Should we allow the eating of dog and cat meat?

[Last of the Fraggles]

It should become obvious if you think about it a little more.

There are books you could read on the topic, but frankly even the wikipedia articles cover this.



My 'argument' is that words have certain meanings. You reject that concept. Stop using words, then.



This? This is dishonest. In the very least, you're being intellectually dishonest here- probably more so. I have explained this to you multiple times.

There are TWO, count them: TWO components here.

1. The concept.

2. The usage of certain words to name that concept.


Try again- read all my posts from start to finish. I'm getting tired of repeating myself because you choose not to understand the distinction.

Woo peddlers are fond of calling any science a religion. Seems you enjoy good company there.

This is another topic entirely.

Why should a society choose to base its rules on morality rather than bananality?

So you aren't going to actually answer my questions then? Just re-assert your statement and then go off on a rant about people who disagree with you being a woo peddler?

You have defined morality as altruism and then use altruism (measured in some unknown way, within certain arbitrary boundaries that suit your needs) to mean objective morality. You haven't convinced me yet.

Now why would a society choose to base its rules on altruism rather than bananality? That would be a political decision and nothing to do with whether its objectively right or wrong to do so.

By your argument though, basing decisions on maximising the number of bananas is an objective system of morality, if we assume that more bananas is more moral then less bananas.

If you don't like the bananas then substitute religion. Morality is doing what God wants, therefore religion is an objective system of morality.

By the way, if you want to discuss this with me don't refer me to other people's opinions or texts on philosophy - I'm only interested in your argument and what you think.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Look up "the golden rule".

The golden rule is far from what you have been proposing here, it's also the ultimate in 'subjective' morality - it relies absolutely on the judgement of the person making the decision.

 

[GlennB]

Objective is easy. Many systems have done this; ....

That's irrelevant; what is relevant is whether it means that here and now.

Ummm. you just defined objective and subjective as being synonymous.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Ummm. you just defined objective and subjective as being synonymous.

In the first part I was talking about the relevant concept of "objective" rather than the word itself (for which meaning may vary).

In the second part, I was talking about the semantics.



Is the meaning of "objective" objective? We could get into some strange, strange word play.

 

[GlennB]

Is the meaning of "objective" objective? We could get into some strange, strange word play.

Then you shouldn't say "Objective is easy. Many systems have done this; ...." quite so glibly. Because "objective" is a subject best left to maths and science, not philosophy.

 

[RelativeSpace]

The golden rule is far from what you have been proposing here, it's also the ultimate in 'subjective' morality - it relies absolutely on the judgement of the person making the decision.

False. Judgement is not the ultimate in subjectivity; we have methodologies, as in science, to help us determine reality independently of our biases.

Some people do make judgements with a high degree of subjectivity- but those violate the golden rule.

If somebody were doing unto you, would you rather him or her be as objective as possible (considering all relevant aspects of your preferences, etc.) without the influence of his or her assumptions, or just take a wild guess at what you want?


An objective process of gathering information having some degree of error does not make it subjective- the information is still real and objective (just with some degree of known imprecision and inaccuracy).


This all comes down to scientific methodology.

So you aren't going to actually answer my questions then?

"Equally it seems in your morality gang rape is OK provided the rapists enjoy more than the victim hates it?"

The victim of the rape would not have that done unto her.

In the case of each rape, the rapist is doing wrong. If she doesn't mind so much, it's a small wrong. If she really hates it, it's a larger wrong.

In any case, killing somebody is wrong no matter how much you enjoy it.

It would only begin to be morally acceptable if you killed one to help many, many others.

E.g. kill a rich man to take his money and distribute it to many sick or starving people.

However, this situation still violates social contract in an extreme way- the consequences of that behavior being generalized show us that it is not moral (causes the breakdown of society).

Social contract is also a problem in the gang-rape situation, but it is immoral for other reasons.

There is one other very major factor involved, but it woul take too long to explain and I have to log off shortly.

You have defined morality as altruism and then use altruism (measured in some unknown way,

'unknown' is not quite correct, but it's close. What I'm saying is the subject needs more research and understanding of neuroscience. This is a matter for scientists to best figure out; not laymen to guess at.

When we guess at it, we have to use enormous error bars in our analyses.

within certain arbitrary boundaries that suit your needs) to mean objective morality.

Absolutely not. If it was arbitrary, it would not be objective.

By your argument though, basing decisions on maximising the number of bananas is an objective system of morality, if we assume that more bananas is more moral then less bananas.

That's like saying "if we assume squares and circles are the same, geometry is as follows:"

That's just not what morality means.

It IS an objective system. Maximizing bananas can be approached scientifically and without needing to rely on opinion. But it's not of system of morality. It's a system of objective bananality.

If you don't like the bananas then substitute religion. Morality is doing what God wants, therefore religion is an objective system of morality.

That, unlike bananas, fits in with some standard definitions of morality.

However, unlike maximizing bananas, the theistic aspect introduces some logical problems that make it impossible to approach objectively.



One suffers from not fitting the definition of morality, the other from being incapable of being objective.


The number of concepts that fit into the definition of "morality" are large, but finite.
Eliminating those that have logical issues, we end up with a very small viable range.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Then you shouldn't say "Objective is easy. Many systems have done this; ...." quite so glibly. Because "objective" is a subject best left to maths and science, not philosophy.

That's just it, though; where it defines an axiom that can be analyzed and interpreted by scientific methodology to yield conclusions, it is objective.

This applies to all naturalistic consequentialist systems I know of (and probably all that there are).


Crafting an Axiom that is logically consistent and from which conclusions can be evaluated scientifically given a circumstance is trivial- and that's what it takes to be objective.

The second term (e.g. morality, or bananality) names the axiom.

 

[tcseacliff]

This is an interesting side-track but pretty much off topic of the thread. In a nutshell I would address your final point by saying that at the point we embrace the imposition of moral restrictions because it is convenient or expedient for society I believe we lose the ability say we do so for moral reasons.

Or in other words, we might have rules that work but not necessarily rules that are right.

Back to the delicious mutts and moggies now...

kinda funny, the animals don't use forums when they eat us! no moral issues for them! we could learn from them! and re: supply and demand and stuff, if dog and cat tasted as good as bacon, would be a game changer.

 

[tcseacliff]

kinda funny, the animals don't use forums when they eat us! no moral issues for them! we could learn from them! and re: supply and demand and stuff, if dog and cat tasted as good as bacon, would be a game changer.

and, if baby seals looked like bats, they would still be fair game also! heard them say carrots scream when they are ripped out of the ground! we just can't hear it!

 

[tcseacliff]

Don't people already eat dogs at least. If not, why else are there so many puppy farms?

corn and soy are more profitable for farming than puppies! (they are too cute!)

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

False. Judgement is not the ultimate in subjectivity; we have methodologies, as in science, to help us determine reality independently of our biases.

Some people do make judgements with a high degree of subjectivity- but those violate the golden rule.

If somebody were doing unto you, would you rather him or her be as objective as possible (considering all relevant aspects of your preferences, etc.) without the influence of his or her assumptions, or just take a wild guess at what you want?


An objective process of gathering information having some degree of error does not make it subjective- the information is still real and objective (just with some degree of known imprecision and inaccuracy).


This all comes down to scientific methodology.





"Equally it seems in your morality gang rape is OK provided the rapists enjoy more than the victim hates it?"

The victim of the rape would not have that done unto her.

In the case of each rape, the rapist is doing wrong. If she doesn't mind so much, it's a small wrong. If she really hates it, it's a larger wrong.

In any case, killing somebody is wrong no matter how much you enjoy it.

It would only begin to be morally acceptable if you killed one to help many, many others.

E.g. kill a rich man to take his money and distribute it to many sick or starving people.

However, this situation still violates social contract in an extreme way- the consequences of that behavior being generalized show us that it is not moral (causes the breakdown of society).

Social contract is also a problem in the gang-rape situation, but it is immoral for other reasons.

There is one other very major factor involved, but it woul take too long to explain and I have to log off shortly.




'unknown' is not quite correct, but it's close. What I'm saying is the subject needs more research and understanding of neuroscience. This is a matter for scientists to best figure out; not laymen to guess at.

When we guess at it, we have to use enormous error bars in our analyses.




Absolutely not. If it was arbitrary, it would not be objective.




That's like saying "if we assume squares and circles are the same, geometry is as follows:"

That's just not what morality means.

It IS an objective system. Maximizing bananas can be approached scientifically and without needing to rely on opinion. But it's not of system of morality. It's a system of objective bananality.




That, unlike bananas, fits in with some standard definitions of morality.

However, unlike maximizing bananas, the theistic aspect introduces some logical problems that make it impossible to approach objectively.



One suffers from not fitting the definition of morality, the other from being incapable of being objective.


The number of concepts that fit into the definition of "morality" are large, but finite.
Eliminating those that have logical issues, we end up with a very small viable range.

Sorry, your objective system seems an awful lot like you are making it up as you go along. You've now introduced the golden rule - a subjective approach - and claim it is objective because you can use objective methods to determine the outcome?

The golden rule is useful but limited. Nor does it say 'do what other people want' which is what you later seem to claim it does. So we've now got 3 different approaches - altruism (do what is best for others) v golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated) v 'do what others want' - which one is it that is your objective system?

Not that it really matters as apparently I'm going to have to do a neuroscience study on everyone affected by my decisions in order to ascertain what's the best one.

But then you just wade in and tell me certain things are just 'wrong' no matter what. System has kinda gone out the window at this point, I think.

And as for bananity - yes that's not what people generally mean by morality. But then neither is altruism. They are just close enough to make the leap less obvious.

Oh and religion is just as much objective as your altruism system is. My priest tells me what is right and that is right. If he agrees its objectively right and if he disagrees its objectively wrong. It doesn't even need neuroscience or studies of everyone impacted by the decision to weigh up harm - it just works.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I believe that each person has the right to arbitrarily draw their own line as to what animals ( if any) they wish to eat. Personally, my arbitrary line is "I wouldn't eat any animal i would own as a pet.". And i hold to this, so much so that i stopped watching Man Versus Wild , due to the host needlessly killing and eating a skunk.

Except rabbits.

They are weird mix of cute, yet killable.

 

[GlennB]

Except rabbits.

They are weird mix of cute, yet killable.

Yeah, they have that irritatingly aloof attitude. And taste good slow-cooked with tomatoes, garlic and shallots (add some cloves if that's to your taste).

 

[RelativeSpace]

You've now introduced the golden rule - a subjective approach - and claim it is objective because you can use objective methods to determine the outcome?

There's nothing subjective about it; it is merely relative to the situation.

Nor does it say 'do what other people want' which is what you later seem to claim it does.

Yes, it does. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You would have them do unto you what you prefer to have done unto you.
It's not rocket science. Children understand this concept.

So we've now got 3 different approaches - altruism (do what is best for others) v golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated) v 'do what others want' - which one is it that is your objective system?

They're all equivalent. This is not a difficult concept.

Not that it really matters as apparently I'm going to have to do a neuroscience study on everyone affected by my decisions in order to ascertain what's the best one.

In order to know for sure, yes, but it's also fair enough, as in other science, to make inductive approximations as objectively as you are able until you're able to acquire more information. It's not certain, but it's very close.

But then you just wade in and tell me certain things are just 'wrong' no matter what. System has kinda gone out the window at this point, I think.

I did not say no matter what, I said regardless of the details of the system itself and reasonable unknowns (with consideration of the grey area).

And as for bananity - yes that's not what people generally mean by morality. But then neither is altruism. They are just close enough to make the leap less obvious.

Nothing is what people always mean by morality, because people use the word inconsistently. "Close enough" is how semantics works. Particularly, in application the logical and applicable definition has to be preferred.

Oh and religion is just as much objective as your altruism system is. My priest tells me what is right and that is right. If he agrees its objectively right and if he disagrees its objectively wrong. It doesn't even need neuroscience or studies of everyone impacted by the decision to weigh up harm - it just works.

I didn't know you were so religious; I'm sure that's great for you.

But that's not objective in a secular society. People do not agree on the objectivity of religion; they can agree on morality. Logic itself demonstrates that objective morality is prime (before any assumptions of deities, no matter how benevolent their qualities).

Next time you talk to him, ask him about the golden rule, and if he considers it an important basis for morality. Also ask him about what the golden rule means, and what altruism is.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

There's nothing subjective about it; it is merely relative to the situation.

No, it's relative to the person. Treat other people the way YOU would want to be treated. Which leaves it pretty much up to how you want to frame the situation and rationalise your decision.

If I'm driving home drunk I would want the police not to stop me and throw me in jail - is it immoral for them to stop me and throw me in jail?

Or if I decide that 'hey, if she dresses like that she must want me to grab her butt.'

Or if I happen to be a masochist who enjoys pain then it's OK to inflict it on other people?

Sorry no. It's a useful rule of thumb, its not an objective system of morality.

Yes, it does. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You would have them do unto you what you prefer to have done unto you.
It's not rocket science. Children understand this concept.

They're all equivalent. This is not a difficult concept.

No, it's not rocket science which is why I am surprised you got it so wrong.

Not everyone wants to be treated the same way. We can't even work out what's right for ourselves most of the time and there is definitely a distinction between 'what I want' and 'what is good for me' and I am pretty sure that doesn't always overlap with 'how I would want other people to treat me'.

Pretty much all of these inconsistencies can be resolved by re-framing the problem in a way that makes it seem like the have been addressed but then all you have done is subjectively reframe the problem to fit with your own feeling on the matter.

. People do not agree on the objectivity of religion; they can agree on morality. .

Do they? Where and when?

I'm pretty sure if we took a vote more people would agree that 'God is the source of morality and tells me what is right and wrong' than 'Relative Space has cracked it and has invented a system of objective morality that I can buy into'

People don't agree on morality. Nor would I expect them to. No more than I would expect them to agree on 'pretty' 'rewarding' or 'delicious'

 

[RelativeSpace]

No, it's relative to the person. Treat other people the way YOU would want to be treated.

How you would want to be treated if you were them.

Maybe you like being tied up and beaten. But the other person does not.

If you were him or her, and didn't like that, how would you want to be treated? By being tied up and beaten, or by not being tied up and beaten?

These are very, very basic questions. Even just skimming the wikipedia article on the topic would answer all of them for you.

I understand that you want to hear it from me, but this is getting absurd. There is some very basic homework you could do to make this much easier.

Right now, you're wasting both of our time by asking questions that you should already know the answer to if you had the most general knowledge of the subject.

Your comments are the equivalent of the IDer's "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!"

Which leaves it pretty much up to how you want to frame the situation and rationalise your decision.

Not even a little bit.

If I'm driving home drunk I would want the police not to stop me and throw me in jail - is it immoral for them to stop me and throw me in jail?

This is what's called a moral dilemma. You're violating one person's will- who wants to be selfish and harm others- in order to defend the will of those others.

It's the same case upon coming upon a murderer and his victim struggling.

Who do you help?

The murderer would like you to help tie up his victim.
The victim would like you to help her get free.

In either case, somebody's going to be put out.

I've already gone over this.

Or if I decide that 'hey, if she dresses like that she must want me to grab her butt.'

Would you want somebody making bad rationalizations and treating you however he wants you to want to be treated, or treat you how you actually want to be treated by using more objective methodology to determine it?

If you can answer that honestly, then you know the solution to your question.

Or if I happen to be a masochist who enjoys pain then it's OK to inflict it on other people?

Again, very basic reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Wikipedia article is short, and gives a good overview.

If there's something you still don't understand after reading it, I'm glad to answer it.

An important highlight from the end of the article:

Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937), wrote:
Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.[79]
Marcus George Singer observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule: as requiring (1) that you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the same general ways that you want others to.[80] Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.
In his book on the golden rule, Jeffrey Wattles makes the similar observation that such objections typically arise while applying the golden rule in certain general ways (namely, ignoring differences in taste, in situation, and so forth). But if we apply the golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in effect if we would want other people to apply the golden rule in such ways, the answer would typically be no, since it is quite predictable that others' ignoring of such factors will lead to behavior which we object to. It follows that we should not do so ourselves—according to the golden rule. In this way, the golden rule may be self-correcting.[81]

This is just a different way of saying what I have already said.

You would want people to take into account your situation and preferences, down to every last detail. That is, you would want them to do unto you as you would actually want them to do unto you, and nothing short of that.

We can't even work out what's right for ourselves most of the time and there is definitely a distinction between 'what I want' and 'what is good for me' and I am pretty sure that doesn't always overlap with 'how I would want other people to treat me'.

I did not say it is easy to figure out what people want, but the principle is extremely simple.

If you wanted to eat some candy, but did not know the candy was poisoned, would you want somebody to stop you from eating it so you wouldn't die?

Probably. And the golden rule covers that. That's why it's the golden rule- it always works. It's essentially a rephrased tautology.

The beauty of it is that even a very simplistic mind should be able to grasp it. It seems that doesn't always happen in practice- but notwithstanding some people's inability to comprehend its meaning, the principle is still completely sound.

Do they? Where and when?

Yes. All over the world, since the beginning of recorded human philosophy, including every major theistic religion and atheistic belief system.

There have always been selfish humbugs, too, who have no need for morality. That's your legal right if you like that kind of thing. Nobody is forcing you to be a good person.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

How you would want to be treated if you were them.

Maybe you like being tied up and beaten. But the other person does not.

If you were him or her, and didn't like that, how would you want to be treated? By being tied up and beaten, or by not being tied up and beaten?

These are very, very basic questions. Even just skimming the wikipedia article on the topic would answer all of them for you.

I understand that you want to hear it from me, but this is getting absurd. There is some very basic homework you could do to make this much easier.

Right now, you're wasting both of our time by asking questions that you should already know the answer to if you had the most general knowledge of the subject.

Your comments are the equivalent of the IDer's "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!"



Not even a little bit.




This is what's called a moral dilemma. You're violating one person's will- who wants to be selfish and harm others- in order to defend the will of those others.

It's the same case upon coming upon a murderer and his victim struggling.

Who do you help?

The murderer would like you to help tie up his victim.
The victim would like you to help her get free.

In either case, somebody's going to be put out.

I've already gone over this.





Would you want somebody making bad rationalizations and treating you however he wants you to want to be treated, or treat you how you actually want to be treated by using more objective methodology to determine it?

If you can answer that honestly, then you know the solution to your question.




Again, very basic reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Wikipedia article is short, and gives a good overview.

If there's something you still don't understand after reading it, I'm glad to answer it.

An important highlight from the end of the article:



This is just a different way of saying what I have already said.

You would want people to take into account your situation and preferences, down to every last detail. That is, you would want them to do unto you as you would actually want them to do unto you, and nothing short of that.




I did not say it is easy to figure out what people want, but the principle is extremely simple.

If you wanted to eat some candy, but did not know the candy was poisoned, would you want somebody to stop you from eating it so you wouldn't die?

Probably. And the golden rule covers that. That's why it's the golden rule- it always works. It's essentially a rephrased tautology.

The beauty of it is that even a very simplistic mind should be able to grasp it. It seems that doesn't always happen in practice- but notwithstanding some people's inability to comprehend its meaning, the principle is still completely sound.




Yes. All over the world, since the beginning of recorded human philosophy, including every major theistic religion and atheistic belief system.

There have always been selfish humbugs, too, who have no need for morality. That's your legal right if you like that kind of thing. Nobody is forcing you to be a good person.

So when you drill down to it, your 'objective system of morality' comes down precisely to 'do what you think is the right thing to do in the situation given what you know about yourself and other people'.

Write that up over 1000 pages and you are a philosopher!

 

[RelativeSpace]

So when you drill down to it, your 'objective system of morality' comes down precisely to 'do what you think is the right thing to do in the situation given what you know about yourself and other people'.

No, that would be very imprecise.

This would be more precise:

"Do what you think¹ is the right² thing to do in the situation given what you reasonably can³ know⁴ about the world around you⁵."

1. Think must be understood to be critical thought, not magical thinking, or practices of un-thinking such as dogma or rationalization of preconceptions or biases.

2. Right must be understood in the context of the golden rule- acting in such a way as to provide a net help more than a hindrance or imposition to wills of others who have wills.

3. Reasonably Can is crucial, and represents our responsibilities to understand before we act. Negligence and an irresponsible degree of ignorance (particularly willful ignorance) is not moral. Reasonable must refer to the effort required to know, compared to the effort required to act, with respect to diminishing returns on precise knowledge vs. acting imprecisely.

4. Know must be understood to refer to actual knowledge, as Think refers to actual thinking- know does not refer to assumptions, dogma, or what we merely like to believe, but rather, as far as they are available to us within reason, objective knowledge that controls for biases and preconceptions.

5. The World Around You must be understood to refer to all relevant factors that you reasonably can know about that would affect the statistically probable moral outcome of your actions. This includes relevant agents who have wills of their own, and an understanding of the nature of provisional empirical knowledge and probability.



None of this is difficult, and it all follows from the premise and logical deduction.