Which is more ethical?

[MSizer]

But what makes these logical principles if not your own mind? Certainly it doesn't come from nature or any other observable phenomena. Unless it's just the underlying principle of being true to ones own tribe and using human logic to stretch that to all living creatures. But it still doesn't make it an objective principle...

Tell you what. You go around and collect signatures from people asking that they petition for the gov't take away their freedom to live, recreate, participate in meaningful relationships, own property, avoid physical and emotional harm, and when you reach 100, I'll take back my opinion. I'll even let you combine signatures from all countries of the world, as long as they total 100, not including dishonest ones nor those from mentally ill people.

Good luck.

I think we've gone full circle back to my original question now...

No, we haven't, you've just misunderstood.

 

[no-body]

Tell you what. You go around and collect signatures from people asking that they petition for the gov't take away their freedom to live, recreate, participate in meaningful relationships, own property, avoid physical and emotional harm, and when you reach 100, I'll take back my opinion. I'll even let you combine signatures from all countries of the world, as long as they total 100, not including dishonest ones nor those from mentally ill people.

Good luck.




No, we haven't, you've just misunderstood.

What does popular opinion have to do with morality? I thought we where discussing a universal morality apart from human logic. This just strengthens my opinion that humans make their own morality--that is not necessarily a bad thing. Nature, or the universe or whatever don't look at things happening and consider them good or evil that would be absurd.

 

[MSizer]

What does popular opinion have to do with morality?.

Nothing. I already explained that.

I thought we where discussing a universal morality apart from human logic. .

"apart from human logic"? When did I say that? How can we make any decisions if human logic is not involved? Moral deliberations are made by appeal to both emotion and reason (we know this for sure by fMRI scans of subjects' brains who are presented with hypothetical moral dilemmae)

This just strengthens my opinion that humans make their own morality--.

Well you're wrong, and I've already demonstrated that. If humans make their own morality, then the 6 million jews in WWII deserved to die (which of course is utterly false)

that is not necessarily a bad thing..

Yes it is. Morality is like one of Kant's categorical maxims. It is a matter of duty based on reciprocal principals and matters of maintaining social order. Here's an example. If I'm permitted to make my own morality, then I could rationalize that stealing is good because it allows me to gain more wealth and take better care of my family. However, the underlying principle, which is not my opinion, but in fact principle, is that if everybody stole, the concept of ownership would disappear, therefore the categorical maxim, or moral principal as I pefer to call it, is that theft is universally immoral, whether I, or a million, or all people people want it to be moral or immoral.

Nature, or the universe or whatever don't look at things happening and consider them good or evil that would be absurd.

Of course it doesn't. When was the last time you fell off a cliff, and the wind suddenly swooped you up and put you back just because it couldn't bare the thought of how it would affect your loved ones?

 

[Riverwolf]

I would say harvesting the humans would be the wrong thing to do, even in a situation such as this.

Better to let everyone die than kill a few?

Is letting someone die somehow less immoral than actually killing someone?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

opcorn: Good show guys, I like this channel!

 

[no-body]

Nothing. I already explained that.



"apart from human logic"? When did I say that? How can we make any decisions if human logic is not involved? Moral deliberations are made by appeal to both emotion and reason (we know this for sure by fMRI scans of subjects' brains who are presented with hypothetical moral dilemmae)



Well you're wrong, and I've already demonstrated that. If humans make their own morality, then the 6 million jews in WWII deserved to die (which of course is utterly false)





Yes it is. Morality is like one of Kant's categorical maxims. It is a matter of duty based on reciprocal principals and matters of maintaining social order. Here's an example. If I'm permitted to make my own morality, then I could rationalize that stealing is good because it allows me to gain more wealth and take better care of my family. However, the underlying principle, which is not my opinion, but in fact principle, is that if everybody stole, the concept of ownership would disappear, therefore the categorical maxim, or moral principal as I pefer to call it, is that theft is universally immoral, whether I, or a million, or all people people want it to be moral or immoral.

Of course it doesn't. When was the last time you fell off a cliff, and the wind suddenly swooped you up and put you back just because it couldn't bare the thought of how it would affect your loved ones?

Then can you please explain to me who makes this morality if not humans? You've dissected the "best" possible ethical system and want to make it the universal one from what I am again understanding, you haven't said anything different than you did last time. Whom decides what is objective? How is human logic and reason objective? Whom decides what is the best system? You can call it the most objective way of thinking, but it is still a way of thinking apart from any universal truth you just want to make it the universal truth.

I knew the Holocaust would be brought up... the Jews didn't deserve anything, something happened to them and we humans ascribe it as something bad from our perspective.

My line of thinking is just a philosophical exercise, I'm not being confrontational I'm just curious. it's not Cart Blanche for the human race to get all Nazi or Unit 731 or anything.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hypothetically:
The race of humans are dying. All resources are depleted, but we have figured out a way to harvest humans in a way that some can survive and maybe create a new future.

What is the right thing to do, harvest the humans, or die with everyone and be done with it?

Edit: When I say harvest humans, I mean kill them for resources in this hypothetical situation.

If this situation was arrived at by humans depleting all available resources, then we don't deserve to live, and the most ethical we could do, as a species, would be to let ourselves die out. Of course, we probably should have reached that decision earlier.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Then can you please explain to me who makes this morality if not humans? You've dissected the "best" possible ethical system and want to make it the universal one from what I am again understanding, you haven't said anything different than you did last time. Whom decides what is objective? How is human logic and reason objective? Whom decides what is the best system? You can call it the most objective way of thinking, but it is still a way of thinking apart from any universal truth you just want to make it the universal truth.

I knew the Holocaust would be brought up... the Jews didn't deserve anything, something happened to them and we humans ascribe it as something bad from our perspective.

Well the rules are, that is all we have is our perspective. Hitler's was wrong, evil and immoral. It doesn't matter what it was from Hitler's perspective, because he broke the moral rule of hurting others. He's dead and we move on. Hopefully not repeating that again.

 

[MSizer]

OK, look, if you broaden the scope outside of humans (well, and other sentient beings IMO) then the whole thing falls apart.

It looks like we have to step back and decide what morality is. There are 3 forms of normative behaviour. Law, etiquette, and morality. Law means that there are societal codes which must be obeyed in order to avoid punishment (such as don't speed through red lights). Etiquette is a set of normative behaviours which are considered socially apropriate, but not necessarily warranting punishment (such as which hand you use to hold your fork). Morality is concerned with the normative behaviours which all people, regardless of race of nationality consider improper because they are harmful to other sentient beings (beings that have some sort of sense of personal value, the capacity to suffer, the ability to have long term self interest...)

The fact that these tend to be the same across all cultures suggests very strongly that they are not matters of opinion but of principle. Humans (and other sentient beings) don't like to be punched in the face, because it hurts. If it happened every day, it could really interfere with your ability to live a decent life. That's not my opinion, that's fact, which is, among other facts, the foundation for moral principles.

Therefore, moral principles are not matters of opinion but matter contingent on objective facts.

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry, MSizer, I too am not seeing how anything you have said points to some absolute morality.

Yes it is. Morality is like one of Kant's categorical maxims. It is a matter of duty based on reciprocal principals and matters of maintaining social order. Here's an example. If I'm permitted to make my own morality, then I could rationalize that stealing is good because it allows me to gain more wealth and take better care of my family. However, the underlying principle, which is not my opinion, but in fact principle, is that if everybody stole, the concept of ownership would disappear, therefore the categorical maxim, or moral principal as I pefer to call it, is that theft is universally immoral, whether I, or a million, or all people people want it to be moral or immoral.

In regards to the bolded part, I didn't think that the conclusion was that "theft is universally immoral" but that theft would be universally disadvantageous (if everyone were to do it.) The next step is to mark things that are disadvantageous (in this respect) as immoral. It's still an arbitrarily designed human construct, which though based in sound reasoning, is not perfectly absolute or objective.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

OK, look, if you broaden the scope outside of humans (well, and other sentient beings IMO) then the whole thing falls apart.

It looks like we have to step back and decide what morality is. There are 3 forms of normative behaviour. Law, etiquette, and morality. Law means that there are societal codes which must be obeyed in order to avoid punishment (such as don't speed through red lights). Etiquette is a set of normative behaviours which are considered socially apropriate, but not necessarily warranting punishment (such as which hand you use to hold your fork). Morality is concerned with the normative behaviours which all people, regardless of race of nationality consider improper because they are harmful to other sentient beings (beings that have some sort of sense of personal value, the capacity to suffer, the ability to have long term self interest...)

The fact that these tend to be the same across all cultures suggests very strongly that they are not matters of opinion but of principle. Humans (and other sentient beings) don't like to be punched in the face, because it hurts. If it happened every day, it could really interfere with your ability to live a decent life. That's not my opinion, that's fact, which is, among other facts, the foundation for moral principles.

Therefore, moral principles are not matters of opinion but matter contingent on objective facts.

And it is discussion like this, that will take moral absolutes from taboo and foreign, right to the forefront of humanity. Something that is lacking utterly.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Sorry, MSizer, I too am not seeing how anything you have said points to some absolute morality.


In regards to the bolded part, I didn't think that the conclusion was that "theft is universally immoral" but that theft would be universally disadvantageous (if everyone were to do it.) The next step is to mark things that are disadvantageous (in this respect) as immoral. It's still an arbitrarily designed human construct, which though based in sound reasoning, is not perfectly absolute or objective.

wrong stealing is immoral anyway you look at it.
Even if someone starving is hungry, and steals. The stealing is still wrong, but the saving of life is OK, two separate things.

 

[no-body]

The fact that these tend to be the same across all cultures suggests very strongly that they are not matters of opinion but of principle. Humans (and other sentient beings) don't like to be punched in the face, because it hurts. If it happened every day, it could really interfere with your ability to live a decent life. That's not my opinion, that's fact, which is, among other facts, the foundation for moral principles.

Therefore, moral principles are not matters of opinion but matter contingent on objective facts.

But all living things are operating on self interests, of course they don't want to be punched in the face that doesn't make it something universally abhorrent. Or at the very least it means universal morality is still fluid. Do you plan on intruding on ape society and telling them raping and murdering other tribes is morally wrong?

I'd like to add then what about killing for necessities like food and/or territory? Is there a scale on what is more "right" or do you fall back on looking at things objectively, which is still from a human perspective, albeit a higher perspective still a human one.

 

[Falvlun]

wrong stealing is immoral anyway you look at it.
Even if someone starving is hungry, and steals. The stealing is still wrong, but the saving of life is OK, two separate things.

If you say so.

My point is that humans have created these constructs of right and wrong, moral and immoral, through culture and evolution. You can slap the label "immoral" on stealing, and I'd agree with you, but that label is still simply a human construct. If humans didn't exist to steal, or think about whether stealing is good or bad, there would not be some law written into the fabric of the universe that states that Stealing is Immoral.

MSizer, still thinking about your latest post. Interesting stuff.

 

[dust1n]

Hypothetically:
The race of humans are dying. All resources are depleted, but we have figured out a way to harvest humans in a way that some can survive and maybe create a new future.

What is the right thing to do, harvest the humans, or die with everyone and be done with it?

Edit: When I say harvest humans, I mean kill them for resources in this hypothetical situation.

Ethics are relative, impossible to weigh them out.

I could say with almost absolute certainty that the harvesting of humans would happen.

 

[MSizer]

...It's still an arbitrarily designed human construct, which though based in sound reasoning, is not perfectly absolute or objective.

But it's not arbitrary. I agree that there's no celestial 3rd party to make an perfectly unbiased judgement, but the principles remain objective nonetheless. Even if we did have a third party to act as lawgiver, those laws would not be objective either. You're calling for a standard of objectivity that is unachievable. The standard I propose eliminates cultural or personal preference.

 

[MSizer]

But all living things are operating on self interests, of course they don't want to be punched in the face that doesn't make it something universally abhorrent. Or at the very least it means universal morality is still fluid. Do you plan on intruding on ape society and telling them raping and murdering other tribes is morally wrong?

Correct, it does not, but only because the apes probably don't have the mental capacity to understand the harm they're causing. They probably don't have meta cognition, so they don't have the ability to evaluate their own actions in respect to how they affect other sentient beings. "Ought implies can". Therefore, we can not say an ape "ought" to act morally if it does not have the mental capacity to understand the concept of morality in the first place. That's why Texas (finally!) stopped executing the mentally challenged. They can't be considered accountable if they don't posess the mental faculties necessary to make judgements. For example, if you and I were both shot in the street but not killed, I wouldn't hold you responsible for not helping me, since you're also laying disabled on the ground. You can't help me, therefore you ought not.

I'd like to add then what about killing for necessities like food and/or territory? Is there a scale on what is more "right" or do you fall back on looking at things objectively, which is still from a human perspective, albeit a higher perspective still a human one.

It's unacceptable. That's why I'm a vegan. I don't need to kill any sentient beings to eat. I also am an environmentalist, since failure to treat ecosystems as moral patients results in harm to sentient beings who depend on those ecosystems. Of course killing an animal in self-defense would be an exception, since I'd do it to prevent deep existential harm to myself.

 

[MSizer]

Ethics are relative, impossible to weigh them out...

I disagree. Context exits, yes, but I don't believe they're relative. For example, it could be argued that a person in 1750 who didn't speak out against slavery could be excused on the ground that it was the social norm in those days, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable IMO. It's the same with meat eating today. Someday they'll look back and say "well, they all did it, so you can't really blame them, even though they were killing sentient beings when it was not necessary".

 

[no-body]

Correct, it does not, but only because the apes probably don't have the mental capacity to understand the harm they're causing. They probably don't have meta cognition, so they don't have the ability to evaluate their own actions in respect to how they affect other sentient beings. "Ought implies can". Therefore, we can not say an ape "ought" to act morally if it does not have the mental capacity to understand the concept of morality in the first place. That's why Texas (finally!) stopped executing the mentally challenged. They can't be considered accountable if they don't posess the mental faculties necessary to make judgements. For example, if you and I were both shot in the street but not killed, I wouldn't hold you responsible for not helping me, since you're also laying disabled on the ground. You can't help me, therefore you ought not.




It's unacceptable. That's why I'm a vegan. I don't need to kill any sentient beings to eat. I also am an environmentalist, since failure to treat ecosystems as moral patients results in harm to sentient beings who depend on those ecosystems. Of course killing an animal in self-defense would be an exception, since I'd do it to prevent deep existential harm to myself.

I know I'm probably getting annoying with the semantics here but then can we agree that you've still chosen a human constructed morality albeit one that has the "best" and "objective" parts to it (using the best of aspects of human reason and logic) and that there is no universal morality?

Or do you think animals will eventually evolve--or any other living species would evolve--to the point of using this universal morality if they had the intellect?

 

[dust1n]

I disagree. Context exits, yes, but I don't believe they're relative. For example, it could be argued that a person in 1750 who didn't speak out against slavery could be excused on the ground that it was the social norm in those days, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable IMO. It's the same with meat eating today. Someday they'll look back and say "well, they all did it, so you can't really blame them, even though they were killing sentient beings when it was not necessary".

It could also be argued slavery would be for the "greater good," and that hunting is necessary to keep population levels in check for the "greater good."

I'm not saying that I don't agree with you, and we can weigh them out, but it's impossible to know the exact weigh of either option. Too many factors, too much to take in.