Morality

[Sleeppy]

Depends severely on the age for me, 'very young' makes me think she would be incapable of providing true informed consent.

Disagree, sorry I don't think dogs can give consent.

I have an issue with the word "acceptable." To me this means "just on this side of immoral" so you know, it's "OK" but not necessarily ideal. If you mean this is "A OK 100%" some of my answers would change. Because for example number six - I think the mother has a moral duty to go beyond that. It's not the ideal. It's not negligence - although possibly emotionally so I guess - but I think parents have the obligation to do the best they can for their children.

How would you go about determining true informed consent?

Why can't dogs give consent?

Acceptable/moral as opposed to immoral.

 

[Sleeppy]

My answers are not the abstract truth of morality, nor is anybody's thus it's not fair to say what is right or wrong.

What do you mean?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I wouldnt say it was a right to not be killed in that manner so much as it was a right to live; but yes, I believe life is one of the few innate rights.

What determines a rational being huh? Now that is a difficult one, I was actually aiming for something a bit more complete so I will describe rather than define...

Any discrete entity capable of perceiving their surroundings and their own state, form objective and subjective understandings based upon previous experiences and other relevant factors, describe (or at least identify) different desirable states, identify variances between the current and desired states, determine methods by which such variances might be addressed and choose one that best suits both the situation and that entity's perspective on the methods themselves, the inputs and potential impacts of those methods according to the entity's perspective on their desirability... an entity capable of being (although perhaps not just yet) sapient and sentient.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What do you mean?

We all have different goals, thus different rights and wrongs, saying something is wrong would be given by your personal goal.

 

[Sleeppy]

We all have different goals, thus different rights and wrongs, saying something is wrong would be given by your personal goal.

So, as long as the intended goal is met, it is moral?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think (please correct me if I am wrong) what tSoA is suggesting is that because those goals are subjective, it is difficult to use them as absolute determinants of right and wrong, because they differ from one person to another.

 

[Drolefille]

Where does the need for justification come from?

The fact that I consider human life more valuable than non-human life - to be modified at the discovery of sapience in other species/aliens/whatever.

How would you go about determining true informed consent?

It's part of my job. Someone has to understand all potential negative consequences of an action as well as potential benefits. 10 year olds generally don't have the brain functioning to do it.

Why can't dogs give consent?

Lack of brain functioning.

Acceptable/moral as opposed to immoral.

It's not either/or it's a scale. I don't consider most of your options "moral" per se, just not immoral.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Responding for what I feel is right and wrong:

Disregard any government laws. It's all legal.

Scenario 1:

Tom wants to have intercourse with a very young girl. She and her guardians give their consent. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Yes, if she consents.

Scenario 2:

Jim, from his home, can see kids playing outside his window. He decides to masturbate. No one can see him. Is this acceptable for him to do?

Yes, ignorance is bliss, and nobody is being harmed.

Scenario 3:

Kayla notices that her dog is quite fond of her leg. She decides to have sex with her dog. Is this acceptable for her to do?

No, because you cannot know that the dog is consent just because it may seem like it, thus it may possibly be rape.

Scenario 4:

Jim and Kayla have just given birth to a baby girl. They kill her and bury her in the yard. Is this acceptable for them to do?

Not really, and let me remind you this is all accordance to my personal morals.

Scenario 5:

Mike likes to eat dog meat. He raises them and eats them. Is this acceptable for him to do?

No I personal think all meat shouldn't be eaten, and they do feel pain, per se:

[youtube]LUkHkyy4uqw[/youtube]
I am scared and don't want to die. - YouTube


A dog is no better than a cow, in the same way a caucasian man is no better than an african one.

Scenario 6:

Ashley loves her poodle, even more than her daughter. Her poodle receives more attention, but her daughter has all of her basic necessities. Is this acceptable for her to do?

Yes

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It's part of my job. Someone has to understand all potential negative consequences of an action as well as potential benefits. 10 year olds generally don't have the brain functioning to do it.

Your mileage may vary. I know some 30 year olds with the same problem.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So, as long as the intended goal is met, it is moral?

It's moral for you, and for whoever had the same goal as you.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think (please correct me if I am wrong) what tSoA is suggesting is that because those goals are subjective, it is difficult to use them as absolute determinants of right and wrong, because they differ from one person to another.

Yep, thanks :yes:

 

[Drolefille]

Your mileage may vary. I know some 30 year olds with the same problem.

Of course. That's why if we're talking informed consent there are legal and ethical standards.

Part of my professional code of ethics as well.

 

[Sleeppy]

The fact that I consider human life more valuable than non-human life - to be modified at the discovery of sapience in other species/aliens/whatever.

If greater sapient beings came to earth, would it be acceptable for them to treat us as food?

It's part of my job. Someone has to understand all potential negative consequences of an action as well as potential benefits. 10 year olds generally don't have the brain functioning to do it.

What if even you aren't capable of determining all consequences?

Lack of brain functioning.

Are dogs capable of consenting with other dogs?

It's not either/or it's a scale. I don't consider most of your options "moral" per se, just not immoral.

So neutral?

 

[Drolefille]

If greater sapient beings came to earth, would it be acceptable for them to treat us as food?

To them, I'm sure its possible. Although I see sapience as a threshold. There may be more evolved aliens that are smarter or something, but we're still sapient.

What if even you aren't capable of determining all consequences?

It's about determining reasonable consequences. A heart attack is possible but no expected unless there's a pre-existing condition for example.

Are dogs capable of consenting with other dogs?

Neither party is capable of consent, sex is instinct not consciously chosen.

So neutral?

Permissible but not something I'd support.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yep, thanks :yes:

Dumb it down for me.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Dumb it down for me.

As simple as I can put it: There's no right or wrong besides what we believe is right and wrong.

 

[Sleeppy]

To them, I'm sure its possible. Although I see sapience as a threshold. There may be more evolved aliens that are smarter or something, but we're still sapient.

What do you mean by sapient, exactly?

It's about determining reasonable consequences. A heart attack is possible but not expected unless there's a pre-existing condition for example.

What if neither of you are actually capable? You are just more capable.. And when does your guidance stop?

Neither party is capable of consent, sex is instinct not consciously chosen.

Can consent be pushed aside then? And instinct be settled for instead?

 

[Drolefille]

What do you mean by sapient, exactly?

See the vegetarian thread, I'm not repeating it.

What if neither of you are actually capable? You are just more capable.. And when does your guidance stop?

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Can consent be pushed aside then? And instinct be settled for instead?

Not when humans are involved, we have the choice.

 

[Sleeppy]

As simple as I can put it: There's no right or wrong besides what we believe is right and wrong.

Having to do with authority.. The person attempts to determine themselves. Correct?

 

[Sleeppy]

See the vegetarian thread, I'm not repeating it.


I don't understand what you're trying to say.


Not when humans are involved, we have the choice.

If it's short, please just post it.

Your authority to better discern consequences - when it given back to the child to decide?

Can we override the animals lack of consent, and do it anyway?