User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-11 at 3:59 AM UTCOne additional point: I think it's reasonable to say that while children lack the capacity to understand social contracts and morals etc, this is the reason why we leave them to the guardianship of their parent or legal guardian until they reach adulthood.
We essentially DON'T consider children as full people. We expect their guardians to keep them in check and educate them on how to behave in society, while they developed p the ability to do so for themselves.
This is how some level of considerability is conferred onto them by their guardians. Essentially, the guardian is taking responsibility for their charge not violating their social contract. They are given a ticket to ride on the basis of their parents.
This is why I don't really see a difference between the example child and, for example, a dog. I trust the owner of a dog to keep them under control, and that's why I give a domesticated dog more consideration than a wild dog. -
2018-06-11 at 4:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Many would argue the validity of the concept of a "moral fact", you can't just take that for granted.
Do you deny the existence of "moral fact", that is to say moral statuses of actions independent of intentions? Is it not to say that something like the loss of innocent life is prima facie bad, in the normative dimension, regardless of the intentions of the involved parties?What is "after the fact"?
Perhaps killing the civilian means preventing the destruction of a remote Alaskan fishing village after 60 days, and 20 completely innocent lives will be lost if the civilian lives. Now you're basically faced with a trolley problem, where saving the citizen is essentially the "wrong" answer, depending on your moral framework.
Imagine you are a time traveller and the death of the child in exactly that way means 1,000,000 people are saved from being genocided in the exact same way in the far distant future. You must actively choose to not interfere, or 1 million people are brutalized, let's say 1 million years in the future.
If you had this information, would the "moral fact" about letting the killer torture and kill the child be any different?
If you had different information then your considerations would be different, but you seem to be assuming that some arbitrary range on your "scope of context" is the "right" one.
"Moral fact" describes the moral effects of an action, it includes all the outcomes of an action across time. If you think personhood is temporally extended this shouldn't be a surprising idea. Obviously we can't ever hope to know every effect of our actions across the ages, and that's when we start getting into the idea of justifiability and acting on the information available to us. The "moral fact" of an action is unaffected by but availability or unavailability of information. This is as simple as saying "it's possible to do bad things while being well meaning/acting rationally".In such a utilitarian system, how would the case with the child vs the genocide be handled "intuitively"?
Harming a child to prevent genocide is justified in utilitarian systems because the weight of the child's life is small relative to the weight of the lives of a large group of people which probably also includes children whereas you propose to choose the large population just because of an unknowable fact about the child (will he or she grow up to be an adult who can engage in a social contract) renders the kid a non-person.I don't think the question is unresolved; they can participate in it to a lesser level, so they are considered to a lesser level.
It's not clear to me that they can participate in a social contract at all. Rocks also don't actively try to harm us but this doesn't mean they're engaged in a social contract with us to do so. The heart of contract lies in consent and consent of lower animals is, uhh, not a region where people often reach consensus.
Originally posted by Captain One additional point: I think it's reasonable to say that while children lack the capacity to understand social contracts and morals etc, this is the reason why we leave them to the guardianship of their parent or legal guardian until they reach adulthood.
We essentially DON'T consider children as full people. We expect their guardians to keep them in check and educate them on how to behave in society, while they developed p the ability to do so for themselves.
We don't consider children to have all the rights and obligations of adults, but this doesn't mean anyone considers them non-persons. There is no reason that being morally considerable has to entail the full set of rights and obligations that an adult has. Indeed, I think most people actually confer more moral considerability to children than adults, as evidenced by the attitude that children be prioritized over adults in a wide range of social situations like life threatening situations, welfare, and education. -
2018-06-11 at 5:13 AM UTC
-
2018-06-11 at 6 AM UTCI can't believe Lanny is still banning people for shitposting in this thread when clearly everybody else is only posting in it to troll the rest of us
-
2018-06-11 at 10:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Do you deny the existence of "moral fact", that is to say moral statuses of actions independent of intentions? Is it not to say that something like the loss of innocent life is prima facie bad, in the normative dimension, regardless of the intentions of the involved parties?
"Moral fact" describes the moral effects of an action, it includes all the outcomes of an action across time. If you think personhood is temporally extended this shouldn't be a surprising idea.
Obviously we can't ever hope to know every effect of our actions across the ages, and that's when we start getting into the idea of justifiability and acting on the information available to us. The "moral fact" of an action is unaffected by but availability or unavailability of information. This is as simple as saying "it's possible to do bad things while being well meaning/acting rationally".
I'm not opposed to the idea, I just haven't see a reason to believe such a thing yet.
It seems self evident that the point of a moral system is to define what makes something that just "is", right or wrong in the first place. From an objective standpoint, things just "are". Moral systems (actually, philosophy in general) allows us to take a scientific or observational "is", and derive a philosophical "ought".
How that ends up working depends on the particular framework and the facts. What is a fact in one philosophical system might not be in another, as far as I know.
So I can see this making sense, but only given some assumptions. For example in a utilitarian framework and in a finite universal system (so we can ultimately quantify, for example, the ultimate utilitarian outcome of an action), at it's face, one might say you could identify a moral fact by saying what the net effect is of that action. But then you have to justify that moral framework itself; why is lowering overall utility "bad", for example? Is it always bad?
I see many problems with such an idea, for example two completely identical actions with identical "pre considerations" from any agent's POV, but different long term results are utterly different moral "facts". It seems like a useless concept
Harming a child to prevent genocide is justified in utilitarian systems because the weight of the child's life is small relative to the weight of the lives of a large group of people which probably also includes children
But it doesn't establish that harming an innocent child is inherently immoral, which is my point.whereas you propose to choose the large population just because of an unknowable fact about the child (will he or she grow up to be an adult who can engage in a social contract) renders the kid a non-person.
I propose no such thing. In my system, I propose that you don't kill the child because you wouldn't want to be killed, and you have no reason to assume that you are OK to kill this child. We don't need to consider what butterfly effect happens a million years in the future. The act is immoral regardless of the consequences in my system. To that point, if you knew about the fact of the genocide, then maybe you would accept that you'd forfeit your own life or right to life to save the million people, and so you'd do the same in the child's position, and justify letting the child die for the greater good. That works in my system too.It's not clear to me that they can participate in a social contract at all. Rocks also don't actively try to harm us but this doesn't mean they're engaged in a social contract with us to do so. The heart of contract lies in consent and consent of lower animals is, uhh, not a region where people often reach consensus.
Not a social contract per se, but some level of agreement where a cow, instead of stampeding and killing you, will simply munch on some grass and can live a pretty happy, safe life under your protection until you decide to kill it.
To extend this further, I believe my fundamental human rights are epiphenomenal to the fact of my biology and its impetus for existing. My own right to life is granted to myself by the fact that I exist and have some impetus to exist. In order to fully express my right to life, I have to give up my freedom to be wild and do anything I want (this all rolls into Categorical Imperative thinking), and this is where we can create a social contract so everyone gives up some rights, to doing things they don't want done to themselves. Cattle can't really do this, but they do something similar to some degree.
This is also how we construct the foundational ideas of consent etc. This is also my basis for moral considerability. It's the ability to take your self-granted right to life and freedom and reduce them in order to participate in a society.We don't consider children to have all the rights and obligations of adults, but this doesn't mean anyone considers them non-persons. There is no reason that being morally considerable has to entail the full set of rights and obligations that an adult has.
I think children are morally considerable, but IMO their moral considerably is built into the fact that they have a guardian that is meant to keep them in line or keep them safe.Indeed, I think most people actually confer more moral considerability to children than adults, as evidenced by the attitude that children be prioritized over adults in a wide range of social situations like life threatening situations, welfare, and education.
I think emotion has a large role to play in it, rather than some underlying moral truth. We have evolved to feel strongly about protecting children because that's what is evolutionarily effective, but then again, we've also probably evolved to feel like faggotry is gross. It seems like we pretty much accept children aren't really people, but we treat them as such because they will be, and in the mean time they are kept in check by someone who is. -
2018-06-11 at 12:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain It's not an argument, I'm not going to object to a basic fact.
If morality is not an objective reality why argue over what is and isn't moral? If people cannot be held morally responsible shouldn't the concept of morality be abandoned and replaced with something that actually makes a difference? -
2018-06-11 at 1:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny LJ, finny, this thread is in a topical forum. Please keep it on topic.
Human children below a certain age aren't able to observe laws or respect a social contract either. Do you think they're also excluded from moral consideration as well?
Fuck this thread and its topic.
This poster has been banned by a huge phaggot -
2018-06-11 at 3 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe If morality is not an objective reality why argue over what is and isn't moral?
The basic difference between philosophy and science is (like I said), that science is a study of what "is" and philosophy is a study of "what ought to be". You enhancement the facts of science through the interpretation of philosophy. If you cannot recognize this distinctiom, you do not recognize the entire field of philosophy.If people cannot be held morally responsible shouldn't the concept of morality be abandoned and replaced with something that actually makes a difference?
Morality not being objective doesn't mean you cannot hold anyone morally responsible.
Unless you want to invoke Divine Command or some kind of metaphysical moral truth that has the same truth value as a scientific fact, the essential nature of morality is just consistency: how can you say you are allowed to do X, but someone else isn't?
Let's say you swipe a banana from a classmate. Imagine your justification is "there is no right and wrong, I wanted the banana and I swiped it". In saying so, you either need to tell me why that only works for you (so someone else stronger than you cannot steal the banana), or admit that it works for everyone, and just accept that it wouldn't be wrong if someone stronger than you swiped it. There is no greater objective truth to banana ownership, it is by design a subjective assessment of the what freedoms you are willing to forfeit the right to exercise, in exchange for safety from having them exercised on you.
In my moral system for example, I don't have a defence for why an advanced, morally superior alien race couldn't just farm the human race like we farm cows. I can accept that based on the pragmatic reality that that's probably not going to happen.
Whether or not your actions are predetermined doesn't really factor into it either; you can process "ought" from "is" while being a complete automaton based on any initial moral framework, as long as you commit to it's conclusions. If not, you are immoral according to that framework. The framework doesn't need to be objectively true, it just needs to be consistent, generalisable and generate conclusions you are comfortable with. -
2018-06-11 at 5:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain The basic difference between philosophy and science is (like I said), that science is a study of what "is" and philosophy is a study of "what ought to be". You enhancement the facts of science through the interpretation of philosophy. If you cannot recognize this distinctiom, you do not recognize the entire field of philosophy.
Morality not being objective doesn't mean you cannot hold anyone morally responsible.
Unless you want to invoke Divine Command or some kind of metaphysical moral truth that has the same truth value as a scientific fact, the essential nature of morality is just consistency: how can you say you are allowed to do X, but someone else isn't?
Let's say you swipe a banana from a classmate. Imagine your justification is "there is no right and wrong, I wanted the banana and I swiped it". In saying so, you either need to tell me why that only works for you (so someone else stronger than you cannot steal the banana), or admit that it works for everyone, and just accept that it wouldn't be wrong if someone stronger than you swiped it. There is no greater objective truth to banana ownership, it is by design a subjective assessment of the what freedoms you are willing to forfeit the right to exercise, in exchange for safety from having them exercised on you.
In my moral system for example, I don't have a defence for why an advanced, morally superior alien race couldn't just farm the human race like we farm cows. I can accept that based on the pragmatic reality that that's probably not going to happen.
Whether or not your actions are predetermined doesn't really factor into it either; you can process "ought" from "is" while being a complete automaton based on any initial moral framework, as long as you commit to it's conclusions. If not, you are immoral according to that framework. The framework doesn't need to be objectively true, it just needs to be consistent, generalisable and generate conclusions you are comfortable with.
Morality is irrelevant and unnecessary, people "ought not" be held morally responsible for their actions because morality is not objective and there are better things than morality we can use to determine what is the best course of action in any scenario where morality could be used. To use your example I would say it doesn't matter if banana theft is considered moral or immoral, what is important is whether or not banana theft should be illegal and if it is illegal what the consequences should be.
As I was saying to zanick, nobody really has any obligation to adopt some moral framework. A better way to begin his argument would be to use something else besides morality, something objective like the consequences of the meat industry on our health and ecosystem. -
2018-06-11 at 9:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Morality is irrelevant and unnecessary, people "ought not" be held morally responsible for their actions because morality is not objective and there are better things than morality we can use to determine what is the best course of action in any scenario where morality could be used.
1. You've completely and utterly missed the meaning of "philosophical ought."
2. Nothing about this statement establishes your premises or how they are used to arrive at your conclusions. Why is morality irrelevant because it is not objective? Seems like a nonsequitur to me. What is it "irrelevant" to? What is this nebulous point you are trying to get at that morality doesn't address?
3. Your opinion is self contradictory and internally inconsistent. You are making a moral argument for why morality is useless. I will demonstrate this in the course of this discussion. Bonus points if you can point out the moral statement in the above quote.To use your example I would say it doesn't matter if banana theft is considered moral or immoral. What is important is whether or not banana theft should be illegal and if it is illegal what the consequences should be.
What would determine whether or not banana theft would be illegal?As I was saying to zanick, nobody really has any obligation to adopt some moral framework.
That in itself is a moral framework. If your moral framework is that you have no moral framework and do whatever you want, that is a moral framework.
Whatever basis you ought or ought not do something on is essentially your morality.A better way to begin his argument would be to use something else besides morality, something objective like the consequences of the meat industry on our health and ecosystem.
Why are those important? An organism might begin to live with more or less of a resemblance to "healthy", however you define it. You are making a moral judgement one a trend towards either of those two modalities.
The frustrating thing about discussing philosophy with you is, you don't even properly understand the basic terms you are using, how to lay out your premises and draw a conclusion, and so on.
I've never met someone so wilfully ignorant of a subject they claim to have an interest in since Malice found "psychology". -
2018-06-12 at 3:49 AM UTCObbe, what do you think a moral judgement is?
-
2018-06-12 at 3:58 AM UTC
-
2018-06-12 at 4:21 AM UTC
-
2018-06-12 at 8:40 AM UTC
-
2018-06-12 at 10:03 AM UTCOne more thought on the considerability of animals; in my system, there is no essentialism involved that excludes considerability to anything except humans, and I don't need to commit to or justify some model for good or bad behaviour.
It's simply based on what you are willing to have reciprocated onto you, and some social agreement that looks very much like the ones we use in real life can emerge from all parties in the system acting out of pure self interest.
However, it must be noted that ones entry into the social contract is granted by ones own ability to relinquish certain freedoms.
So I don't see any reason to give, say, a scorpion consideration; it will act out of pure self interest to either sting me if it thinks I'm a threat or avoid me if I'm too big (or not big enough) of a threat. But it doesn't consider my right to life, just what is most expedient.
I will reciprocate the principles by which it lives it's life, expediency and self interest, and crunch it under my boot. -
2018-06-12 at 11:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain 1. You've completely and utterly missed the meaning of "philosophical ought."
2. Nothing about this statement establishes your premises or how they are used to arrive at your conclusions. Why is morality irrelevant because it is not objective? Seems like a nonsequitur to me. What is it "irrelevant" to? What is this nebulous point you are trying to get at that morality doesn't address?
3. Your opinion is self contradictory and internally inconsistent. You are making a moral argument for why morality is useless. I will demonstrate this in the course of this discussion. Bonus points if you can point out the moral statement in the above quote.
What would determine whether or not banana theft would be illegal?
That in itself is a moral framework. If your moral framework is that you have no moral framework and do whatever you want, that is a moral framework.
Whatever basis you ought or ought not do something on is essentially your morality.
Why are those important? An organism might begin to live with more or less of a resemblance to "healthy", however you define it. You are making a moral judgement one a trend towards either of those two modalities.
The frustrating thing about discussing philosophy with you is, you don't even properly understand the basic terms you are using, how to lay out your premises and draw a conclusion, and so on.
I've never met someone so wilfully ignorant of a subject they claim to have an interest in since Malice found "psychology".
Morality is irrelevant to any scenario you would naturally want to start making moral judgements about because there are better, real systems that exist in the objective world we could use instead.
Do you believe you have any obligation to adopt Zanick's moral framework? Why do you pick and choose what is and is not moral to you? Morality is personal and relative, and therefore shouldn't be used to make objective statements about the world or to determine what is best for everyone as a group.
I believe things that have a measurable effect on the real world like the need or sustainability of the current industry are more important than imaginary things like how moral that industry may be. -
2018-06-12 at 11:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Morality is irrelevant to any scenario you would naturally want to start making moral judgements about because there are better, real systems that exist in the objective world we could use instead.
I have no cure for your illiteracy.
"Better" is a normative statement. What part of this are you not understanding? You are simply proposing an alternative moral criteria.Do you believe you have any obligation to adopt Zanick's moral framework?
Literally already answered this. I have no cure for your illiteracy.Why do you pick and choose what is and is not moral to you?
Literally already addressed this in full. I have no cure for your illiteracy.
Morality is personal and relative and therefore shouldn't be used to make objective statements about the world
It isn't, you retard. I have already addressed this. The point of morality is specifically to make non-objective ought statements. All moral claims are normative claims. This isn't a barrier to the usefulness or validity of morality.or to determine what is best for everyone as a group.
"Best" is a normative idea. What you are proposing is an alternative criteria for what is better or worse behaviour, AKA an alternative moral system.I believe things that have a measurable affect on the real world like the need or sustainability of the current industry are more important than imaginary things like how moral that industry may be.
Ok, say action X from the meat industry will raise the global CO2 levels annually by 5 parts per million but will lower the cost of meat production by 0.05% globally relative to the growth of surrounding industries.
Should action X be legal? -
2018-06-12 at 12:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain I have no cure for your illiteracy.
"Better" is a normative statement. What part of this are you not understanding? You are simply proposing an alternative moral criteria.
Literally already answered this. I have no cure for your illiteracy.
Literally already addressed this in full. I have no cure for your illiteracy.
Morality is personal and relative and therefore shouldn't be used to make objective statements about the world
It isn't, you retard. I have already addressed this. The point of morality is specifically to make non-objective ought statements. All moral claims are normative claims. This isn't a barrier to the usefulness or validity of morality.
"Best" is a normative idea. What you are proposing is an alternative criteria for what is better or worse behaviour, AKA an alternative moral system.
Ok, say action X from the meat industry will raise the global CO2 levels annually by 5 parts per million but will lower the cost of meat production by 0.05% globally relative to the growth of surrounding industries.
Should action X be legal?
If I told you I was a morally superior being and you should simply accept what I am telling you because it is better for you, would you accept that? -
2018-06-12 at 12:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe If I told you I was a morally superior being and you should simply accept what I am telling you because it is better for you, would you accept that?
Would saying "no" matter when it's obvious that you cannot read? Why am I even bothering to post this? What does this have to do with anything I've said? -
2018-06-12 at 12:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Would saying "no" matter when it's obvious that you cannot read? Why am I even bothering to post this? What does this have to do with anything I've said?
You would say no because how would you know my morals are superior? It would be impossible. Morality isn't objective, there is no such thing as a "morally superior" being. Therefore we shouldn't use morality as the basis for any argument when there are better, real, measurable things we could use instead.
