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. --Modigliani
So if a baby and a puppy were both drowning and you needed to save one first, you'd just flip a coin to see which?
Flipping a coin, no, that would be rather silly. But I understand what you mean by that, and no, I would not automatically save the baby first. As I said, I make no difference. Even though you don't agree with me, I want to explain something that you could keep in mind. You should think of it like this:
I do not think of both to hold the same value as most people give dogs (i.e. rather low compared to humans); instead I value both just as high as most people do a baby. I hope the difference makes sense. Seen it as most people do, one might look at it as if though I have moved the rest of the living creatures to the same "level" as they put humans on, which is very high up. I hope I've explained it somewhat adequately even if you don't think the same way.
Think of cybernetic physicallism. Imagine we are just a series of electirc pulsions and chemical reactions, and our thought or reason is based only on that, making us like complex PCs with no choice whatsoever over our actions. Now suppose we KNEW this, not that we suspected it (Like many do now) but that there was actually evidence to proove it. This would instantly give human beings the value of machines, which sucks, but it would also keep them from any blame for any action, since they had no choice.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.
Yeah, I don't like determinists.
I think I understand you well enough. Interesting point of view. I've met many people who say they think the same way, but don't follow through (e.g., vegetarians who wear leather shoes). I'm curious about one thing though: do you consider all animals equal, or do you consider man to be below other creatures? You seem to swing back and forth a bit between the two views.I hope I've explained it somewhat adequately even if you don't think the same way.
I tend to agree, or else I wouldn't have spent 8 years of my life in a university. This has put me in a position to administrate manual labor, directing them, training them, and eliminating their jobs wherever possible. In the process, I have come to appreciate the fact that we need and will always need blue-collar workers to lift heavy boxes, clean bathrooms, and connect cables. More often than not, they are intelligent people who work long hours without complaint, and who weren't given the brains/money/time to go to school long enough to secure a different type of job. I've tutored them in English, and they study their behinds off. I tell them to go home, and they refuse, because one hour of overtime buys one more bag of diapers. I've come to respect them more than I respect any of my colleagues, and they deserve more than what they have.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.
Yup. My intention in giving this example was to give on example of someone intelligent and hardworking being worse off than someone who was not as smart and not as productive. Management has my respect even when I don't think they deserve it, and I wouldn't dare generalize on whether or not managers are inept, because I simply can't speak for anyone but myself.Management is necessary.
Someday I will. Not today.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?
Our economic system is based on a certain percentage of people being out of work at any given time. Say everyone in the country has a job. I need a secretary, but no one answers my ad, so what I do is go to the Pepsi factory and offer their secretary 1.5 times her salary to come work for me. She does, I raise my prices to accommodate her salary, and so Pepsi has to go to Dell, and offer their secretary 1.5 times her salary to work for them. Then they raise their prices. And so on. 0% unemployment = 0% economic growth = prices soaring = salaries soaring = a never-ending spiral of disaster.There are always opportunities for people willing to take them, and if there aren't opportunities, then you can make your own.
So, we will always have some people (say 5%) out of work, and actively looking for work. (The term "unemployed" in the strictly economic sense only applies to people who are actively seeking work) These are people who need jobs, and don't have them, and this will always be like this because that's how the system is built. They can create opportunities for themselves, but the law of economy predicts that they will fail. If they make it, another person across town will take their place.
Some people, but not all of them. Some try and try and simply can't get ahead. I know people who work 3 jobs, sometimes getting as low as $5 an hour. How can you live on that? Even if you work your tail off. [off topic] Waiters and waitresses make as little as $2.50 an hour on average, which is why we should always remember to tip.[/ot]"Hard enough" may be beyond what people are willing to do, but that's people's fault, not a fault with the world.
Well, yeah. Except, change "obligates" for "compels". Otherwise, yeah, that's what I think.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.
No, because socialism is when the government grabs your paycheck and gives part of it away to the poor without asking for your permission. This IS an "obligation". You have no say in this. I have lived in socialisms (albeit briefly), and what we have is nothing like it. I don't advocate anyone taking any of your property away from you, ever, for any reason. No "obligation" about it.That is socialism, isn't it?
Every time that you use the word "should", you are implying that you have a choice, and that one choice is somehow more favorable than the other. But you have one. Look at the difference between: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 should go to work tomorrow. (Because I’m behind on my deadline. Tomorrow is Saturday. It's not an obligation, but it would be nice.)
I have to go to work tomorrow. (Because it's a workday. If I don't go, I'd better call them and say why.)
I had better go to work tomorrow. (I've missed 5 days this month. They'll fire me if I don't go.)
And so on. Did I mention I've taught English as a Second Language? The modals are very clear cut in the sense that "should" represents a recommendation (I should get out more, I should eat more vegetables), "have to" and "must" represent obligations (I must eat my lima beans, I have to get up early tomorrow) and "had better" represents a strong obligation (You had better watch your mouth). "Should" implies that you are better off going down this route, but if you don't want to, fine.
If we can't agree on this one, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because we'll never see eye to eye. This is the very essence of the point I was making.I don't agree that it would be nice, I guess.
As a side note, if I were to tell my husband that he "should" volunteer a few hours down at the local hospital, and he accused me of "slavery", I would assume he was thinking of that morning, when I asked him to pick up his towels. Then I would get mad at him, for casually using an unspeakable horror to make a point about something comparatively minor. It implies demagoguery, and that you see a moral equivalence.
Last edited by Anaralia; 02-12-2004 at 05:30 PM.
Um...what are we debating here now? It sort of drifted to hierarchy of workplace positions to saving babies or puppies....anyway:
puppies, kitties, and other sentient creatures can feel pain; our actions, knowing this, should reflect this truth and act accordingly. Meaning we shouldn't cause a sentient creature pain. Now this brings up the whole argument over whether pain is good or why we should do good, but I'm not getting into it (I really would like to, but if I did it'd all degenerate into pro-good rhetoric anyway because we like good things like chocolate and pies and cake and donuts). So if a puppy and a baby were both drowning there would be a moral dilemma, because you know that both could die, and either dying is a bad thing. However you would definitely save the baby. My only argument is that saving a baby (assuming that if you went for the baby first you would succeed or something) potentially creates a better good than saving the puppy. The puppy would only grow to be a dog, and while dogs potentially can save lives and be helpful and aide the blind and all sorts of marvellous things, a human can potentially do more. So the 'potential greater good' argument is my stance.
There's all sorts of arguments for environmentalism so I'm not even going to touch that until a thread or a heated discussion starts.
That I see all animals as equals includes human beings as well. Human beings as such are just as much worth as other animals. The actions of mankind, however, is a whole other matter. I have serious qualms with that. I try to keep the two separate but it's hard not to let my feelings get to me and mess it up.Originally posted by Anaralia
I think I understand you well enough. Interesting point of view. I've met many people who say they think the same way, but don't follow through (e.g., vegetarians who wear leather shoes). I'm curious about one thing though: do you consider all animals equal, or do you consider man to be below other creatures? You seem to swing back and forth a bit between the two views.
But I understand what you mean by that, and no, I would not automatically save the baby first. --Modigliani
Your views are insane, in my opinion. I have trouble believing that you really live by them.
I've come to respect them more than I respect any of my colleagues, and they deserve more than what they have. --Anaralia
I also definitely respect anyone who works to the best of their ability, whatever that ability may be. I think that if someone does so consistently, eventually they WILL be successful. It's not fair that everyone starts on different levels, I guess. Some people start off rich and just need to get richer. Some people grow up in a terrible situation and need to play catch-up. But that's the nature of the world. That's not the fault of humanity as a species. It's impossible for everyone to be equal in all ways. It IS possible for anyone to ascend to any height though, and that's what's important.
They can create opportunities for themselves, but the law of economy predicts that they will fail.
Yeah, I think I vaguely remember learning that in economics class. Wish I'd paid attention. But anyways the same people aren't unemployed all the time. Like you said, it rotates. I've been unemployed in the past (and the present). You have too. But someday I won't be. Say everyone is unemployed for a year or two total out of their lives; that could cover all the required unemployment in the economy, and yet the vast majority of people have a job the vast majority of the time. Fact remains that at any given time, there's a whole newspaper filled with available jobs just in my city.
Some try and try and simply can't get ahead.
I just don't believe this, I guess. If you're never successful, you're just doing something wrong. If you show up to work every day on time, do your job and do it well on a consistent basis, you're so far above most of the bums in the world that you can't help but rise. Maybe I'm naive.
No, because socialism is when the government grabs your paycheck and gives part of it away to the poor without asking for your permission.
I mean, your ideology is socialism. Our government isn't socialist, no, but socialism is what you believe in, right? At least in the specific sense I mentioned, if not in general.
"Should" implies that you are better off going down this route, but if you don't want to, fine.
"Should" implies a choice, but it also specifies which choice is the correct choice. In terms of ethics, "You should do X" means that X is right and Y is wrong. "You should not kill people" meaning killing people is wrong. You still have the choice to kill people, but you would be wrong to do so. "You should give your money to poor people"; I have the choice not to do so, but if I choose not to, I would be wrong.
This is an argument of semantics, it seems to me. But in any case, aside from the meaning of the individual words, w're talking about right and wrong here. You speak of feeling guilt when you don't do something, and that doing something is the right thing to do; those are words of morality, to me.
When you proclaim something right or wrong, I give that proclamation a whole lot of weight. "You should not kill people"; if that's true, then I have a moral duty and obligation not to kill people. I am compelled not to kill people, in other words. Even if I want to kill someone, it is morally wrong to do so, and so I shouldn't do it. If I am a good person, then I am forbidden to do so. I am compelled by my own beliefs that doing the right thing is the right thing to do; I'm not compelled by physical force, but I am compelled nonetheless.
When you say "You should give your money to poor people", if that's true, I am morally compelled to give my money to people, even if I don't want to. I feel that it is not just to give my money to other people when I don't want to, because I've earned it and they haven't. Being compelled to give my money to other people, even though I don't want to, is the definition of robbery. It's not robbery in the physical sense; I use "robbery" and "slavery" as a metaphor, but it is very similar in my mind.
A moral is an obligation, insofar as I demand of myself that I be a good person. It's technically a choice, yes; the choice is, either do X, or be immoral. That is not a choice to me though, because being a bad person is not an option.
If we can't agree on this one, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because we'll never see eye to eye. This is the very essence of the point I was making.
I am in favor of doing nice things if you want to. Giving money to poor people is "nice", if it's voluntary. Being morally compelled to give money to poor people is all I have a problem with, for reasons stated above. The only way for something to be voluntary is for there to be no moral attached to it. I feel that the axiom "You should give money to poor people" is something that looks good on the surface, but is not moral in reality.
puppies, kitties, and other sentient creatures can feel pain; our actions, knowing this, should reflect this truth and act accordingly. Meaning we shouldn't cause a sentient creature pain. --PG
Pain is not inherently evil. If it was, dentists would be the most evil people on earth. I don't believe that animals feel pain in the same way we do. They don't feel emotional pain, because they have no emotion, and emotional pain is what matters. Causing pain to animals seems wrong to us because WE have emotions, and we associate pain in animals with something physical pain in ourselves, which causes emotional pain in ourselves. I think that kicking puppies is wrong because it will make me sad, and it will make people who see me do it sad, etc. The puppy, however, being dumb as a bucket of dirt, doesn't care, because there is no such thing as "caring" in animals. If it feels the pain of being kicked, it will instinctively do something (probably bite me). If it feels me petting him, it will do something else. It's mindless and automatic. Animals are sentient, but they aren't rational beings. That's an important difference.
That's just my belief though. I can't say I'm an expert in this; I'm no biologist or animal psychologist, if such a thing exists. And I don't hurt animals, but only for the reasons stated; it makes me sad to do so.
Unne, I agreed with just about everything you said in your last post (except for minor points which are either too small to be worth discussing further, or things we can agree to disagree on). Thank you for a refreshing and invigorating discussion. Having been raised in a liberal household, and having created one of my own when I was old enough to, it's a pleasant change to hear respectful disagreement of the ideals that I usually take for granted as "logical".
Ya know, the more I think about this, the more it bothers me. I originally interpreted it to mean "I would hesitate for a moment, in which I would be sad that the puppy was going to die, but then of course my brain would kick in and I would rush to save the human baby.". Is this not what you meant?I would not automatically save the baby first.
Last edited by Anaralia; 02-12-2004 at 07:21 PM.
It is natural for any species of animals to care for its own. A lack to do so, or the lack of will to do so, is un-natural and even perverted.I would not automatically save the baby first.
'Caring' for the enviorment, to me, is not caring for the endangered Purple Spotted Brazillian Michael Jackson Beetle, but rather, understanding that keeping the enviorment in a good state would mean our further survival, and over-all better living conditions.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Save the baby. It's the right thing to do. If a dog were faced with the same dilemma, it wouldn't save the baby first. Species look after their own.
Knock yourselves down.
I'm aware of that difference. That's why the argument is focused on animal sentience, not rationality. The 'dumb as a bucket' puppy may not be rational, but it is sentient. I'm not going to tackle whether its motor functions and sentience is a product of mechanical automation. I don't believe it is. Anyway, a big factor is whether or not we should do good to one another. Unnecessary pain is bad. A dentist may hurt you when drilling your teeth, but if s/he didn't, you would be in greater pain later. So the pain is done to avoid greater, unnecessary, and preventable (<=I may be redundant here, so ignore this if I am) pain.The puppy, however, being dumb as a bucket of dirt, doesn't care, because there is no such thing as "caring" in animals. If it feels the pain of being kicked, it will instinctively do something (probably bite me). If it feels me petting him, it will do something else. It's mindless and automatic. Animals are sentient, but they aren't rational beings. That's an important difference.
A drowning puppy should be saved, whether drowning by itself or drowning next to a drowning Nobel Prize winning individual. The difference is that in the moral question regarding a puppy and a baby is that a baby is potentially more practical than a puppy. If a puppy was drowning by itself would you not try to save it? Simply speaking the answer is yes (I could go into things like saving random animals that fall in water, especially when they are overpopulated, or something).
Anyway, the basis for treating puppies well is because they are sentient and feel pain. Also, whether or not we deserve to be treated well (goodly), we do it to each other (or try to), and should do in kind to animals. I'm not advocating veganism, which would still result in the killing of field animals when the giant tractors run them over, but that we should have consideration for them. Senseless slaughter of animals because 'they aren't thinking things' is irrational, unless you can prove to me that animals don't feel pain when you take a scalpel and cut them up, or do live autopsies like our favourite philosopher/scientist Aristotle (or so I've heard. If he didn't somebody else did throughout history, and you can substitute his name there).
That a human potentially can do more good than a dog might be true. But a human can also potentially do more evil than a dog, so saving the human could cause more good (than the puppy-saving scenario) in this world as well as it could cause more evil (see previous parenthesis). Which at least to me brings it back to square one again. I personally think it's each person's choice to do what they feel is right in that situation, I don't have any rock-hard opinion on it.Originally posted by Moo Moo the Ner Cow My only argument is that saving a baby (assuming that if you went for the baby first you would succeed or something) potentially creates a better good than saving the puppy. The puppy would only grow to be a dog, and while dogs potentially can save lives and be helpful and aide the blind and all sorts of marvellous things, a human can potentially do more. So the 'potential greater good' argument is my stance.
[stupidpost]Um...
Or just let them die both and end of problem! Oh, and laugh at them.
[/stupidpost]
Actually that's a valid solution considering overpopulation concerns, but that's hardly a sufficient argument for most people. For some reason humans rank higher than animals and plants, to the point where a vegetable human > a smart animal. I don't get it, but it concludes that no matter what, we ought to save a drowning baby
Posting Permissions
