PDA

View Full Version : Question for DS and Others Regarding Morals/Ethics


BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 03:07 PM
David, you have stated in a recent post that all morals are axioms. Also, in PG&L in the essay on crime and punishment, you also state that regarding the different types of people who do or do not violate the law for various reasons, the most reprehensible are those who walk around without committing heinous acts solely because of the possibility of being caught and punished. So my question to you is:

-Given that you have no religious practice, then if you are guaranteed that you will not be caught and punished, and in fact never be found out so that the least result of your reputation suffering could not happen either, then what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

Zygote
06-28-2005, 03:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
David, you have stated in a recent post that all morals are axioms. Also, in PG&L in the essay on crime and punishment, you also state that regarding the different types of people who do or do not violate the law for various reasons, the most reprehensible are those who walk around without committing heinous acts solely because of the possibility of being caught and punished. So my question to you is:

-Given that you have no religious practice, then if you are guaranteed that you will not be caught and punished, and in fact never be found out so that the least result of your reputation suffering could not happen either, then what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

[/ QUOTE ]

Notready and I have been having some good discussion on this exact topic in David's thread. I suggest you refer to those posts for a more detailed answer, but here is a sample of our discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Basically, i'm confused as to why you conclude that there must be an absolute right or wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying there must be, I'm trying to indicate the consequences if there isn't. If there's no ultimate law, and especially if there's no ultimate Lawgiver, then there's really no intelligible law at all. The prohibition to murder is of no more logical significance than the speed limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is sort of true. But why can't people create and enforce laws based on personal best interests and survival. This would be intelligible and practical. That is basically how our world works today. For example, why haven't I commited murder even though I don't believe i will be morally punished if do? The asnwer is that I simply don't believe its in my best interest to do so. I also believe its in my best interest to help others by protecting against people who believe that murder is in their best interest. Further, laws are derived from basic philosophical principles that do not require an ultimate law giver or absolute measure. Laws only require foundational, consistent principles. The principles i've outline are survival and individual rights. For example, we create laws that respects the rights of individuals to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of another. This is logically derived principle used as a tool for surival created by people to look out for their individual interests. What is wrong with this model?

[/ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 04:05 PM
I realize there are posts concerning this matter in that thread, but like David has pointed out, side issues emerge which are better addressed in their own threads.

Zygote
06-28-2005, 04:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I realize there are posts concerning this matter in that thread, but like David has pointed out, side issues emerge which are better addressed in their own threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with you starting this thread and just wanted to add my contribution, which happened to be already posted in another thread. I really enjoy these topics and like that you're making a sperate discussion for this issue and i look forward to reading the other replies.

David Sklansky
06-28-2005, 05:22 PM
The reason I don't do bad things to people even if I could gain slightly from it, is because it makes me feel bad to see others suffer. Same reason as most people. They don't need laws, Kant or Jesus to do the "right" thing. And even those who don't have empathy toward others are better off being nice, not because of Jesus, but rather because of Axelrod.

Girchuck
06-28-2005, 07:15 PM
From practical point of view, this hypothetical situation is extremely unlikely. So unlikely, that one could never be certain when such situation arises. On the other hand, empathy with other human beings offers several significant advantages in daily life. A side effect of empathy is that one feels bad about harming others. Therefore, the gain from harming others has to be big enough and the risks small enough to outweigh the bad feelings. As the saying goes, decent people do not betray their friends for small rewards.

evil_twin
06-28-2005, 07:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

[/ QUOTE ]

Empathy.

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 08:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't do bad things to people even if I could gain slightly from it, is because it makes me feel bad to see others suffer. Same reason as most people. They don't need laws, Kant or Jesus to do the "right" thing. And even those who don't have empathy toward others are better off being nice, not because of Jesus, but rather because of Axelrod.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically how you should or should not treat others is soley dependent upon both whether you gain or not and how it makes you feel? If this is the case then, regarding those persons I quoted you mentioning in that essay who do not commit crimes soley because of the risk of being caught and punished, why should they in fact be punished for committing crimes just because they don't feel the same empathy you do? Should they be punished for lacking a feeling?

Jake (The Snake)
06-28-2005, 08:45 PM
They need to be punished so society can function.

Zygote
06-28-2005, 08:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't do bad things to people even if I could gain slightly from it, is because it makes me feel bad to see others suffer. Same reason as most people. They don't need laws, Kant or Jesus to do the "right" thing. And even those who don't have empathy toward others are better off being nice, not because of Jesus, but rather because of Axelrod.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically how you should or should not treat others is soley dependent upon both whether you gain or not and how it makes you feel? If this is the case then, regarding those persons I quoted you mentioning in that essay who do not commit crimes soley because of the risk of being caught and punished, why should they in fact be punished for committing crimes just because they don't feel the same empathy you do? Should they be punished for lacking a feeling?

[/ QUOTE ]

they should theoritically be rehabilitated if possible. we have to prevent people from infringing on other people's rights, either through punishment or rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the ideal justice doesn't exist.

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 09:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They need to be punished so society can function.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society functions now with laws being imperfectly enforced and has done so in the past when laws were perhaps not as precise or severe as now. And to what to what degree of functioning? Nazi society functioned for millions of Germans, though to the detriment of millions of others, and only ceased to do so because of external forces.

David Sklansky
06-28-2005, 11:06 PM
My essay merely pointed out that there is no real difference between the minds of criminals and the minds of lawabiders who are so only because they fear punishment.

FoxwoodsFiend
06-28-2005, 11:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
David, you have stated in a recent post that all morals are axioms. Also, in PG&L in the essay on crime and punishment, you also state that regarding the different types of people who do or do not violate the law for various reasons, the most reprehensible are those who walk around without committing heinous acts solely because of the possibility of being caught and punished. So my question to you is:

-Given that you have no religious practice, then if you are guaranteed that you will not be caught and punished, and in fact never be found out so that the least result of your reputation suffering could not happen either, then what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty easy answer. The aesthetics of some of those things is unappealing-perhaps Sklansky could feel uncomfortable murdering and raping without claiming that he's taking a moral position.

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 11:20 PM
My real question was your answer regarding empathy, and whether someone who commits a crime against another person should be punished because of lack of that feeling, assuming you do not posit that lack of such empathy is evidence of a mental defect to the degree that it mitigates all responsibility. And if it is a matter of degrees, then to whose standard of feeling?

David Sklansky
06-28-2005, 11:37 PM
No one should be "punished". Criminals should be incarcerated because they are a danger to society, and/or because they can be rehabilitated in jail, and/or because it serves as a deterrent to others.

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 11:55 PM
Of course I suspected you would reply thusly since that is basically what your essay said, and is consonant with psychological theories that advocate behaviour modification rather than focusing on causes of such behaviour. Let us consider other types of behaviour which aren't so severe as to be threatening to society at large, inflict bodily harm on another, or deprive another person of material items without cause. Behaviour that might be described as merely discourteous. Is there any reason to instill in children a code of conduct regarding civility for example, other than a desire to avoid negative consequences due to another person's overreacting to same? And what about the morality or lack thereof of a society's actions in regards to another society or country? Is there any reason for example, other than calculations of loss or gain, why the U.S. should not invade a small nation that has resources we desire and which lacking both nuclear and other significant weapons, cannot really effectively us for doing so?

And one last question regarding that empathy thing. What is the cause of such a feeling of empathy or one might even say guilt? Could it be a minimal moral code as I have described being imprinted in every human soul by God? Or is it merely a learned response?

Zygote
06-29-2005, 12:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]

And one last question regarding that empathy thing. What is the cause of such a feeling of empathy or one might even say guilt? Could it be a minimal moral code as I have described being imprinted in every human soul by God? Or is it merely a learned response?

[/ QUOTE ]

Empathy is not a learned response, IMO. Why would someone have more trouble killing a tiger versus killing a fly? I believe this happens because the individual cannot relate to or understand the concept of being a fly. A person has much more in common with a tiger and, therefore, assumes he understands or can "feel" the tiger's emotion. Lets say you were to watch someone kill a fly and a tiger, for example. During the tiger's death, you vicariously experience the tiger's pain, obviously because you feel as though the pain is happening to you. The same is not commonly true for witnessing the death of a fly; an insect to which we as humans cannot relate. Empathy is simply excersing the idea of not liking something bad happen to anything similar to ourselves. To restate, the fact that something bad is happening to something similar to us is what confuses us into thinking that this is happening to ourselves and we then feel empathetic.

Cerril
06-29-2005, 02:16 AM
For me it's easy. What guides my actions is a constant eye on what will make me happiest in the long run. Since I get a fair amount of enjoyment out of interactions with other people, treating them (for the most part) well is important to me.

So the question is 'why would I not do certain things if I were guaranteed not to be caught?' Well, no reason for anything that I could actually gain from. The whole rape and murder thing just doesn't interest me, but if you told me that I could push a button and I would instantly gain money, tax and responsibility free, but someone else somewhere would lose an equal amount, then you can bet I'd be pushing that button a whole lot.

Thing is in all cases I'm relying on others to keep others honest. I'm not too interested in being raped, murdered, or having my things stolen, and I acknowledge that I'm not the smartest, strongest, or most capable person in the world, so I'm fully in support of any system that takes away some of my freedoms (freedom to do most of those things that impinge on others' happiness to my own more marginal benefit) but do the same to others.

I can't say it's a morality that would work for someone who wasn't fairly thoughtful -- that way lies hedonism, after all, and short term happiness isn't very rewarding when you have to pay the costs too often. And of course if you aren't insightful enough to actually know what it is that will make you happy, you're in even deeper trouble. But that's no more a risk than any way to live.

Zeno
06-29-2005, 02:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
-Given that you have no religious practice, then if you are guaranteed that you will not be caught and punished, and in fact never be found out so that the least result of your reputation suffering could not happen either, then what moral/ethical code do you possess that would urge you to not to commit murder, rape or theft, and what is the source of that moral/ethical code?

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer to the first question, Reciprocity.

Answer to the second question, Intelligence.


Any code or ethical structure that uses fear or favor as a base is a questionable approach. Confucius had some thoughts on this subject that are quite interesting.

-Zeno

David Sklansky
06-29-2005, 01:16 PM
I agree with Zygote's answer.

BluffTHIS!
06-29-2005, 08:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To restate, the fact that something bad is happening to something similar to us is what confuses us into thinking that this is happening to ourselves and we then feel empathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your view, which David agrees with, is again simply that there is no moral code influencing how you treat others, but only the fact of how it makes YOU feel, rather than on any intrinsic rightness/wrongness of the act. Thus the world revolves around you and is here for your emotional gratification.

Mayhap
06-29-2005, 09:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
it makes me feel bad to see others suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say this feeling rises out of a consciousness of your connectedness to humanity?

Zygote
06-29-2005, 10:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To restate, the fact that something bad is happening to something similar to us is what confuses us into thinking that this is happening to ourselves and we then feel empathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your view, which David agrees with, is again simply that there is no moral code influencing how you treat others, but only the fact of how it makes YOU feel, rather than on any intrinsic rightness/wrongness of the act. Thus the world revolves around you and is here for your emotional gratification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're starting to get it!

However, i think your wording is still somewhat of a misrepresentation and could cause confusion.

snowden719
06-29-2005, 10:50 PM
all of you are wantons, and your answers to the questions being asked above are proof of such.

Zygote
06-29-2005, 11:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thus the world... is here for your emotional gratification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, i should i add that I believe almost everyone uses this philosophy, regardless of whether or not they're consciously aware that this guides their actions.

chomsky53
06-30-2005, 01:31 AM
"The reason I don't do bad things to people even if I could gain slightly from it, is because it makes me feel bad to see others suffer. Same reason as most people. They don't need laws, Kant or Jesus to do the "right" thing. And even those who don't have empathy toward others are better off being nice, not because of Jesus, but rather because of Axelrod."

the question slips through your fingers. do you see why? if not you are honestly stupid.

snowden719
06-30-2005, 04:01 AM
I think that your thinking about right and wrong seems to be very confused and I think that the following hpothetical can help show why

Say that you are a kleptomaniac who is placed on a desert island with 100 other kleptomaniacs. Say further that these are the only people who are the island. None of us feel empathetic toward others when we steal, and none of us feel remorseful afterward. The question is then, is it wrong for me to steal from someone or from someone to steal from me, and if so, why?

It seems that the reason we don't perform immoral actions is that we feel guilty about performing them, but if that is all there is to it then why do we also think that morality has force on someone even he doesn;t feel bad about what he did. Even if the people on the island don;t feel guilty, the question is, should they, and if so, why?

BluffTHIS!
06-30-2005, 04:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus the world... is here for your emotional gratification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, i should i add that I believe almost everyone uses this philosophy, regardless of whether or not they're consciously aware that this guides their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then shouldn't you be trying to overcome your feelings of empathy so that you can base all your actions on a risk/reward basis to maximize that gratification?

Zygote
06-30-2005, 08:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus the world... is here for your emotional gratification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, i should i add that I believe almost everyone uses this philosophy, regardless of whether or not they're consciously aware that this guides their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then shouldn't you be trying to overcome your feelings of empathy so that you can base all your actions on a risk/reward basis to maximize that gratification?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think empathy can necessarily be overcome. Aside, how would this prevent me from basing my actions on a risk/reward basis?

BluffTHIS!
06-30-2005, 11:08 PM
It seems obvious that empathy might cause you not to want to take an action that would reward you but might be very hurtful to others. And as far as overcoming it goes, I'm sure you could desensitize yourself by killing/hurting insects first, then small animals, etc.

Aytumious
06-30-2005, 11:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And as far as overcoming it goes, I'm sure you could desensitize yourself by killing/hurting insects first, then small animals, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a good summer project. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Zygote
07-01-2005, 03:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It seems obvious that empathy might cause you not to want to take an action that would reward you but might be very hurtful to others. And as far as overcoming it goes, I'm sure you could desensitize yourself by killing/hurting insects first, then small animals, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is what you are refering to, then yes, i have already desensitized myself to that aspect of empathy. I will always apply the most rational theory i can formulize, regardless of my emotion. I do support the death penalty, for example.

Girchuck
07-01-2005, 04:21 PM
But empathy is very useful.
It gives you better "reads" when someone is lying to you.
It makes you better at anticipating other's actions.
Why would you want to get rid of such a wonderful tool for some trifle material gains?

snowden719
07-02-2005, 07:00 AM
anyone who thinks that empathy is the key to moral motivtion has not thought about the normative question in an even remotely intelligent way.

Zygote
07-02-2005, 11:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
anyone who thinks that empathy is the key to moral motivtion has not thought about the normative question in an even remotely intelligent way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate

chomsky53
07-03-2005, 03:00 AM
ask yourself the question again. it is why should i be moral? you say i should be moral because I have sentiments such as empathy and guilt that clue me into the moral thing to do. guess what the problem w/ that is. honestly take your best god damn guess what you should ask yourself next....yall are so incomprehnsibly stupid...you cant even see the question when its right in front of you. yall miss the point completely. its really really pathetic. like i said it SLIPS THROUGH YOUR FINGERS!!!!

Zygote
07-03-2005, 11:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
ask yourself the question again. it is why should i be moral? you say i should be moral because I have sentiments such as empathy and guilt that clue me into the moral thing to do. guess what the problem w/ that is. honestly take your best god damn guess what you should ask yourself next....yall are so incomprehnsibly stupid...you cant even see the question when its right in front of you. yall miss the point completely. its really really pathetic. like i said it SLIPS THROUGH YOUR FINGERS!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see a sample of chomsky's sane supporters.

Anyways, i don't know if you read this post of mine from this and another thread. I think this should answer your questions:

"
Yes this is sort of true. But why can't people create and enforce laws based on personal best interests and survival. This would be intelligible and practical. That is basically how our world works today. For example, why haven't I commited murder even though I don't believe i will be morally punished if do? The asnwer is that I simply don't believe its in my best interest to do so. I also believe its in my best interest to help others by protecting against people who believe that murder is in their best interest. Further, laws are derived from basic philosophical principles that do not require an ultimate law giver or absolute measure. Laws only require foundational, consistent principles. The principles i've outline are survival and individual rights. For example, we create laws that respects the rights of individuals to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of another. This is logically derived principle used as a tool for surival created by people to look out for their individual interests. What is wrong with this model? "

BZ_Zorro
07-03-2005, 12:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
anyone who thinks that empathy is the key to moral motivtion has not thought about the normative question in an even remotely intelligent way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said.

chomsky53
07-03-2005, 05:02 PM
three things:
1.) im not a noam chomsky supporter its just a nickname.
2.) the question continues to slip through your fingers.
3.) this is no longer worth my time. it has been explicatily explained how the question slips through your fingers by others. the point is you havent even come close to answering the normative skeptic or yourself if you are not a wanton.

snowden719
07-03-2005, 06:27 PM
how can you consistently miss the problem with your logic, the question is why should I be moral given countervailing reasons to act otherwise. If I'm given the choice between morality and advancing my self-interest, for example stealing a small amount of mony from a large corporation if there is a 0% risk of getting caught, what reason could I possibly have for acting morally if morality is just a covert principle of self-interest.

Zygote
07-03-2005, 06:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
how can you consistently miss the problem with your logic, the question is why should I be moral given countervailing reasons to act otherwise. If I'm given the choice between morality and advancing my self-interest, for example stealing a small amount of mony from a large corporation if there is a 0% risk of getting caught, what reason could I possibly have for acting morally if morality is just a covert principle of self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not missing the problem, i just thought my answer was already implied in previous posts. Perhaps you didn't understand what i was saying.

My answer is that you should do what is in your best interest. If you have a zero percent chance of ever getting caught, then, society failed to impose a legal system. Since they [society] did not look out for their best interest, they will be eaten by you.

Don't forget that my answer does assume that this is forsure your best interest.

[censored]
07-03-2005, 06:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone who thinks that empathy is the key to moral motivtion has not thought about the normative question in an even remotely intelligent way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the normative question? I would like to attempt to think about it in a remotely intelligent way.

Zygote
07-03-2005, 07:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
three things:
1.) im not a noam chomsky supporter its just a nickname.
2.) the question continues to slip through your fingers.
3.) this is no longer worth my time. it has been explicatily explained how the question slips through your fingers by others. the point is you havent even come close to answering the normative skeptic or yourself if you are not a wanton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you only started calling me out after snowden said: [ QUOTE ]
anyone who thinks that empathy is the key to moral motivtion has not thought about the normative question in an even remotely intelligent way.


[/ QUOTE ]

But i never said empathy was the only source or the key to moral motivation. Please spell out for me what is "slipping through my fingers" or stop posting if this is such a waste of your time.

snowden719
07-03-2005, 10:52 PM
the normative question is, given counterveiling reasons not to, why should I act morally.

snowden719
07-03-2005, 10:53 PM
you haven;t really ever thought about philosophy critically, have you?

Zygote
07-03-2005, 11:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you haven;t really ever thought about philosophy critically, have you?

[/ QUOTE ]

are you and chomsky the same account? you both call people wantons and give unsubstantiated answers. you so far have shown or proven nothing so i don't know what you're talking about. keep insulting me or telling me i know nothing, but until you post something useful, I will no longer be addressing either of you.

snowden719
07-04-2005, 12:51 AM
the problem is not that we have proven nothing, but that you refuse to see the fairly obvious error in your reasoning, also, we are not the same account.

Zygote
07-04-2005, 12:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
the problem is not that we have proven nothing, but that you refuse to see the fairly obvious error in your reasoning, also, we are not the same account.

[/ QUOTE ]

what error? i've answered anything you've asked. please tell me, what error have i yet to address?

snowden719
07-04-2005, 02:42 AM
Jesus Christ I don;t know how you keep missing this. IF YOU ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO ACT IMMORALLY, WHY IS IT WRONG TO DO SO. WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE TO BE MORAL IF IT ISN'T IN YOUR SELF INTEREST.
If there were a serial killer who was made incredibly happy by killing such that killing others was in his best self interest as life wouldn;t be worth living otherwise, on what grounds do we have to criticize his behavior?

The problem which is so painfully obvious that it baffles me that you've missed it so many times is that your account of morality can;t tell us why we should act morally, or why we have legitimate ground to crticize the serial killer.

Zygote
07-04-2005, 02:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ I don;t know how you keep missing this. IF YOU ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO ACT IMMORALLY, WHY IS IT WRONG TO DO SO. WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE TO BE MORAL IF IT ISN'T IN YOUR SELF INTEREST.
If there were a serial killer who was made incredibly happy by killing such that killing others was in his best self interest as life wouldn;t be worth living otherwise, on what grounds do we have to criticize his behavior?

The problem which is so painfully obvious that it baffles me that you've missed it so many times is that your account of morality can;t tell us why we should act morally, or why we have legitimate ground to crticize the serial killer.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay you've got a real attitude problem and its clouded you from seeing that i've already answered your question. several times actually.

"IF YOU ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO ACT IMMORALLY, WHY IS IT WRONG TO DO SO. WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE TO BE MORAL IF IT ISN'T IN YOUR SELF INTEREST."

You don't have a reason to be moral if it is in your best interest to do otherwise. I have said this numerous times.

"If there were a serial killer who was made incredibly happy by killing such that killing others was in his best self interest as life wouldn;t be worth living otherwise, on what grounds do we have to criticize his behavior?
"

I criticize his behavior because it is not in my best interest. Society, as whole and in their best interest, decides that our goals are to look out for survival and individual rights, and by doing so we create intelligible and practical laws. Basically, I would be criticizing him for evading the laws that help protect my best interest.

Cyrus
07-04-2005, 03:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Empathy is simply excersing the idea of not liking something bad happen to anything similar to ourselves. The fact that something bad is happening to something similar to us is what confuses us into thinking that this is happening to ourselves and we then feel empathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

Allow me to elaborate an itty bitty bit.

The Other's suffering is, to us, a reminder of the inherent (but consciously denied) absolute randomness in the cosmos - how it was formed, how it behaves, how it treats us, how we came about as an individual conscience. (These are things that every human being knows, deep in his heart --if anytime, at the Time of the Wolf, to borrow a phrase-- but mostly denies.)

Therefore, empathy towards the plight of others is empathy for our Self, in lieu of the total lack of empathy exhibited by the world towards our Self!

And, by the way, we treat others viciously (bind-torture-kill, in various forms, as individuals or, more often, en masse) because, through viciousness, we attempt to transcend our pitiful mortality (or, rather, total insignificance) and try to "play God", i.e. try to behave towards others as the universe "behaves" towards us, which is with absolute indifference (we call it cruelty).

In so doing, we are momentarily lifted, albeit artifically, from our existence's constraints into the realm of the cosmos' driver!

Not unlike the behavior of the mob which followed a military parade of yore, the soldiers pushing forward a sorry lot of tortured and stumbling prisoners. The mob showed equal or even more cruelty than the soldiers in abusing the prisoners in the parade.

snowden719
07-04-2005, 03:31 AM
if you can criticize him for perfoming an act that is not in your best interest, does this justify criticism generally of things that are not in my best interest. Is it meaningful for me to criticize someone walkng down the street for not volunteering to give me all the mone in their wallet. Their actions are not in my best interest, and they couldeasily change their actions to be in my best interest, but does that criticism seem valid to you?

snowden719
07-04-2005, 03:35 AM
also, even if you find yourself criticizing him for his serial killings. If he has no reason to act otherwise, on what grounds can your criticism be justified. To criticize someone is to say that they are not taking a reason for action to be sufficient that they shuold be taking. It seems odd to criticize when you agree that they are doing wht they have reason to do, and that to do otherwise would be inconsistent with their set of beliefs. If the serial killer has no reason to believe his actions are wrong, where can we find room for criticism

Zygote
07-04-2005, 03:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
if you can criticize him for perfoming an act that is not in your best interest, does this justify criticism generally of things that are not in my best interest. Is it meaningful for me to criticize someone walkng down the street for not volunteering to give me all the mone in their wallet. Their actions are not in my best interest, and they couldeasily change their actions to be in my best interest, but does that criticism seem valid to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we come to accept at an early stage that everyone will be doing what is in their best interest and we must recognize that and work around it. Since i dont think stealing from him is in my best interest what good would criticizing do? like i said, all our laws are based on the principal that everyone has the righ to do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the right of another individual. As long as someone doesn't breach this, i will not criticize.

snowden719
07-04-2005, 03:50 AM
what justifes your criticism of someone who violates your rights in order to promote their self-interest. If morality is only a covert form of self-interest, and that all individuals should act in their self interest, what justifies the criticism. Also, please do not conflate legal codes with moral ones, for the justification for the two claims are very different. speaking only about what one is morally justified in doing, why is your criticism valid.

Zygote
07-04-2005, 10:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
what justifes your criticism of someone who violates your rights in order to promote their self-interest. If morality is only a covert form of self-interest, and that all individuals should act in their self interest, what justifies the criticism. Also, please do not conflate legal codes with moral ones, for the justification for the two claims are very different. speaking only about what one is morally justified in doing, why is your criticism valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I criticize their existence in my world, not their choices. The world is not fair. Even if i know that a rapist, a murderer and a killer tiger are only acting in their best interest, i would still protect against them. I would also do this to avoid those choices from being in most people's best interests in the future.

the reason i mentioned a killer tiger was because animals illustrate my point well. Lets say a tiger was attacking me because she was hungry and she needed to eat me to survive. Therefore, her choosing to eat me would be in her best interest. For the simple fact that her best interest is no longer in my best interest, i am forced to protect against this tiger. I criticize the tiger for attacking me and harming my interest, not for the choice she made (to eat me).

To answer your question: any creature is morally justified to do what is in their best interest. i don't have a moral criticism of them.

chomsky53
07-05-2005, 05:52 PM
"I criticize the tiger for attacking me and harming my interest, not for the choice she made (to eat me)."
please try to avoid saying non-sense.

Zygote
07-05-2005, 06:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"I criticize the tiger for attacking me and harming my interest, not for the choice she made (to eat me)."
please try to avoid saying non-sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

based on the fact that you chose not to explain why my post was non-sense, probably means that even if it was non-sense, you don't know why.

snowden719
07-05-2005, 07:48 PM
the idea of criticizing a tiger is rather silly as tigers are not reflectively concious. Would you criticize a rock if it fell on you?

Zygote
07-05-2005, 08:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
the idea of criticizing a tiger is rather silly as tigers are not reflectively concious.

[/ QUOTE ]


how do you know this???? i'd be very interested in an explanation supported by evidence.


regardless, this is beyond the scope of my point.

Aytumious
07-05-2005, 08:56 PM
Zygote, you aren't going to get very far with these two trolls.

snowden719
07-05-2005, 09:03 PM
I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that tigers are reflecively consicous, I don;t know of any biologists that make that claim. To think that when a tiger is given a decision it thinks, "which choice shall I make" seems to me to be very odd.

snowden719
07-05-2005, 09:09 PM
In order to further clarify the point I am trying to make, do you think that tigers think similarly to humans, but are just significantly less intelligent, or that there is a genuine difference in the way that they think. I think most people are inclined to say the latter, that even a very dumb person(not profoundly retarded) would still think differently than the smartest tiger.

drudman
07-05-2005, 09:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Zygote, you aren't going to get very far with these two trolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zygote
07-05-2005, 09:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Zygote, you aren't going to get very far with these two trolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus
07-06-2005, 03:33 AM
The tiger has no understanding of its condition. It cannot engage in moral judgement. The tiger has no conscience. (I hope we do not lead this onto some animistic argument!)

Your use of the phrase "criticize the tiger" (for something that the tiger does) is completely uncomprehensible. You are probably saying something else.