Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:51:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1572 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> 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?
I didn't really mean either of your definitions. I think every creature
has the same morality - to survive by whatever means necessary, but we
humans have found that we don't like living by that morality, because its
full of pain. So we need to devise our own moral system (one of its goals
is to eliminate pain from living, make life happy). So we live by different
morals than animals because we can. Animals aren't exempt from morality,
but they can't violate their morality, and can't comprehend ours, although
some can abide by it. An animal living in the wild by his morals (of
course) is good. An amimal living among humans is good (as in the wild, he
has no choice - he must follow the morals or not survive). One that comes
among humans and doesn't abide by our morals doesn't survive, unless it has
the body of a man, because our current pervasive, flawed moral system allows
it. From your definitions, I would be more aligned with #1, although it
doesn't convey exactly what the above does.
> #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.
Nah, caterpillar isn't evil. He obeys the same moral that all animals
do, without fail.
> 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.
As usual, I disagree. There is nothing wrong about killing animals. I
don't think we need to add to the mess of making life better for human
beings by bringing animals into it. They aren't men, they aren't going to
understand or adhere to men's morals. They aren't a part of it. You are
fortunate, though, that a lot of men feel the same way, and since all land
is owned by someone, the owners could say these animals are my property
(like the US govt does in parks) and make it illegal to interfere with their
animals.
> 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"? :)
Well, maybe we should.
> DaveE
--
Have fun!
John
Auctions and Trading and More at my Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+#+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
