Beauty and the Beast

[Ryokan]

Bestiality is Illegal.

Is it? Not the last time I checked.

Or did you assume your local laws apply everywhere?

 

[jiggeryqua]

A dangerous act that can cause a slow painful death to either party, is something that shouldn't be legal. Especially when one party has no choice in the matter.

Horse riding - cross country, or just regular racing, show jumping even. Granted, the better race courses will try to put a horse out of it's suffering as soon as possible, so it may not be a slow painful death in that instance.

I'd make a longer list, but pfft, it's a summer holiday trolling thread really, isn't it?

 

[jiggeryqua]

ETA:

As it happens, I'm not one.

If you say so...

EagainTA: well that didn't work out quite how I expected...

 

[jiggeryqua]

I have worked with both abused animals and abused children, and in my experience, it's rare that you'll find a man who viciously beats his dog who isn't viciously beating his kids.

*or woman

No, hang on, you might well read that as 'beating his kids or woman'. I meant to ask whether women who beat dogs don't also beat their children?

 

[Philosaur]

Wow. Lots of half-baked ideas here. Let's start with free will. You complained earlier that RobRoy was dismissing the edifice of philosophy by saying that morality is subjective. Yet here you are taking free will as a foregone conclusion, as if philosophy hasn't spilled just as much ink trying to determine what it is, whether we have it, and what its implications are.

If your concept of morality rests on the exclusively human capacity for free will, you first have to show that a) free will is more than a useful fiction, and b) only humans have it. So far, you've only assumed these two points, which is why your argument is unconvincing.

I didn't say that free will was a necessary qualification for being protected from suffering, but a necessary qualification for sovereignty over your own body. That is, in order to be able to decide what happens to your body (ie, whether or not someone is allowed to have sex with you), you need to be able to make decisions at all.

So when you are asleep or in a coma you're fair game, eh? I would hate to be your roommate...

Also, I don't need to show that it's something that can be measured precisely.

Fine. Can you show it's measurable AT ALL? Even in principle? Is there a free will particle that human brains radiate?

As I said, there's a difference between those who act on purpose and those who act arbitrarily, but it's a difference that may be hard is impossible to see from outside.

Fixed it for you.

I could be wrong about animals having free will, in which case I think they have to have their rights recognised the same way ours are: no more eating them, and when they kill each other they're punished. That it's difficult to tell whether something has free will is irrelevant:

You have no way of knowing whether ANY entity has free will, so it's a useless concept.

it's not immoral to treat something as if it doesn't if you honestly believe it doesn't (this is a requirement of all morality, since morality only judges the choices we make - it could not judge the consequences when we have no control over them).

You just signed a moral blank check for every one of the millions of humans who don't believe in free will (including many on this board). Let us know how that turns out for you.

You have yet to demonstrate why suffering is immoral.

That it's wrong to cause another living thing needless suffering is axiomatic to at least a couple of the world's major moral systems (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism). This isn't an appeal to authority, merely pointing out that asking for an explanation for an axiom is to misunderstand what an axiom is.

I've had plenty of pets, and I've treated them well, since, as I already said, I have empathy. I just don't think it would be immoral to hurt them - distasteful, yes, but not immoral.

So if someone offered you enough money, you'd torture a puppy? I don't care if your argument is airtight--I never want you around me or my family or anyone I care about. (Incidentally, this isn't part of my argument--just letting you know what the real-world, possibly irrational consequences of your beliefs are.)

A crime has to have a victim, otherwise it's not a crime.

Wrong. A crime is a violation of a law. Period.

Morality also implies normative force: that you are in the wrong if you violate it.

This is all kinds of confused. Your implication is part of the definition of "morality" and "wrong", and has nothing to do with "normative force".

Again, I'll say it, no matter how many people are in favour of it, it's wrong to put a jew in an oven. I thinking the Nazis were actually wrong to do that, and would be if everyone in the world agreed with them.

Bravo! Do you want an award?

Ah, here is the route of our disagreement: I don't believe it is wrong to cause a human pain. I believe it is wrong to cause a human pain without their consent. I also believe it is wrong to cause a human pleasure without their consent. I apply neither standard to animals, because there is no such thing as consent for animals (no free will means they cannot choose between the two options).

Still haven't demonstrated that animals don't have free will.

In response to your thought-experiment about the paralysed human being: if they have no self-determination, they're human in name only. What are we talking about here? A passive experience-receptacle. Personhood implies the ability to make choice. Being vaguely man-shaped is not enough. So, no, I don't believe they'd have rights - although like you I'm grossed out by the idea of someone torturing them. But hey, I'm grossed out by lots of stuff (including bestiality). That doesn't make it immoral.

Oops. Apparently I missed the post where someone else brought up the same point. But this underscores my desire to never let you around me or my family, lest one of us falls asleep.

Oh, and one last thing. Still nobody has shown that bestiality causes the animal pain. For my argument, it's beside the point, but it still needs to be established to legitimise a law banning bestiality. Horse ripping, yes, fine. Definitely causes pain. But tenderly making love to an anteater, using contraception - would it really be so awful? Hey, the anteater might even like it.

You have some strange thoughts about what makes sex okay. Your position amounts to this: it's okay to have sex with something that can't say no. Since an anteater, or a person in a coma, or a dead body can't protest, then it's okay to have the sex.

Let me suggest a wiser, probably less painful, and definitely more legal test: You should only have sex with someone who can give consent.

 

[Segnosaur]

Unless you are a vegan then it is unlikely that you give animals the same moral rights as humans.
Bestiality is Illegal.
Necrophilia is also Illegal.
However having sex with a ham sandwich is totally fine.

Remind me never to have you over for dinner.

 

[Tricky]

Why stop there? What about plants? A plant is a living, metabolizing thing. They deserve the same rights as every other living, metabolizing thing! All you people having sex with watermelons should be arrested.

 

[applecorped]

Why stop there? What about plants? A plant is a living, metabolizing thing. They deserve the same rights as every other living, metabolizing thing! All you people having sex with watermelons should be arrested.

What about apple pie?

 

[I Ratant]

Morality is defined by society. Individuals within a society can disagree with the social definitions but they must adhere to them or face consequences. Of course, there can be extenuating circumstances, but society will deal with those as they occur. Our society has defined beastiality as immoral and hunting as moral (within certain guidelines). It really is as simple as that.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1116848fbd03615cce.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_111684ae504d35e012.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_111684b1e5e90645d6.jpg[/qimg]
Opening day of rifle season is Oct. 11.

.
Been there, done that.
Prefer to hit the animules with a good solid 1/400 @ f11 nowadays.

 

[I Ratant]

Remind me never to have you over for dinner.

.
Depends on the roll...
Diner, or dinner!

 

[Paulhoff]

So, when is life not a bitch.



Paul

 

[This One Guy]

Wow. Lots of half-baked ideas here. Let's start with free will. You complained earlier that RobRoy was dismissing the edifice of philosophy by saying that morality is subjective. Yet here you are taking free will as a foregone conclusion, as if philosophy hasn't spilled just as much ink trying to determine what it is, whether we have it, and what its implications are.

I didn't call RobRoy out for saying morality was subjective - I called him out for saying moral issues are not resolved by argument .

If your concept of morality rests on the exclusively human capacity for free will, you first have to show that a) free will is more than a useful fiction, and b) only humans have it. So far, you've only assumed these two points, which is why your argument is unconvincing.

My demonstration that free will is more than just a useful fiction: there's a genuine difference between those beings that subject their own choices to inspection and deliberately choose between them, and those things that are blindly following the laws of nature. It may be that animals have free will, yes, but if I'm wrong about that I'm wrong about everything. If animals have free will, not only is it wrong to have sex with them (without their consent), it's wrong to kill and eat them.

So when you are asleep or in a coma you're fair game, eh? I would hate to be your roommate...

No, I never said that. I didn't say that the person needed to be exercising free will at that moment, only that they have it. That is, they have to exert some deliberate control on their environment.

Fine. Can you show it's measurable AT ALL? Even in principle? Is there a free will particle that human brains radiate?

It's in principle as measurable as any other faculty of the mind. The brain is hugely complicated, but one thing we know is that if it's making choices there must be some structure in it that's able to make choices. This could be identified. On a less rigorous level, there are various outward signs that suggest the capacity exists: the ability to compose original sentences, for example.

Fixed it for you.

Screw off.

You have no way of knowing whether ANY entity has free will, so it's a useless concept.

You just weren't going to bother waiting for my answer on this one, then?

You just signed a moral blank check for every one of the millions of humans who don't believe in free will (including many on this board). Let us know how that turns out for you.

No I haven't. I given a conservative definition of free will: being able to choose your own actions.

That it's wrong to cause another living thing needless suffering is axiomatic to at least a couple of the world's major moral systems (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism). This isn't an appeal to authority, merely pointing out that asking for an explanation for an axiom is to misunderstand what an axiom is.

It hasn't so far been claimed that it's axiomatic by anyone I was debating with. If they had we'd clearly have reached the root of the argument: it could go no further. I wasn't under the impression that we were there yet.

So if someone offered you enough money, you'd torture a puppy? I don't care if your argument is airtight--I never want you around me or my family or anyone I care about. (Incidentally, this isn't part of my argument--just letting you know what the real-world, possibly irrational consequences of your beliefs are.)

No, I wouldn't torture a puppy for money. I just think other people get to make that choice for themselves.

Wrong. A crime is a violation of a law. Period.

It was imprecisely worded, yes, but I didn't want to say 'sin'. I meant 'immoral act'.

This is all kinds of confused. Your implication is part of the definition of "morality" and "wrong", and has nothing to do with "normative force".

Of course morality needs to have normative force: there needs to be an obligation to behave in a certain way, otherwise we're not talking about morality.

Bravo! Do you want an award?

It's a relevant example. If there's one example where morality isn't determined by society it wrecks the whole edifice. Are you in favour of killing the man in this thought experiment?

Still haven't demonstrated that animals don't have free will.

Again, could be wrong. If I'm wrong about this I'm wrong about everything, and animals should be treated like members of society. Certainly if they have free will they can be held responsible for their actions - so next time a lion kills a gazelle it ought to be arrested. But this isn't the case - it's assumed (by society at large) that animals don't have free will. It's implicit in our treatment of them.

Oops. Apparently I missed the post where someone else brought up the same point. But this underscores my desire to never let you around me or my family, lest one of us falls asleep.

Already answered this.

You have some strange thoughts about what makes sex okay. Your position amounts to this: it's okay to have sex with something that can't say no. Since an anteater, or a person in a coma, or a dead body can't protest, then it's okay to have the sex.

The person in a coma is still a person. My position doesn't amount to this. My position is that if it has free will, it needs to consent. Anteaters and dead bodies are not people. This has been my position all along. Examples of other things that are not people: blow-up sex dolls, condoms, toasters. Feel free to have sex with any of them.

Let me suggest a wiser, probably less painful, and definitely more legal test: You should only have sex with someone who can give consent.

Definitely more legal, yes. Maybe less painful (although still - is it hurting the anteater? Nobody's shown why). Wiser? I don't see why. If you want to have sex with another person, that's up to them: ask them first. If you want to have sex with someone's property, that's up to them, ask them first. Everything else is really up to you (or at least it ought to be).

 

[Tricky]

What about apple pie?

Mom's apple pie?
NSFW - Infamous Album

http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/pie.jpg

 

[Drudgewire]

Just to clarify, nobody is arguing against my right to bang a grilled cheese sandwich right?

 

[I Ratant]

Just to clarify, nobody is arguing against my right to bang a grilled cheese sandwich right?

.
Just don't lie about it when offering it to your date.

 

[Philosaur]

I didn't call RobRoy out for saying morality was subjective - I called him out for saying moral issues are not resolved by argument .

And I'm not calling you out for saying anything about subjectivity either. I'm calling you out for dismissing the difficulty with free will, and treating it as if it's settled.

Sure, you're allowed to begin with the axiom that humans have free will and animals don't. But you have not (and demonstrably cannot) prove that this is the case.

My demonstration that free will is more than just a useful fiction: there's a genuine difference between those beings that subject their own choices to inspection and deliberately choose between them, and those things that are blindly following the laws of nature.

You're just restating the premise. You've demonstrated nothing.

It may be that animals have free will, yes, but if I'm wrong about that I'm wrong about everything. If animals have free will, not only is it wrong to have sex with them (without their consent), it's wrong to kill and eat them.

The point is you can't know whether an animal (or a person) has free will or not, so it's irresponsible at best and immoral at worst to rest your moral judgments on this condition.

And the second part of this statement only holds if morality is absolute and based on whether or not an entity has free will.

It's in principle as measurable as any other faculty of the mind. The brain is hugely complicated, but one thing we know is that if it's making choices there must be some structure in it that's able to make choices.

Yeah, the structure inside the brain that's making choices...is that the "free will" structure? How does *it* make choices? Does it contain another smaller "meta-free will" module inside of it? You've got a regress problem.

This could be identified.

Really? Can you explain how--in principle--we could identify it? How would we rule out the possibility that something else wasn't influencing it to make the choices it makes? How could we rule out that it wasn't just a fancy random number generator?

On a less rigorous level, there are various outward signs that suggest the capacity exists: the ability to compose original sentences, for example.

Sorry, but a computer can compose original sentences. And the whole point of my argument is that ANY outward sign can be generated by some process that doesn't involve free will.

Screw off.

Very eloquent.

From your earlier post:

it's not immoral to treat something as if it doesn't [have free will] if you honestly believe it doesn't

I don't see how you can seriously defend this idea. But I *can* see how you'd ignore my criticism of it and address something totally unrelated.

No, I wouldn't torture a puppy for money. I just think other people get to make that choice for themselves.

So people have a *right* to torture animals, since to do so is merely a personal choice (and part of their free agency)? Would it be wrong then for me to physically restrain someone I saw torturing a puppy?

It's a relevant example. If there's one example where morality isn't determined by society it wrecks the whole edifice.

Wrong. Saying morality isn't determined by society doesn't mean that there are moral absolutes, either. At best it merely points to difficulties with a particular formulation of morality.

Are you in favour of killing the man in this thought experiment?

Your powers of deduction are truly astounding.

Again, could be wrong. If I'm wrong about this I'm wrong about everything, and animals should be treated like members of society. Certainly if they have free will they can be held responsible for their actions - so next time a lion kills a gazelle it ought to be arrested.

See above.

But this isn't the case - it's assumed (by society at large) that animals don't have free will. It's implicit in our treatment of them.

Would you kindly refrain from including me with you in reference to how animals are treated? We obviously do not treat animals the same. Also, I don't give a flying flock what society assumes.

The person in a coma is still a person. My position doesn't amount to this. My position is that if it has free will, it needs to consent.

Demonstrate that a person in a coma has free will. He can't very well exercise control over his environment, now can he?

 

[Philosaur]

Just to clarify, nobody is arguing against my right to bang a grilled cheese sandwich right?

The tricky part is hitting that temperature sweet spot where it's warm enough to feel good, but cool enough that it doesn't remove skin.

 

[Drudgewire]

The tricky part is hitting that temperature sweet spot where it's warm enough to feel good, but cool enough that it doesn't remove skin.

That's what being a smooth operator is all about.

 

[This One Guy]

And I'm not calling you out for saying anything about subjectivity either. I'm calling you out for dismissing the difficulty with free will, and treating it as if it's settled.

I haven't treated it as if it's settled. If I had done, I wouldn't have bothered defending my belief that we do have free will. I have done. My defence is that we can examine our possible actions and choose between them. We do so. I'm doing it now as I type this. Yes, I believe that free will depends on deterministic systems of the brain. Yes, some philosophers disagree. I think that being able to examine our possible choices and choose our actions constitutes free will. If you don't, we're working from two different definitions.

Sure, you're allowed to begin with the axiom that humans have free will and animals don't. But you have not (and demonstrably cannot) prove that this is the case.

I haven't begun with an axiom. And I haven't claimed that I can prove it's the case. As I keep saying, if I'm wrong about this, I'm wrong about everything in this thread. What I do think is that there are compelling reasons to believe animals do not subject their actions to inspection before they perform them: that everything is they do is instinct of one kind or another.

You're just restating the premise. You've demonstrated nothing.

See above.

The point is you can't know whether an animal (or a person) has free will or not, so it's irresponsible at best and immoral at worst to rest your moral judgments on this condition.

This doesn't go anywhere. If I'm right and moral rights only belong to those things with free will, we have no choice but to act in good faith. If we are indeed obligated to respect the choices of beings with free will, it's no argument to say 'but that's too hard to do'. It cannot be irresponsible or immoral to try to fulfil your moral obligations as best you can.

And the second part of this statement only holds if morality is absolute and based on whether or not an entity has free will.

Yes, but all judgements about right and wrong depend on morality being absolute. If it's not absolute, there's no reason for it to be binding - and I'm not the only person in this thread who's claimed that something is right or wrong.

Yeah, the structure inside the brain that's making choices...is that the "free will" structure? How does *it* make choices? Does it contain another smaller "meta-free will" module inside of it? You've got a regress problem.

I think this demonstrates that we're working from two different definitions of free will. I would expect out choices to be influenced by something outside, since we make choices based on reasons and not based on nothing at all (the second of these would not constitute free will, since such actions would be completely arbitrary: the next step up from random). There is no regress problem, any more than there's a regress problem for consciousness. The brain does the job. It has to. We are conscious - that's self-evident. We do examine our choices before acting - also self-evident.

Really? Can you explain how--in principle--we could identify it? How would we rule out the possibility that something else wasn't influencing it to make the choices it makes? How could we rule out that it wasn't just a fancy random number generator?

See above.

Sorry, but a computer can compose original sentences. And the whole point of my argument is that ANY outward sign can be generated by some process that doesn't involve free will.

I didn't claim there was an infallible way to identify free will. Of course any outward sign could be generated by some process that doesn't involve free will. The point is there are outward signs that suggest free will. If our judgement is wrong, yeah, that sucks, but it can't be helped. In the case of the computer, we have an alternative explanation for why it's creating original sentences: it was programmed that way. If we didn't have this explanation, it would be wise to assume that it had free will (even though we accept the possibility that we might be wrong).

Very eloquent.

You presumed to edit my post. I knew what I meant to say when I said it. It was rude. I stand by it: screw off.

I don't see how you can seriously defend this idea. But I *can* see how you'd ignore my criticism of it and address something totally unrelated.

I didn't address something totally unrelated. When I said that if you honestly believe something doesn't have free will it's not immoral to hurt it, I was working by my definition of free will. What I mean is that if you honestly think a being isn't subjecting its choices to inspection before it acts (which isn't to say that all of its actions have to be chosen, of course - only some of them need be) it's not immoral to hurt it. If you're wrong, it's a tragedy - but not a moral problem.

So people have a *right* to torture animals, since to do so is merely a personal choice (and part of their free agency)? Would it be wrong then for me to physically restrain someone I saw torturing a puppy?

People don't have a right to torture animals - they have a right not to be stopped from torturing animals (unless, of course, said animals belong to someone else). Yes, it would be wrong of you to do that.

Wrong. Saying morality isn't determined by society doesn't mean that there are moral absolutes, either. At best it merely points to difficulties with a particular formulation of morality.

I didn't say it did. I was debating with Schrodinger's Cat, who claimed that morality was determined by society. I offered the example of a man who's going to be burned alive because everyone else in the world wanted him to be. I made it clear that I thought it was morally wrong to do so. You replied, 'Bravo! Do you want an award?' and then I explained why the example was relevant. It was a counter-example to Schrodinger's Cat's view that morality is determined by society. It wasn't meant to be anything more than that. If it's not a counter-example to your worldview, that's fine, but then it was never intended to be. You're the one who challenged it with your sarcastic 'Bravo!'. If it's not relevant any more, that's fine, but it was relevant to the argument I was having at the time.

Your powers of deduction are truly astounding.

Actually, I still don't know where you stand on this. I don't want to assume you're in favour of burning an innocent man alive just because the proposition is wildly popular - but please do say if you are. Then it will be my turn to be outraged. Don't want you round my friends and family, yaddayaddayadda.

Would you kindly refrain from including me with you in reference to how animals are treated? We obviously do not treat animals the same. Also, I don't give a flying flock what society assumes.

Fine. This doesn't answer my point, though. If animals had free will they would have to take responsibility for their actions. That the notion seems stupid is support for my argument that they don't. If you think it's okay to hold animals accountable for their actions, please say so.

Demonstrate that a person in a coma has free will. He can't very well exercise control over his environment, now can he?

No. I've given you my position. I don't think that you can rape a person while they sleep. I don't think it's okay to hack my head off in the moments I happen not to be making any decisions. The same applies to the guy in the coma. The test isn't whether the entity is exercising free will of the moment: it's whether they've done so in the past or are likely to do so in the future. And yes, you do just have to use your judgement to decide whether they're likely to do so in the future. It is such a drag, isn't it?

 

[Philosaur]

I haven't treated it as if it's settled. If I had done, I wouldn't have bothered defending my belief that we do have free will. I have done. My defence is that we can examine our possible actions and choose between them. We do so. I'm doing it now as I type this. Yes, I believe that free will depends on deterministic systems of the brain. Yes, some philosophers disagree.I think that being able to examine our possible choices and choose our actions constitutes free will. If you don't, we're working from two different definitions.

Your defense of free will is to say that we can choose between possible actions? This is not a defense, it's a restatement of your conclusion. This is no different than any other "defense" you've put forward.

We *are* working from the same definition of free will. I'm just saying you've not provided an argument for it yet.

Please, give us one of the compelling reasons why you believe animals do not have free will. Here are some tips to keep us from going around in circles:

Saying that an animal acts on instinct is simply restating that it doesn't have free will.

Saying that an animal doesn't subject their actions to inspection is a bare assertion of which you can have no possible knowledge.

This doesn't go anywhere. If I'm right and moral rights only belong to those things with free will, we have no choice but to act in good faith. If we are indeed obligated to respect the choices of beings with free will, it's no argument to say 'but that's too hard to do'. It cannot be irresponsible or immoral to try to fulfil your moral obligations as best you can.

I never said it was too hard. I said it's in principle impossible to know whether an entity has free will, and so it's a bankrupt morality that's based on this condition.

By your moral reasoning, if someone *in good faith* believes that Jews are subhuman and therefore have no free will, then it's okay for that person to burn them, right?

I didn't claim there was an infallible way to identify free will. Of course any outward sign could be generated by some process that doesn't involve free will. The point is there are outward signs that suggest free will. If our judgement is wrong, yeah, that sucks, but it can't be helped.

Yeah, I guess it just sucked to be a Jew during WWII, what with the wrong judgments of the Nazis and all... Oh well, better luck next time, right?

You presumed to edit my post. I knew what I meant to say when I said it. It was rude. I stand by it: screw off.

Get over yourself. My edit didn't destroy what you originally wrote, and only a complete moron would be unable to see exactly what I changed and how.

In any case, it's laughable to me that someone who thinks it's not immoral to torture puppies would presume to give me lessons in manners.

People don't have a right to torture animals - they have a right not to be stopped from torturing animals (unless, of course, said animals belong to someone else). Yes, it would be wrong of you to do that.

I think your morality may be taking you places you really don't want to go, but you're just too proud to admit that you might be mistaken. At least, I really hope that's the case.

Fine. This doesn't answer my point, though. If animals had free will they would have to take responsibility for their actions. That the notion seems stupid is support for my argument that they don't. If you think it's okay to hold animals accountable for their actions, please say so.

This all assumes an absolutist morality, where what's wrong for humans is wrong for animals, and for the same reasons. It also assumes that agency is an all-or-nothing proposition. Lots of legal systems recognize that there are degrees of agency, such as children not being tried as adults.

In any event, my view is that an animal's right to not be tortured has nothing to do with free will. So you don't advance your position at all by pursuing this point.