President Assad gasses and Donald fiddles

[♪alt13]

Nah. I told why you it's bad. Because it negatively affects another's subjective experience, which I consider to be a bad thing. Like you said, morality is a set of rules that ultimately stand on a foundation of emotions. I, emotionally, want rules that advance well-being and prevent harm. Well-being and harm I define through the subjective reality that we inevitably experience. I do not think you can only apply it to humans, and not other experiencing things, because that is logically inconsistent. And morality without logic is nothing. Just a random set of emotional proclamations that cannot be agreed or disagreed upon.

Is it not illogical to say that morals are based on emotions and then to dismiss those emotions when evaluating whether or not something is good or bad?

Negatively affecting someone's experience is a bad that you have identified it is not the reason it is bad. You go on to admit that the process is subjective while at the same time denying the validity of your conclusion. How is that logical?

 

[LogGrad98]

What is sentience? There is no such thing, I don't think. We have a bunch of mental faculties that we lump into consciousness or sentience. Self-awareness? Does not exist in infants. Is inflicting suffering on an infant okay? On the other hand, many animals, like the high apes, elephants, and crows, do pass the mirror test and can be said to possess self-awareness. All of our mental faculties that create consciousness, like memory and its effect on perspective and identity, or our conscious mind, seem to exist in other mammals and some birds to SOME EXTENT. But what matters is that some animals express anguish and suffering in ways that are recognizable to humans as such. Unless you're a solipsist who does not believe you can know anyone beside yourself experiences the world in a similar way as you, then you have to acknowledge that suffering exists, in similar ways, to some non-human animals. If human suffering counts for something, then so must animal suffering. Even if you don't believe it counts for as much.

I responded to you...

Sorry I missed it.

So we can argue the definition of sentience forever. One of the definitions I like best is the ability to make a decision counter to instinct in the best interest of others while not being in the individual's best interest. You see rudimentary forms of this (my dogs get sad when the other dog is at the vet or whatever), but once the instinctual comes into play the decision-making piece is out the window. That is higher life.

I also do not think anyone is arguing that suffering does not exist except in humans. It is pretty obvious animals feel pain and some level of emotion. The argument is whether that suffering is entirely equal to human suffering, in both absolutes and morally. Morality, by the way, is another measure of sentience, as is philosophy and the ability to perceive of abstract thought, but that is another topic.

So how do you address the other suffering I brought up? We have bred dogs that die in just a few years and live miserable lives for our own amusement, and almost literally for no other reason. We regularly exterminate whole colonies of living creatures because they eat our houses or get in our attics. We kill mice and rats with no compunction. And yes we farm chickens for our consumption.

Is there a line or is all suffering exactly the same as any other?

 

[fishonjazz]

Because it negatively affects another's subjective experience, which I consider to be a bad thing.

Is killing a bug bad? How about a plant?

 

[Siro]

Is it not illogical to say that morals are based on emotions and then to dismiss those emotions when evaluating whether or not something is good or bad?

Negatively affecting someone's experience is a bad that you have identified it is not the reason it is bad. You go on to admit that the process is subjective while at the same time denying the validity of your conclusion. How is that logical?

It is really simply. You can teach a child not to hurt another because they don't like when someone hurts them. The basis of the argument is emotional, because aversion to harm is an emotional property. However, the transference of your properties onto another is logical. As in, "I consider people hurting me to be doing something wrong, and others likely experience the world in similar ways to me, so by hurting them I'd be doing something wrong". That's a logical statement that rests on an emotional foundation.

 

[Siro]

Sorry I missed it.

So we can argue the definition of sentience forever. One of the definitions I like best is the ability to make a decision counter to instinct in the best interest of others while not being in the individual's best interest. You see rudimentary forms of this (my dogs get sad when the other dog is at the vet or whatever), but once the instinctual comes into play the decision-making piece is out the window. That is higher life.

I also do not think anyone is arguing that suffering does not exist except in humans. It is pretty obvious animals feel pain and some level of emotion. The argument is whether that suffering is entirely equal to human suffering, in both absolutes and morally. Morality, by the way, is another measure of sentience, as is philosophy and the ability to perceive of abstract thought, but that is another topic.

So how do you address the other suffering I brought up? We have bred dogs that die in just a few years and live miserable lives for our own amusement, and almost literally for no other reason. We regularly exterminate whole colonies of living creatures because they eat our houses or get in our attics. We kill mice and rats with no compunction. And yes we farm chickens for our consumption.

Is there a line or is all suffering exactly the same as any other?

Never have I argued that animal suffering is equal to human suffering. I think animal suffering is real, and that if we consider human suffering to be a moral issue, then animal suffering must also be seen in the same light.

Each instance of suffering can be evaluated independently. I am simply responding to the notion that morality is arbitrarily emotional, and thus does not have to be logical or defensible. The statement about chicken suffering being irrelevant because they're not human is nonsensical because it is illogical. I am not going to write a defense for every scenario of suffering for every creature.

 

[Siro]

Is killing a bug bad? How about a plant?

The question I'm getting at is whether harming a bug is worse than not harming a bug. In a vacuum, with no other considerations (for example a poisonous spider in your house), I think it is.

If you are walking down the park, and you see a spider. You can either go out of your way to pull its legs out, or just continue walking along. Are these two situations morally equal? I think not. Even if one is only a tiny bit more immoral than the other.

 

[LogGrad98]

You are still telling me what is bad not why it is bad. Orange juice is good for you. I can't say that something else that is a liquid at room temperature(say mercury) is also good for you. Without bothering to find out what it is about OJ that makes it good for you I am liable to make leaps in logic. If I am careless than I could make the false assumption that any liquid is good for you. I need to know why something is good or bad not just what is good/bad.

Nah. I told why you it's bad. Because it negatively affects another's subjective experience, which I consider to be a bad thing. Like you said, morality is a set of rules that ultimately stand on a foundation of emotions. I, emotionally, want rules that advance well-being and prevent harm. Well-being and harm I define through the subjective reality that we inevitably experience. I do not think you can only apply it to humans, and not other experiencing things, because that is logically inconsistent. And morality without logic is nothing. Just a random set of emotional proclamations that cannot be agreed or disagreed upon.

The question I'm getting at is whether harming a bug is worse than not harming a bug. In a vacuum, with no other considerations (for example a poisonous spider in your house), I think it is.

If you are walking down the park, and you see a spider. You can either go out of your way to pull its legs out, or just continue walking along. Are these two situations morally equal? I think not. Even if one is only a tiny bit more immoral than the other.

I took that quote in the middle there to imply that all suffering is equal since it negatively impact's another's subjective experience. If I read that wrong I apologize.

 

[Siro]

I took that quote in the middle there to imply that all suffering is equal since it negatively impact's another's subjective experience. If I read that wrong I apologize.

All suffering is bad because it negatively impacts subjective experience. Not equal. I rank human suffering at the top of the suffering hierarchy. That's because of humans' depth of experience, and the depth of their social relations, among other reasons.

 

[♪alt13]

It is really simply. You can teach a child not to hurt another because they don't like when someone hurts them. The basis of the argument is emotional, because aversion to harm is an emotional property. However, the transference of your properties onto another is logical. As in, "I consider people hurting me to be doing something wrong, and others likely experience the world in similar ways to me, so by hurting them I'd be doing something wrong". That's a logical statement that rests on an emotional foundation.

Why don't I hurt a person that would be unable to hurt me? Because I empathize with them right? That's what we're getting at isn't it?

Despite your insistence that that is arbitrary it is not. Nor do you have no tools with which to convince me that I should empathize with a chicken. You could shame me. You could help.me to see chickens as creatures worth my empathy.

 

[Siro]

Why don't I hurt a person that would be unable to hurt me? Because I empathize with them right? That's what we're getting at isn't it?

Despite your insistence that that is arbitrary it is not. Nor do you have no tools with which to convince me that I should empathize with a chicken. You could shame me. You could help.me to see chickens as creatures worth my empathy.

You wouldn't hurt them because you set the moral rule that it would be a bad thing based on your own emotions/experiences. You can do it even if you don't empathize with someone, based on logical transference of properties. That works whether you feel it or not. A serial killer can still think what they're doing is wrong, even when empathy pathways don't work the same as most people.

I am assuming that we both agree that inflicting suffering on humans is wrong. If we don't, then the conversation is a non-starter. But if we do agree, then your position on chickens makes no sense. It is not sufficient to say that you don't empathize with chicken. At least not if you're debating ethics with others who do not share your brain. If your morals are based on nothing but how you currently feel about things, then why would I care? Like I said, I'll note that moral arguments with you are pointless and move on. I agree with what you were saying about breasts. I'm not going to convince someone that breasts aren't attractive, because attraction is impulsive and utterly subjective. If that's how you view morality, then that's that.

 

[The Midnight]

All suffering is bad because it negatively impacts subjective experience. Not equal. I rank human suffering at the top of the suffering hierarchy. That's because of humans' depth of experience, and the depth of their social relations, among other reasons.

OK this is a good point. But I guess this is where "I won't kill it, but if someone else kills it I will eat it" comes into play? This would fits in neatly with the "Out of sight out of mind" theory that I proposed a few days back?


i.e, If there is a live chicken running around in my yard I won't kill it and eat it, but I would walk/drive to the supermarket to buy that pre-packed chicken at the supermarket and cook it instead.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You wouldn't hurt them because you set the moral rule that it would be a bad thing based on your own emotions/experiences. You can do it even if you don't empathize with someone, based on logical transference of properties. That works whether you feel it or not. A serial killer can still think what they're doing is wrong, even when empathy pathways don't work the same as most people.

I am assuming that we both agree that inflicting suffering on humans is wrong. If we don't, then the conversation is a non-starter. But if we do agree, then your position on chickens makes no sense. It is not sufficient to say that you don't empathize with chicken. At least not if you're debating ethics with others who do not share your brain. If your morals are based on nothing but how you currently feel about things, then why would I care? Like I said, I'll note that moral arguments with you are pointless and move on. I agree with what you were saying about breasts. I'm not going to convince someone that breasts aren't attractive, because attraction is impulsive and utterly subjective. If that's how you view morality, then that's that.

Still, it seems to me that empathy, or perhaps more broadly stated moral reasoning or the human's ability for abstract moral thinking (e.g., understanding in the abstract how suffering affects a person or animal) is an important basis for human morality. This is something akin to Adam Smith's 'impartial spectator.' Humans can emphathize because they are capable of abstract moral reasonig, and their ability to empathize, it seems to me, is an important basis (though far from sole basis) for human morality.

So, let's say there's a moral rule that cuasing suffering in chickens is bad. What is the basis of this moral rule? There's some moral principle behind it. I'm not so sure I'd rule out emphathy (e.g., the ability to think in the abstract about how other beings experience suffering) as a contributory source of this moral principal and, hence, rule.