Originally posted by mossrose
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Debate Proposal For Starlight: Infantcide
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostActually we give animals way to little credit, a fact that science is slowly coming to grips with.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI think a crucial moral premise here on which people are holding differing opinions is how they justify treating animals morally differently to humans.
Christianity supplies 3 main options for that premise:
1) Because God says so - in Genesis, God puts mankind in charge of the animals on the earth.
2) The Image of God - Humans are made in the "image of God" (whatever that is perceived to be) and so are different to the animals who aren't.
3) An immortal soul - Humans live on after death, while animals don't. Hence the morality of actions toward them are different.
Christians can endorse any or all of those as a moral justification for treating animals by a completely different standard to how they treat humans. Thus a conscious human fetus can be vastly more important to them than a dolphin, because the fetus is human and the dolphin isn't.
Atheists don't have those options. The two main options seemingly available to atheists (and Christians too if they want them) are:
A) In Group vs Out Group - Our moral obligations to beings who are similar to us are significantly greater than our moral obligations to beings that are different than us.
B) Higher mental functions - Morality relates not merely to the very basic mental function of consciousness, but instead there is a continuum where additional higher brain functions being present imply greater moral personhood.
Studies have shown that conservatives in general tend to quite like (A) and liberals in general tend to dislike it. It gives us an obvious reason to treat animals differently - they're not like us, and treat humans well because they're like us. But it equally means that people of other races and cultures who "aren't like us" can be treated badly, and people who live in other countries, who have other religious beliefs, or anyone in general who ain't like us, can be legitimately be treated worse than someone who is like us. Premise A, in other words, is the Donald Trump Premise. It lets us be racist and xenophobic, and even goes almost as far as mandating that we have to be those things in order to be moral.
Liberals, as everyone may have observed, are not fans of the Donald Trump Premise. As a result, secular liberals basically have to opt for premise (B) (or come up with something I've never seen or thought of). And they generally do. Premise B is widely accepted, in some form or another. To given an example, The Thinker, who sometimes posts here, has an essay explaining his views of secular objective morality, and he explains his version of (B) as "since human beings have the greatest cognitive faculties concerning consciousness, emotion, reason, empathy and compassion that we are aware of, the greatest ethical considerations should be with the treatment of human beings. And from this, through scientific inquiry we can learn to the best of our ability [the level of mental function] in all other living things and categorize the ethical treatment of animals, fish and insects accordingly." Or, as he phrases it in another post "there is a very striking difference between someone who's lived and has been conscious and was able to contemplate life, have dreams, have thoughts of love and happiness, and someone who's never consciously experienced any of those things, at all, ever. It is a qualitative difference and it seems to me a very natural distinction." That's premise (B) again, phrased differently, with the importance of mental functions beyond mere consciousness being asserted to have moral relevance. (I'm not citing him as any particular authority, merely as an example of another secular liberal endorsing (B))
A consequence of B is that as a human fetus matures, killing it becomes gradually more wrong over time.
It is, I guess, possible to come up with some creatively constructed versions of B that gives a different result:
(S) Additional brain functions in a species imply greater moral obligations to that species / greater moral personhood for that species.
Premise (S) is a version of (B) where we've decided that it's not the individual being's mental capabilities that matter but instead arbitrarily applied those protections and obligations out to the entire species, just because. This would allow a person endorsing (S) to say "but you can't kill a fetus because it's a member of the human species!" Membership of a genetic species thus becomes really important, because they said it was.
Another alternative that I've seen Joel using in this forum is:
(T) A being is to be evaluated not only on the cognitive functions it currently has, but upon its capacity to naturally develop those in the future.
Premise (T) is a version of (B) where time is ignored, and things that could and might happen in the future are essentially counted as morally relevant in the present. A fetus's potential to grow into a cognitively fully-functioning adult human is counted as a present reality for moral purposes.
So secular liberals can make up versions of (B) that get them more towards a pro-life view, but those other versions of (B) I think are arbitrary and unjustifiable.
There's a huge problem trying to use either "higher mental functions" or "capacity for suffering" as a basis for determining moral obligation. Namely, we can't evaluate these things in other species. Even recognizing emotions in other mammals tells us nothing about invertebrates. Their physiology is just too different. We can't use 'higher mental functions' in part because each species uses their brains to solve different problems in different ways. A dog doesn't need to gauge height at the level any bird does, for example. There's never a place we can make an apples to apples comparison. Even the mirror test is insufficient in this way, since we have no way of knowing why certain animals fail while others do not.
Morality does need to be species-specific, though, lest we be mired in a morass of subjective interpretations of qualifying factors.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNope, you brought up your cat as a comparison to newborns, asserting that your cat, unlike infant children, was barely cognizant.
Treating animals as more sacred than children, Singer is morally bankrupt, an example of the insanity of the naturalistic worldview taken to it's extremes.
Not from the animals perspective.
I was merely giving an example about my blind cat. And how my own Mother gave the cat more credit than she deserved.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostI had an elderly cat that went blind. My Mom was upset about this, saying, "the poor thing, how awful it must be for her!".
I replied, "She doesn't recognize that she is 'blind'. She doesn't know it isn't a normal condition. She doesn't know she is a cat. For all she knows, this thing happens to everything."
We give animals far too much credit when it comes to self-awareness.
When my dog went blind from her diabetes it was very upsetting for her, and I could see how she was very depressed for awhile because of it. The vet told me how it was common for them to be distraught for awhile due to their new condition. Animals know when they are in pain, and frankly this idea that they don't, is about as half-baked as Starlights philosophy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostActually, Adrift said
To which you replied
Which seems to imply that you give animals a great deal of credit for self-awareness, agreeing with Singer, et.al. who believe animals are more sacred than children.
I was merely giving an example about my blind cat. And how my own Mother gave the cat more credit than she deserved.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYep, I realize that, and Starlight has name dropped him a few times as his role model. Outside of a few utilitarians on the fringe-left though, it's still not a "normal" view in the modern West. Treating animals as more sacred than children, Singer is morally bankrupt, an example of the insanity of the naturalistic worldview taken to it's extremes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Amazing Rando View PostPeter Singer (prominent ethicist at Princeton University) is one significant scholarly voice who would agree with Starlight's views. So while certainly not mainstream, they are not exactly an outlier either."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostDo you have anything other than these grandstanding posts you know will get you a million high-fives from the peanut gallery?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostDo you have anything other than these grandstanding posts you know will get you a million high-fives from the peanut gallery? It's kind of getting old. I mean, if you're going to continue this crusade against him, at least give the guy a point by point take down.
In another thread you were arguing how you hated how LPOT had derailed a thread onto this very topic, basically calling Starlight insane and evil for his views, and you and Adrift never seem to get along either. So why come to this thread in the first place? Why put yourself in this type of situation, with the very people and topics that set you off before? Just don't do it and you will be much happier.
Last edited by Sparko; 06-20-2016, 07:14 AM.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment