Sorry. That wasn't a flame or directed at you. I was speaking in general. I meant you in the same way one would say "one". One would sound foolish calling insects evil. Sorry again.
Printable View
Sorry. That wasn't a flame or directed at you. I was speaking in general. I meant you in the same way one would say "one". One would sound foolish calling insects evil. Sorry again.
Garland, I was starting to be convinced when suddenly it dawned on me: every example you gave me did not include a species or life form capable of the value judgement that the action is wrong -- ants are obviously not thinking things, as their actions are determined by some sort of genetic programming. Beavers have no idea that deforestation is bad -- they are just trying to live, and besides according to the overpopulation principle I just fictionalised (the name not the concept), when beavers destroy enough trees they will die, and the trees will grow, and the beavers will constantly live at maximum capacity relative to the surroundings. I'm not even going to go into the virii/bacteria example.
Big D: that's a pretty good argument but it implies that the environment should be preserved for human consumption and usage. There's no justification to view and treat other non-human living things as tools and other artifacts for our own gain, so that argument fails on that account. The argument I gave is good enough -- we treat each other well because we want to treat ourselves well. Since there is no intrinsic difference between living things, all living things deserve to be treated with the same 'good' that we want for ourselves. That's what I meant by avoiding hypocrisy. The only pitfall is that I haven't proven ontologically that we deserve to be treated well, and I assure you if there's an argument for that, I haven't heard it.
I can't help noticing that when compared to animals, people tend to rate favorably, and I don't think this is necessarily true. Animals in communities (which would technically be our classification) are much more efficient and fair in their organization than we are. There are no homeless ants. There are no wolves that go nuts and go around raping cubs. Beavers don't deforest more than they need to.
Humans not only create unjust positions in their societies, but they come to accept them as normal. I've never ever seen a news report on all of the homeless people that died overnight, no matter how low the temperatures go. Japanese society even has a motto that goes, "If you don't work, you don't deserve to live". People everywhere refer to beggars as “those annoying people outside of Starbucks”. And high school in the US is a 4 year long experiment on exactly how cruel children can be to one another before their victim has a mental breakdown of one form or another.
In the south of Chile there is a poisonous spider that can cause a slow, painful death. People generally catch it alive and take it to the local hospital to make sure it is what they think it is, and then the hospital just dumps the living spiders in a glass box for entertainment (hey, beats what I've seen in hospital waiting rooms elsewhere). The spiders run around randomly, until suddenly they realize something: almost all of them have, for some reason, converged on the right side of the cage, and there's only one spider on the left side! The spiders swoop down, in a wave, upon the unlucky spider and kill him. Then they go back to running around randomly until they realize that yet another spider has found himself alone in the corner, and they swoop again.
In an English class once, the teacher asked us to name an example of animal behavior that most resembled human behavior that we had seen. All I could think about was those spiders. Ok, I was 16 years old at the time, but adulthood hasn't shown me a much different side of human nature, just a more discreetly cruel one.
I suppose one of the serious problems on the planet is the sheer number of humans... most species in fact all species have other predators that they cannot defeat which balances there are never too many of a species on the planet because they keep each other in tow for example - A dramatic increase in the number of bunny rabbits would throw the ecosystem out of sync but to compensate the number of rabbit predators - foxes and wolves would increase to compensate for this feeding of the surplus bunnies untill there is no surplus then the surplus predators starve to death and die lowering the number of predators to "normal" levels. however human beings are the top predator of the planet therefore have no natural predators left to lower the number down. In history humans have served as their own greatest preadatorusing wars to kill the number of humans in an area where there are too many of us to be supported. E.G. WW1 was not about power it was about the resources available if the countries involved could take the resources of another country they could support their population better so countries in dire need of this e.g. Germany and Austria used force to try and take what would never freely be given by their neighbouring lands. the ensuring war was responsible for millions of human deaths and afterwards there was enough resources for a few more years then other countries recieved problems and the now even smaller Germany was one therefore to regain their pride and former status and the resources such as arable land they had lost they voted Aldof Hitler to power resulting in WW2 and another couple of million deaths world wide.
This action lowered the stress on the ecosystem to support humans and we flourished for 50 years or so to present day where once again countries are feeling the strain to support their people however the Taboo of another WW is enough to stop what we refer to as Sophisticated people like Blair and Bush and other world leaders from taking risks and now we only fight against those who cant stand a chance I.E. Iraq 17 years of sanctions and they were meant to have nuclear weapons grade plutonium? utter crap if you ask me. therefore the number of people is not reduced and we feel the strain. the effects of this are the landmarks like the American dust bowl and the missing species that we eradicated.
Does a creature have to be aware of good and evil in order for an evil act it commits to be concidered evil? I would say no. To me good and evil is black and white. Murder is murder. Deforestation is deforestation. Not knowing the evil of one's ways doesn't negate their evilness. To put it purely in human terms, a poor logger working to feed his family is no less guilty of deforestation than a logger for a multinational corporation. The scale is different, and the circumstances are different, but in the end, trees were cut down to build homes. Granted a beaver has no thoughts of good and evil, of profits and deforestation, but regardless, if there were enough beavers (and there would be if beavers had their way), beavers would be a huge threat to the world's forests.
Yes, the main difference is that beavers do not hold a threat to the natural developing as they are alienated to the natural order of things, while humans, capable of using reason, can choose wether to act in an "evil" way or not. I still don't like the concepts of good and evil too much, but I guess I can hold to them to define what we are talking about without having to go into the whole genealogy of moral thing, since it would be completly off topic.Quote:
Originally posted by Garland
Does a creature have to be aware of good and evil in order for an evil act it commits to be concidered evil? I would say no. To me good and evil is black and white. Murder is murder. Deforestation is deforestation. Not knowing the evil of one's ways doesn't negate their evilness. To put it purely in human terms, a poor logger working to feed his family is no less guilty of deforestation than a logger for a multinational corporation. The scale is different, and the circumstances are different, but in the end, trees were cut down to build homes. Granted a beaver has no thoughts of good and evil, of profits and deforestation, but regardless, if there were enough beavers (and there would be if beavers had their way), beavers would be a huge threat to the world's forests.
Forward, you say?Quote:
These things are the ONLY things moving humanity forward.
We don't punish people or look at them as immoral if they are imbecilic, do we? If they are incapable of understanding morality they should not be held accountable to the rules.
Animals in communities (which would technically be our classification) are much more efficient and fair in their organization than we are. There are no homeless ants. There are no wolves that go nuts and go around raping cubs. Beavers don't deforest more than they need to. --Anaralia
Humans are more efficient, I would argue. There are no homeless ants because the weak ones die. Wolves don't rape each other, but mother wolves will attack their own cubs after a certain age, once the cub is ready to be on its own, from what I understand. Some spiders, on the other hand, kill their mate after mating. Nature is not fair, in the sense we understand it. Weak animals die. Strong animals survive by slaughtering weaker ones. Human beings make a huge, often selfless effort to preserve the life of every other human being that is born, to the point where any death anywhere is a tragedy.
I've never ever seen a news report on all of the homeless people that died overnight, no matter how low the temperatures go. Japanese society even has a motto that goes, "If you don't work, you don't deserve to live".
The alternative is, what? Should I be forced to support people who don't support themselves? That is slavery. So people who don't work are entitled to things they don't earn, and I am not entitled to things I DO earn; is that what you call fairness?
I suppose one of the serious problems on the planet is the sheer number of humans... --Fallen_angel_666
And yet, even though our population grows and grows, our quality of life gets better and better. I think we're doing OK for ourselves.
In history humans have served as their own greatest preadatorusing wars to kill the number of humans in an area where there are too many of us to be supported. E.G. WW1 was not about power it was about the resources available if the countries involved could take the resources of another country they could support their population better so countries in dire need of this e.g. Germany and Austria used force to try and take what would never freely be given by their neighbouring lands. the ensuring war was responsible for millions of human deaths and afterwards there was enough resources for a few more years then other countries recieved problems and the now even smaller Germany was one therefore to regain their pride and former status and the resources such as arable land they had lost they voted Aldof Hitler to power resulting in WW2 and another couple of million deaths world wide.
I don't know that I agree with your assessment of the motivation behind those wars. Seems rather simplistic.
Does a creature have to be aware of good and evil in order for an evil act it commits to be concidered evil? --Garland
I would say yes. Evil implies a choice, and animals have no choice in their actions. Their actions are predetermined by their instincts. An animal is no more evil than a rock that falls off a high place and lands on someone's head and kills them. The rock's action is predetermined by gravity. This is likely why we don't put insane people into prisons. They are like animals. Rationality is a requirement because a moral decision is just that, a decision.
it's seems simplistic but in many ways it is true the fact that Germany was after power and more land shows this - more land more resources, more resources - more influence on the world, more influence - more power see my logic? The pattern is simple but it's quite true for an easy to see example play SMAC or Civ and make your base the biggest on the planet - use cheats if neccessary then once you are the biggest you'll notice that the power level of the planet changes and even if you commit an attrocity you tend to get away with it or without severe repercussions as he other armies are of no contest to take out all of your bases before you kill them.
Thats a very good point, but I have a question (A little bit off topic). Suppose we are not free beings, suppose our actions are totally determined and that our option to choose is unexistant, in other words, pure determination. Many people defend this, I personally don't, I think human beings are free, but if they were not...do you think we could blamne them for their actions? It would kind of bring the whole concept of justice down, but it's the idea I have every time I read the opinions of a determinist.Quote:
I would say yes. Evil implies a choice, and animals have no choice in their actions. Their actions are predetermined by their instincts. An animal is no more evil than a rock that falls off a high place and lands on someone's head and kills them. The rock's action is predetermined by gravity. This is likely why we don't put insane people into prisons. They are like animals. Rationality is a requirement because a moral decision is just that, a decision.
My idea of fairness is: no one should have a beach house and a condo and a place in the city until everybody has a place to live. No one should sleep tranquilly at night until everybody has enough to eat. No one should get cosmetic plastic surgery until everybody has access to basic proper healthcare. I don't think that's too much to ask, but it is, realistically. I realize that. And there's no self-righteous tone in that at all, because I myself don't do my share to help, and I'll be the first to say so.Quote:
The alternative is, what? Should I be forced to support people who don't support themselves? That is slavery. So people who don't work are entitled to things they don't earn, and I am not entitled to things I DO earn; is that what you call fairness?
If you don't work because you're lazy, then yes, you brought it upon yourself, and I shed no tears for you. But if you're sick, or mentally or physically disabled, then you deserve some support.
Thats a very good point, but I have a question (A little bit off topic). Suppose we are not free beings, suppose our actions are totally determined and that our option to choose is unexistant, in other words, pure determination. Many people defend this, I personally don't, I think human beings are free, but if they were not...do you think we could blamne them for their actions? It would kind of bring the whole concept of justice down, but it's the idea I have every time I read the opinions of a determinist. --Shadow Nexus
It makes no sense to look at it that way. If things are determined due to some mystical otherworldly "fate", it wouldn't matter. Our reality and our perception of it would be the same. Did I type this because I was free to choose to do so, or because I was fated to? In terms of myself and my world, it doesn't matter. Both situations are the same to me.
Even if determinism has a worldly cause, like physics, I don't see that it means anything. It's a different context. Thought and choice and pain don't exist on the level of atoms and sub-atomic particles, and that's the realm where determinism would exist. Choice is a human-level abstraction, maybe, but it's what has meaning when dealing with morality. Even if choice is an illusion, that illusion is what matters in the context of moral decisions.
My idea of fairness is: no one should have a beach house and a condo and a place in the city until everybody has a place to live. No one should sleep tranquilly at night until everybody has enough to eat. No one should get cosmetic plastic surgery until everybody has access to basic proper healthcare. --Anaralia
If someone is incapable of writing a computer program, for example, and I am capable of doing it due to four years of hard work in college (and incurring thousands of dollars of financial debt, in the process), I should be forbidden from being compensated for my work because someone else is unwilling or unable to do it? I should rather be paid the same as a dirt-shoveler or Taco Bell employee, just to equal things out? More specifically, if I make more money than someone else, more of my money should be taken away to give to poor/disabled people? The harder you work, the more you're punished?
If I work harder, I should be given more reward. If I'm capable of doing something most people can't do, I should be compensated for it. The fact that other people in the world aren't as smart as I am, or as hard-working, or whatever, shouldn't limit my potential, or cause me to incur penalties in life; otherwise what is the purpose of even putting effort into anything? I was tempted to use the word "less fortunate", but I decided not to, because fortune has nothing to do with anything. My family was/is poor as dirt, and if I'm ever a success it will be my doing. Everyone is capable of being successful if they work for it. Maybe not everyone is capable of being super-rich, but everyone is capable of doing pretty well for themselves.
I'm in favor of helping people who are disabled, sure. I think people who are disabled get plenty of help as it is. My father is physically disabled in fact, and we survive. I don't think that helping the disabled requires that everyone in the country be poor. I don't think people having nice houses has anything to do with helping disabled people.
I don't think anyone is obligated to help poor people. That's slavery, like I said. It's nice to do it if you want to, but being obligated to do it is forcing the rich to be the slaves of the poor.
Yawza, we are in the same line of work. Yes, seriously. I agree that we should be compensated fairly, (I'm getting compensated right now for sitting here debating with you hahahahaha) but there are some manual workers below me who work at least as hard as I do, for more hours, and get paid half of what I do, if that. On the other hand, above me is a very nice woman who doesn't know the difference between Pascal and C++, and spends valuable working time conducting meetings where she compares our company to a rowboat where everybody must "get in the boat" and "row in the same direction". She once spent. One. Hour. Explaining. This. For about twice my salary. She is white. The laborers are not. She, about half as intelligent as I am. The workers have learned a good deal of English in the few months they've been in the country, which is more than I could say for myself if I were ever to be plopped in the middle of Germany or something.Quote:
f someone is incapable of writing a computer program, for example, and I am capable of doing it due to four years of hard work in college (and incurring thousands of dollars of financial debt, in the process), I should be forbidden from being compensated for my work because someone else is unwilling or unable to do it?
This bugs me. A lot. It's unfair. The smart person who works more gets less. It's the opposite of what should happen.
Should, but it doesn't always happen. We're past the point where a good attitude and hard work can guarantee you a good life. Myself, for all of my years in college, happened to graduate at a bad time for the economy and had to endure low-paying jobs where I was a month or two of unemployment away from becoming homeless myself. Generation X marked the moment where education and a willingness to duke it out with the world was no longer enough.Quote:
If I work harder, I should be given more reward.
Nope, I'm not advocating socialism here. Some people have smaller houses than I do, and that's fine with me. I deserve it. I've worked for it. It's when some people have no houses at all, that I start to look at my own house, and think that it wouldn’t hurt to give more to charity and buy less shoes.Quote:
I should rather be paid the same as a dirt-shoveler or Taco Bell employee, just to equal things out? More specifically, if I make more money than someone else, more of my money should be taken away to give to poor/disabled people? The harder you work, the more you're punished?
I don't think that money should be "taken away from us". It's our money. I think that we, as a society, should evolve to the point where we voluntarily give away enough of our excess (food, money, clothes), if we have any, to compensate for other people's losses, and make sure that everyone else in the society lives at a minimum standard at least. Some have more, some have less, all can survive.
I hope that they get enough help. Sorry about your Dad.Quote:
I'm in favor of helping people who are disabled, sure. I think people who are disabled get plenty of help as it is. My father is physically disabled in fact, and we survive.
I agree (we don't have to help to the point of becoming poor ourselves. Giving, say, 1% away to the needy is more than enough to make a difference), I agree (did I draw this parallel? Sorry if it was implied), and I agree (but it would be nice. It would show that we are a species that looks out for our own, and is above other animals, which was the original topic of this thread.)Quote:
I don't think that helping the disabled requires that everyone in the country be poor. I don't think people having nice houses has anything to do with helping disabled people. I don't think anyone is obligated to help poor people.
Yes, seriously. I agree that we should be compensated fairly, (I'm getting compensated right now for sitting here debating with you hahahahaha) but there are some manual workers below me who work at least as hard as I do, for more hours, and get paid half of what I do, if that. --Anaralia
I shouldn't have said "work hard". I don't think working harder, in terms of physical effort, entitles you to more reward. Rather I think that people should get paid more for producing more. Imagine someone digging a ditch with a spoon. They'd be doing an insane amount of work, and putting a whole lot of effort into it, but that doesn't mean they should be paid more than someone who uses a shovel. Now someone coming along and inventing a backhoe to dig the ditch in a hundreth the amount of time, THAT is hard work that deserves reward. You write computer programs which will do the work of thousands of men working away with papers and pencils. You deserve more than people who do manual labor.
On the other hand, above me is a very nice woman who doesn't know the difference between Pascal and C++, and spends valuable working time conducting meetings where she compares our company to a rowboat where everybody must "get in the boat" and "row in the same direction".
You might be right in your specific case, and I'm not sure if you're making a general statement that people in management positions have no purpose / work less hard than other people, but I would disagree with that generalization. Management is necessary. A general in the army might not be the strongest guy in the army or the best fighter, but he's still worth a thousand normal soldiers. It's not easy to run a business, or to manage one for that matter. If it was, everyone would do it. Why aren't you a manager, for example? Or why don't you create your own business instead of working under people you perceive as being less able than yourself? Either you're unwilling or unable to do so. I personally am probably unable, and definitely unwilling to be a manager or to run my own business, for example. So it is fair that I be paid less than a manager.
If the person who owns your company pays a woman to do nothing but waste people's time, then s/he's an idiot. But maybe that womans does serve a purpose. Most people who run businesses aren't idiots, or else they don't run them for long.
Should, but it doesn't always happen. We're past the point where a good attitude and hard work can guarantee you a good life. Myself, for all of my years in college, happened to graduate at a bad time for the economy and had to endure low-paying jobs where I was a month or two of unemployment away from becoming homeless myself. Generation X marked the moment where education and a willingness to duke it out with the world was no longer enough.
I would disagree with you there. Work hard enough and you will have a good life. "Hard enough" may be beyond what people are willing to do, but that's people's fault, not a fault with the world. There are always opportunities for people willing to take them, and if there aren't opportunities, then you can make your own. There is work enough for everyone; maybe not the kind of work people WANT, but wants are beside the point.
Nope, I'm not advocating socialism here. Some people have smaller houses than I do, and that's fine with me. I deserve it. I've worked for it. It's when some people have no houses at all, that I start to look at my own house, and think that it wouldn’t hurt to give more to charity and buy less shoes.
It really sounds like you are advocating socialism though. What is it about people with no houses that says I should give them the means to get one? Only that they need a house. What is it about me that obligates me to help them? Only the fact that I have the ability to do so. That is socialism, isn't it?
I think that we, as a society, should evolve to the point where we voluntarily give away enough of our excess (food, money, clothes), if we have any, to compensate for other people's losses, and make sure that everyone else in the society lives at a minimum standard at least.
When you say "should", you're speaking of moral obligation. You're hiding your "should" by saying "People should volunteer to give other people their money" instead of directly saying "People should give other people their money". It's like saying "People should voluntarily not commit murder". This is exactly the same statement as "It is wrong to commit murder". You're saying it's wrong not to give away my money to poor people; that I'm morally obligated to do so; that there is in fact nothing voluntary about it; that if I don't do it, I'm doing something wrong. Being obligated, i.e. forced (if not physically forced, at least morally compelled) to give my money to other people is robbery and slavery, like I said.
...I agree (did I draw this parallel? Sorry if it was implied)...
Sorry if I misunderstood.
...and I agree (but it would be nice. It would show that we are a species that looks out for our own, and is above other animals, which was the original topic of this thread.)
I don't agree that it would be nice, I guess. Slavery is not something that places us above other animals. Ants don't use the most able, strongest ants as sacrificial animals to keep the weaker ones alive. I don't really want to be a sacrificial animal either.
I care very deeply for the enviroment and my fellow Earth inhabitants. As a result of that, I dislike the human race. Mankind has done much good for itself but for me it cannot even begin to outweigh the harm it has done to the world. I do not view humans as the highest standing animal. I don't think like that; instead I apply equal value to all creatures. To me we don't have any special position what so ever. To me, the negatives outweigh the positives by so much that it's unfathomable. That's my personal take on things.