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.
See you changed the question, now the answer is yes because animals help us on a daily basis, although they are being replaced by machines, they have the same value as humans.
And actually, now that I think about it, you were correct before, because the earth is being ruined by humans, and animals keep it in a good state.
But if humans learned from animals to live with nature instead of building upon it, that would be nice
Let me see if I have this correctly: animals have the same value of humans because they are useful to us? Right... you really do not see the flaw in that argument?
you're all right. they do not have the same value. they obviously have more value than you. why did animals become your daily utilities? because you didnt have the strength or skills to do the job yourself
It was never my argument that non-human animals have lesser value because they are my "daily utilities". Your rebuttal would be better directed against the OP who made that initial argument. My point was that their attempt to justify equal value between the species by reducing the non-human animal to its utility for human beings was self-contradicting.
Animals have more value than humans. Humans kill, steal, etc. for the mere pleasure of doing so, animals generally do so in order to survive. How many jails are built for punishment of animals other than mankind?
Humans kill, steal, etc. for the mere pleasure of doing so, animals generally do so in order to survive.
Anyone with a large dog with a particular fondness for smaller critters or a sadistically playful cat knows this is simply not true. I realize you said generally, but this is anything but a small exception to the rule and I suspect the addition of the word was an attempt at culpability evasion. Plenty of examples of unnecessary killing (far beyond those committed by domesticated pets mind you) and such happen in nature. Also, would the fact that my acts are driven by a need for survival excuse their moral significance?
How many jails are built for punishment of animals other than mankind?
Several in fact, as long as we accept jail in its polysemic vagueness to refer to a general place of containment. If instead you wish to use the exclusively human institution, than the point is pedant and can easily be dismissed as a necessary element to a species possessing the faculties to develop such complex social arrangements.
Well if you look at this in a way, you are technically a animal. Every human is an animal and I believe that you think humans are important. So really with this debate there is only one choice humans are animals so either way you would save both.
They are important because they have saved so many life and with out them we wouldn't be here but anyways we can live without them know but still like to have them because they help with peoples feelings they help us get cures for things every day and also they do many of other things for us.
They are important because they have saved so many life and with out them we wouldn't be here but anyways we can live without them know but still like to have them because they help with peoples feelings they help us get cures for things every day and also they do many of other things for us.
You just stated we can live without them.I agree. Human beings can also do all the things you have mentioned.
Anyway we're getting away from the point. The point is why is one single animal so important? Why is cow x or dog a so important we have, for example, cow y or dog b.
No it's about cow x or human b who would you save.
Okay. If there was a group of 100 humans and a group of 100 cows. I would choose to kill 1 of the 100 cows because I know that the other 99 cows can fulfil the exact same purpose as the 1 I killed. This cannot be said for the one human I could kill.
Why the cow can fulfil different purposes that you killed. If I killed one human the other 99 humans can fulfil the exact same purpose as the 1 that I just killed.
I'm taking a different look on things. I really think that it depends on the person and what they care for. I've like animals but I realize other people love them and really cure about them more than humans. Like I said it depend on the person views.
Yes! An animal has a life- they only live once just like humans. I don't know why anyone would say that they don't have the same value. I get it- they're animals and live in the out doors but this is saying that I'm better than a person because of something that really doesn't matter like skin color or clothing.
If this is you trying to find more evidence to support zoophilia, then forget aboot it. A child's life has the same value as that of an adult, doesn't mean having sex with one should be legal.
Think of it: the earth can survive fine without humans, nothing that much will change and things may even improve because no more humans are destroying the animals' homes and polluting their water. However, say all species of sharks disappear. The ecosystem will be imbalanced for quite a while, and may even just collapse. Humans are just animals that live not in a natural habitat, but in an artificial area.
You honestly believe that if all humans were to suddenly disappear, it would be fine? By your argument about sharks, I believe you do understand that the ecosystem isn't exactly elastic enough. Thus, your claim seems oddly inconsistent with itself.
The Topic Question:Does a animal have the same value as a human?
The response:
In most cases, a human organs are worth a great deal more than an animal's organs, so from that perspective, humans are a lot more valuable than animals.
The only reason human organs are worth more is because to us as a species we can only function with our set of organs.... If you were a squirrel, assuming they were capable of thinking about this topic, you would prefer a squirrel's organs. Also its unfair to consider ourselves as superior. Religious beliefs aside, the only reason we believe ourselves better than that of a wild animal is because we are the dominate species and we would rather focus on ourselves as a species than another one...
The only reason human organs are worth more is because to us as a species we can only function with our set of organs....
Duh.
If you were a squirrel, assuming they were capable of thinking about this topic, you would prefer a squirrel's organs.
That's moot.
Also its unfair to consider ourselves as superior.
That's ok, because we are superior regardless of whether we consider it or not. :)
Religious beliefs aside, the only reason we believe ourselves better than that of a wild animal is because we are the dominate species and we would rather focus on ourselves as a species than another one...
I don't understand how any of this refutes my point. :)
How it is because of them that we don't have to go though painful testing and we were able to have the gold rush and have stop many of bombs from going off. They help with the sick they keep us happy and also they make more jobs plus if it wasn't for monkeys we wouldn't be here.
Value is an idea we create and apply to the world around us; it does not exist outside of our conception of it. The way we treat non-human animals strongly indicates that, on average, we do not value them the same.
Determining the value of something organic with any other criterion other than morality is beyond the capacity of those present. How can we assess the ecological significance of any particular organism to the fullest extent? There is no conceivable means we could use to determine the entirety of the effects any particular living creature has on worldly affairs. Given this, we must approach the question as if applies to moral value. This is a much easier question, as life other than our own intrinsically has none. Morality is a product of human faculties, meaning that the only organisms capable of possessing value are humans. Therefor, humans have greater value than other animals.
I agree with everything you have said, but feel you made something of a premature leap to your conclusion. Morality is a byproduct of human faculties, but this alone does not immediately mean that humans have greater value. That we do not ascribe equal value to animals through our moral perspectives means that human have greater value (and this truth is borne out by how we treat other animals).
Morality is a byproduct of human faculties, but this alone does not immediately mean that humans have greater value.
Logical deduction can lead to no other conclusion.
-Morality (and therefor moral value) exists as a byproduct of human faculties
-Human faculties are exclusive to humans
-Animals lack human faculties (apologies for the tautology, but it seemed necessary)
-Animals lack morality(and therefor moral value)
The only elements of morality that apply to animals are those born out of our relationship to property(which admittedly is a very significant element, indeed I'd go so far as to say the most important, but this isn't something intrinsic and is only applied on a case-by-case basis)
That we do not ascribe equal value to animals through our moral perspectives means that human have greater value
If morality is an objective absolute (which I advocate as the correct premise), then moral perspective as it seems to be applied here is a meaningless criterion for the establishment of any conclusion to the question.
Logical deduction can lead to no other conclusion.
I agree with you up until your observation that because animals cannot self-ascribe moral value they lack it entirely. Humans are fully capable of projecting moral value/judgement onto non-human entities and objects, including animals.
If morality is an objective absolute (which I advocate as the correct premise), then moral perspective as it seems to be applied here is a meaningless criterion for the establishment of any conclusion to the question.
Herein lies the crux of our disagreement.
I view morality as inherently subjective. As you have observed, morality is a byproduct of human faculties. This makes it not an objective actuality but a subjective construction; morality ceases to exist if we do not conceive of it as existing and do not project it out into the objectively real world.
I further consider morality to be inherently non-absolute. The empirical existence of diverse moralities is more than adequate proof to my mind that morality is not an absolute in any possible manner. Moralities are varied, disparate, and contradictory. Case in point: while most people do not genuinely value non-human animals equally to human animals, there are some who would place equal or even greater value on the former than the latter.
cannot self-ascribe moral value they lack it entirely
The crux of our disagreement actually lies in this statement. I approach morality the way a solipsist would, as something applied entirely for the individual and their own experience.
Humans are fully capable of projecting moral value/judgement onto non-human entities and objects, including animals.
But that was the point of my qualification regarding property.
. As you have observed, morality is a byproduct of human faculties. This makes it not an objective actuality but a subjective construction; morality ceases to exist if we do not conceive of it as existing and do not project it out into the objectively real world.
I follow a quasi-Objectivist school of thought, establishing morality as a product provided by the application of human faculties towards the goal of rational self-interest. That is the criterion with which I evaluate moral decisions. Now, if rational self-interest is a subjective phenomenon, than you would be correct. This is where(for the sake of contemporary significance as well as convenience insofar as diction is concerned) I adopt much of the rhetoric of Sam Harris(admittedly ironic in many regards) arguing that things like well-being and self-interest are not outside the area of conclusive evaluation. Thus, I would disagree that the existential status of morality affects its objective nature. What is in your self-interest at any given moment (and therefor moral) would be so even if you didn't project the term moral at it. The means of deriving moral value however(for the sake of continuity) does require such projections.
The empirical existence of diverse moralities is more than adequate proof to my mind that morality is not an absolute in any possible manner. Moralities are varied, disparate, and contradictory.
The multitude and diversity of religions in the world have no bearing on their individual validity, so too is it with morality.
Case in point: while most people do not genuinely value non-human animals equally to human animals, there are some who would place equal or even greater value on the former than the latter.
The existence of a particular viewpoint isn't an indicator of anything. It merely begs the question. Their viewpoint cold be incomplete, misguided, or wrong(or even right). As previously stated, the diversity an d multitude of a phenomenon doesn't inherently denote anything beyond sociological tendencies (something that in no way adequately deals with the question at hand)
The crux of our disagreement actually lies in this statement. I approach morality the way a solipsist would, as something applied entirely for the individual and their own experience.
Strictly within the solipsist perspective, it remains possible for an individual within the realm of their own experience to hold non-human animals at equal value to human animals.
But that was the point of my qualification regarding property.
Lacking your subsequent clarification, I misunderstood your point about property. If I understand correctly now, though, the reason you do not accept the projection of moral value onto non-human animals by anything other than possession is because you consider moral value to be solely tied to service of the rational self-interest. I shall address this below.
I follow a quasi-Objectivist school of thought, establishing morality as a product provided by the application of human faculties towards the goal of rational self-interest.
I ascribe more closely to nihilism myself, and have various issues with the objectivist framework. Before delving into that I think it would be prudent to ensure that we are using “objective” and “subjective” in the same sense; in light of your objectivist influences is it a safe presumption that you use “objective” in the same sense that Ayn Rand does (i.e. that which depends on the relation between a properly functioning (rational) mind and extramental reality). My use of the term “objective” is more accurate with what I think objectivists tend refer to as “intrinsic”; I believe this led me to misunderstand your initial point and for my response to be somewhat off target.
Regarding the objectivist perspective specifically: I find it intriguing that you do not believe we are capable of evaluating the intrinsic value of any creature, yet simultaneously do think that we are capable of rationalizing our own self-interest. My issue with your stance is that while I think humans have a capacity for reason, I also consider that capacity to be restricted and highly imperfect. I do not think one can divorce the analysis of morality and value ascription from the irrational aspects of human nature, since the irrational is just as much an influence upon our conduct and even well-being as the rational. If the irrational and emotional were entirely dysfunctional and counter to our self-interest I do not think they would have persisted so strongly under thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. Even if we our trajectory were towards pure rationalism, I do not think that is ever something we could achieve and we are certainly not there yet which invalidates a perspective that defines morality purely in terms of the rational self-interest.
Now, if rational self-interest is a subjective phenomenon, than you would be correct. This is where(for the sake of contemporary significance as well as convenience insofar as diction is concerned) I adopt much of the rhetoric of Sam Harris(admittedly ironic in many regards) arguing that things like well-being and self-interest are not outside the area of conclusive evaluation. Thus, I would disagree that the existential status of morality affects its objective nature. What is in your self-interest at any given moment (and therefor moral) would be so even if you didn't project the term moral at it. The means of deriving moral value however (for the sake of continuity) does require such projections.
Your argument would make sense if our internally-generated, objective moral projections ever truly and wholly aligned with our actual, intrinsic interests (i.e. if our morality were actually compelled by our rational self-interest alone). I consider morality to be an evolved and conditioned instinct, compelled not only by reason but by emotional compulsions. My view is that the ascertainment of intrinsic self-interest is an altogether separate pursuit than morality; the pursuit of the perfected morality bears no interest for me.
I doubt that we will ever be fully capable of wholly ascertaining our intrinsic self-interest, but I do think we are becoming capable of greater accuracy through the pursuit of reason and logic. That being said, I think this pursuit of intrinsic self-interest is (and ought to be) separate from the pursuit of a perfected morality.
The multitude and diversity of religions in the world have no bearing on their individual validity, so too is it with morality.
My observation had nothing to do with the validity of morality, but it’s lack of absoluteness. A thing which varies as widely as morality can hardly be claimed to be absolute, in my opinion.
The existence of a particular viewpoint isn't an indicator of anything. It merely begs the question. Their viewpoint cold be incomplete, misguided, or wrong(or even right). As previously stated, the diversity an d multitude of a phenomenon doesn't inherently denote anything beyond sociological tendencies (something that in no way adequately deals with the question at hand)
You misunderstood my point here, as with immediately above; again, diverse morality indicates the non-intrinsic nature of morality. There can be no “wrong” or “right” moral perspective (those concepts being, themselves, value judgments) because morality itself lacks an absolute point of reference from which to make such value judgments. Further, defining any particular moral view in terms of intrinsic “correctness” is a misapplication of standards; the function of morality is not to be “complete” or “well-guided” but to be as complete and as well-guided as evolution necessitated.
Before this response is read, I apologize for any particularly spotty places where it may seem I lose interest. My computer has saw fit to freeze and not offer to restore my browser twice in the time I've attempted to make this response. If it fails to live up to the rigor of our debate I can only yield in frustration.
solipsist perspective, it remains possible for an individual within the realm of their own experience to hold non-human animals at equal value to human animals.
The mentioning of solipsism was purely to represent my holding of morality as a purely individual-based phenomenon, and the potential for the mentioned example doesn't denote anything.
I ascribe more closely to nihilism myself
Fear not, I'll not try to "define" your stance into immorality like most other Objectivist-minded people would be inclined to do(a major reason among others for my hesitation for self-identifying as an actual Objectivist).
Before delving into that I think it would be prudent to ensure that we are using “objective” and “subjective” in the same sense
Damn the polysemic nature of English.
For clarity with terminology:
By Objective I mean that which exists independent of the mind or experience.
By Subjective I mean that which is existentially mind-dependent.
By Value I mean the varying degree to which an action, behavior, or thing is in relation to the criterion.
By Virtue(should it ever arise) I mean the means by which we achieve a value.
I find it intriguing that you do not believe we are capable of evaluating the intrinsic value of any creature
Not on ecological terms, the countless examples of unprecedented effects brought about by even subtle changes in nature makes it a herculean task far beyond the capacity of we internet warriors to qualify. We can surely own animals, and they become part of our moral relationship to property, but that is the extent to which they can be given moral value.
yet simultaneously do think that we are capable of rationalizing our own self-interest
We can surely assess it in degrees. Adopting a little more of Sam Harris's rhetoric, there are varying degrees to which we can increase well-being(rational self-interest) from our decisions. We may not pick the action that produces the maximal amount of benefit, but that doesn't exclude any moral value from the chosen action(in other words, there are varying degrees to which your interests are served). This is where the concept of moral value arises.
For example, take the following scenario:
Man 1 consumes a certain amount of alcohol. This makes him belligerent and harmful to those around him. After being aware of this, he chooses to continue drinking. This leads to him committing violent acts on his family, culminating in their departure. Add any number of other potentially consequences.
Man 2 consumes the exact same amount without any such consequences due to his naturally higher tolerance. He's aware of his limitations and acts accordingly.
Man 3 consumes yet again the same amount as the two previous men. He shares Man 1's low tolerance, and knowingly continues to drink. However, after a single incident with his family he ceases to drink.
Man 4 doesn't drink.
Given the criterion of rational self-interest, we can make objective conclusions about the effects these behaviors have on the individuals' well-being.
Man 1 is immoral, or is committing an immoral action because he knowingly acts in a way that results in the elements of his life vital to his self-interest being endangered.
Man 2 is moral, or is committing a moral action because he is behaving in a way that increases the utility of his existence in a way that does not endanger the elements in his life vital to his self-interest.
Man 3 has chosen a moral action by ceasing behavior that places elements vital to his well-being, but only after the fact. The degree to which his well-being was served is lower than that of Man 1.
Man 4 is amoral, or is committing an amoral action because his behavior in no way positively or negatively affects his self-interest(in light of no assumed or added variables).
I do not think one can divorce the analysis of morality and value ascription from the irrational aspects of human nature, since the irrational is just as much an influence upon our conduct and even well-being as the rational.
How can the irrational be conducive to our well-being? Bear in mind I don't fully detach the significance of things like emotion from rational behavior. I fully acknowledge that emotion is a completely rational piece of human existence. Making irrational decisions based on emotion may be more of the point here, but I would argue that things like personal growth in the face of such occurrences are based within rational processes in spite of the irrational.
If the irrational and emotional were entirely dysfunctional and counter to our self-interest I do not think they would have persisted so strongly under thousands of years of evolutionary pressure.
The mass of humanity at any given point and time have believed or acknowledged things as true that aren't, continuing even now under scientific scrutiny. The persistence of such things (religion for example) doesn't denote anything of epistimological value. So too for the given example. Persistence in nature is not necessarily an indicator of a positive trait. I could site detrimental mutations that occur that don't result in the death of a species but still yield a demonstrable negative effect on their standard of living.
Even if we our trajectory were towards pure rationalism, I do not think that is ever something we could achieve and we are certainly not there yet which invalidates a perspective that defines morality purely in terms of the rational self-interest.
This statement could be an ad-populum of a sort. If the Muslim god were real, but there were no Muslims, the Muslim god would still be real.
Your argument would make sense if our internally-generated, objective moral projections ever truly and wholly aligned with our actual, intrinsic interests
Varying points across the moral landscape
My view is that the ascertainment of intrinsic self-interest is an altogether separate pursuit than morality
I'm becoming a little wary of being Sam Harris heavy, but I agree whole-heatedly with him in that if morality deals with something other than well-being than it is a meaningless term.
I doubt that we will ever be fully capable of wholly ascertaining our intrinsic self-interest, but I do think we are becoming capable of greater accuracy through the pursuit of reason and logic
There will always be a valid discussion about what is or may not be in a self-interest. As flawed human beings in a flawed social dynamic, of course what we may perceive to be in a self-interest may indeed run contrary to it. But using it as a criterion for evaluating our decisions, we can reach greater levels of personal utility and understanding. And always underlying is the fact that there are actions that yield the maximal amount of benefit to our self-interest.
My observation had nothing to do with the validity of morality, but it’s lack of absoluteness. A thing which varies as widely as morality can hardly be claimed to be absolute, in my opinion
I think the only thing we can denote about morality given its diversity is that mankind has an intrinsic want to determine morality, and even that is assumptive and subject to better explanations.
There can be no “wrong” or “right” moral perspective (those concepts being, themselves, value judgments)
If morality deals with self-interest, and we can in any way determine that, than there are examples in which there are right and wrong actions, correct?
The mentioning of solipsism was purely to represent my holding of morality as a purely individual-based phenomenon, and the potential for the mentioned example doesn't denote anything.
Duly noted.
Fear not, I'll not try to "define" your stance into immorality like most other Objectivist-minded people would be inclined to do(a major reason among others for my hesitation for self-identifying as an actual Objectivist).
I have had few conversations with objectvists, so I am not entirely certain to what you are referring. I suppose it is not entirely relevant at this point?
By Objective I mean that which exists independent of the mind or experience. & By Subjective I mean that which is existentially mind-dependent.
I was initially using these same definitions; however, my post immediately preceding this one adjusted terminology by introducing intrinsic to mean what you have now defined objective to mean (and objective was used to reference a mix between the intrinsic reality and the subjective reality). Although I think I prefer the new trifecta terminology better I will return to the simpler objective/subjective delineation for this conversation, since it seems we are both fairly familiar with that.
By Value I mean the varying degree to which an action, behavior, or thing is in relation to the criterion.
What do you mean by the “criterion”? Are you from a LD debate background?
When I use value I refer to a subjective judgment of preference projected onto things, actions, or ideas by people.
By Virtue(should it ever arise) I mean the means by which we achieve a value.
I refer to this simply as the means. Virtue is too loaded a term for my preference in most cases.
Not on ecological terms […] that is the extent to which they can be given moral value.
Noted and, I think, not in active dispute.
We can surely assess it in degrees. Adopting a little more of Sam Harris's rhetoric, there are varying degrees to which we can increase well-being(rational self-interest) from our decisions. We may not pick the action that produces the maximal amount of benefit, but that doesn't exclude any moral value from the chosen action(in other words, there are varying degrees to which your interests are served). This is where the concept of moral value arises.
That was rather my point, actually. We can only assess our rational self-interest in degrees, much as we can only assess the full ecological importance of any given creature in degrees. What struck me as curious is that you are so readily dismissed the practicality of the latter while you premise your framework on the latter. My argument is that we are not capable of fully aligning our moral sense with our rational self-interest, and that as a consequence the two are in practicality two distinct (albeit potentially interrelated) ideas and ought to be treated accordingly. I think your approach conflates the two as potentially synonymous.
Regarding your scenario.
Firstly, as I understand your argument morality is individually-based and would thus be derived from and particular to the perspective of the individual. That being the case, Man 1 might be considered moral by his own standards or Man 4 might consider his actions moral rather than amoral.
Secondly, I think your scenario sidesteps the ambiguity of rationally derived moralities. You expressly acknowledge but still exclude complicating variables from your ascription of amoral character to Man 4 (“in light of no assumed or added variables”), and completely ignore the potential complicating variables surrounding the others. I would argue that even were morality defined by pursuit of the rational course of action the complexity of everyday decisions renders that pursuit (and thus the definition of morality) impossible to accurately fulfill.
Thirdly, your scenario defeats your premise in that Man 1 may consider himself a wholly moral man even as his conduct is arguably against his rational self-interest. Morality is not, and I would contend cannot be, rationally derived.
How can the irrational be conducive to our well-being? […] based within rational processes in spite of the irrational.
My argument here was not that the irrational is conducive to our well-being, but that our behavior and moral sensibilities are not and cannot presently be purely rational. It is not in our nature.
The mass of humanity at any given point and time have believed or acknowledged things as true that aren't, continuing even now under scientific scrutiny. The persistence of such things (religion for example) doesn't denote anything of epistimological value. So too for the given example. Persistence in nature is not necessarily an indicator of a positive trait. I could site detrimental mutations that occur that don't result in the death of a species but still yield a demonstrable negative effect on their standard of living.
I recognize that persistence does not make something a positive attribute. My point was that irrationality and emotion are not so detractive to human well-being that they were selected out by the natural course of evolution. Pure or even prevailing rationality is not only unnecessary for survival, but its tenuous influence upon human decision making indicates that it may not even be that terribly strong of a positive attribute.
This statement could be an ad-populum of a sort. If the Muslim god were real, but there were no Muslims, the Muslim god would still be real.
I fail to see how ad-populum applies; I am not appealing to the masses nor to popular sentiment or emotional appeal. My argument is that there is no evidence that pure rationalism is attainable, and that absent such a basis the subsequent conflation of morality and rationality is in error.
Varying points across the moral landscapeIn re: “Your argument would make sense if our internally-generated, objective moral projections ever truly and wholly aligned with our actual, intrinsic interests.”
I am unsure what you are getting at with this response.
I'm becoming a little wary of being Sam Harris heavy, but I agree whole-heatedly with him in that if morality deals with something other than well-being than it is a meaningless term.
Why? I am not familiar enough with Sam Harris to know the argument.
There will always be a valid discussion about what is or may not be in a self-interest. As flawed human beings in a flawed social dynamic, of course what we may perceive to be in a self-interest may indeed run contrary to it. But using it as a criterion for evaluating our decisions, we can reach greater levels of personal utility and understanding. And always underlying is the fact that there are actions that yield the maximal amount of benefit to our self-interest.
I would add that most actions are not purely beneficial or purely detrimental, but are more commonly a mix of costs and benefits. To agree with your statement here, though, there are absolutely instances when our perception does not match our genuine self-interest. That difference between perception and actuality is precisely my reason for rejecting a conception of morality derived from its self-interest utility. It seems to me that you are advocating for rationalism but attempting to call it by another name (i.e. morality). To me, it is more sensible to cut out morality as the middle-man and pursue reason as a means to its own ends.
I think the only thing we can denote about morality given its diversity is that mankind has an intrinsic want to determine morality, and even that is assumptive and subject to better explanations. & In case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean morality here in the general sense but in the specific context at hand.
It cannot be intrinsic to the human condition if there are people who do not want to determine morality. I am one of those people. I do not ascribe moral value to the people, objects, ideas, or events in my life.
I do not think that morality can be improved upon, made less assumptive or subject to better explanations, at least very effectively. Again, it makes more sense to me to abandon morality in preference of a better means and ends.
If morality deals with self-interest, and we can in any way determine that, than there are examples in which there are right and wrong actions, correct?
I believe my stance against this particular premise is quite clear from my above comments, yes? That being the case, to address this as if I did not dispute the premise:
My issue with “right” and “wrong” is that they inherently connote a judgment rather than a practical observation. We may give preference to something which is better, but I would contend that this is very different than choosing something because it is “right”.
It's been a long time my friend! Hope you are doing well. I apologize for never following up on this discussion, life circumstances got in the way and CD slipped from my mind. Although it's actually been quite a few years since I've had a substantial conversation regarding ethics/morality, perhaps we can revive this conversation from the grave! Either way, it's worth commending the time put into your argument/perspective, and conversation with you was among the best that I took part of on this site.
Yo! Welcome back. It's great to hear from you. I've doing well enough; hope things are good your end. We had some solid exchanges way back when (so many years, wow).
This particular thread may be dead beyond revival (at least, I'd like to believe my views have evolved a bit in six years lol). I'd love to kick some philosophy around with you though; anything you're chomping at the bit to discuss/debate? Otherwise, I hope we'll catch each other around before life drags either of us off again (I've been intermittently awol myself).
I've only recently rekindled my appreciation for philosophy, it's a muscle I'm eager to exercise after years of neglect. I'm currently rereading works that were formulative for me, so hopefully in the near future we can once again have a substantial discourse. It's sad to see that not much of that occurs here compared to the old days, I'm surprised Andy has kept the site running at such expense to himself with such a limited pool of serious posters.
Did you by chance ever end up reading The Moral Landscape?
In my profoundly biased opinion, philosophy is a great interest to rekindle. And, selfishly, I'm glad you're returning to it and popped back to CD too. I'm currently taking a deep dip into some german stuff and glad to come up for some much needed air to discuss other things. I did do a light read of The Moral Landscape, but it was a while back and I'm not sure I retain more than the basic gist of it. Suffice it to say, I wasn't persuaded and still hold to my value nihilism.
The most well known contemporary moral skeptics are probably J.L. Mackie and Richard Joyce; the latter builds upon the former to some extent and I would argue is the more interesting of the two. My go to dude is Max Stirner, but strictly speaking they're more of a political anti-moralist egoist than a metaphysical value nihilist. Stirner is free here; idk any open source stuff for the others.
If anything, though, for the love of nothing don't look to Nietzsche (bane of my nihilistic existence).
Animals actually help us in many different ways , but the main object is that animals have spirits so they can feel , learn and even think .. so we should Considerate them ... but we cant deny that humans have more intelligence than animals . Animals also are created by GOD to benefit us ... we can see a human raising an animal but we may never see the opposite of that ....so in my opinion i say no
God would have to real for that to be true and also intelligence is not always a good thing.
There has been many of times animals have risen humans and that's fact and we have also cut it on video before I think but it's for sure fact that we seen it happened before.
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground -Genesis 1:26
You just admitted to be willing to commit crimes. You do have something to lie about, and you are picking the wrong thing. Your complete obliviousness to the use of the English language makes what you write down different than what you mean.
True, and I just said I didn't call you names. I am glad that you have agreed that I didn't call you names, that I am debating properly, and that you feel you are a cry baby.
and if you don't like my grammar then don't message me it's that simple.
Look what happens when I spin that around: If you want me to grow up, then don't message me, it's that simple. How come you don't follow your own advice? The grammar is not for my benefit, it is for yours. People sound like idiots when they use poor grammar and spelling.
I didn't mention your emotional state in any way. I didn't even reference it, and I didn't even know it was a topic for discussion. It is weird that you bring it up. In fact it doesn't actually make any sense to bring it up. I just asked a simple question. The only reason for you to bring it up is because your initial reaction was that of anger. So, why you mad bro?
I am really having fun talking to you kid because you're so funny and stupid.
It is really hilarious that you claim to think I am stupid. Is it a defense mechanism, or are you on drugs? I went through and explained how your line of thinking actually goes against what you do yourself. Your response was to call me stupid with no explanation.
Do you honestly believe that someone who writes in a way that is less readable (bad grammar) is more intelligent than the person who writes well?
Come on, you guys. This should be obvious. A squirrel and your Girl or Boyfriend are in two different houses. you cannot contact the police. there is a bomb in each house, and you can diffuse it. they are timed so that you can only diffuse one bomb. which one would you choose? obliviously your gf or bf. squirrels have little value, while a you would love a partner. Now it it was your pet squirrel that you love and a person that has the IQ of 3 that you hated, that would be a different story. you would save the squirrel. but chances are you are the only one that cares about that squirrel, but that person still has a family that cares for them.
First of all you sir are "oblivious" although i imagine you meant "obviously". and second at the same time. two houses. two bombs. on choice. your "gf or bf" or some random person. your gf or bf right? the other persons dead. same choice. or some person you dont know and the dog you,ve had and loved for years. idk about you but i'd choose the dog
In the case of BF/GF, you would choose to save him/her because you have spent loads of time with him/her and you would also know that his/her family would get back at you/be upset if you let him/her die. However, squirrels won't hate you or get super upset over the death of their family member/friend, so you would be negatively affecting fewer lives.