Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#99487 - 03/23/12 01:21 AM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Mithus]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Originally Posted By: Mithus
In the end, there is no escaping this uncomfortable truth: the only reason we cut up defenseless animals and not intellectually-similar human beings (small children, senile seniors, mentally-enfeebled) in the pursuit of scientific progress is that they do not belong to our species. And speciesism is as irrational as racism and sexism. Rene Descartes’ philosophy is an anachronism that should be buried in an unenlightened past.


You are making unsupported assertions again. Or whoever you are quoting is. especially now that he/she is trying to assert that "speciesism" is irrational. Thus far, the speaker has not put forth one rational or supported argument.

You need to make a case for WHY. Just because a nervous system exists proves nothing, existentially speaking. Your PC also has a nervous system and a brain for example.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#99489 - 03/23/12 01:40 AM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Mithus]  
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,133
Mithus Offline
KGB Senator
Mithus  Offline
KGB Senator
*****

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,133
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Derid we are not going back again with moral question and the unecessary pain setence and "ism" arguments.

as ism: nazism was irrational for their victims, like sexism was not rational for women, racism was not rational for the slaves, but were perfect to people the perpreted their ideology.

What I see is that Descartes ideology should be buried like many people that study animals think today, and they are not vegetarians.

Quote:
This therefore is the reason for this brief note: draw attention to the recent progress in an area of biology extremely interesting and complex. Bees with emotional states, cows that demonstrate understanding of their social structure, demonstrations of affection in chickens, whales that give names to each other ... The last few years have been quite prolific for cognitive ethology, and the trend is that it becomes increasingly robust and increasingly important. That, just as Galileo and his telescope, the cognitive ethology show that an argument from authority can not override the facts and scientific analysis.

When Darwin published "Origin," began the slow but inevitable death of this concept is detrimental to the scala naturae. Likewise, I hope that the maturation of cognitive ethology begin the slow death of this nonsense Cartesian, primarily in academia, and then in society as a whole.



Last edited by Mithus; 03/23/12 01:41 AM.

Animal Ethics: "I tremble for my species when I reflect that god is just." Thomas Jefferson.
#99490 - 03/23/12 03:55 AM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Mithus]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
The ism argument, isnt an argument though. veganism , vegetarianism... there I just added an "ism" to those two words. Are they suddenly irrational?

As far as the argument you are making re: Descartes, it is apparent you are missing the point entirely.

The main point revolves around cognito ergo sum, " I think therefore I am".

---

Furthermore, we have to go back to the moral argument - because you have not sufficiently addressed it. The fact is that evolution has imparted sophisticated response mechanisms on non human creatures. This is not the same as imparting reason or morality. ( which raises another issue, that is the question of reciprocating morality. One yardstick some would use, and I see some value in regarding applicability of morality is whether a given species or object is itself capable of morality. Or in other words, what value does the concept of morality have ; if the subjects in question by definition have no morality. Keep in mind, this concept is not dealing with cases where morality differs, or a cognizant actor makes a ration decision to be immoral - such as a misbehaving or ignorant human - but rather when a being or actor is fundamentally incapable of grasping the concept of morality in of itself. Think of it as a different type of turing test.)

Humans do share quite a bit with non humans, this is a fact. However there are some very important bits that are not shared.

Also, you have not articulated any argument as to why humans should subsume their will, or Will to Power as it were to non human actors. You have thrown out some hypothetical examples as to a "casual" relationship that occurs in some instances, between human well being and animal well being ( your dietary and global warming assertions, which while I do not accept or agree with those assertions I am willing to accept as hypothetically true for the sake of this particular argument, because my reasoning is not dependent on those being untrue and haggling over them confuses the issue) - you still have yet to establish that there is a "causal" relationship between animal and human well being. ( Or in other words, a direct cause-effect link whereby all pain inflicted on animals in inherently detrimental to humans) If you could make a causal, as opposed to a casual relationship link then you would have a morality argument. However, you do not.

I honestly implore you to engage your faculties regarding this matter, and objectively re-construct your own arguments from the ground up in as objective a manner as possible. Typically a good way to do this, is to at the very least make attempts to reason through things with your own arguments - and put your arguments in your own words.

Pasting things like links and quotes can be useful for giving background, or saving yourself some typing when it comes to sharing general info. But if you wish to make any type of convincing argument in a discussion of this nature, you need to construct and articulate your own arguments... not just paste a quote with someones opinion.

To you, they are preaching to the choir - and you undoubtedly feel reassured by the self-reinforcement. However to people who do not currently agree with you, you are just pasting a random opinion in lieu of evidence or logic.

Last edited by Derid; 03/23/12 04:03 AM.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#99492 - 03/23/12 05:01 AM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,764
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,764
Derid, I find your position of human exceptionism based on possession of morality to be deeply flawed. I have no choice but to 'pluck a chicken' and point out that this line of thinking would also suggest that amoral acts would undermine one's humanity.


#99496 - 03/23/12 06:39 AM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Mithus]  
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,039
Drakiis Offline
KGB Master Knight
Drakiis  Offline
KGB Master Knight
***

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,039
Crusading
I like meat, and I like Mithus, so by my logic Mithus can continue believing what he wants and eat what he wants. To me the argument ends there, I care about my friends not what they eat.


I am Wrath, I am Steel, I am the Mercy of Angels.
[Linked Image]
#99498 - 03/23/12 09:24 AM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Originally Posted By: sinij
Derid, I find your position of human exceptionism based on possession of morality to be deeply flawed. I have no choice but to 'pluck a chicken' and point out that this line of thinking would also suggest that amoral acts would undermine one's humanity.


Negative on that, its capacity for - not demonstration of. As a rule, humans are able to comprehend morality. Whether humans all agree on morality, or whether humans choose to follow what they believe to be moral is immaterial.

The point, is that humans can conceive of the concept. Animals on the other hand, are not known or even suspected of doing so.

So, your assessment of what I wrote was incorrect. Because an immoral person is not actually considered non-human. As a matter of fact, its the very ability to conceive of morality and make a choice that proves humanity.

I wont dispute your assertion that a philosophy that said humans forfeited their humanity by being immoral would be flawed. I would actually agree with you on that, provided we are using the term "humanity" in the context and I think we are. However, you did misinterpret the position put forth.

---

To elaborate a little, the concept was put forth as something of an alternate Turing test. However the difference between this metric and Turing's was intentional - because it also calls into the question the aspect of applicability and value of morality re: in terms of dealing with external actors that inherently have no morality or concept thereof in absolute terms.

A person we consider immoral, still conceptualizes morality. In some cases they choose to arguably disregard it, in some cases their interpretation of morality may be so different that we find them to be immoral. However, being or acting immoral is a different proposition in absolute terms than an absolute lack of the very concept or capacity for morality.

For an example

1) Joseph Stalin

2) A Goldman Sachs exec

3) A stone

4) A Cow

With these four examples, I would argue that one of them had a twisted personal understanding of morality, one of them likely has an understanding of morality similar to our own shared mores but likely chooses not to follow it... and the other two examples have neither the ability to conceptualize or follow morality.

However the first two examples are still every bit as human as anyone else ever was or will be.


Hopefully this makes it clearer.

Last edited by Derid; 03/23/12 09:55 AM.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#99518 - 03/23/12 05:44 PM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,764
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,764
Originally Posted By: Derid

Negative on that, its capacity for - not demonstration of.


Some adult primates show more capacity for morality than children below age of 3. Are they more human?

I don't think you fully conceptualized what morality is and why we have it. Morality is a social organism evolutionary trait that enables and promotes cooperation within species. It is generally is not applied outside of the species, unless in some cases of anthropomorphism seen in primates and humans.

All social animals have some capacity for morality, that includes bees, ants, all primates, rats. Are they partially human?

If anything, your view of morality and humanity supports Mithus' position, because if it is capacity for morality that makes us human, as oppose to abstract thinking, self-awareness of varying degrees or something entirely different, then certain animals are at least somewhat human.

Last edited by sinij; 03/23/12 05:51 PM.

#99520 - 03/23/12 06:10 PM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,005
Tasorin Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Tasorin  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
***

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,005
While I respect that discourse and discussion is part of what KGB does, we also have several Beta efforts going on for multiple AAA titles.

I find it very disheartening that individuals log into the Oracle and of all the GAME ACTIVITY we have going on, threads like this are the only ones that get there response.

Get Active in actual game activity, be it beta process, or actual in-game action.

For the love of Beer & Glory, this is a GAMING CLAN!!


Don't make me have'ta Troll ya Bro!
#99526 - 03/23/12 06:39 PM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid

Negative on that, its capacity for - not demonstration of.


Some adult primates show more capacity for morality than children below age of 3. Are they more human?

I don't think you fully conceptualized what morality is and why we have it. Morality is a social organism evolutionary trait that enables and promotes cooperation within species. It is generally is not applied outside of the species, unless in some cases of anthropomorphism seen in primates and humans.

All social animals have some capacity for morality, that includes bees, ants, all primates, rats. Are they partially human?

If anything, your view of morality and humanity supports Mithus' position, because if it is capacity for morality that makes us human, as oppose to abstract thinking, self-awareness of varying degrees or something entirely different, then certain animals are at least somewhat human.


No, you are mistaking a reaction that could fit with a moral course, with the ability to CONCEPTUALIZE morality.

Which, incidentally falls in line with what you are saying in regards to abstract thinking & etc.

(You and Mithus both in this case are mistaking an stated ability to conceptualize something with an apparent ability to perform an action which could be subjectively construed as fitting a particular and discrete moral pattern. )


You and I are actually taking a similar approach, but simply focusing on different aspects of the same principle. (conceptualizing morality is dependent on abstract reasoning, yet the ability to conceptualize it is not the equivalent of performing moral behaviour) I focused in on the particular aspect of conceptualizing morality, because it infers additional arguments. Both the tack I have taken, and the one you are appearing to take revolve around cogito ergo sum at their core.

Last edited by Derid; 03/23/12 06:46 PM.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#99527 - 03/23/12 06:43 PM Re: Best Speech You Will Ever Hear [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
Originally Posted By: Tasorin
While I respect that discourse and discussion is part of what KGB does, we also have several Beta efforts going on for multiple AAA titles.

I find it very disheartening that individuals log into the Oracle and of all the GAME ACTIVITY we have going on, threads like this are the only ones that get there response.

Get Active in actual game activity, be it beta process, or actual in-game action.

For the love of Beer & Glory, this is a GAMING CLAN!!


Two points:

1) This IS a game. A Browser based word game. Some of us find it fun.

2) One of us installed Tribes at the behest of others recently, and one of us has played every evening since. ( solo, I might add... where is u? )


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Valaria 

Page Time: 0.023s Queries: 16 (0.006s) Memory: 3.1468 MB (Peak: 3.2576 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2017-05-28 20:24:24 UTC