and well out of the way of any danger- after the timer goes off, you will be released and the paralytic will wear off so you can go about your life on this hypothetical Venus orbiting space station.
Oh, the humanity! What to do?
Also, what if Fatty is Hitler? (Who it turns out didn't kill himself, he just gained weight and moved to Mars)
*The one minute timer initiates a signal; it doesn't actually violate relativity by instantaneously transmitting the command.
I'm having a laugh at the fatty's expense!
What if in mellestad scenario the fat man was a known terrorist in Afganistan? This is not so absurd as the space station on Venus.
I wouldn't know what to do... but probably I wouldn't kill the fat man either... I guess I'm a hippie!
or I just like fat people! 
I think this became an issue and a problem when we went for being hunters & gatherers to being mass producers of food... the value of life has diminished. There is a huge difference between appreciating a meal that you had to hunt/grow/raise yourself and one you ordered off the menu.
Mom and I ate lunch out yesterday at a place that had a buffet bar. We ordered Greek salads and couldn't finish it all. I looked around and was nauseated (maybe why I couldn't finish my salad) by the fat pigs who made multiple trips to the bar and came back with plates overflowing with slop. If these people had to actually raise and prepare all this food, they certainly would have been more prudent in their selections.
Eating meat is not the issue. What is, is the lack of appreciation for where it comes from and the sacrifice of one life to sustain another.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Hmm... I'm not sure your logic follows here. In a hunter/gatherer society you do absolutely anything to get the food, including many techniques that today would be considered extremely cruel. For example, one technique to get Elk was to surround the herd and chase the whole herd off the cliff. If was preferable that the cliff be low enough that many of the elk that went off the cliff survived but were incapacitated. That way, the animals would survive for several days, but be unable to run away. Since they didn't have refrigeration, it was a good way to keep meat from spoiling. Other techniques included live traps which had the idea of capturing the animal but keeping it alive until it was needed. So while I would agree that hunting/raising your own food might make you more appreciative that there is food, it doesn't seem to me to correlate with your initial objection of causing excessive pain to the animal. They didn't care about inflicting pain or torture, they were solely concerned with their own survival. It seems to me that the whole concept of being kind to animals is a modern notion and a luxury of modern society.
I would also argue that overeating is a leftover of hunter/gatherer society. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from you eat everything in sight. You might not have a chance to eat again for several days. In modern America we constantly have almost endless food around so by following those instincts we overeat. In hunter/gatherer societies the eating habits are far more like the people who go to the buffet multiple times than yours in not finishing your salad. In a hunter/gatherer society, not finishing your salad while it is there could lead to your death. The only difference is they probably didn't get fat often because of the lack of food.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Sandycane,
I feel a little nauseated and disheartened after reading your post. That these kinds of ideas can spout from somebody who proports to appreciate an even remotely rational outlook on life is, well, inexcusable.
You've still failed to address my points, and in addition have introduced an elaborate mythology that corrupts general biological concepts such as trophic level into some perverse sentient absolute universal morality. Eergn...
Mellestad, you're seriously married to somebody like this? Probably a good thing you avoid the topic @_@
Somebody: mellestad, cj, Beyond Saving, BobSpence1? Anybody rational reading this- I implore you: please help me respond to Sandycane's "food chain = universal moral law" argument.
If I have to explain it to her again, I may not be able to be nice about it... as it stands, the amount of snark I'm repressing is threatening to give me an aneurysm. Shit... are my ears bleeding again?
But what of other animals that are not raised for food? You have cats right? Whats wrong with killing and eating one of them? Suppose I had a cat, and decided to eat it even though its primary purpose was mousing? Personally, I think it is wasteful that we bury our pets in the yard. Cats actually taste pretty good (think of a cross between pork & veal). Is there a moral difference between eating a cow that was "raised for it" and eating a cat that wasn't? Personally, I think we should eat the cats. I'm not a big fan of eating dog but that is ok if you like it. No reason to let all that good meat go to waste.
Many animals kill just for kicks if they are in an environment where they get plenty of food. My dog routinely catches and kills songbirds for no purpose other than tossing it in the air. Cats will often kill mice and birds with no intention of eating them and often toy with their prey before killing it. Male lions will kill babies born from other males without eating them. There are some species of monkeys that will commit murder. Baboons in particular are notorious for killing humans but not eating them. So if your argument is it happens in nature therefore it is ok for us to do it, well then is must be ok for us to kill just for kicks. As far as I can tell nature deems it ok for rape, murder, infanticide, theft and pretty much any other crime you can think of as ok.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Absurd is right. In the first place everyone would be dead - I have lousy hand-eye coordination, took me months - literally - to learn to use a mouse. I had to practice. I know, sounds silly, but it is the truth. Tied to my head? The cursor would jitter around and we would all be history.
Hitler is a fat guy on Mars.
GMAFB
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Sorry to burst your bubble, Bucko, but, you are not the ultimate authority on morality. You have still neglected to declare your position on animal abuse or, your reason you are a vegetarian and believe that it is wrong to eat meat. Until you do so, and stop tip-toeing around the subject and being nebulous about your position on animal abuse, I see no point in arguing with you.
You know you are right and making sure everyone else knows it too, is all that matters to you. I know better.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein