Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
If we were to encounter aliens with a similar level of rationality, for example, such ethics couldn't very well contain any rules privileging other humans over the aliens. If they were significantly more rational, we might be obligated to sacrifice ourselves for their good.
Closer to home, if we were to discover new evidence showing that, in fact, Elephants or Sperm whales were as rational than man, we would have to be prepared to give them equal rights.
Such a system of ethics could also imply discrimination among humans on the basis of relative rationality.
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Sorry, I am late. Just couldn't resist...
What about a spy, who stole a horribly important document, which will save thousands (or more) lives in his (hm... Ok, or her) country?
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Herb Slocomb: But we started with the axiom that promoting human life as the definition of what is good.
Warren : okay, I guess I misinterpreted the following:
I believe Aristotle said reasoning capacity is the distinguishing characteristic, and called man the rational animal based on that. There is certainly evidence that our capacity for reasoning is on a completley different level than all other animals, so that seems like a good start. Maybe more could be added to the list.But for the sake of discussion, could we build any type of rudimentary ethics based on such a small foundation?
I think that if one considers special treatment for humans to be an axiom - to the exclusion of rational aliens or other rational animals - any arguments about rationality don't follow. What defines one to be human is our genetic makeup, not our behavior; people are still considered human even when catatonic and less able to reason than most animals.
I think you can derive a consistent set of morals from that, but it certainly wouldn't be universal. Rational aliens obviously wouldn't share it.
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
I also worry about the special treatment for humans just because they happen to share a certain amount of common genetic material with me. Does this mean I have to treat chimpanzees better than dolphins because they share more of my genetic material, even if dolphins turn out to be more intelligent, better behaved, and generally more pleasant? Some people share more genetic material with me than the average human - should I treat them even more specially, giving preference to people who are of my race, are from my clan, or are in my immediate family? If one draws arbitrary lines about what level of genetic similarity counts, how does one justify them?
Any other axiom that does not promote human life above other life forms runs into scenarios where it is moral to sacrifice humans for the benefit of animals. Such a moral code would not be maximally conducive to human survival.
A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Obviously we share common characteristics with animals and are influenced by our environment, but isn't there anything innate that distinguishes us from animals?
I believe Aristotle said reasoning capacity is the distinguishing characteristic, and called man the rational animal based on that. There is certainly evidence that our capacity for reasoning is on a completley different level than all other animals, so that seems like a good start.
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Joe King:
a large amount of early writing is religious in nature
Or, possibly, it has become religious with the passage of time: that they are religious texts now does not mean they started out that way.
I can easily imagine parts of some religious texts having started as essays on etiquette, or as cookbooks, 'way back in 2000 bc or so when they were first formulated.
Jamie Oliver 1:12 Thou shalt talk in a fake cockney accent whilest avoiding the use of shops other than Sainsbury's.
Delia Smith 5:14 And lo, the cake mixture was removed from the oven, and the Holy Delia Larder spake: Use not oven gloves with holes in them, for those that do will burn (their fingers) in hell.
Originally posted by Joe King:
How about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4083517.stm
The article talks about monkeys using tools. While that may not seem very exciting, it means that their mental abilities aren't a massive amount different to ours. While we are certainly cleverer (as far as we know) then other animals, that doesn't mean that we are no longer animals ourselves. As we evolved from less-clever animals, where was the dividing line when we stopped being animals and started being higher beings? There wasn't - we're still animals, albeit with a few fancy tricks.
If our morals are based upon the fact that humans have better reasoning ability then other animals, does this mean that we should have a different moral framework for humans that are better at reasoning then other humans? Does the next Albert Einstein deserve to be treated morally different from the next Forest Gump?
Then I guess we'd better invent God and a imagine a reason to distinguish ourselves from the animals. Otherwise, Jonathan Swift's essay ceases to be satire and becomes a legitimate proposal.Originally posted by Joe King:
How about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4083517.stm
The article talks about monkeys using tools. While that may not seem very exciting, it means that their mental abilities aren't a massive amount different to ours. While we are certainly cleverer (as far as we know) then other animals, that doesn't mean that we are no longer animals ourselves. As we evolved from less-clever animals, where was the dividing line when we stopped being animals and started being higher beings? There wasn't - we're still animals, albeit with a few fancy tricks.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Then I guess we'd better invent God and a imagine a reason to distinguish ourselves from the animals. Otherwise, Jonathan Swift's essay ceases to be satire and becomes a legitimate proposal.
Originally posted by Joe King:
Ooo oo I forgot - the prevailing opinion is that of all of the thousands that have been invented and the thousands that will be invented, all of them are completely stupid, wrong, heretical, evil, illogical and mistaken apart from the one we currently think is right.
I thought that esoteric view of the multiplicity of gods is that they are all just different aspects or modes of the one God. There being one real God, a superclass if you will (highly abstract of course), from which the other gods derive. A "is a" relation in object speak.
A good workman is known by his tools.
A good workman is known by his tools.
Originally posted by Marc Peabody:
If the superclass is abstract, it cannot be instantiated.
Originally posted by Marc Peabody:
There are other possibilities:
1) An absolute morality that exists in and of itself, not defined by man or deity.
Didn't Jesus say that loving your neighbor was the essence of the Law or something similar in effect?
Topic: Morality: relative or absolute?
A good workman is known by his tools.
That begs the question. You are assuming that the moral dictates of the Bible is but a _personal_ code. Assuming you believe the latter is REALLY better, tell me how you would apply _that_ principle (not a different or supplementary principle) to the issue of revenge shootings between members of rival drug gangs.Originally posted by Marc Peabody:
But which is REALLY better for society: convincing people of what is good and evil; or loving and caring for everyone you encounter (including those who refuse to conform to your personal code)?
You are assuming that the moral dictates of the Bible is but a _personal_ code.
Assuming you believe the latter is REALLY better, tell me how you would apply _that_ principle (not a different or supplementary principle) to the issue of revenge shootings between members of rival drug gangs.
A good workman is known by his tools.
Is there any reason to assume these are mutually exclusive? Isn't that kind of like asking which is more important, not to rape or not to murder?Originally posted by Marc Peabody:
But which is REALLY better for society: convincing people of what is good and evil; or loving and caring for everyone you encounter (including those who refuse to conform to your personal code)?
Is there any reason to assume these are mutually exclusive?
A good workman is known by his tools.
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater. |