Do you tend to dislike people who step on bugs?

People who kill squirrels can say that none of that really matters.

They draw the line differentiating what can be killed without concern, in a different place than you do.

People who object to the killing of bugs draw the line based on another criteria. Probably based on the principle that no living creatures ought to be killed. Or killed for food. Or only killed to protect oneself.

That’s one way of answering my OP, I’ll grant you. They have their own set of rules they made for themselves. I guess that’s a good reason?

At least you gave a real answer, though, instead of doing some meaningless behavioral motivation probe like karpal tunnnel. :stuck_out_tongue:

Impetuous child-minded behavior is disliked by more considerate mature-minded people because of its disruptive and often dangerous effects. Mature-minded people are disturbed by child-minded people playing with loaded guns even though the child-minded doesn’t think it is an issue.

I think this is merely an issue of more thoughtful people being uneasy around the actions of less thoughtful people.

That sort of thinking – compatibilism? – makes less sense to me. If you go from stepping on bugs for a reason to accepting that you are compelled by the laws of nature to step on bugs for that reason then how are you not in turn compelled by the laws of matter to reframe it all as “gaining self-awareness for the first time” of what you are doing?

In a wholly determined universe as “I” understand it here and now, I was never able to not type these words and you were never able to not read them. And what the words convey are also inherent, necessary descriptions of the only possible things that we can ever think, feel, say and do. About bugs and everything else.

Which, it would seem, is why [compelled by nature or not] we invent the Gods…or a God, the God, my God.

With the existence of Kant’s “transcending font” there would be the all-knowing vantage point able to explain why someone – why anyone – would step on bugs. Either for no reason or for any particular reason. And if there is a dispute among mere mortals as to whether this is something that is rational or moral, God would be there again to resolve it.

And, in my view, it is precisely in order to avoid these profoundly problematic complexities that some become objectivists. They think themselves – again, compelled by nature or not – into believing that they are in sync with their own true self able to know all that needs to be known about stepping on bugs in order for them to judge the behaviors of others that either do or do not step on them and for whatever reason. Or for no reason at all.

Here, alas, my own “I” is “fractured and fragmented”. Whereas for folks like Karpel Tunnel there seems to be this “deep down inside him” Self that just somehow knows whether and when to be revulsed in regard to stepping on bugs.

I thought that whole “determinism versus freewill conundrum” was debunked.

Without causal determinism a freewill could never come about. And once it comes about only causal determinism gives it prominence to motivate action. Freewill is never, at any time, free of causal determinism - before, during, or after. And then there is the reasonable concern that freewill was never actually about being free from determinism anyway.

So, if this is a brilliant assessment or an utterly foolish one, how would we go about determining if it was ever only the assessment that you were ever only able to make?

I don’t think that you individually are ever able to determine anything. You seem to always just want to change the subject and usually toward one person’s thoughts.

There is a difference between “What is the reason behind this” (causality/determinism) and “What is the purpose behind this” (intention/goals). There being some causality behind people disliking others for stepping on bugs is different than there being some purpose in disliking people who step on bugs.

And both of those are actually distinct from the question as to whether someone dislikes others for stepping on bugs (the actual question of the thread).

That’s not my point. If I am not able to change anything then I am compelled by the laws of nature “to seem to always just want to change the subject and usually toward one person’s thoughts.”

And, in a determined universe as I understand it, any differences that we point out are only those differences we were ever able to point out.

Just as the reasons or lack of reasons we give for stepping or not stepping on bugs was never not going to be otherwise.

Same with distinctions. We make the ones we do because whatever brought into existence both matter and the immutable laws it abides by either is or is not applicable to the human brain.

Those interactions that, among others, neuroscientists continue to explore experientially and experimentally. And, to the best of my current knowledge, the definitive final verdict here [compelled by nature or not] is not yet in.

If you are not able to change anything, you are not able to talk about it.

John steps on a bug because he was never able to not step on it. He talks about stepping on a bug because he was never able to not talk about it. Then going back to how this fits into an ontological – teleological? – understanding of existence itself.

If he stepped on a bug, he was able to change something … and did.

If I dislike him for doing so, I am able to change something … and do.

The inherent questions are only why either of us do so (either purpose or cause).

Nobody seems to object to bugs stepping on people in this thread, and that’s incredibly bias and contrary to the indifference needed to examine the facts impartially. I feel like there’s some favoritism here that will certainly interfere with a fair assessment of the ethical concerns surrounding the question of stepping on a bug whom might very well step on you if given the opportunity.

Note to others:

What important point is he making here that he thinks I keep missing?

If the laws of matter are applicable to the human brain then anything we “choose” to do and any “reactions” we have to the behaviors of others are but inherent, necessary components of the laws of matter.

If nothing was ever able to change, then the reason “why” things do change is because they were never able to not change into an altogether different reality. Which would be the case if we had to wait to see what did change given that we don’t know what those who possess free will might in fact choose differently.

How can it be “debunked?” It isn’t like you can run randomized controlled studies on subject in question.

It is an intangible and unmeasurable interpretation of the nature of the universe that you can ignore or give credence.

Because he doesn’t want to work within the framework that you’re using. It may be because he doesn’t comprehend it, but I think it’s because he just doesn’t buy into it.

If a person could follow the logic he would have done so and wouldn’t have to ask that question. Considering the question has been asked…

As always it seems - the basic question that is the topic of the thread.

You make a really good point. Ants would kill us without a thought, given the opportunity. Yet people in this thread act like they are such inoffensive creatures.

I’ll quote a post I made once in another thread: Insects aren’t exactly helpless, and they are quite brutal toward all living things. They are nature’s little pre-programmed killing machines, and they are hard-wired to the core. Even though they don’t know any better, they are ruthless. Two things most insects strive for: reproducing like crazy (often cannibalizing one another after doing so) and invading each other’s territory for resources. Ants especially are practically genocidal, warring with and killing rival colonies without regard for the individual lives of their own soldiers and sometimes even abducting larvae from the conquered in order to produce a generation of slaves for the colony.

Even on an individual level, ants have no regard for even their own lives. If they sense that they have sufficient numbers to sacrifice, which is all through chemical signals, they will continue trying to gather food from a dangerous location even when some jerk like me is stepping on them. I’d be one to know: I’ve stepped on [u]a lot[/u] of ants. :evilfun:

There is something I should walk back. When I scuff out an anthill in my driveway, part of the reason I do it is to cause a bit of chaos down there. However, I wouldn’t say it is due to sadism, but rather curiosity. Mostly I just like experimenting with their reactions. :stuck_out_tongue:

Questions for you:

How old are you?
What kind of shoes do you wear?
Do your feet smell?

You need classes.

Some sincere questions:

How old are you?
What sort of shoes do you wear when you step on bugs?
Do your feet smell?