If we didn't kill animals to generate such wonderful products such as bacon, then we would put alot of people out of the condiment business. I mean seriously what could brown sauce be used for other than bacon and sausages. THINK OF THE CONDIMENT PEOPLE! Those smug mustard people creating dressings for salads....
And I've been saying that this mechanism is experienced in our human, self-reflective mind as an attribution of 'personhood'. You are describing it from a biological perspective; I (and Spec) are pointing out the psychological correlate of that mechanism. The attribution of ''personhood'' is instinctual and present in even very young babies (see Alistair Mundy-Castle's work on proto-declarative pointing). Basically even a six-month old knows whether it is acting on an object or relating to a person.
@eddtox "a swan is gets completely covered in crude oil from an overflowing well" now you're being facetious Cygnus atratus it was a very basic pointer to the failure of an inductive proof - it only takes one exception to disprove the rule. @specofdust "I'll keep saying it until you make a moral argument. " sorry I'm with VipersGratitude and there is no metaphysical moral dimension - all morality is driven by practical concerns and almost every one is taught. (there is some evidence that mummies face is nice, yellow is dangerous and dont jump off cliffs)
"The attribution of ''personhood'' is instinctual and present in even very young babies " the attribution of speciation is instinctual in the offspring of many species... and is part of many animals decision making process.
I am not being facetious, I am showing exactly how circumstances can make a swan appear black, even though it is, in fact white all along. A dirty/died/whatever swan does not disprove the assertion that swans are inherently white.
Defining morality on practicality is the subjugation of morality to a convenient justification for whatever seems practical at the time, it would seem to me. Practicality being as moral as you gets would just mean that you're not very moral. However I suppose we have at least made some progress. Without an actual outlook on morality as an individual subject but rather just as a byproduct of social rules based on practicality and convenience we are not going to get very far debating, I do not think. You seem to see morality as a conveniently alterable ethos which bends with the whims and needs of society. I have a girlfriend today so rape is wrong, tomorrow? Who knows! Again, yes there is. Quite clearly there is a difference between genetics and morality. For starters, one is a system of encoded data in my (and your) body and the other is a system of rules or codes which exist outside of any one person, at least they are social, possibly they are objective facts. Even without a metaphysical moral dimension there can still be morality discussed purely in terms of itself. If you think morality is purely driven by practical concerns, then those who are moral to the point of self-destruction are abberations. It is both an immoral and sad world you must live in.
I'm just going to break the flow a bit here and say that this is why I love BT. I learn a lot more than just tech here.
@eddtox so your view is that for all cases any immoral outcome from moral decisions only appears immoral as it was in fact disguised? " A dirty/died/whatever swan does not disprove the assertion that swans are inherently white." no Cygnus atratus proves that not all swans are white....
@specofdust "but rather just as a byproduct of social rules" where did you get you're morality from? Had you been born a Spartan, a slave owner, a cannibal you would have thought and behaved the same as you do today? "we are not going to get very far debating," probably not - you seem to think morality is metaphysical (metasocial?) despite all evidence. "You seem to see morality as a conveniently alterable ethos which bends with the whims and needs of society." It does, though not sure if wars, religion, elections, propaganda, debate, literature, pressure groups etc... would think it so easy as bending at a whim... but it certainly changes and can be deliberately changed. "I have a girlfriend today so rape is wrong, tomorrow? Who knows!" if you were a psycho then certainly, however your moral code has been created over a period of time and will take time to change.... how many people who visit the far east to sleep with kids would do the same at the local school? Where did you get you're morality from? Had you been born a Spartan, a slave owner, a cannibal you would have thought and behaved the same as you do today? Nature may give you a (very) few basics - the rest is a product of your interaction with society and most particularly that societies attempt to educate you.
I'm rather confused as to how problems of induction relate to this discussion on ethics :/ Had I been born Spartan I would also have thought the world was flat and been unaware of the number 0. That doesn't mean these facts didn't exist, it just means they hadn't been discovered yet. I have seen no evidence provided on the foundation of morality in this thread. I've seen a lot of harping on about how morality can very simply and with great finality be reduced to pragmatism and what is practical by society, but these proclamations are in my view hollow at best. I don't claim to think morality exists in a separate metaphysical realm (nor that it does not - it's not such a crazy claim as many think, mathematics is often posited to exist within a separate metaphysical realm). What I do claim is that just because there is no single right moral answer to questions out there doesn't mean there aren't wrong answers. Be they metaphysically discovered or simply moral progressions of society. The morality doesn't change though. We don't proclaim that prior to 1800 slavery is fine and every date after 1800 slavery is bad. We do not change our morality, we learn we have been mistaken, or that there is a better answer. Probably most of them if they'd get away with it. Paedophiles go to the far east because they know what they are doing is wrong and they can get away with it more easily over there. That's not to do with morality, that's precisely what results when you mix an absence of morality, or at least of the ability to be moral, with the desire to keep on rapin'. I've already refuted this with my world is flat number 0 example. The idea that just because my morality would be inevitably different had I been born at a different period of time does not provide evidence for morality being a social construct but only that accepted moral systems appear to change. That I would have admitted to you if you'd simply asked me.
I acknowledge mine was not the most persuasive thought or even an arguement, hence "Short answer". However given the length of the arguement and the depth that it has gone in to perhaps it was unnecessary to offer my 2 cents on the issue unless I was prepared to go into a complete indepth dicussion on the morals of it. I was not and therefore answered the question only, without justification.
@specofdust inductive reasoning started with eddtox Yesterday, 17:10 page13 it relates to whether you can have a consistent set of morals... inductive arguments could not be falsified within a consistent set (hence their use in mathematics) and their failure can be used to show a set is not consistent or complete.
An immoral act is not the same as an immoral decision. An act is inherently morally positive or negative, whereas a decision is only morally right if it accounts for the situation and aims to produce the least negative outcome possible in that particular situation. Therefore my view is that for all cases any negative outcome from an inherently morally positive act must be due to a flawed or immoral decision and does not alter the inherent moral positivity of the act. I am aware that there are swans that are not white, I was using your analogy to demonstrate that just because a swan may not look white, it doesn't mean it's not inherently white. Cygnus atratus is inherently black, even if you see it in circumstances where lighting/paint etc make it appear otherwise. The same goes for cygnus olor which is inherently white.
Sorry i probably was not expressing myself very clearly. Is our morality a result of our genetics? I do not think we know enough about the human brain to discount it. We operate on the same instincts as animals.
I think we (scientists) know enough that we (they) would be very surprised to find that humans operate simply on the same instincts as animals. I would also argue that the very existence of this thread and the fact that it has had nearly 4000 views disproves that theory, unless you can provide a genetic, instinctual reason for us to be discussing this.
Hmm, you've presented a convincing argument here. However, I think this conclusion is the result of applying a set of morals mainly applicable for human-human interaction to human-animal interaction - something of a unusual case. In short, I agree with your case that killing animals for food can be morally inconsistent for people that have moral issues with eating human infants. However, ultimately it is still highly justifiable to kill animals for food as of the 21st century. Morality only forms a part of the argument and unfortunately for the animals to be eaten there are many good reason to eat meat. But I digress, as this wasn't part of the original debate.
Sooo...........after all the intellectual chest beating and moralistic crap..............who's for a nice medium rare steak? Count me in
@ eddtox "An act is inherently morally positive or negative, whereas a decision is only morally right if it accounts for the situation and aims to produce the least negative outcome possible in that particular situation." As ever we need to define the terms that we use I go with consequentialism as to be frank as the alternative you take deontology leads to banning condoms without regard the concequences etc... most religions are based on deontology, the legal and political systems at least pretend to consequentialism. "Therefore my view is that for all cases any negative outcome from an inherently morally positive act must be due to a flawed or immoral decision and does not alter the inherent moral positivity of the act." what? read that back.... a decision is inconsequential until it is enacted... "I think we (scientists) know enough that we (they) would be very surprised to find that humans operate simply on the same instincts as animals." depends which animals I guess... but certainly most scientists would freely accept that any process that we have will have been born of the same root... btw on subject http://www.compassionatespirit.com/McDonalds-Lawsuit-article.htm
