dfsdf

[PavlovianModel146]

You said I didn't agree with someone about the dog case. That someone suggested otherwise than I did. You tell me..?

No, I didn't. I said that you don't think that a human should treat a dog like that. I didn't say that any specific person disagreed with you in that regard, even the person that treated the dog like that may not disagree that a dog should not be treated like that.

[von Rivers]

I said that you don't think that a human should treat a dog like that. I didn't say that any specific person disagreed with you in that regard, even the person that treated the dog like that may not disagree that a dog should not be treated like that.

Are you saying not a soul would disagree with me? Of billions of people, what an unlikely coincidence. What's' so good about my "suggestion"?

[PavlovianModel146]

I think I should just let you pretend that you are me and have this discussion with yourself in my place. I did not say that nobody would disagree, I said that even the person that did that might not disagree. In other words, it is possible for an agent to act in a way that the agent believes to be immoral.

[Faust]

Mo - The answer to that is complex, Mo. The simplest way to answer is with a chosen model. The model can be adjusted. But let's imagine that there is a group of people wherein everyone has the same amount of power. In that case, the moral system is designed to achieve a certain balance between individual claims and behaviors in several ways. One way is to balance the short term and long term interests of the members of the group - between each other and also between individuals and the group at large.

I'll give you an example. For the ancient jews. "Thou shalt not kill". Of course, this means that individuals may not kill each other. But the "state" could. There were several offenses for which the punishment was death. So personal vendettas were forbidden, and killing was formalised through a series of rules. Now, jewish tribes were not democratic, so in this case, the leaders were the ones who benefited the most. But so did individuals, because it took more than a pissed off neighbor to do them in. The pissed off neighbor had to go to the bosses, and the offense he described had to apply to the rules.

It would be tempting to say that good was maximised, but it did depend upon whose good we are talking about. Overall, a tolerable balance was struck, since we know of no open rebellions. In the end, morality is abut coercing behavior of the members of the group towards a tolerable balance between competing claims and behaviors.

There are many other ways to analyse this - in terms of mutual trust, for instance. People benefit when others trust them and they can trust others - individuals benefit and the group at large does. But there are no ultimate goods - there are workable systems that produce enough benefit to enough centers of power - the benefit is "weighted", because the group's power is. And then there are those systems that don't work that well.

[von Rivers]

In other words, it is possible for an agent to act in a way that the agent believes to be immoral.

You said that before that I'm not right to think the dog ought not to have been beaten---that it was just "my suggestion". Why do you think my suggestion is neither right nor wrong? Does someone with the opposite "suggestion" miss nothing?

[von Rivers]

. In the end, morality is abut coercing behavior of the members of the group towards a tolerable balance between competing claims and behaviors.

Do I have a claim to my neighbour's dog?

[Faust]

A claim to the dog? Depends on the claim. Most moral systems respect property rights to a degree. People might take exception to someone lighting their house on fire when it threatens the lives of neighbors. What claim do you want to make?

[PavlovianModel146]

In other words, it is possible for an agent to act in a way that the agent believes to be immoral.

You said that before that I'm not right to think the dog ought not to have been beaten---that it was just "my suggestion". Why do you think my suggestion is neither right nor wrong? Does someone with the opposite "suggestion" miss nothing?

That is your suggestion, Faust and myself share in that suggestion, as I would suggest most people do.

If all of my friends jumped off a bridge, I would not join them, but since you gave an extreme example last night, I feel that I am justified in doing the same.

Let's say that you had an individual whose only experience with dogs was that they were somehow locked in a cage with violent dogs and those dogs growled at the person, bit the person, ripped him and ate his flesh until he was within an inch of his life, but then someone finally rescued him from the cage. Jut for the Hell of it, we're going to say that the person never saw another dog in his life after that. Years have gone by, and the person is faced with a dog that he has somehow captured. This individual (who does not believe revenge is immoral) decides he is going to take revenge on canine-kind by torturing this dog, or it could be one of the same (or all of the dogs) that originally did that to him.

He doesn't know that dogs can actually be extremely loving companions and great friends. His only experience with dogs, ever, is that dogs are evil and tried to bite him to death. For this person, beating a dog is probably not an immoral act...and I might even go as far as to say that the person is not clinically insane, he's just acting on his only experience with dogs. He thinks that he is morally justified in torturing this dog(s), and so he decides to do so. Why would torturing the animal be immoral to him?

[von Rivers]

A claim to the dog? Depends on the claim. Most moral systems respect property rights to a degree. People might take exception to someone lighting their house on fire when it threatens the lives of neighbors. What claim do you want to make?

I can prove there's a tree in the yard by showing it to you.
I can prove the dog ought not to have suffered by showing it to you.

That's my claim. My claim is that the dog be taken away from the owner. It's my "suggestion". Someone else might have a different "suggestion". Tell me why you think one is better than the other.

[iambiguous]

Some things you think are right, and some wrong.
Are there really such things? Are you ever right, or ever wrong?
What would make it so?
What is it that merits our moral consideration?

To merit moral consideration is to have something that suggests there’s some way we ought to treat you, and some ways we ought not treat you.
Are there ever things we ought to do?
What is it that tells us so?

Is it being signator to a contract?

Does that miss something? .............Like everyone outside it?

How about being part of a group....



Or is that not it?

Oh. What about being human?



Did we get that wrong?






There’s a tree in the yard. How do I show you it’s really there?

Would showing you do it?

What do you think you're looking at?

Lots of different people with lots of different takes on lots of different moral issues could have posted this. And lots of different minds would not likely be changed.

You take Mo's words out into the world and they dissolve into the unbearable lightness of becoming.

So he is compelled to weight them down with...more words.

But, in the end, you still have the same tree some folks insist must be cut down in order to pave the way for their moral agenda while other folks insist it must remain standing in order to preserve theirs instead.

So, leave it standing or cut it down? What should we really do?

[von Rivers]

Let's say that you had an individual whose only experience with dogs was that they were somehow locked in a cage with violent dogs and those dogs growled at the person, bit the person, ripped him and ate his flesh until he was within an inch of his life....He doesn't know that dogs can actually be extremely loving companions and great friends....He thinks that he is morally justified in torturing this dog(s)

Animal torture is immoral. Objectively immoral. (
I am not the one reducing morality to a "suggestion"---you are.
The kid might think torturing animals is not immoral. Why, you ask?
You answered your own question. The kid is ignorant, and his experience is limited.
Being ignorant of why your idea is a bad one does not make it a good one.

Unless you provide me with some reason to think why my "suggestion" is a bad one, I'll have to think my "suggestion" is not just a random suggestion. I am open to the possibility that I am ignorant and that my experience is limited. In such a case my idea would be a bad one and I wouldn't know it. So.. go for it..

[iambiguous]

Yes, they can get it wrong. People are motivated to ethics by self-interest. But there are conflicts even within individuals. Long-term and short-term goals can conflict. Morality is not atomic. Moral systems are just that - full of interrelations. So, even if we are deciding just for ourselves, we can work at cross-purposes. We can devise systems that work, that don't work, that work well or poorly.

These are but a few ways in which we can err.

Well put. Maybe it's just a different way to spell dasein.

[Faust]

Pav - Often enough, animals provide a surrogate for humans. Many people who have been abused in one way or another by humans take it out on animals, and not always only on their own. Many times they escalate this behavior to acts towards humans. Some moral claims against these people are based on that, or could be. Then again, we're not so sure that the people who work in chicken factories are so dangerous. But the cues are not the same. And chicken factories pay wages, and we eat the chickens, so there are some factors that are quite different than for people who abuse pets - pets that are closer to us on the evolutionary scale, in particular. Dogs have mush more human-like responses and emotional lives than do chickens. That's not to defend chicken-abusers - it's just a gauge of how dangerous the different individuals might be to society at large. I'm not trying to get all pseudo-scientific about it - but it's not too difficult to see the differing emotional reactions to the different cases.

[von Rivers]

You take Mo's words out into the world and they dissolve into the unbearable lightness of becoming.

My words were a picture. You can't bring them down to earth further.

Please don't bother posting in this thread.

[PavlovianModel146]

Animal torture is immoral. Objectively immoral.
I am not the one reducing morality to a "suggestion"---you are.
The kid might think torturing animals is not immoral. Why, you ask?
You answered your own question. The kid is ignorant, and his experience is limited.
Being ignorant of why your idea is a bad one does not make it a good one.

Unless you provide me with some reason to think my "suggestion" is a bad one, I'll have to think my "suggestion" is not just a suggestion.

You're right about that, Mo_, but someone who has had ONLY positive experiences with dogs may not know that dogs are actually capable of biting humans and would react with great anger were they to see an owner close a dog's mouth shut with his hand not knowing that the dog bit the owner. The person might think that such an action is animal cruelty, when really, you're just trying to teach the dog not to bite.

That's why morality is a suggestion. It's a suggestion of what behavior one should engage in based upon what one has experienced, or heard or read about. In many cases, you may suggest that, "Ignorance," is why another person's suggestion differs from your own. However, since we are prohibited from knowing everything about everything, we are all, "Ignorant," to some extent, which is why morality is subjective. The only way for morality to be objective is for nobody to be in any way ignorant of the matter in question, but if that happened, we would all behave in exactly the same way.

[Faust]

Mo -

I can prove there's a tree in the yard by showing it to you.
I can prove the dog ought not to have suffered by showing it to you.

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.

That's my claim. My claim is that the dog be taken away from the owner. It's my "suggestion". Someone else might have a different "suggestion". Tell me why you think one is better than the other.

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.

[Faust]

Iam,

Well put. Maybe it's just a different way to spell dasein.

I'm down wit da dasein thang.

[von Rivers]

someone who has had ONLY positive experiences with dogs may not know that dogs are actually capable of biting humans and would react with great anger were they to see an owner close a dog's mouth shut with his hand not knowing that the dog bit the owner.

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.

That's why morality is a suggestion. It's a suggestion of what behavior one should engage in based upon what one has experienced, or heard or read about.

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...

[PavlovianModel146]

Pav - Often enough, animals provide a surrogate for humans. Many people who have been abused in one way or another by humans take it out on animals, and not always only on their own. Many times they escalate this behavior to acts towards humans. Some moral claims against these people are based on that, or could be. Then again, we're not so sure that the people who work in chicken factories are so dangerous. But the cues are not the same. And chicken factories pay wages, and we eat the chickens, so there are some factors that are quite different than for people who abuse pets - pets that are closer to us on the evolutionary scale, in particular. Dogs have mush more human-like responses and emotional lives than do chickens. That's not to defend chicken-abusers - it's just a gauge of how dangerous the different individuals might be to society at large. I'm not trying to get all pseudo-scientific about it - but it's not too difficult to see the differing emotional reactions to the different cases.

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.

[iambiguous]

. In the end, morality is abut coercing behavior of the members of the group towards a tolerable balance between competing claims and behaviors.

Do I have a claim to my neighbour's dog?

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?

[Faust]

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.

[von Rivers]

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.

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.

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.

What if he really likes beating them? Which "suggestion" is better?

[PavlovianModel146]

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.

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.

Good. So tell me: Why do you make one suggestion rather than another?

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.

[Faust]

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.

I just told you. I like dogs.

What if he really likes beating them? Which "suggestion" is better?

Again - I really like dogs. What is difficult to understand about that?

[von Rivers]

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.

Why? Does he have a better opinion? And be careful you don't appeal to objective criteria here...

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 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.

It's based on experience and knowledge, but not just experience and knowledge,

Experience and knowledge of what?