CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There is actually an industry for professional thieves who are hired in order to find holes in the security frameworks, either for private citizens or organizations.
So there are indeed some exceptions to this "universal concept" :P
Your talking about ethical hacking and similar concepts. The idea behind ethical hacking is person A ask person B to hack his or her computer to assess the security level. Person B then reports on how difficult the task was and how to improve the security.
In summary the people doing the hiring are trying to close holes in security frameworks. Why do they want the holes closed? To prevent being stolen from. In other words TrumpsHair your argument supports my claim. Thank you.
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent."
The corporation is giving consent, which makes all the difference. Consent is the difference between a person handing over $50 to a sales person versus being robbed at knife point.
If I ask you to move a chair, I am giving consent, therefore its not theft for you to move the chair.
True, but then if you deny or question a basic like theft is wrong, you have to analyze why humans have morals in the first place. Other than a few odd philosophies like ethical egoism, humans more or less universally agreed theft is wrong.
I remember in philosophy class the teacher asking why murder was wrong. An interesting experience to see my peers and myself struggle to answer why.
"Full Definition of IMMORAL
: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles "
As for theft being immoral, theft seems to fit the definition of immoral well. Ultimately I perceive morals as ideas worked out slowly over time. You can rely upon religion or philosophies for guidelines, but sooner or later you'll find some loophole or contradiction. This is why morals tend to be a life time struggle.
As new technology and information emerges we have to constantly rethink our morals and ethics. Whether or not a person uses a traditional moral framework, new questions will always be asked. Cloning, animal sentience, lab grown meat, and so forth.
You are arguing that theft is immoral because it violates a commonly held moral belief. This assumes that the moral belief is valid in the first place, and you are basically just rewording the claim to defend itself which is begging the question. So I ask, once again, why is the moral belief against theft logically sound?
Incidentally, I happen to be an amoral egoist by way of nihilism which is precisely why I am challenging you to prove your claim. And, by the way, the only thing "odd" about these philosophies is that they are uncommonly held.
You are arguing that theft is immoral because it violates a commonly held moral belief. Jace
Affirmative.
"This assumes that the moral belief is valid in the first place, and you are basically just rewording the claim to defend itself which is begging the question."
I'm not sure if this statement made by you is correct or not, I will have to take some time to analyze and process this statement.
" So I ask, once again, why is the moral belief against theft logically sound? "
I will attempt the scientific approach. Science cannot 100% prove anything. Including that humans exist. Yet, we can be 99.9999% sure that we do exist. That's why must people make that .0001% leap and assume we exist.
Assuming existence, we try to figure out what's right and what's wrong. Using a combination of perception and judgement we can predict what will most likely cause desirable and undesirable events.
Via the scientific method and observation we can be about 99% sure that stealing causing unhappiness and stress within the victim. Since unhappiness and stress is considered undesirable this is considered immoral.
In simplest terms, undesirable deeds are considered immoral and desirable moral.
"Incidentally, I happen to be an amoral egoist by way of nihilism which is precisely why I am challenging you to prove your claim."
I will have to see if whether a moral egoist and nihilism philosophies are compatible. By the way, it is impossible for me to prove my claim. In the sense that nothing can be proven. Science will never be able to prove that humans exists nor disprove the existence of unicorns.
"And, by the way, the only thing "odd" about these philosophies is that they are uncommonly held."
Yes, unpopular and odd are synonyms, therefore unpopular philosophies are odd.
I'm not sure if this statement made by you is correct or not, I will have to take some time to analyze and process this statement.
It is not a complex statement. You gave no reason to think that moral belief is valid, which means you were assuming it. When asked to provide a reason, you instead repeated your claim in different words (which you continue to do).
Assuming existence, we try to figure out what's right and what's wrong. Using a combination of perception and judgement we can predict what will most likely cause desirable and undesirable events.
We assume existence because it seems most probable. It does not follow from that assumption that we then try to figure out what is moral, or that doing so is logically sound. You are, again, begging the question by defining existence to include morality without ever showing that it probably does. You are also assuming that morality is related to desirability without giving any explanation.
Via the scientific method and observation we can be about 99% sure that stealing causing unhappiness and stress within the victim. Since unhappiness and stress is considered undesirable this is considered immoral.
It is an equally safe conclusion to think that the person stealing desires to steal. By preventing them from stealing you are causing them unhappiness. Your morality presumes without cause that the desires of one are more important than the desires of another. You are speaking from your moral bias, rather than demonstrating its soundness.
I will have to see if whether a moral egoist and nihilism philosophies are compatible.
Amoral egoism and nihilism are compatible, since amoral egoism is not proscriptive or absolute. Not that it matters in this debate; there is a reason I said it was incidental to the discussion.
By the way, it is impossible for me to prove my claim. In the sense that nothing can be proven. Science will never be able to prove that humans exists nor disprove the existence of unicorns.
Nothing can be proven absolutely. This does not mean it cannot be proven probable. Your burden of proof stands.
"Then your argument is fallacious (see argumentum ad populum)."
Interesting that a definition could fall under the ad populum fallacy. I've never bothered to challenge definitions. For example, a German shepherd must be a dog by definition, yet is the definition true?
Since the definition of immoral is being challenged. Let me first explain how I perceive morality. There are certain laws of physics. They have existed well before the dinosaurs, let alone man walked the Earth.
Early humans may not have had a name for such concepts as hot, cold, gravity, dry, humid, etc. Yet, nevertheless early hominids most likely understood these concepts to a certain degree.
Over time we have began to unravel some of these mysteries. We now understand why fire is hot and water is wet. Yet, to prehistoric man these basic concepts to us were most likely deep mysteries.
The same goes for morals. Humans stumble through life figuring out the mysteries of the universe through happenstance. We are rewarded for good behavior and punished by evil. Despite not knowing what good and evil is. Just as gravity has the exact same amount of influence regardless of our understanding of gravity.
Evidence to support that humans do not know what good and evil are. Athens versus Sparta. Two diametrically opposed civilizations. One putting a high value on knowledge and the other on might.
In summary, we are only beginning to understand what is good and what is evil. Like a scientific hypothesis the best we can do is keep guessing. A scientific hypothesis is only true, because it hasn't been falsified yet.
Testing a moral framework
Similar to "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the other ones that have been tried. "
Another way to explain is testing a model bridge. Simply, the best bridge is the bridge that can endure the most amount of pressure. All the bridges will break under enough pressure, yet the one who lasts the longest is the best bridge.
The reason why the model bridge example is relevant, is often ideas that hypothetically are sound, are disastrous in real life. A moral framework can only be validated by a test. Similar to different government types.
Let's give the example of Carthage a society that focused on maximizing profit margins. In the end, Carthage was razed by the Romans. Carthage being razed supplies evidence that a society where material wealth is the main value is a poor choice.
Cultures and values
Almost every culture has at least some value on the basics. Strength, courage, endurance, order, freedom, beauty, individuality, conformity, honor, truthfulness, knowledge, wealth, avoidance of pain, and piety. There are more values I cannot think of at the moment.
Yet, what makes these cultures different is the weight or priority on each value. One culture might put piety first and strength second. Another nation may put knowledge first and order second. A culture determines what priority we put on values.
We cannot ignore that man is not the center of the universe nor created the universe. Even if we wish very hard for gravity to cease to exist, there is no noticeable decline in gravity. Same with pain, if a person stubs his or her toe, there is little the mind can do to stifle the pain.
Morals are innate within the universe. Just like gravity and magnetic fields. As of now morals are beyond our understanding. The best we can do is make educated guesses, test the hypothesis, and see what happens. That's why I am making a best guess that theft is wrong.
I know this is long winded, but it would take me much longer to write a shorter version.
"It is not a complex statement. You gave no reason to think that moral belief is valid, which means you were assuming it. When asked to provide a reason, you instead repeated your claim in different words (which you continue to do)."
I think I answered this part now.
"You are, again, begging the question by defining existence to include morality without ever showing that it probably does. You are also assuming that morality is related to desirability without giving any explanation."
Certain actions seem doomed to fail for reasons that science as of today cannot fully explain. Thus, I contend that morally is embedded into the fabric of the universe. Example, sitting too much increases risk for obesity. Modern science is still having trouble with what causes obesity and what doesn't. Thus, its logical that sedentary behavior is undesirable and immoral. Also, it is logical that there are more morals to be found.
"It is an equally safe conclusion to think that the person stealing desires to steal. By preventing them from stealing you are causing them unhappiness. Your morality presumes without cause that the desires of one are more important than the desires of another. You are speaking from your moral bias, rather than demonstrating its soundness."
Yes, but stealing changes a person. A person who plays video games will likely play more video game for more hours per day in the future. A person who steals is more likely to steal in the future. Not only that but the owner often has sentimental value that the thief will never know.
Stealing over and over will damage the thief. A change in the brain, or perhaps in the microorganisms inhabiting the thief's body.
"Amoral egoism and nihilism are compatible, since amoral egoism is not proscriptive or absolute. Not that it matters in this debate; there is a reason I said it was incidental to the discussion."
I'm going to believe you on this point.
"Nothing can be proven absolutely. This does not mean it cannot be proven probable. Your burden of proof stands."
Morals are innate within the universe. Humans did not create morals. Instead, like gravity morals are ever present. One goal in life is to discover these morals to help create a better world for ourselves and others. The positive and negative consequences are predetermined.
Humans build moral frameworks and other constructs to try to explain which morals are more important. Yet, just like we didn't understand magnets nor gravity, there are more universal laws to be found.
In the end, its all guesswork. Which idea is most probable and feasible.
Arguing that we are only beginning to understand morality is a poor defense of your claim that we know theft is morally wrong. If we have so little understanding, you cannot legitimately defend your original claim about theft. Moreover, identifying that morality is an evolved attribute does not prove that it evolved in response to an actual morality at all; you are assuming that.
Even if morality is the best framework for organizing human society, that does not prove that it actually exists beyond our imagining it. Nor have you proved that morality even is the best framework. Your point about materialism also turns against you, since anti-theft morality is primarily about protecting the right to material possessions.
That science cannot yet answer everything does not make treating arbitrary beliefs as fact logically sound. Making this analysis is tacit concession that your moral beliefs do not have a scientific basis, but are instead substituted in the absence of scientific knowledge. You are also assuming that what is harmful is morally bad, which is another unfounded claim.
Stealing once does not necessarily mean that someone will steal often. You also have no proof that stealing often would actually be more destructive than beneficial to the thief; this is just another unfounded claim. There is also no reason that the thief should care about the sentimental value of a thing to its original owner.
Substantiate your claims or I will not respond further.
Well, it's a good thing that bees are not considered sentient beings. We consider sentient creatures to be those who have evolved to the level where they are imbued with self-awareness (consciousness) and emotions. Like us!
And although bees have indeed shown us to posses keen levels or planning and organization abilities--for insects, that is--they do NOT have those requisite traits that define "sentience."
So we can use their honey all we want. I love honey, it is a super food. I use it ALWAYS in place of refined sugar--on my cereal, in my coffee and tea, on a banana for a quick snack, or best of all, on a peanut butter and honey sandwich on whole wheat bread. My favorite sandwich ever!
The bees don't need all the honey they make. Far from it. Raising them and breeding them and using their produced honey from the natural combs does not harm then in any way. I was afraid for awhile that honey prices were going to skyrocket due to the disorder that was eradicating much of their colonies over the past several years here in the US. But..thanks to biologists like us, we have gotten the problem under control and the colonies should be back to their pre-2008 level in a couple years or so.
We called this "CCD" for Colony Collapse Disorder.
Please note: CCD was NOT caused by man, or pesticides, as many people first thought. (those laymen outside of the entomology/biology disciplines.) Rather, we think the problem was due to a mite infestation, or even a genetic abberration in some of the western honeybees.
BUT...man fixed it. You're welcome. LOL
Oh..here is the true def. of "sentient" in case you doubt me..........
SO...I effectively defined "sentient" and then I provided a credible source showing no harm is done to the bees. I am now wondering how you're gonna come back at me and accuse me of failing to answer the question--or "word fencing" as you usually do. LOL But please feel free, I have more info and sources supporting my claims and definitions if you insist.
"Well, it's a good thing that bees are not considered sentient beings. " SlapShot
Bees are sentient. By the definition you supplied bees have perception by the senses. Antenna and eyes just for starters. Copied from another post of mine.
"After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven"
"The bees passed with flying colors, heading straight for the pattern that matched what they saw at the entrance. Moreover, other experiments revealed that the insects could even transfer their knowledge across the senses"
"Honeybees, we can probably assume, are not among the world's greatest thinkers. But they are capable of a surprising degree of higher cognitive function"
I have supplied evidence that bees are indeed sentient.
"And although bees have indeed shown us to posses keen levels or planning and organization abilities--for insects, that is--they do NOT have those requisite traits that define "sentience."" SlapShot
What animals are considered sentient by you then?
"I love honey, it is a super food." Slapshot
What do you base your claim that honey is a super food on?
"The bees don't need all the honey they make. Far from it. Raising them and breeding them and using their produced honey from the natural combs does not harm then in any way." Slapshot
I've heard that bees are often fed sugar water in lieu of honey. The bees are smoked and then gigantic humans crush some of them when moving the honey combs.
"The easiest way I have found to feed my bees is to use sugar syrup – sugar water is mixed in differing ratios depending on how it is used. Typically I mix 1:1 but sometimes I use a 2:1 ratio to make a thicker syrup. The water has to be fanned out of the mixture for the bees to turn it to sugar – so a thinner mix is harder on the bees in humid weather."
"Rather, we think the problem was due to a mite infestation, or even a genetic abberration in some of the western honeybees."
Perhaps the mite infestation was caused by keeping bees too close together in commercial bee farms. The genetic aberration may have been caused by DNA damage which in turn was caused by made-made carcinogens.
This sounds like too many bees "So you want to be a full-time commercial beekeeper and keep 1,000 colonies or more."
Merely being imbued with sensory input does NOT equate to being considered a sentient being. Did you not even read my provided dictionary definition of the word? TO be sentient one must posses the ability to be "self aware." To know about one's inevitable death. To have at least some awareness of one's place in the grand scheme, as well as thoughts on an afterlife. Bees of course lack ALL of this.
I read the livescience.com article you linked. And I am of the opinion that all of the abilities of bees that were listed are merely sensory reactions. And learned behavior. This I do not think is true sentience. It MIGHT be able to be construed as "awareness." But that is not the same. One could say that viruses and bacteria are aware, since they grow, multiply and find and seek host organisms in which to propagate in. (viruses are in fact dead--inert--until such time as they can infiltrate a living cell and hijack its mitochondrial DNA.
And as far as your mention of a bee having 950,000 brain neurons, this number is pitifully small. A cockroach has one million! Your and I have about 650 BILLION!
And...Hell, if simply reaction to sensory input was all that was needed to be considered sentient, we would say that plants are! LOL. As they are capable of exhibiting something we call "heliotropism" where they will lean toward sunlight. Venus flytraps also lure, trap and digest insects. All due to their senses. Are they sentient as well?
No.
From a WIKI article on the meaning of sentience.......
In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[2] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.
Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett, who also argues that animals are not sentient) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science.[3]
I close be adding that my primary reason for posting on this debate was to claim that we do not harm bees when we take their honey, as it is part of their vast surplus. I added a link to prove this.
Sentience is a term relatively new to me. I'm pushing the envelope trying to understand the term myself. Yet, that's the point of a debate site, to challenge oneself and others, push to the furthest extreme that your mind can handle.
To understand sentience, a person must first understand stimulus and response. To know the minimal level of intellect a living organism needs to achieve stimulus response.
Anyways, its pretty obvious by now I'm just repeating other people's words and I have no clue what I'm talking about. I know humans are capable of stimulus response, I'm not even sure if humans qualify as sentient or not let alone bees.
I mean sentience means awareness, humans are not aware of the future. Therefore humans are not sentient.
Honey is a bona fide super food. As both an athlete and a Biologist I have known this for a long time.
When I played hockey in college I had a pre-game snack of a 12 oz glass of pureed bananas, choco-milk,honey and protein power, with a shot of espresso that made me an Ice God! LOL
Anyway...here is but One link and source for you to read. I can supply a dozen more if you need them. Let me know.........
And eating too much fruit can also proote tooth decay. Fromt eh natural sugar in it we call fructose.
Anything in over-abundance can have deleterious effects on the human body. No matter how healthful said food can be when used in moderation.
Same deal with honey. A superfood. And as a sweetener, it is clearly far and away better than refined sugar. Or Brown sugar, or even organic can juice, which is basically hippie sugar. LOL.
Some people are allergic to strawberries. So what? Also, tooth decay has been shown to be dependant on not only diet, of course, but also on genetics. Having to do with enamel thickness and resilience.
Fully half of Asiana are lactose intolerant. Genetics again.
Some people cannot tolerate coffee. Another super food! (super drink, actually!) LOL.
I stand by my honey = SuperFood claim. Proof is in the pudding, amigo. I have used it religiously as a sweetener for 20 years and at 34 am in better condition than most guys a decade younger. I also have not had a cavity in over ten years.
There are more factors than just volume of sugar. Honey is more sticky than most sugars. The longer the sugar is on the teeth, the more tooth decay.
I would like to see you back up the claim that coffee is a super food. Coffee is a class 2B carcinogen.
"Cell phones are as carcinogenic as coffee"
"When I realized that the reports suggested that RF-energy from cell phones was not considered any more carcinogenic than coffee, as both are now in the company of other class 2B carcinogens"
Coffee also irritates the stomach.
""We found out there’s no single, key irritant," Somoza says in a news release. "It is a mixture of compounds that seem to cause the irritant effect of coffee.""
"I stand by my honey = SuperFood claim. Proof is in the pudding, amigo. I have used it religiously as a sweetener for 20 years and at 34 am in better condition than most guys a decade younger. I also have not had a cavity in over ten years." Slapshot
Anecdotal evidence, everyone has heard the story of a grand parent who smoked like a chimney and lived well into his or her 90s. Yet, there is copious amount of scientific evidence that smoking dramatically increases cancer risk.
Again, as a Biologist I cannot let this error pass.
Here is the correct etymology of the word "bee".......
BEE (n)---
stinging insect, Old English beo "bee," from Proto-Germanic bion (cognates: Old Norse by, Old High German bia, Middle Dutch bie), possibly from PIE root bhi- "quiver." Used metaphorically for "busy worker" since 1530s.
Sense of "meeting of neighbors to unite their labor for the benefit of one of their number," 1769, American English, probably is from comparison to the social activity of the insect; this was extended to other senses (such as spelling bee, first attested 1809; Raising-bee (1814) for building construction; also hanging bee "a lynching"). To have a bee in (one's) bonnet (1825), said of one who is harebrained or has an intense new notion or fancy, is said in Jamieson to be Scottish, perhaps from earlier expressions such as head full of bees (1510s), denoting mad mental activity.
"The bees passed with flying colors, heading straight for the pattern that matched what they saw at the entrance. Moreover, other experiments revealed that the insects could even transfer their knowledge across the senses"
"Honeybees, we can probably assume, are not among the world's greatest thinkers. But they are capable of a surprising degree of higher cognitive function"
I have to admit you have a point. It would be unfair for me to expect you to prove a negative, that bees don't have the ability to suffer. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on Yes, this practice is immoral side of the debate. Nevertheless, this link proves bees can suffer.
"A study suggests that, if upset, the bee can display negative emotion just like humans, dogs, rats and birds."
The opinion that bees have emotions is totally groundless.
Pure speculation. Probably due to a need for grant money. LOL
Simple math: 250,000 nuerons is not near enough for sentience. Itis a pitifully small amount. Cockroaches have four times as many.
We have nearly 1 TRILLION!
IN the homo sapien brain, the part of the brain that is called "the seat of the emotions" in the Limbic Center. A cursory view of a brain scam-image shows this is clearly part of the evolved brain, which began with the amygdala that houses are primal instincts for survival.
Bees clearly have nothing even remotely resembling a Limbic Center.
Thus, the requisite Hardware for sentience in bees is simply not present. Saying it is is tantamount to claiming you can watch a DVD on only a TV monitor with no DVD player attached.
Exactly!!! I said as much in my reply to his post and the link he provided. He is confusing sensory input ability--which even house plants have!--with Sentience.
I don't mean this to be deflection, but I want to ask a question before responding to this: What is your opinion on human labor, particularly within a capitalist system? Do you feel just as strongly by those who suffer from what Marx referred to as alienation, particularly when it results from insufficient recompense for labor?
I don't know much about Karl Marx's theories. I'm not really sure what alienation means. Yet, I'll take a stab based upon insufficient recompense for labor.
In my opinion there is a large difference between insufficient recompense for labor and slavery. The term wage debt slaves have been thrown around. Yet, freedom and liberty don't mean absolute freedom. For example, you can't go around killing people arbitrarily. Officers of the law will pursue you.
a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
"
Somebody who is simply underpaid does not fit the description of a slave. That person can switch jobs or simply quit and walk away. The person might feel they are a slave, but that's different from physically being a slave.
Let's take the example of an underpaid Walmart employee. That person has $40k in student debts and another $20k in other debts. This is not a slave. Just for starters that person could move to another state and work a different job.
Yet, a bee doesn't have that option. Humans literally have enslaved the queen bee. The entire colony has no freedom. They cannot simply fly to another state and start a new career. The same can be said of other farm yard animals.
Maybe even more importantly is the entire generation after generation. A bee colony might seem to have little freedom within a generation. Yet, the following generation can move to a new location. Humans have stripped that freedom from farm bees.
As a society we treat our worst criminals with far more respect than we do bees and other farm animals. I hope that answers your question.
Take the second part, "wholly subject to another". When someone must rely upon an incredibly low paying job offered by another because they have literally no other options around them nor the means to move, they are indeed wholly subject to another person. And that is just talking about this country, let alone the products imported from the third world which are often made by people who are much closer to what you consider slaves. If you hold this stance for non-human animals, do you also refuse to purchase anything made from slave labor (and its equivalent) when humans are involved?
I see your point of view. Yet, I feel that humans working at Walmart are not wholly subjected to another. There are so many ways legal ways to get out of debt or postpone a debt in a 1st world country. By equating this person with the word slave, you are diluting the meaning of the word slave.
As for actual human slavery, that still exists. Human trafficking and sweatshops are some examples. Usually slaves are children. A. immigrants in 1st world countries who cannot speak the naive language. Or, B. Live in 3rd world countries. Even then its usually nigh slavery.
I feel those situations are close enough to slavery to avoid. That's why I try to buy from reputable retailers and from thrift stores. That way I minimize the chances of accidentally buying slave or almost slave produced goods.
In other words, I feel sorry for the people working at Walmart in 1st world countries, yet I would hardly call them slaves. I tell all my friends not to shop at companies who pay their employees too little. Yet, I see children working sweat shops have less freedom.
"If you hold this stance for non-human animals, do you also refuse to purchase anything made from slave labor (and its equivalent) when humans are involved?"
Yes, I feel the rich elite have enough power as it is and I don't need to endorse them getting richer off the backs of the underprivileged.
So when it comes to human slavery, you try to avoid it. But when it comes to animal "slavery" (I put it into quotes merely because of the philosophical nature of it), you want it outright outlawed. Why the difference, when humans have substantially more complex sensory organs and more complex emotional ranges?
First, human slavery is outlawed. I take extra care to avoid human slavery by buying from thrift stores and reputable retailers. Slavery still exists on the black market, I've taken time to read the brochures on human trafficking and I try to stop it. The law can only do so much. There are many practices and substances that are outlawed, yet they still exist.
Second, your using near slavery examples. I contend that a person working in the 1st world for minimum wage with lots of debts does not qualify as a slave. Serf possibly, but not a slave.
Pigs feel pain at least as much as humans. There is less information on the intensity of bees, yet suffice to say bees feels pain. More to the point, there is already plenty of people helping and speaking up for the few human slaves in the world. Yet, there is a lack of people calling for a ban on animal slavery.
To summarize, human slavery is outlawed in any country I can think of. Slavery is already banned. GenericName is talking about near slavery conditions which are different. Humans can stick up for their selves better than animals.
Rebuttal of GenericName's argument. GenericName is making a human's first argument.
Let's save all the human slaves and walk right past animals being tortured and killed. This is a scenario similar to rescue workers rescuing during a flood. Rescue workers find a litter of kittens and no humans in the house. By GenericName's logic the rescue team should let the kittens fend for themselves and move onto the next house searching for humans.
I noticed GenericName put quotes around the word slavery. If you think it is wrong to use the word slavery in relation to animal bondage, what word what you use instead? Thanks for debating.
Seriously though the relationship bees have with many apiaries is symbiotic. Those bees benefit by having a constant place to stay that is pest free. When a honey comb is harvested the bees still have a safe place to live. In the wild this is not necessarily so and the survival of the colony depends on having shelter. The colonies suffer much fewer losses with beekeepers too because they are driven away with smoke rather than dying in a futile attack with a bear for instance.
Apiaries are a good resource for food stability. With the currently declining numbers of pollinators worldwide we should be trying to increase our number of bees we currently keep.
I find your reasoning unsatisfactory. Yes, there is less natural predators, but the same could be said for other farm animals and even humans. Let's take factory farmed chickens for example. The same could be said for those chickens. That factory farms and chickens have a symbiotic relationship. That factory farm chickens are given a safe place to live, and so forth.
Cattle and factory farms have a symbiotic relationship, and so forth. Now to get to why your statement is seriously flawed. What's to stop an oppressor from raising humans in the same conditions? How about a human organ farm? A new pair of kidneys sells for a lot on the black market these days.
Those humans would have a symbiotic relationship with their home and slavers. In the wild human survival relies upon shelter and avoiding predators. I contend that your reasoning J-Roc77 sets a dangerous precedence.
Yes, there is less natural predators, but the same could be said for other farm animals and even humans... chickens for example. The same could be said for those chickens...Cattle and factory farms have a symbiotic relationship, and so forth.
To varying degrees, the comparisons are not apples to apples so to speak. Well obviously they aren't bee to bee either they are bee to chicken and cow. You do not demonstrate that bees treatment are similar to either chickens or cattle.
Neither chickens nor cows are declining in numbers worldwide nor do they have the importance of being pollinators. Bees are not harvested for their flesh, they aren't fed to be fat on a diet that is unhealthy and so on.
How about a human organ farm?
So you don't show how the treatment of bees differs from cows and chickens and now you go straight to comparing bees with humans. I mean not only a comparison to humans but a human organ farm. Remember when I said your stance is hyperbolic? It isn't helping your case.
Your comparisons don't match up and are just petitions of principle.
If you really cared for humans or people really why would you not want bees being kept? I noted that bees are declining in the wild, why should we not have more safe places for bees due to their huge importance in pollination? Being pollinators benefits more than just humans too you know.
What's to stop an oppressor from raising humans in the same conditions?
You mean a steady home for the fruits of your labor?
Bees like chickens and cows are raised for their by-products. In this case honey.
"Neither chickens nor cows are declining in numbers worldwide"
and
"If you really cared for humans or people really why would you not want bees being kept? I noted that bees are declining in the wild, why should we not have more safe places for bees due to their huge importance in pollination? Being pollinators benefits more than just humans too you know."
Bees are diminishing, this is an argument for being immoral to steal bee's honey. Why, because when stealing honey from bees you inevitably kill some of the bees. Next, humans artificially select the queen bee, interfering with natural selection. This could weaken the species by allowing bees to be queen that normally would not occur.
Instead, if you worried about the bees, home for bees should be built that don't exploit the bee's labor. Building bee homes, similar to bird's house and leaving them alone. A person could buy more organic food in lieu of conventional to reduce pesticide use.
By continuing to exploit and enslave bees we may be harming wild bee populations. Not only that, but the precedence is set, that's is okay to exploit animals. If bees are allowed to be exploited, why not other animals? At the same time humans want their rights protected, which is a double standard.
this is an argument for being immoral to steal bee's honey. Why?...
Your premise assumes the conclusion. "Steal" by definition is immoral. You have put the cart before the horse again.
...because when stealing honey from bees you inevitably kill some of the bees.
I think was supposed to be a warrant for the last sentence I quoted but it doesn't really warrant it because it is more of stand alone premise. The premise is "when taking honey you kill bees."
Are bears committing an immoral act when they take honey from bees? Driving cars kills bees too, but you aren't taking their honey when you do this. I assume that taking the honey is adding insult to injury.
Bees suffer much smaller losses in apiaries than in the wild from these types of incidents. I don't see any bears offering year round winterized homes for bees. The loss of bees is minor to the colony when bee keepers harvest honey because the bees are driven away during the process. Beekeepers ensure the minimal amount of damage to be done and to keep the colony healthy.
Next, humans artificially select the queen bee, interfering with natural selection. This could weaken the species by allowing bees to be queen that normally would not occur.
Or it could not.
There is nothing inherently wrong with artificial selection. Humans have done this for thousands of years in both plant and animals; rice corn and other grains or dogs, sheep etc. There is no reason to automatically favor natural over artificial selection.
Not only that, but the precedence is set, that's is okay to exploit animals.
Your use of the word 'exploit' is a bit loose here.
exploit
verb (used with object)
1.
to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account:
to exploit a business opportunity.
2.
to use selfishly for one's own ends:
employers who exploit their workers.
3.
to advance or further through exploitation; promote:
He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.
I assume you mean definition number 2 and apply that throughout the rest of the rebuttal.
If you are using exploit as the number 2 option then you are again assuming your conclusion.
Instead, if you worried about the bees, home for bees should be built that don't exploit the bee's labor.
The word exploit here is the same as above where the premise assumes the conclusion.
If bees are allowed to be exploited, why not other animals?
Assumes the conclusion again. These types of arguments are definitional fallacies, that is they claim something is like "meat is murder" or "taxes are theft". At no time have you made an argument for this but instead offer petitions of principle.
At the same time humans want their rights protected, which is a double standard.
You haven't established which rights, thats bees have, that have been intruded upon. Again you haven't established that bees are analogous to humans. You tried again this time with less hyperbole, not human organ farms but now rights.
You are anthropomorphizing bees, that is giving them human like qualities. Sure animals have rights but they are not equal to peoples rights. Like I said less hyperbole this time.
Clearly there is a symbiotic relationship between bees and humans and not the exploitation you fail to manifest. No "factory farm" conditions have been produced as evidence nor if they they were would it matter unless it was shown to be the majority of the practice. I can't see harvesting honey to be immoral.
Alright, but what else would you call taking honey from a bee? I think what your stating is that bees must have certain rights for the action to be considered stealing. If a rock has a shirt on top of it, you cannot steal the rock's shirt, because the stone does not own the shirt.
I contend that bees should have rights, including the ability to own honey and thus a person can steal from a bee.
Killing bees
No, a bear cannot be held to the same standards as humans. Bears cannot even understand human morals, it would be like asking a deaf person to hear.
Driving a car and killing a bee is an unintentional death. Beekeepers on the other hand deliberately smoke the bees and steal the bee's honey. Let's put this another way, if somebody accidentally kills a pedestrian, isn't that different than robbing the same pedestrian at gunpoint, and when the pedestrian fights back, shooting the person?
Artificial selection of queen bee
Domestic dogs get diseases like cancer, yet wild animals suffer little disease by comparison. Some even contend that the reason for colony collapse disorder is due to artificial selection.
Animal Rights
Different countries have different levels of animal rights. Some religions have animal rights already. To assume that animals don't have rights, and that a person cannot steal, exploit, enslave, or murder an animal is clearly part of your culture, but its hardly a worldwide standard.
The principle of Ahimsa comes to mind. Great Britain recognizes animals rights more than Russia.
...but what else would you call taking honey from a bee?
Harvesting? Extracting? Maybe extracting since it doesn't denote such a slanted stance from the start. Calling it stealing right out of the gate certainly "poisons the well".
I contend that bees should have rights, including the ability to own honey and thus a person can steal from a bee.
It has been discussed before that adding value, the work one puts in to a garden, and orchard, the land etc. is what gives the rights of that product to that person. Bees aren't people with these rights but in this way the honey could be considered the bees but also in this case the bees work is being paid for with a relatively safe and stable living conditions.
True bees cannot consent, but you didn't consent for your government to supply you roads, education, protection etc either, you were born into it. Rather it is an unspoken social contract that we participate in and this is something similar to what bees deal with in apiaries. In this way though the apiaries have also put in work and indeed should share in the fruits of their labor.
This is the relationship you still have to show is exploitive to bees. Simply saying "taxation is theft" doesn't make taxation theft nor does it make harvesting honey "exploitation".
No, a bear cannot be held to the same standards as humans. Bears cannot be held to the same standards as humans. Bears cannot even understand human morals,...
Same with a bee. If it isn't stealing for a bear because of lack of understanding human concepts then it wouldn't be stealing for a bee for the same reason.
I don't know if I would argue that inability to comprehend morals would exclude someone from committing acts that are immoral. A mentally ill person could still commit an immoral act even though they do not comprehend the act.
My point with the bear was that bears don't offer any compensation for the harvesting of the honey as people do, if anyone is stealing it is more likely the bear and not the apiaries. Their relationship isn't mutually beneficial.
Beekeepers on the other hand deliberately smoke the bees and steal the bee's honey.
You mean deliberately save bees lives? Using smoke on the bees doesn't kill the bees, it makes them flee and they come back when it is clear. This method saves bees lives and kills much less bees than attacks from bears etc.
Domestic dogs get diseases like cancer, yet wild animals suffer little disease by comparison.
Humans and dogs have a long history of selection together dating back 10's of thoughsands of years. The issues with dogs today is a recent one due to dog breeding that took hold in the 1800's where breeders bred dogs for reasons other than work, as status symbols. This is not an example of what is necessary from "artificial" selection.
Not only is it nor necessary of "artificial" selection it also is not common. Not all dogs are susceptible to these issues nor is pointing to things that haven't worked take away from the many successes we do have from artificial selection. There are many instances where humans selecting has done well, to focus on the ones that didn't work and ignore the rest is just unnecessarily biased.
Some even contend that the reason for colony collapse disorder is due to artificial selection.
Top reasons for the declining numbers of pollinators worldwide are climate change, pesticides and pollution. There is some evidence that suggests beekeeping in some areas has increased competition and this has led to a decline in some competing pollinators, but these seem to be localized events and not a main cause of the declining pollinators.
I do concede this point though as something to be wary of. With any introduced species, be it plant or animal, there may be consequences via competition with indigenous species. It may subject others to or itself to different pathogens. etc. White Pine disease comes to mind. But this is an argument for keeping bees more carefully, not that harvesting honey from bees is immoral.
To assume that animals don't have rights, and that a person cannot steal, exploit, enslave, or murder an animal is clearly part of your culture, but its hardly a worldwide standard.
Actually it isn't my culture and I never made that claim. I said in my last post that animals have rights I just noted that you haven't demonstrated that any of these rights have been stepped on. Saying things like "taxation is theft" doesn't make it so any more than saying "getting honey from bees is exploitation".
"Same with a bee. If it isn't stealing for a bear because of lack of understanding human concepts then it wouldn't be stealing for a bee for the same reason. " J-Roc77
I'm going to focus on this part, since I see it as the most important. You seem to think that taking honey from a bee is not immoral because the bee doesn't understand human morality.
Yet, I contend that grabbing a toddler's toy is both stealing and immoral. Same with a severely mentally handicapped person. Just because the human doesn't understand human morals, doesn't change the fact that stealing from these people is wrong.
In summary, the action of taking without permission nor compensation from a human whether or not that person understands human morals is considered immoral. Therefore, the concept that harvesting a bee's honey without permission nor compensation is moral since the bee doesn't understand human morals is insufficient justification.
You seem to think that taking honey from a bee is not immoral because the bee doesn't understand human morality.
Nope, I don't think that. I argued that bees are fairly compensated. Since your rebuttal doesn't address my points I think you may have not read my full post.
Bold yours, italics mine.
Are bears committing an immoral act when they take honey from bees?
No, a bear cannot be held to the same standards as humans. Bears cannot be held to the same standards as humans. Bears cannot even understand human morals,...
Same with a bee. If it isn't stealing for a bear because of lack of understanding human concepts then it wouldn't be stealing for a bee for the same reason.
I don't know if I would argue that inability to comprehend morals would exclude someone from committing acts that are immoral. A mentally ill person could still commit an immoral act even though they do not comprehend the act.
See the second paragraph I wrote; A mentally ill person could still commit an immoral act even though they do not comprehend the act, the act is noted as being immoral even if they do not comprehend the act.
The sentence before that is me saying I wouldn't argue your position, that is I find the position weak, just because a bear doesn't understand morals doesn't mean a bear cannot commit immoral acts.
I then posited that people offer compensation to bees where a bear does not.
So I can conclude that you think it should be stealing if a bear takes honey from bees now?
In summary, the action of taking without permission nor compensation from a human whether or not that person understands human morals is considered immoral.
Yup that was never in question. I was addressing your excuse for the bear not being sufficient. Why would not understanding morals prevent bears from committing immoral acts but not stop immoral acts from happening to them? Your assigning human values to bees and bears is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Therefore, the concept that harvesting a bee's honey without permission nor compensation is moral since the bee doesn't understand human morals is insufficient justification.
You come to your conclusion without addressing my analogy, my point has nothing to do with bees capabilities in understanding human morals, my point is that bees are compensated in a similar way that humans are. You just say bees and humans are alike but you don't say how they are alike similar to how I did.
I addressed compensation, likened harvesting honey to taxation and that consent is not always needed. I further argue that your position now presumes bees can consent when there is no basis for animals being able to consent to this level of complexity.
To be clear I don't find he harvesting of honey to be moral, I just don't find it immoral. I hardly think many slanted petitions of principle would change many peoples minds. I would guess though that you hang out or discuss these ideas on vegan forums?
I just hazard this guess because the type of rhetoric you are using is the kind that is usually preaching to the choir rather than trying to sway others. Examples like the framing of the debate with the slanted language (steal) and so on.
"Nope, I don't think that. I argued that bees are fairly compensated."
I disagree, this sets all sorts of loopholes for the enslavement of other sentient beings. Look I build a chicken coop, this is fair compensation for chickens. Since this is fair compensation for chickens, lets extend this to all poultry. Lets extend this to pigs, cows, chimpanzees, bonboo monkeys, and humans too.
Why would not understanding morals prevent bears from committing immoral acts but not stop immoral acts from happening to them? Your assigning human values to bees and bears is arbitrary and inconsistent.
You can't separate morality from the person performing the deed. Let's say an inanimate object fell on somebody's foot. You wouldn't call the inanimate object immoral? You wouldn't call gravity evil would you? It would hurt and be annoying, but it wouldn't be immoral.
I just hazard this guess because the type of rhetoric you are using is the kind that is usually preaching to the choir rather than trying to sway others. Examples like the framing of the debate with the slanted language (steal) and so on.
...this sets all sorts of loopholes for the enslavement of other sentient beings.
I took an analogy and extended it to animals, you just called this analogy enslavement. This is quite hyperbolic and also not supported by any warrants from you. Enslavement is a loaded word, another petition of principle.
And your continuation along these lines; Lets extend this to pigs, cows, chimpanzees, bonboo monkeys, and humans too. is a slippery slope fallacy, one does not logically lead to another because there are important differences between the examples that are not shown.
Pigs cows and so on are not comparable to getting honey from bees, maybe milk cows but not meat. Other monkeys or apes are right out for the same reason because we do not harvest anything they make so extending this logic to them fails.
I gave an example of a social contract with people being born into a system and then extended this to animals. You haven't shown why it is enslavement for animals but not for people. Unless you think that "taxation is slavery" for people too do you? If not whats the difference then? Like above where I noted the difference where your analogy fails, can you tell me why my analogy fails? So far you have just said things like I am afraid if I keep just getting petitions of principle from you we have nothing to discuss.
"Enslavement is a loaded word, another petition of principle. " J-Roc77
There is merit in your retort.
One flaw I see with renaming something is in the book 1984. If we don't call slavery slavery we are using a form of censorship. For example, lets say we used a new term for killing animal x, yet the term sounded too cutesy to really get the meaning across. Lets call the term beef, pork, and veal.
Do you see how you are using a form of censorship? By calling the food we eat beef instead of cow we are alienating ourselves from the reality that a cow had to die for that food. The same goes for enslavement of bees. If we told ourselves that we were beekeeping instead of slavery we are telling ourselves a lie.
"And your continuation along these lines; Lets extend this to pigs, cows, chimpanzees, bonboo monkeys, and humans too. is a slippery slope fallacy, one does not logically lead to another because there are important differences between the examples that are not shown. "
We already enslave and murder bees, chickens, pigs, cows, chimpanzees, and bonboo monkeys legally. No slippery slope fallacy there, because these actions already occur. There is some argument for humans, since to the best of my knowledge enslavement of humans is illegal worldwide.
Yet, human trafficking still takes place. Perhaps if we stopped exploiting bees through bonboo monkeys there would be less human trafficking. By enslaving non-human animals I contend that we are devaluing life and thus encouraging the enslavement of humans.
"I gave an example of a social contract with people being born into a system and then extended this to animals."
I'm having trouble finding this example of a social contract. Its now bogged down in the replies. Is this the correct paragraph?
"It has been discussed before that adding value, the work one puts in to a garden, and orchard, the land etc. is what gives the rights of that product to that person. Bees aren't people with these rights but in this way the honey could be considered the bees but also in this case the bees work is being paid for with a relatively safe and stable living conditions. "
The difference between bees and humans is that humans can simply pick up and move to a different state. They aren't stuck with the same home in the same location. Bees would have done the work of pollinating with or without humans. Humans have just found a way to cut themselves in on the deal. Bees are quite capable of building homes their selves.
"You haven't shown why it is enslavement for animals but not for people. Unless you think that "taxation is slavery" for people too do you? If not whats the difference then? Like above where I noted the difference where your analogy fails, can you tell me why my analogy fails?"
Taxation is not slavery. Humans have the right to move to another country. There are many tax breaks for poor people in 1st world countries.
"So far you have just said things like I am afraid if I keep just getting petitions of principle from you we have nothing to discuss.
You called my arguments petitions of principle and I call your attempt a form of 1984 censorship.
If we don't call slavery slavery we are using a form of censorship...You called my arguments petitions of principle and I call your attempt a form of 1984 censorship.
You have never established your definitions to be justified, you are assuming the conclusion, begging the question. That s why I call it a petition of principle, you are trying to assert it is evident already. This is how we started, looks like we re full circle. You may as well be saying "in my opinion" at the start of the declaration. Before I said your argument is hyperbolic but now its gone beyond that. You went all 1984.
Your argument is a pull to group cohesion. It is based on how the listener feels about the claim makers opinion of the listener, to paraphrase the argument" accept the definition or you are censoring". It could be other things, like the definitions hasn't been shown to be valid. If the group using this rhetoric is in the majority, exerting more force for group cohesion, your argument would still be fallacious...but stronger on the social level.
That is because it is more of a force type argument, either for us or against us, but the group doesn't have much force.
Within groups I am sure these definitions fly, but on a broader scale they fail because the group isn't really coherency isn't located geographically but ideologically. These types of rhetorics you are using works well with like minded people because they can all sit together and say "yeah, well put" and stuff like that but abroad they fail to keep their meaning.
We already enslave and murder bees, chickens, pigs, cows, chimpanzees, and bonboo monkeys legally. No slippery slope fallacy there, because these actions already occur
I think you have tried to make some comparisons but these lack depth. Its that broad brush that leaves out the details.
You cannot say keeping bees is the same as keeping bonobos without it being a broad brush statement. The difference in consciousness of apes is much greater documented and studied than any study for bees, their habitat differ, their uses in animal husbandry differ, their historical keeping differs greatly.
An argument for not keeping apes has gained ground on some social levels but anything for bees is almost unheard of because the nature of each condition differs immensely. I don't think comparing bees to apes would help the cause to release apes from captivity if the situation were reversed. The claim is indeed in the nature of an attempt at reducing to the absurd or slippery slope.
If you don't differentiate between the conditions and relations to people and these animals your argument is too broad, it really is an argument against animal husbandry altogether.
The difference between bees and humans is that humans can simply pick up and move to a different state.
Another big brush. Moving can come at great cost for people, it is largely dependent on prior and potential costs incurring in the move, losing social groups, uncertainty of new place, job, stability building a new social group and so on. This also doesn't get around the analogy I employed of the social contract.
Moving makes a person dependent to a large level on the new people they meet unless they have contacts there already. Having things set up for you certainly helps, be it family or friends. Benefiting from previous infrastructure is a benefit from participating in the social contract. If you move you cannot opt out of benefitting from many of these things like roads are preexisting etc.
This makes people largely dependent on preexisting conditions much like what bees benefit from this quasi social contract of animal husbandry. Many apiaries keep bees in a variety of places throughout the year to keep the most acceptable climates and food source to pollinate at hand. Bees needs are catered to because they coincide with our needs, the relationship is symbiotic. The bees need to goto better areas is a need that is held in common with people, food production in particular.
human trafficking still takes place. Perhaps if we stopped exploiting bees through bonboo monkeys there would be less human trafficking.
I would look into the causes of human trafficking before I would go making claims like that. Pretty sure it isn't the honey trade.
I know you are discussing an ideological shift but the shift you're discussing isn't on the edge of the paradigm that is ready for such a leap. When your argument is a pull to group cohesion and your stance is not widely held you are not being productive for your side because you don't appear reasonable at times. This is why I said your stance is hyperbolic and it doesn't help you.
Had you made a case for not keeping apes then I think your stance would be closer to where the rhetoric you use would be slightly more persuasive, but still fallacious. I think that a logical argument would sway more to release apes from captivity (where in that the release would not endanger them). There is a stronger case there than there is with bees and honey.
And you get more flies with honey or something, if you want to get others to go vegan I mean.
We should continue to exploit them until they object. The bees have no quarrel with us taking their honey. And anyway it's a symbyotic relationship. We keep them from predators and provide a good source of nectar for them. True that is for producing honey for our own ends but it also benefits them. Everybody is happy. In any case, it's not as if they don't know if they are oppressed because they are animals and animals are not sentient beings! Also, animals are not homosexual unlike Cartman would have you believe. He is wrong. Also, in case he thinks this is backside gossipping, it is not! I LOUDLY DEMAND THAT HE RESPOND TO THIS IS HE WANTS TO AS EVIDENCED BY THE CAPITALIZATION OF THIS SENTENCE! I will fight any fool dum enough to disagree with me. (No offense)
As a former beekeeper myself, I must say that we don't smoke them when we harvest the honey. Smoking works because the bees think there is a fire and gorge themselves on honey to carry with them as they escape the fire. When they are so busy and full they are less likely to sting me. Needless to say, I don't what they eating all their honey when I go to harvest it. I use a special repellent to chase them out of the honey surplus boxes before I take them away.
