Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:31:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1554 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> We are all obliged to morality. Monkeys can stay in the jungle if they
> can't handle morality. People who can't handle it can live in the wild,
> too, or in our jails. If you want to live in a society of human beings, you
> must go along with the morality of human beings. Fortunately,, the morals
> we go by that aren't perfect yet are also (slowly) evolving.
> ...
> There doesn't need to be a line. You can be a dog and live in our
> society. If you bite too many people you will be put to death. If you
> don't hurt people or their property you will be OK. You don't understand
> the morals, but you can live according to them. The same thing applies to
> any animal, including people. You don't need to fully understand morals to
> abide by them, but to choose your own and live according to those can cause
> trouble. I think people who have morals that may be good for that person
> but hurt other people aren't perfect morals - and a lot of people live
> according to such morals. The perfect moral code would be fair (in the
> truest sense of that word) to every creature. I've already said I doubt it
> would be very popular if it was known, since most people already abide by
> morals that hurt others and get along OK.
> ...
> The moral holds for every creature. Most creatures don't want to be a
> part of the society of human beings (including more than a few human
> beings). I suppose we can consider them food (you know, animals). They can
> live in the wild, in forests and jungles, as long as we have forests and
> jungles. We can go kill them and eat them. If they come on our turf, and
> don't abide by our morals (think wild bears) we can kill them. They can act
> according to our morals without understanding them, or not be a part of our
> society, but it applies to all. There is no line, we are man, we rule the
> Earth, but it is wrong, IMO, for us to rule one another.
Aha! I think some headway has been made... I can see one of two possible
arguments you are making... maybe you can tell me which is more correct?
#1: "An entity is judgeable morally as long as it has considered morality.
Hence, those not knowing or thinking about morality are held as exempt. Those
that consider morality and abide by its rules are held to be morally good,
those that consider morality and do not abide are judged morally bad. Actions
toward those outside of the realm of entities considering morality are not
capable of being judged morally, thanks to the exemption of those outside the
moral sphere." If that's so, I think maybe that implies a line at the point of
moral consideration. A being is obligated to follow morality once it has
considered this issue. So the monkey who hasn't considered the issue of
morality is exempt from it, but by the same token exempts itself from being
treated morally. Going back to people, a wild person, or perhaps a sufficiently
retarded person (or severe autism perhaps) who hasn't considered morality is
treated likewise.
#2: "An entity is judgeable morally as long as it is alive and is capable of
action in favor of or in disfavor of moral rules. If the being does not
consider morality, it need not follow morality, but we have no moral obligation
to it as moral beings." If this is so, then as you say, there's no line.
Everything is judgeable on a moral level, althought it need not conform. Hence,
a caterpillar is evil for not considering morality. It is not evil based on its
adherence to the moral standard, but based on its ignorance of the moral
standard.
I'm going to guess you lean towards #1, but only because I think you might find
it hard to consider the caterpillar evil (I certainly would). I may easily be
wrong.
Anyway, I can't really argue with either of these logically. I just can
disagree. I have problems with the 1st one because I don't see the
consideration of morality as a line... I think humans have simply considered it
the most, of all beings on earth. I would hold that some animals have
considered moral questions, but not nearly comparable to our own. And I have a
problem with #2 insofar as I don't want to judge the caterpillar to be evil; I
would want to hold it as more or less exempt. I won't hold that it CAN'T be
judged morally, but certainly the moral judgements that I would want to place
on a caterpillar would be pathetic to the point of being useless in our
consideration.
The other illogical problem I have with both of them is that I tend to expect
moral action towards nature. Hence, I tend to see something like going out and
killing animals for fun as an immoral act. But again, it's highly dependant on
the situation. If a bear is coming to rip my head off, it's not immoral of me
to kill it. Although again, if there were another way for me to stop the bear,
maybe it would be immoral, but anyway, now I'm just proving my own point... I
hold it very situation dependent.
Anyway, I'd say we are almost at an agreement as far as the logic of it all
goes.
> If you seriously don't realize we are superior to animals because of this
> special thing we have called the human mind, let me make a point. Pick your
> best animal and tell me who would win if we went to war with that species.
> They might inflict some casualties, but we'd decimate them. Or if we had a
> competition between any species (or every species) to see if the animals or
> the men could get to the moon first. Your argument is moot. So no matter
> which morals we go by, animals can only bow down to them, or get out of the
> way. I think a perfect moral code, however, doesn't have men bowing to one
> another or hiding from each other.
I think you missed my point here... I wasn't suggesting that we aren't superior
to animals... I was suggesting that the problem with your argument was the fact
that we are superior to animals insofar as we are better thinkers. The key word
there is 'better'. I don't disagree that people are better thinkers, but I was
looking for a line inbetween 'worse' and 'better'. I had inferred from your
previous examples that you held animals to be exempt from morality *because*
they weren't capable of reason. Later when you said they were capable to a
point far below us, I had thought you still held them exempt. Hence, I was
looking for the line between the 'worse' and the 'better' reasoning power that
suddenly forced someone into being morally obligated. At any rate, you
addressed my concern, in one way or another.
Do we shake hands now and say "good debate"? :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
