Mo -
You have only shown that you cannot tell the difference between “is” and “ought”, which difference is central to any ethical theory. That is painfully fundamental.
I agree that the dog ought to be taken away from its owner. I think the claim we share is better than contradictory claims. Because I really like dogs.
Iam,
I’m down wit da dasein thang.
Ignorance and lack of experience again. What is your point. My point is that not knowing why your idea is a bad idea does not make it a good idea.
Good. So tell me: Why do you make one suggestion rather than another?
And be careful you don’t point to objective criteria… that would really throw you off…
I agree with everything that you have said above, and you are right, but in my opinion, animal cruelty is very much a black and white issue to the extent that the person/company committing the cruelty exercises ownership over the animal that the cruelty is being committed upon. I agree that we tend to be, “Closer,” to dogs in many respects, and that dogs are viewed as, “More human,” in their responses to stimuli than chickens. I also agree that there is some utility with respect to chicken factories where there is not utility in kicking your dog in the face, but I am simply against torturing defenseless animals, mainly pursuant to a, “Golden Rule,” type of morality. I am capable of feeling pain and I do not want to be tortured, particularly in a situation where I am, “Owned,” by another person and have no means by which I can escape the torture, therefore, I do not think that should be done to animals…regardless of utility.
I agree that dog-kickers generally pose a greater threat to human society than chicken factory employees.
I have no problem with chickens being killed or eaten, it is their conditions while they are alive that concern me.
You do if you can rationalize the claim. Which is just another way of pointing out that you believe you do. Others, however, may believe you do not.
Who do we then turn to – sans God – to finally resolve it? Should we contact Leonard Peikoff at the Ayn Rand Institute? Or, perhaps, Michael Vick? How about PETA?
Yeah, Pav. I really do “agree”. I use the quotes because i don’t always reach for the FR eggs. I don’t shun restaurants that don’t use them. But I usually reach for them, and i favor restaurants that use them. It’s sometimes tough with the GF’s kids along. I have fantasized about winning the lottery and funding lab-animal rescues. I think it’s in very poor taste to abuse an animal. yet I sometimes still go to McDonald’s. It’s an integrity issue I have to work on.
There is no essential distinction. Your intelligence has been bewitched by means of language, as Wittgenstein says. ‘Oughts’ just are a particular kind of ‘is’. ‘Values’ just are a particular kind of ‘fact’. It never ceases to amaze me how people can be stupified by false distinctions. But please, assume there is a distinction, and now tell me why you prefer one “suggestion” over another. Your answer before was because one is better for balance between competing claims—or something like that.
What if he really likes beating them? Which “suggestion” is better?
Yes, Mo_, but we are all ignorant of something and we all lack experinece insofar as we have not experienced everything. Some people have experienced more and are more knowledgeable than others, and to the extent that I would defer to another person’s opinion of what act is moral/immoral, I would likely defer to the person with the most knowledge and experience. I would not defer at all, of course, but hypothetically speaking, that’s what I would do.
Your only way out is to contend that you have experienced all possible things and that you are not ignorant about anything in anyway whatsoever. You basically have to maintain that you are God, only then, can your moral judgments be perfect.
I’m an Athiest-Leaning Agnostic, by the way.
It’s based on experience and knowledge, but not just experience and knowledge, (as if that could be all there is to it) but the subjective meaning that your experience and knowledge lends you. You may further base it on what society, at-large, believes as many people defer their moral opinions to a societal, educational, parental or Religious authority.
I just told you. I like dogs.
Again - I really like dogs. What is difficult to understand about that?
Why? Does he have a better opinion? And be careful you don’t appeal to objective criteria here…
You seem to think that ignorance makes morality subjective. That’s false. You do the best you can with the facts you have. Morality is a work in progress. Objective at every step. Changing, growing, expanding. You also seem to equate objectivity with perfection… false.
Tell me why one “suggestion” is better than another, and I’ve won. Tell me why one “suggestion” is never better than another, and you’ve lost. That’s the situation here.
Experience and knowledge of what?
I’m not a perfect animal rights activist, either, Faust. It’s really a hopeless endeavor with respect to the eggs because so many grocery store products are made with eggs not of the organic variety. Even many of the Vegetarian specific products have eggs in them, and companies such as MorningStar (Division of Kellogg’s) have disclaimed that, while they try to use Organic Eggs as much as possible, the eggs in the product are not necessarily so. That probably means that they never are and, “As much as possible,” means, “Never, because it is prohibitively expensive and the supply sucks.”
I also favor products made with organic eggs, restaurants that use them, and I must admit that I always buy cage-free, Organic Eggs, but there are plenty of farms in my area that doing so is very easy. They’re sold at the town gas station from a local farm that I have toured personally!
We don’t have to get involved in figuring out how to function morally and devise systems to perpetuate the idea. You can’t develop integrity. It’s there when you are freed from a ‘self’ that was created by all those thoughts, feelings and knowledge that man has been adhering to over his traditional past. Compassion and empathy come naturally. It’s easy to see what another person needs, or how to act in a given situation if there is no concern about a self, that exists only in the imagination, to get in the way.
You play ‘stupid’ because you think it’s better than being wrong. Why do you like dogs? Are they nice?
What if he really likes beating them? Which “suggestion” is better?
Just because I give you an answer that you don’t like doesn’t mean that i am not sincere. I don’t much care why i like dogs. I just do. I like hot girls and baseball, too. Don’t really know why. Don’t really care.
How many times do i have to say it? Not beating the dog is better, in my view, because i like dogs. Why should I care if he likes to beat dogs? I don’t even care what you think, and we’re best internet philosophy forum frenemies. I should give a shit what a dogbeater likes and doesn’t like?
Your real problem is that you think everyone is an idiot.
I may subjectively perceive that he has a better opinion. Experinece with a subject does not necessarily, in and of itself, make his opinion better, though.
It’s an objective work in progress? The facts that we have are limited, even those things that do not seem to limit us are also limited by our inherent subjectivity. You would have to know everything that can be known at this point, and actually more, to form a fully objective view of what, “Right action,” entails. We are not qualified to say what is right or what is wrong, we are only qualified to say what we think is right or wrong.
The only reason that I would consider any suggestion, “Better,” than any other is because I would agree with the suggestion that I am claiming is better.
Of the nature of the moral question being posed, what else?
One doesn’t know what is good; only what is good for him/her. That’s all you are interested in, that’s a fact. Everything centers around that. All your reason centers around that. I am not being cynical. That’s a fact. Nothing wrong with it. I’m not saying anything against it. The situations change, but it is that which is guiding you through all situations. I’m not saying it is wrong. If it is not so, something must be wrong with you.
Why do you like dogs? Why do you like hot girls? Why do you like baseball? Let’s focus on dogs. Why do you like dogs?
If you can’t think of a reason, then perhaps you’ll be ready for a rational argument after you’ve reflected a bit…
Again: why should the dog not be beaten?
Is it that hard?
You’re free to be like iambiguous, and be irrational. Just don’t expect me to include you in a rational discussion. I don’t think you’re an idiot, as you said. I think your character flaw is that you’d rather pretend to be one, than be wrong.
Torturing animals is immoral, I agree. I would never do it myself and I would support tough laws that punish this behavior. On the other hand, the only way you can demonstrate this to be so objectively is by making that claim and sincerely believing it to be true. Which is to say, you demonstrate it to yourself.
But animals are tortured in different contexts and to differing degrees. For example, in testing products for human consumption animals are abused. As they are in the production of pharmeceuticals and in perfecting medical procedures. And what of animals used in sporting events? Indeed, I have a friend in Seattle who insist that merely owning a dog or a cat as a pet is immoral because no animal should ever be owned. All animals must be freed she says. And she is deeply committed to this conviction. Is she wrong?
And you are still stuck with the folks who rationalize behaviors like this simply because they always do exactly what they want to do. And they do so because, from their point of view, in a world without God we make these things up as we go along.
Now, that might infuriate you, but what have you got to make them stop? Well, you’ve got the satisfaction of “just knowing” they are wrong.
But the best strategy is still to work with those who share your own [existential] conviction in order that, politically, you have the power to pass the laws that punish such behavior.
I came into this conversation late, but I’m going to say that morality isn’t a bunch of baseless opinions. Good morality is a form of aesthetics, just as logic is a form of aesthetics, geared towards appealing life conditions and ideas. An ugly world full of suffering is unappealing. A good world of cooperation and virtue is appealing. Logic and rationality prefer the eudaemon, the image of a system of happy healthy lives, full of purpose. Good is logical, just like objectivity is logical.
There were people who disagree, just like there are people who will reject evolution. But that still doesn’t make it unscientific, just because some guys disagree.
Fools and cruel people can make up a bad morality or an anti morality, but that doesn’t mean morality is useless, or that these people were right.
Only handicapped people create illogical abuse and madness which causes trouble.
This is because the people are ugly inside and barbaric.
A person of inner beuty wants a self-complimenting, non hypocritical system of values and life.
Good. And why does it seem that way to you?
You would have to be omniscient to have a perfect point of view.
You do not need to be omniscient to give reasons for your view. You can give me an imperfect answer. We can work towards better answers as times goes on. This is what happens. We make moral progress together.
“I think X is wrong because of A, B, C” is very likely an objective answer. It gives a cause for what you think. The cause may be mistaken, and it may not.