Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by LeaT on February 17, 2009 at 6:02pm

Ehm, I cannot answer that question, because for me it's not important to define my being, I just am. And how I am is that I am a human etc, but first of all, I am. I don't see it reconciling with the outlined comparison of ego here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on February 20, 2009 at 4:09pm

Well this certainly didn't kick off. Actually how you you define what you are is important in many ways. Certainly both in meta and normative ethics it is a large impact on your moral ingroup selection. So being a human does that mean you cannot harm -all things being equal- other humans?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LeaT on February 21, 2009 at 7:13am

Err, I don't see how being human puts be above any other living beings on this planet as I consider all life equal :) I should add I am a misanthrope, so I'd rather see a decrease in human population, for the sake of the EARTH and the human population as a whole in long term.

Oh I guess, I just happened to be very wrong person answering your survey or what you want to call it... Because for me, that I happened to be human has got very little to do with my morals and ethics as a whole, as I have never considered humans stand above any other lifeforms on this planet. What I will argue for humanity I will argue for any other lifeform too, that's the issue here.

As said, I just feel that I am, and I am a part of a greater whole. Everything else is redundant in comparison.

If you meant something else I think you need to clarify further.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on February 21, 2009 at 5:15pm

Interesting. I can understand where you are coming from and have many similar views. That's why I no longer see myself strictly as a humanist as I saw this putting humans first. I see something like the Jainist viewpoint being the basis of a consistent morality but then again I see morality as an extrapolation of an evolutionary survival behaviour so once you start applying outside of those terms its starts to run into problems.

Back to identity, I’m interested in the philosophical implications of what sort of being one ultimately sees oneself so morally treating things that you are fundamentally alike.

On a practical level I concentrate on the use of other life forms as resources and the abortion issue and look at the justifications used in these cases.

For instance if you see yourself as a human i.e. Homo sapiens then so are foetuses.

If you see yourself as a Person the so are the great apes Cetaceans, elephants and at least one bird has passed the mirror test. (though I argue a different position but have yet to publish)

If you think sentience is the key obviously many other animals are as well.

You could take the line like Peter Singer or Tooley that even if sentience is relevant that due to our cognitive sophistication we have more value, but I find those arguments little more than poor attempts to justify circular rationalizations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on February 22, 2009 at 11:20pm

First and foremost, "I" am matter, matter and energy that has existed as long as the universe has; "I" am not truly separate from anything: "I" am ancient.

This matter is so arranged that "I" am an organism with a brain, a human. "My" brain activity, in combination with "my" genes and environmental experiences, produces a mental model that "I" think of as "myself".

James

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on February 22, 2009 at 11:31pm

would you like to expand in regard to my post above yours?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ockraz on March 9, 2009 at 4:12am

My approach to the abortion/animal-rights issue is this:

You can have a moral obligation not to do something (like cause unnecessary pain to an animal) without believing that it has rights. For the majority of animals, I believe that this is the proper perspective- ie, it is "morally" wrong or objectionable because our vales or "mores" prohibit it.

On the other hand, members of our species have rights. The social contract grants us rights. When we reach maturity we are bound by that contract and our rights derive from it. Most other animals will never be able to comprehend their rights and obligations and so cannot be a party to the contract. The right to life exists for human life prior to birth even though that life is not yet capable of comprehension- and that strikes some as odd, but they should remember that if they wish to withhold the right to life until comprehension, then they will be supporting killing humans ex utero as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ockraz on March 9, 2009 at 4:23am

PS: The capacity for (not possession of) the ability to comprehend should be sufficient for a right to life and the right to physical integrity (no permanent physical damage). Other rights require possessing the ability, but not these.

I think that it would be interesting to see if an argument can be made for a right to life for chimps or porpoises on this basis. Can they understand responsibility or obligation? Fish, lizards and insects can't. I'm almost certain that rodents cannot. Can dogs? I don't know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on March 9, 2009 at 4:29am

I take a totally different line but i'm going to have to leave it here for now as I'm about to go to work. I'll have a reply for you tomorrow.
Cheers
Simon

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ockraz on March 9, 2009 at 5:49am

Cool- I'll look forward to it.

BTW, I sent a response personal message.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on March 10, 2009 at 12:11am

The short version.

I see morality as evolving from evolutionary survival strategies and systems interaction along the line of game theory. We ended up in an evolutionary social setting based on species and social groups. We evolved rules that benefited the individual within these social settings but as we evolved culturally we were able to examine the basis of these rules.
A significant part of this is realising that if you wish to work on fairness within a game theory typesetting you must treat like things alike which is well and good within your species group, but social ties and type relations can exist between and outside our species group. The problem is that IMO the original foundation was purely evolutionary survival but once you start apply it universally outside its original context that foundation starts to break down.

My main concern is dealing with issue of treating like things alike and the problems that raises.

Permalink Reply by Ockraz on March 10, 2009 at 8:37pm

There's no "reply to this" on the comment at the bottom of this thread- I've never seen that before.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page