No more sex...ever?

[Koldo]

Do you believe that any morality is objective?

In general, the purpose of morality will be subjective, but once/if that is agreed upon, you can find actions which are objectively better to achieve that purpose than others.

If the purpose of morality is to reduce pain and suffering of entities capable of experiencing pain and suffering (for example), then I think we can see that our actions which unnecessarily and greedily destroy entire ecosystems would be immoral by objective standards.

How is the destruction of entire ecosystems increasing pain and suffering?

 

[Falvlun]

How is the destruction of entire ecosystems increasing pain and suffering?

Humans aren't the only organisms that experience pain and suffering.

And if you'd prefer to limit it to humans, ultimately turning our planet into a desert wasteland ain't gonna be too fun for us either.

 

[Koldo]

Humans aren't the only organisms that experience pain and suffering.

Who would have guessed?

Now, getting back to the question: How is the destruction of entire ecosystems increasing pain and suffering?

 

[Falvlun]

Who would have guessed?

Now, getting back to the question: How is the destruction of entire ecosystems increasing pain and suffering?

I would assume it's not very fun to starve to death, to be hunted to extinction, or have your habitat wiped out. Probably pretty darn stressful, actually.

 

[Koldo]

I would assume it's not very fun to starve to death, to be hunted to extinction, or have your habitat wiped out. Probably pretty darn stressful, actually.

Weren't we talking about pain and suffering?
How did fun factor and stress come into play so suddenly? :sarcastic

Other than that, regarding the starvation, how would you feel about being killed ( and perhaps eaten alive ) by a predator, or dying cause of an incapacitating disease? None of the alternatives look really attractive if you think about it.

And, why would being hunted down to extinction be particularly more relevant on regards to pain and suffering than simply being killed by the average predator? And even more than that, why is the destruction of habitats relevant in itself to this conversation?

 

[DreadFish]

Encourage everyone to stop having sex to voluntarily go extinct, wait until everyone else goes extinct, have world to selves

 

[Falvlun]

Weren't we talking about pain and suffering?
How did fun factor and stress come into play so suddenly? :sarcastic

Let me try plain English: Starving is a painful, suffering-filled process.

Stress is a mental form of suffering, which is often caused by or will create, physical forms of suffering.

Other than that, regarding the starvation, how would you feel about being killed ( and perhaps eaten alive ) by a predator, or dying cause of an incapacitating disease? None of the alternatives look really attractive if you think about it.

The same reason why killing animals for food is generally considered morally acceptable, but torturing them to death is against the law as a form of animal cruelty.

Our actions cause needless suffering: in other words, we do not need to be the rapacious, thoughtless, resource-gobbling species that we are in order to live well on this Earth.

And, why would being hunted down to extinction be particularly more relevant on regards to pain and suffering than simply being killed by the average predator?

Again, because it is needless killing. I'm thinking of the buffalo slaughters in N. America. Parents are killed and the young are left to slowly die on their own.

And most everything is interconnected. You remove one species, and another species which depended upon them will start to die out, for example, through the slow process of starvation, which I hope has sufficiently been established as something which causes pain and suffering.

And even more than that, why is the destruction of habitats relevant in itself to this conversation?

If someone came and knocked down your home, and you had to flee to fine somewhere else to live, only to find one less suitable and to have it knocked down a couple weeks later anyway, just to repeat the process, don't you think that would cause you pain and suffering?

A habitat is an organism's home. And tearing up homes causes pain and suffering. Humans are needlessly destroying habitats due to resource mismanagement, greed, ignorance, and yes, overpopulation. Hey Presto! We are back at the OP.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with Falvlun. We're destroying the homes and resources of the furred, finned, feathered and foliated. As they all depend on one another as part of a complexly woven ecosystem, what might appear as an insignificant tweak can have massive ramifications.
Most people don't realize how much humans have altered the natural ecosystem or how rapidly the rate of destruction is increasing.
Humans aren't the only people on the planet.

But there are also human, social effects. Desertification and deforestation create refugees and economic chaos. When a region is no longer capable of providing sufficient resources for its population you get wars, invasions and foreign hegemony.

 

[dust1n]

So you don't think that driving hundreds of thousands of species to extinction is "ruining" something?

What is that something? The only thing we should be concerned with is possibly 'ruining' ourselves.

It's not irrevocably disrupting a status quo and shoving ecosystems into some other state? Really? :sarcastic

Isn't the shove of ecosystems to new states actually the status quo?

Sorry, but I find that very odd, if not impossible to understand. It's not even "my" perspective, this is basic ecology. The value judgements are non-science, granted, but disrupting ecosystems with mass extinction is definitely and inarguably "ruining" what was there before.

It took a few of those just for us to get here in the first place...

 

[Koldo]

Let me try plain English: Starving is a painful, suffering-filled process.

As are other forms of death found commonly on nature as i have already pointed out.

Stress is a mental form of suffering, which is often caused by or will create, physical forms of suffering.

I disagree with your definition as, unless excessive and/or prolonged, stress is not a mental form of suffering and neither causes physical forms of suffering.

The same reason why killing animals for food is generally considered morally acceptable, but torturing them to death is against the law as a form of animal cruelty.

Our actions cause needless suffering: in other words, we do not need to be the rapacious, thoughtless, resource-gobbling species that we are in order to live well on this Earth.

In which form do they cause needless suffering?

Again, because it is needless killing. I'm thinking of the buffalo slaughters in N. America. Parents are killed and the young are left to slowly die on their own.

And most everything is interconnected. You remove one species, and another species which depended upon them will start to die out, for example, through the slow process of starvation, which I hope has sufficiently been established as something which causes pain and suffering.

We can agree that torture does increase suffering and pain. How does killing needlessly accomplish the same though?

The fact that animals die remains unchanged by whether or not humans interfere. You are simply saying the result of human interference in these cases is death, but so is the result of living.

If someone came and knocked down your home, and you had to flee to fine somewhere else to live, only to find one less suitable and to have it knocked down a couple weeks later anyway, just to repeat the process, don't you think that would cause you pain and suffering?

A habitat is an organism's home. And tearing up homes causes pain and suffering. Humans are needlessly destroying habitats due to resource mismanagement, greed, ignorance, and yes, overpopulation. Hey Presto! We are back at the OP.

Due to the bolded part, one can conclude that the problem here isn't really the destruction of the habitat as that in itself isn't responsible for pain and suffering , but rather the several consequences that come from it such as the scarcity of resources required to survive. These resources should be considered separately to further evaluate in which manner the lack of them could cause an increased pain and suffering.

 

[dust1n]

Not in offense to America but...


When I think about it, humans are to animals as America is to countries.

Am I the only one who sees it that way?

I think so...

 

[dust1n]

But we've made ourselves a problem by ceasing to interact systemically with the whole in a stable, sustainable way. We've removed the checks and balances that make the biosphere work.

When did we exist in stable, sustainable ways where the checks and balances that make the biosphere work were in fact in tact? When have humans ever interacted systemically with the whole?

 

[dust1n]

Dust..I think I found it on Wikipedia..just cruisng and I thought wow...

Wikipedia for the group? Thanks.

 

[dust1n]

Do you believe that any morality is objective?

In general, the purpose of morality will be subjective, but once/if that is agreed upon, you can find actions which are objectively better to achieve that purpose than others.

Of course, that purpose of morality could lead to bad morality, and there will likely never be agreeance of what the purpose of morality is since morals are individually adapted and created.

If the purpose of morality is to reduce pain and suffering of entities capable of experiencing pain and suffering (for example), then I think we can see that our actions which unnecessarily and greedily destroy entire ecosystems would be immoral by objective standards.

Well, first we'd have to accept quite the assumption on the purpose of morality.

 

[dust1n]

Humans aren't the only organisms that experience pain and suffering.

And if you'd prefer to limit it to humans, ultimately turning our planet into a desert wasteland ain't gonna be too fun for us either.

Well, if the purpose of morality is to minimize pain and suffering to the fullest extent, seems like mass nuking the entire planet would minimize the pain and suffering of all living beings that might exist on the planet. IN fact, they wouldn't suffer or feel pain any more after that point. Morality achieved.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course, that purpose of morality could lead to bad morality, and there will likely never be agreeance of what the purpose of morality is since morals are individually adapted and created.

If the agreed upon purpose for morality is harmful, then yeah, the best way to achieve that purpose would be harmful actions. (haha, but then bad would be good and vice versa)

And of course, even with a benevolent purpose, people may come up with awful ways to fulfill (or twist) that purpose.

My point was simply that if we do agree on a purpose, then logically, there will be better and worse ways to achieve that purpose. In other words, there would be an objective standard.

Well, first we'd have to accept quite the assumption on the purpose of morality.

Exactly. That's what I said.

Although, I suspect that the majority of people do have very similar ideas on what constitutes the purpose of morality. (They just might not intuitively agree that it should apply to all organisms, including all humans.)

 

[Falvlun]

Well, if the purpose of morality is to minimize pain and suffering to the fullest extent, seems like mass nuking the entire planet would minimize the pain and suffering of all living beings that might exist on the planet. IN fact, they wouldn't suffer or feel pain any more after that point. Morality achieved.

Personally, while that is a logical extrapolation, I don't find that to be really practical/applicable, nor does it really jive with the spirit of what morality is about: ie, a code for how to best live.

Also, that was just an example of what the purpose of morality could be; it was not meant to be taken as the only possible purpose.

 

[Penumbra]

Do you believe that any morality is objective?

In general, the purpose of morality will be subjective, but once/if that is agreed upon, you can find actions which are objectively better to achieve that purpose than others.

I'm aware of that.

Sounds familiar:

There are two discrete steps involved here. I'll list them in reverse order.

2) Morality in Reference to Goals
Morality can be objective when it is relative to some agreed-upon goal. That is, if two or more people agree that a given thing is usually preferable compared to another thing (like eudaimonia vs suffering, life vs death, peace vs war), then, in reference to that goal, there are objectively superior ways to reach those goals compared to other ways. In other words, if two people have the goal of maximizing happiness for themselves and their community, then if you analyze their behaviors and decisions, there are distinctly better ways of behaving compared to other ways. Just like anything else- there are techniques for building a house that result in a better house than other techniques. It doesn't mean it's linear- there can be multiple optimal ways. But there will be some that are better than others.

1) Defining Those Goals
But then, you may point out that there is no necessity to agree on a goal, or that the goals are arbitrary. That's true, but it's not really as chaotic as that. It's no coincidence that most people desire happiness- most of us are hardwired to because that's what is conducive for survival. Life that pursues death or actions that make life unsustainable generally doesn't last very long. For humans, who are social animals who's biggest strengths are intelligence and cooperation, the ability to successfully work with others leads to life or death in the long run. Some goals are inherently more sensible than others for life, because life has gone through an iterative filter to rule out things that don't work. Different things work for different species.

So, morality does have objective aspects for any person any of us would be interested in talking to (basically, non-sociopaths), because we agree on certain rather self-evident goals.

If the purpose of morality is to reduce pain and suffering of entities capable of experiencing pain and suffering (for example), then I think we can see that our actions which unnecessarily and greedily destroy entire ecosystems would be immoral by objective standards.

I think you should be cautious phrasing it like that. If my goal is to reduce pain and suffering, then technically, permanently destroying an entire ecosystem and all life in it, ends all pain and suffering in that area.

If my explicit goal was to reduce pain and suffering as much as possible on Earth, then my solution would be to destroy all life on Earth, down to the bacteria, and render the planet into a similar state as the rest of our solar system. No more animals killing and eating each other, no more animals starving to death or dying of injury, and no more mass extinction events.

But that's not my goal.

 

[Valjean]

What is that something? The only thing we should be concerned with is possibly 'ruining' ourselves.

Are you saying that morality extends only to ourselves? This seems a rather provincial, even tribal attitude.
Does the world exist only for humans, to be exploited as we wish? Do the other denizens not have as much right to be here as we do? Does our capability to dominate make it acceptable to do so?

Isn't the shove of ecosystems to new states actually the status quo?

The new status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

When did we exist in stable, sustainable ways where the checks and balances that make the biosphere work were in fact in tact? When have humans ever interacted systemically with the whole?

Good point. It seems our species has been degrading the ecosystem since we appeared on the scene; wiping out megafauna, deforesting and desertifying. But it's only recently, with the advent of agriculture and industry, that the effects have become glaringly obvious.

I think this discussion of suffering has somewhat sidetracked the issue here. Perhaps right to life might be more to the point. When we degrade ecosystems we destroy lives. This, in itself is a cruelty and a theft. And there is also the fact that we're degrading our own life-support system to consider.

 

[blackout]

No more sex...ever?

Yeah. Stop that all of you right now!

If I can't have sex, neither should any of you!

Yes! For ever! Or at least until I'm having sex again.