Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arbitrariness
There is arbitrariness about X if we can ask a meaningful and nontrivial question: “Why X and not for example, Y or Z?” and if this question cannot be answered by a rule which does not explicitly refer to X (or if there is no reason why X would be so special). The question is meaningful when Y and Z belong to the same set or category as X (and are therefore not something completely different) and the question is non-trivial if Y and Z are not simply “non-X”.
Sometimes arbitrariness is unavoidable in the sense of logically impossible to avoid it. The anti-arbitrariness principle says that we have to avoid all avoidable arbitrariness. If one thing goes for X, then it must also apply to all Y and Z that are equal to X (belong to the same set as X) according to a rule, unless the result becomes inconsistent or impossible.
First we have to look whether the anti-arbitrariness principle is itself arbitrary and therefore defeats itself. The answer is no. Of course we can always ask the trivial question: “Why be against arbitrariness and not against non-arbitrariness?” But any other nontrivial question becomes meaningless. For example: “Why be against arbitrariness and not against apples or bananas?” Apples and bananas do not belong to the same category as arbitrariness.
Democracy of coherent ethical systems
As in science and mathematics, the anti-arbitrariness principle is also fundamental in ethics. Physical theories that describe our universe and axiomatic systems that describe mathematical structures are examples of coherent systems that are consistent and do not contain avoidable arbitrariness. The same goes for ethics, where we can construct coherent ethical systems based on fundamental principles, just like mathematical axioms or universal physical laws.
So everyone can construct their own coherent ethical system, and we can aim for a consensus or democratic compromise between everyone’s system by using a democratic procedure. In a democracy, everyone has one vote, or everyone’s vote is equally important, because we cannot say that our own vote (one coherent ethical system) is better than someone else’s. I cannot say that my coherent ethical system is better than yours if both our systems are equally coherent. I prefer my system, but I cannot impose my system onto you, because what would make me so special that I would be allowed to do that? And the same goes for you and everyone else. It would be an avoidable kind of arbitrariness if we claim that our own system is special without good reason.
What happens if someone constructs an incoherent ethical system that contains avoidable arbitrariness (for example a discriminatory system that says that you can arbitrarily choose your victims)? We can reject, exclude or oppose that incoherent ethical system, and that person cannot complain that his/her system is rejected and that s/he does not get a vote in the democratic procedure, because that person acknowledges that arbitrary exclusions or rejections are permissible by acknowledging that arbitrariness is permissible. After all, that person uses an arbitrary system. The person can only give a valid complaint or argument if s/he accepts the anti-arbitrariness principle. Without that principle, any critique becomes invalid. The impossibility to complain if one has an incoherent ethical system implies that coherent ethical systems gain a more objective or absolute status. Hence the quasi-objective morality implied by the anti-arbitrariness principle.
Universal rules
Anti-arbitrariness results in universal moral rules. The principle of rule universalism says that one must follow the rules that everyone (who is capable, rational and well informed) must follow in all morally similar situations, and that one may follow only the rules that everyone (who is capable, rational and well informed) may follow in all morally similar situations.
The question becomes: what counts as morally similar situations? Situations can be called similar if morally relevant properties of the situation are similar, and those morally relevant properties should not contain avoidable arbitrariness. Examples of morally relevant properties are: well-being (of all sentient beings who have a well-being), preferences (of everyone who has them) and rights (of everyone and everything).
Universal rights
Human rights are arbitrary: why should all and only humans get rights? What makes humans (including for example mentally disabled orphan children) so special? What morally relevant property do all and only humans possess? If you are allowed to arbitrarily exclude other individuals from having rights and if you are allowed to arbitrarily select a group of right holders (e.g. the biological group of humans), then so am I and so is everyone, and you cannot want that. If speciesism is permissible, then so is racism, sexism and all other forms of arbitrary discrimination, and we cannot want that.
So instead of asking the question: “who gets all the basic rights?” we have to ask the question: “which rights should be given to everyone and everything, without arbitrary exceptions?” Everything really implies everything: electrons, planets, plants, animals, humans, computers, clouds,… This guarantees that all possible kinds of arbitrary discrimination are excluded.
If we give the basic right not to be killed to everything and everyone in the universe, we are not allowed to kill plants for food. But sentient beings cannot want that, and plants do not have a will, so they don’t care about not being killed because they do not have the mental capacity to care (they don’t experience anything so they even don’t feel or know if they are alive or dead). So we can consider basic rights such as the right not to be killed against one’s will, the right not to be confined against one’s will, the right not to be used as a means against one’s will.
With these rights, we can do whatever we like with things that do not possess a will, such as plants and individual living cells, because one cannot treat something against its will if it has no will. So for non-sentient objects (that have no subjective experience of a will), the basic rights are always trivially satisfied. We always respect the basic rights of non-sentient beings for 100%. For sentient beings (for example vertebrate animals and probably some other animals) the rights become nontrivial. These rights result in for example a vegan lifestyle. Abortion would be permissible because the embryo does not yet have a will (it therefore cannot be killed against its will) and the mother has a right not to be used by the embryo as a means (as a reproduction machine) against her will.
The only human right would be a right to be human, but that right is as meaningless as a right to be white or a right to be man. Ethical systems with non-universal rights are not permissible, because these systems contain avoidable arbitrariness.
The golden rule
A variation of the golden rule that we encountered several times before, is: “If you are allowed to do something, then so am I”, or more precisely: “If you are allowed to do something, then you must be able to want that everyone may do the symmetrically equivalent thing.” The symmetrical equivalence consists of a similar act by which the description of the pronouns “you” or “your” are exchanged with “I/he/she”, “me/him/her” or “my/his/her”. The positions of you and someone else are completely reversed. Here are some examples that illustrate this rule and demonstrate that we can deduce a lot from this rule.
We can easily derive things that you are not allowed to do, because you do not want them to be done to you. For example: if you may hit my cheek, I may hit your cheek. If you may impose your rules on others, others may impose their rules on you. If you may forbid homosexuality because you find it unclean, unholy or disgusting, then someone else may forbid something that you like and he finds unholy, for example playing guitar. If you may use vague or arbitrary reasons to justify your behavior that I don’t like, I am allowed to use vague reasons as well to justify my behavior that you don’t like. If you may say that we should follow the Bible because the Bible is the true word of God, I may say that we should follow the Bhagavat Gita as the true word of Krishna. If you may say that your moral intuitions are better than mine, I may say that mine are better than yours. If you may arbitrarily choose your victims, I may arbitrarily choose my victims.
We can also easily derive things that you are allowed to do, because you can want that others do the symmetrically equivalent behavior. For example: if you may eat the food that you bought, then I am allowed to eat the food that I bought.
Some derivations require more work. For example if you may kill a living being to eat, can I also kill a living being? You do not want me to kill you to eat. But you will still be able to kill a plant to eat. So you’re going to have to define a group of living beings that we should not kill and eat. For example, your relatives and friends. But if you may say that we are not allowed to eat your preferred group of friends and relatives, then I may prefer my group that might exclude you, which means I can eat you. If you may kill someone who does not belong to your family and friends, then everyone else may kill anyone who does not belong to their own circle of friends. You cannot want that. So you must define a different group. Perhaps the group of humans and dogs? But if you can determine that one should not eat anyone who belongs to the group of humans and dogs, I may decide that we should not eat anyone belonging to the species of pigs or chickens. Or I may decide that we should not eat someone belonging to the classes of mammals, birds or fish. Then you must accept that you are not allowed to eat meat and fish. But if I may decide that we should not kill animals to eat, then you may decide that we should not kill plants to eat, and I do not want that. So I cannot just define the group of animals. We cannot say that we may kill a living being if that living being does not belong to the group of relatives and friends, the group of people and dogs, the group of mammals and fish or the group of animals. So how may we decide who or what we may kill to eat? By not looking for what we may not kill, but by looking for what we may not kill against its will. So if you are not allowed to kill someone against his or her will, then neither am I. That means I may not kill you against your will. But you and I may still kill a plant, because a plant has no will and therefore cannot be treated against its will.
A final example: if you may follow your ethic, are racists allowed to follow their racist ethic? Are pedophiles, rapists and religious fundamentalists allowed to follow their ethics? You cannot want that. But the ethical systems of racists, pedophiles, rapists and religious fundamentalists contain inconsistencies, avoidable arbitrariness, unscientific beliefs and vague principle. So if your ethical system is more coherent than others (if your ethical system does not contain any inconsistencies, ambiguities and avoidable arbitrariness), then you can say that your ethical system is better than others and then you may oppose the incoherent systems of others.
The fundamental ethical formula
With the anti-arbitrariness principle we can derive many rules, such as the golden rule. Another expression that we can derive may be called the fundamental ethical formula, which can be used as a good basic starting point in ethics: everyone must follow those moral rules of which everyone can want that everyone follows them, in all possible worlds.
*I like your section titled "Arbitrariness." I agree that arbitrariness is sometimes unavoidable and that it's good to avoid arbitrariness unless it becomes unavoidable. To be critical...I wouldn't say that we must avoid arbitrariness whenever possible though. I think society should encourage avoiding arbitrariness. Society should encourage people to have understandable reasons for doing things, even if those reasons are purely based off emotional whims. However, I think it's fine for people to, at times to not know why they're doing things. We don't need to know why we do everything we do. Thinking that much about would become too distracting...but I'd like to see culture change so that people are encouraged to have understandable reasons for doing things. The way things are now...far too many people seem to be proud of philosophies they haven't thought about much...and they seem proud of not thinking those philosophies.
We need to remember that we are flawed human beings though, and carefree whimsical thought, or just following society because we don't want to think about it too much is perfectly fine and even desirable in some circumstances. It's only the big decisions that, if we don't think about them, can cause real problems.
*I like your section titled "democracy of coherent ethical systems." I would very much look forward to a mass discussion about morality. I think even if it failed to change most people's perspectives, it could still bring controversial topics nobody likes to talk about into the light. Should society be more tolerant of incest? Is it sensible to outlaw bestiality in a meat-eating society? Are specific types of censorship warranted? etc.
*I don't have much to say about your section on "universal rules." It wasn't a very long section anyway.
* I have a lot to say about your section on universal rights, and much of it is disagreement.
To answer you question "What morally relevant property do all and only humans possess?" I give the following statements: Human beings are generally better than other species at improving the states of their lives, improving their species, and its generally easier for them to communicate how others can help improve their lives. Even in the cases of the severely retarded or autistic...I would say it's easier to understand their emotional needs than the needs of a nonhuman primate or a whale or dolphin. We can watch the body language of retarded people. Autistic people can talk to us and tell us their needs. We are their same species so we know at least some of the emotions they have, and a bit about how their thought processes work. We can research how an orangutan thinks...but how easy is it to determine what that feels like? We know what behaviors in humans indicate a desire for X. We know how to feed humans without doing extensive research. Our doctors know how to heal humans better than other animals. It takes vast amounts more effort for us to improve nonhuman lives than to improve the lives of human animals, and because of our enhanced ability to care for ourselves our lives likely have more value than that of most complex animals. Now, when it comes to feelings it may be that mammals feel the same pain when hurt humans feel...but even in that case there's less we can do about it than when healing human pain. The suffering of animals is relevant, but it so often seems either exaggerated or ignored. Ideally people would find the middle ground. Yes, nonhuman animal lives have value. Human lives will usually have more...and the lives of some species of feeling mammals have more value than others.
I can also say different races are far closer to one another than different species, so far as I'm aware, and though different sexes are more different than different races, I still find it far easier to relate to a woman than my dog. I even remember a severely retarded girl...someone as different from me as could be. I knew she was happy when she laughed. I didn't understand a large percentage of her thought process...but I could understand her emotions in a way I cannot understand those of my dog. An acquaintance of mine has a severely autistic brother. He has a great sense of humor and I relate to that. I'll see my dog get excited to go outside and understand that, but his interests (such as eating poop) baffled me pretty heavily. If people of other races and the opposite sex did differ as much from me as other species do, then I'd be far less critical of racism. I might even advocate racism.
*Regarding your section on the golden rule, I don't think we need the golden rule. I think it's generally a good way to behave...but what's better than the golden rule is the platinum rule which says to treat others how they'd like to be treated. What's even better than that though, is the rule that says while it's generally a good idea to treat others how they'd like to be treated, that's not always best either. For example, there are times when we'll know more about what's best for others than they do...even with adults. Note that in relationships between humans and nonhuman animals this is particularly common. My dog used to want to chase cars. I, however, realized she would not catch a car and if she did she wouldn't be able to do much with it. Dragging it home like one of the sticks she'd find would be rather difficult considering she was eight inches tall. The ideal solution is to learn about each organism, or fetus, or human being and use that information to determine how to treat them.
However, I think it's fine for people to, at times to not know why they're doing things. We don't need to know why we do everything we do. Thinking that much about would become too distracting...
or perhaps we could say that when it comes to important things in ethics, we have to be able to formulate the reasons (principles or rules) and those have to avoid avoidable arbitrariness. If people cannot give non-arbitrary reasons regarding those important issues, their reasons do not count.
Quote:
To answer you question "What morally relevant property do all and only humans possess?" I give the following statements: Human beings are generally better than other species at improving the states of their lives, improving their species,
be carefull for trivial circularity: of course those belonging to the same species are better able to improve the lives of their species. But the same goes for e.g. orders: primates are better at improving their order of primates. Mammals are better at improving their class of mammals. Males are better at improving their gender of males. Those belonging to the group X are better able to improve those belonging to X.
Furthermore: note that all intermediates have once lived: humans have common ancestors with all other species. So biologically speaking, a species is not well defined: suppose we put all your ancestors in a row, you on the very left, next your mother, your grandfather,... Starting with you and moving down the row of ancestors, when do we meet de first non-human? That is like asking: when does grains of sand become a heap? There is no sharp boundary.
Quote:
and its generally easier for them to communicate how others can help improve their lives.
this will only be of practical relevance, but doesn't say anything about inherent value, I think.
Quote:
Even in the cases of the severely retarded or autistic...I would say it's easier to understand their emotional needs than the needs of a nonhuman primate or a whale or dolphin. We can watch the body language of retarded people. Autistic people can talk to us and tell us their needs.
I'm often better able to judge what my dog wants than what a baby wants.
Quote:
We know how to feed humans without doing extensive research.
but we know more about how to feed some non-human animals (I happened to work in a wildlife rescue center) than how to feed some humans (e.g. people with multiple allergies and digestive problems).
Quote:
Our doctors know how to heal humans better than other animals.
well, strictly speaking that's not the case: most medical research is done using animals in experiments. That means we are often able to treat non-human animals such as mice, but those therapies could not be extrapolated to humans. So for some diseases we know how to treat mice but not how to treat humans.
Quote:
It takes vast amounts more effort for us to improve nonhuman lives than to improve the lives of human animals, and because of our enhanced ability to care for ourselves our lives likely have more value than that of most complex animals.
but who is "ourselves"? Consider again the row of your ancestors: which ones belong to the group of "ourselves"?
Quote:
I can also say different races are far closer to one another than different species,
and different species are closer to one another than different genera, which are closer to one another than different orders, which are closer than different classes,...
And again races, species,... are not well defined, like "heaps" are not well-defined.
Quote:
so far as I'm aware, and though different sexes are more different than different races, I still find it far easier to relate to a woman than my dog. I even remember a severely retarded girl...someone as different from me as could be. I knew she was happy when she laughed.
and what about your dog wagging its tail? We are all very good at interpreting emotions in other animals, such as dogs and pigs. When I lecture about animal rights, I often do the test: show pictures of different pigs, only their facial expressions. Are they happy or afraid? Everyone is able to immediately tell the difference.
Quote:
I'll see my dog get excited to go outside and understand that, but his interests (such as eating poop) baffled me pretty heavily.
speaking about poop: I know some mentally disabled humans who literally want to spread out their poop all over the toilet and eat it. My sister happens to work in a nursing home for mentally disabled, she has seen some of them eating their own poop. They have to wear special tight pants so they could not reach for their poop. And I've never seen my dog eating poop.
Quote:
*Regarding your section on the golden rule, I don't think we need the golden rule. I think it's generally a good way to behave...but what's better than the golden rule is the platinum rule which says to treat others how they'd like to be treated.
the platina rule can be derived from the golden rule, if you apply it consistently. Do you want others to treat you in a way that you do not like to be treated? No, so you should not treat others in a way that they do not like. Do you want others to dictate what you should like? No, so don't dictate what others should like.
Quote:
What's even better than that though, is the rule that says while it's generally a good idea to treat others how they'd like to be treated, that's not always best either. For example, there are times when we'll know more about what's best for others than they do...even with adults.
would you like others to treat you in a way that you would like when you would be rational and well-informed about what's best for you? Yes, you can want that. So you are allowed to treat others in a way they would like when they would be well-informed about what's best for them.
or perhaps we could say that when it comes to important things in ethics, we have to be able to formulate the reasons (principles or rules) and those have to avoid avoidable arbitrariness. If people cannot give non-arbitrary reasons regarding those important issues, their reasons do not count.
I would agree with that.
Quote:
be carefull for trivial circularity: of course those belonging to the same species are better able to improve the lives of their species. But the same goes for e.g. orders: primates are better at improving their order of primates. Mammals are better at improving their class of mammals. Males are better at improving their gender of males. Those belonging to the group X are better able to improve those belonging to X.
Furthermore: note that all intermediates have once lived: humans have common ancestors with all other species. So biologically speaking, a species is not well defined: suppose we put all your ancestors in a row, you on the very left, next your mother, your grandfather,... Starting with you and moving down the row of ancestors, when do we meet de first non-human? That is like asking: when does grains of sand become a heap? There is no sharp boundary.
What I meant by "To answer you question "What morally relevant property do all and only humans possess?" I give the following statements: Human beings are generally better than other species at improving the states of their lives, improving their species," Was that humans are generally better at improving the states of their lives and their species than other species. Our higher intelligence and better communication abilities doe that. Our ability at advanced communication and long term thought gives us the potential for much more effective self-improvement and improvement of our species than nonhuman animals. For nonhuman animals, the concept of improving their species doesn't even exist in their consciousness. Social organisms like apes will attempt to improve the lives of themselves and members of their groups (much less efficiently than humans are capable of). Humans can actually guide and care for their species, and not only their species but nonhuman life too. I think someone could even do a decent job arguing that humans are better at improving the lives of other species than those species are at improving their own lives. Our more advanced worldly knowledge gives us that ability.
I don't know a huge amount about genetics, but genetically we are quite similar to apes from what I understand. I think it could be said there is a sharp divide between humans and other animals though, because of our creativity. It lets us evolve in ways other animals cannot. What takes them thousands of years can take us thirty minutes watching a lecture after which we've learned a new skill. Of course, plenty of animals are unique in interesting ways such as fist sized ameobas in the deep ocean. I think that means they stand out too though. The importance if our uniqueness though is it gives us the ability to (presumably) get more from our lives and that, in particular, lets us stand out more than other organisms.
Quote:
this will only be of practical relevance, but doesn't say anything about inherent value, I think.
Well...I think life has value in various ways. I think it should be possible to form a mathematical equation to determine the values each life form has. There would have to be multiple values though because life can have different types of value. Although, I suppose you could average them all together to determine a single value too. I think we estimations similarly to that naturally all the time. For example, we might think "Joe is an arse. Sue is nicer but less useful. Sarah is both useful and nice. Sarah therefore has the most value." I think we could, if we thought about it enough make thought processes such as the above into mathematical formulas to determine the value of life. It would of course need to be far more complex than the above example to be accurate though.
Anyway, like I mentioned earlier life can have different levels of value in multiple ways. Life can have different levels of value to itself. Someone suicidal has less value to itself than someone who lives in utopia. Life can have different levels of value to society. For example, Jim is retarded. Jim enjoys his life but isn't very good at anything. Jim would therefore seem to have high value to himself but low value to society. However...we discover that Jim's brothers and sisters love him dearly, and so in actuality Jim both has relatively high value to himself and to society. Then there's potential value. Jenny who is an orphan has high potential value but little current value because she's ticked off all the time. She could achieve her maximum value to both society and herself by being adopted.
There are many, many other factors to consider, but I suspect we could develop a type of mathematical formula to determine the value of life, given sufficient information about that life. It's difficult to determine whether or not humans have more value to themselves than other species...but the potential value humans have to our species and other species dwarfs that of all other species.
I would certainly open to the possibility that there are disadvantages to being human compared to being another animal, but I don't know what those disadvantages would be. I can't think of any organism I'd prefer to be more than a human.
I think it could be that we have far less value to nonhumans species than nonhuman species generally have to nonhuman species. I don't know whether that's true or not though. We are kinder to nonhumans in some ways but harsher in others than nonhuman animals. I'd suspect human butchering and hunting methods are far more preferable than being eaten by wolves for example. I suspect most house pets are happier with their owners than wild wolves. On the other hand I'd suspect that the wolves leaving deer alone until they eat them for food is kinder to the deer than many modern human farming practices.
So...I'm quite certain humans have an enormous amount more potential value than nonhuman animals, and I don't know that we're any worse for our fellow species than any other species is to its fellow species, and I suspect human beings generally have more value to themselves than other nonhuman animals too...because I can't think of any species I'd prefer to be than a human.
I could go into more detail but this response is getting really long as it is. I think I'll just end this section here. My point is that I think humans stand out from other animals in very important ways.
Quote:
I'm often better able to judge what my dog wants than what a baby wants.
I think I'd probably have known more about what my dogs wanted than what a baby wants too, in some ways if not most ways. I could probably have understood what my dog wanted on a deeper level than what a baby would want. Note that would be one reason I would probably encourage getting an abortion if the developing fetus would be able to communicate their needs no better than a baby throughout their life. Their value to society would decrease dramatically, and their value to themselves would likely decrease dramatically because society wouldn't be able to assist them with their needs easily. Basically, they'd lose value for many of the same reasons I'd see nonhuman animals as having less value than humans. Note that my sister's boyfriend has a retarded brother who has the intelligence of someone very young, probably under five. I think it would have probably been better for him to not have been born, but now that he's here he's gained value though the relationships he's formed and the people who care about him. Many people seem to the think of the prospect that everything would have been better had they not been born as depressing. I don't. I don't think they should either. I think most of us should not have been born. It would have been better off for the world and ourselves if we'd have been replaced by someone with more ideal genetics. I think the reasonable person knows, or eventually realizes, that shouldn't be depressing to us. What's important is that we're here now.
Quote:
but we know more about how to feed some non-human animals (I happened to work in a wildlife rescue center) than how to feed some humans (e.g. people with multiple allergies and digestive problems).
And those people with multiple allergies would lose lots of value to themselves and society if we lacked such convenient treatments for them. In terms of value to society, I'd think dogs have more value than blowfish because it's easier to know what to feed a dog. I go down to the store and buy dog food. I don't know what the heck a blowfish eats. Usually, we know more about what's good for humans to eat than nonhumans.
[quote]
well, strictly speaking that's not the case: most medical research is done using animals in experiments. That means we are often able to treat non-human animals such as mice, but those therapies could not be extrapolated to humans. So for some diseases we know how to treat mice but not how to treat humans.
[quote]
Just the same...in a scenario I'll bring together 10,000 mice from all over the world. Then I'll bring together 10,000 people from all over the world. Then I'll have one person with the cumulative knowledge of humanity attempt to cure those 10,000 mice of all their medical problems. Then I'll have one person with the cumulative knowledge of humanity attempt to cure those 10,000 people of all their medical problems. I'd suspect the person attempting to cure the humans would get done faster. We focus more on humans than other organisms. Our knowledge of humans is, so far as I know, better. I'm sure there are exceptions with very simple organisms.
Quote:
but who is "ourselves"? Consider again the row of your ancestors: which ones belong to the group of "ourselves"?
Ourselves would be those of us who exist now...so not our ancestors. Now, we can look around and learn things about humanity. If we must include our ancestors, then there would indeed be a very long line leading all the way back to the primordial single celled organism that all life supposedly came from.
Quote:
and different species are closer to one another than different genera, which are closer to one another than different orders, which are closer than different classes,...
And again races, species,... are not well defined, like "heaps" are not well-defined.
Yep. I've heard it said race is a social construct. I've heard it said that it's something deeper. I haven't looked into it enough to be sure which is true...but if it is more than a social construct I could see characteristics that would tend to be associated with certain races as more ideal than others. I've read that certain Asian groups are very commonly marrying Caucasians rather than members of their own race. If they're doing that to assimilate to fit into society better, I have no problem with that. The U.S. could be far more Hispanic in a few decades. People in wealthy first world nations such as Japan and the U.S. tend to have fewer children, and there are a whole lot of Caucasians in the first world so in a couple centuries Caucasians could be extinct...and I don't particularly care unless there's something in Caucasian DNA that's beneficial for humanity (or Japanese DNA or Mexican DNA).
There may be some qualities commonly associated with certain races that are more beneficial to humanity than others. If so people without those qualities would presumably lose value to society, not directly because of their race but because of those poorer qualities, and in that that same way nonhuman animals seem to me to usually have less overall value than humans, not because of their species but because of those poorer qualities that tend to be associated with their species. Now...if we can every teach a cat to read and type in fluent English I'll eagerly elevate that cat's value to within the range of most humans. It seems like nonhuman animals tend to have less desirable characteristics than humans though to me.
Quote:
and what about your dog wagging its tail? We are all very good at interpreting emotions in other animals, such as dogs and pigs. When I lecture about animal rights, I often do the test: show pictures of different pigs, only their facial expressions. Are they happy or afraid? Everyone is able to immediately tell the difference.
What do those emotions feel like those animals though? What's it like to think like those animals? Those are very difficult questions to me to answer. It is difficult for me to imagine ways my mind could work that would result in me behaving like my dog. It's even more difficult for me to imagine ways my mind could work that would result in me behaving like an infant...but once a child reaches about age 4 or so, I find it dramatically easier.
Quote:
speaking about poop: I know some mentally disabled humans who literally want to spread out their poop all over the toilet and eat it. My sister happens to work in a nursing home for mentally disabled, she has seen some of them eating their own poop. They have to wear special tight pants so they could not reach for their poop. And I've never seen my dog eating poop.
I've think I've ranted enough about value of lives that you'd know my thoughts on that. I don't think humans have more value than nonhumans because they're human. I think they tend to have more value than nonhumans because humans tend to have more ideal characteristics than nonhumans. It's sad that the mentally disabled people your sister works with have that mentality. A colder way of saying that, is to say they have less value, presumably to themselves or society or both at this time in their lives.
Quote:
the platina rule can be derived from the golden rule, if you apply it consistently. Do you want others to treat you in a way that you do not like to be treated? No, so you should not treat others in a way that they do not like. Do you want others to dictate what you should like? No, so don't dictate what others should like.
Sometimes it is wise to dictate what others should like, because sometimes the future me will thank others for treating the past me in a way the past me didn't like. For instance, my father said I had to join the cross country team. It was terribly exhausting but I had been overweight and I learned how to lose weight, and I had fun. Generally, both the golden rule and the platinum rule are good ideas but not always. Another example of when the golden and platinum rules can fail are when you have a leadership position. If your are the organizer of a group, you may be more skilled at determining what tasks are best suited for others than they are due to your working with multiple members of the group and having a better idea of the big picture than most other members. I think the most ideal solution is to learn about each organism, but even that costs time and energy and is not always feasible. In that sense either the golden or platinum rule can be superior. There are many different moral codes that can be ideal depending on the situation. I guess the most important thing is to be adaptable, and not to stick exclusively to any one unless it's really, really good...and I don't what that would be yet.
Quote:
would you like others to treat you in a way that you would like when you would be rational and well-informed about what's best for you? Yes, you can want that. So you are allowed to treat others in a way they would like when they would be well-informed about what's best for them.
Even in that case though...I've experienced numerous situations in which the decision-maker was neither rational nor well-informed in which it would have been better for them to make their decision than me. Me making their decision for them would have made them defensive and as if they weren't in control of their own lives and that sense control is extremely important to many people.
Whenever I discussed moral and ethics I prefer to define these two terms clearly as least for my purpose to fit within a framework.
I propose a Moral and Ethics Framework and System;
The Moral aspect deal with the fixed absolute moral principles.
The Ethics aspect deal with the practical and changeable reality.
What you call anti-arbitrariness is what Kant termed the Categorical Imperative.
The Categorical Imperatives comprised the necessary absolute moral principles that provide a basis for maxims [e.g. Golden Rules] to be extracted and be applied in ethical aspects as practical rules that cater to changing and dynamic conditions.
The challenge is without an Abrahamic God [the omnipotent God said so, so it shall be] how can we ground the Categorical Imperatives for them to be used as grounds for maxims and pragmatic rules in the practical world.
The challenge is without an Abrahamic God [the omnipotent God said so, so it shall be] how can we ground the Categorical Imperatives for them to be used as grounds for maxims and pragmatic rules in the practical world.
We don't need to. Not in some absolute, objective sense.
Morality is contextual. It is an emergent property of a society and a particular set of choices for an individual within that society in a particular situation.
The desire to "ground" morality comes from the misconception that actions have a property called "morality".
Consider shouting. In a church where people are praying, or a theater where people are trying to watch a movie, shouting violates social convention. If the church or theater is on fire though, you might be a hero for sounding the alarm.
Consider killing. I can't kill my mother in law or that guy with a butt hole for a mouth who is running for president, despite that both, by my lights, desperately NEED killing. That's immoral. On the other hand if that guy or my mother in law were trying to kill me with an axe, then it's arguably okay. If either of them have their finger on a button that will cause the earth to explode, it's definitely okay. If I'm a soldier in a war and they are on the other side, it's actually my JOB to kill them.
There's nothing "grounded" about any of this in the sense that most people seem to be obsessed with. It's grounded only in contextual judgments about one's rational self interest weighed against the rational self interests of society, coupled with the explicit and implicit agreements we have with others and the obligations that arise from them.
We don't need to. Not in some absolute, objective sense.
Morality is contextual. It is an emergent property of a society and a particular set of choices for an individual within that society in a particular situation.
The desire to "ground" morality comes from the misconception that actions have a property called "morality".
Consider shouting. In a church where people are praying, or a theater where people are trying to watch a movie, shouting violates social convention. If the church or theater is on fire though, you might be a hero for sounding the alarm.
Consider killing. I can't kill my mother in law or that guy with a butt hole for a mouth who is running for president, despite that both, by my lights, desperately NEED killing. That's immoral. On the other hand if that guy or my mother in law were trying to kill me with an axe, then it's arguably okay. If either of them have their finger on a button that will cause the earth to explode, it's definitely okay. If I'm a soldier in a war and they are on the other side, it's actually my JOB to kill them.
There's nothing "grounded" about any of this in the sense that most people seem to be obsessed with. It's grounded only in contextual judgments about one's rational self interest weighed against the rational self interests of society, coupled with the explicit and implicit agreements we have with others and the obligations that arise from them.
Within the Philosophy of Morals & Ethics there are two main schools, i.e. Moral Relativism versus Moral Absolutism.
I believe Moral Absolutism [btw not theological] with Ethical Relativism is the most effective Moral & Ethical System for mankind.
The practice of Moral Absolutism with Ethical Relativism is analogically like a fixed lighthouse system that is used to guide ships in very volatile changing and dangerous waters.
Without fixed and absolute morals, we will always be shooting at a moving/shifting goal post.
The challenge for humanity is how to ground and establish absolute moral principles to be used as ethical guides.
Btw, absolute in this case does not mean it is fixed eternally. We can still change the position of the lighthouse or the goal post but only in rare occasions where necessary.
On the other hand, with Moral Relativism, the moral standards are ultimately to each their own and one will be fighting moving goal posts all the time.
With a Moral Absolutism with Ethical Relativism System, the moral principles are 'fixed' and 'absolute' [fixed for a long time but can be changed if necessary]. These moral principles are not enforceable at all but merely to be used as guides for the practical changing world.
Within a Moral Absolutism with Ethical Relativism System;
For example we have the Absolute Moral Principle 'Killing is not Permitted.'
This will represent an overriding moral principle applicable to all humans.
This principle is not enforceable but merely a guide for the individual and the judiciary.
Such moral absolute principles are not plucked from the air but subjected to heavy philosophical scrutiny.
Based on the moral principle above, we establish practical maxims, e.g.
1. Killing is not permitted, except the following;
2. In justified self-defense
3. Legally recognized executions,
4. For the well being sake of certain individuals
5. Others, probable a long list of exceptions.
These exceptions should be deliberated in depth, extensively and taking into account all relevant factors.
The above are developed against an expected evolution of human morals and ethics on the neural basis on a continual basis.
Thus if you kill your mother-in-law, you have in principle committed an immoral act.
The first consideration is a personal philosophical consideration of why you resort to such an immoral act without a triggering your conscience and whether such an act is within the acceptable exceptions.
The next consideration is to deliberate on the preventive measures for the individual and the collective.
This deliberation is related to the individual psychology and philosophy.
The non-moral considerations is that of the legislature, the police and the judiciary [political] which has relied on the absolute moral principles to set up Laws and the relevant penalties. This perspective is political and not moral nor ethics in relation to killing and crimes.
In this case, the police will have to decide the case for judgment and the judge is to take into account the Law, its exception and the penalties.
If you killed your mother-in-law but is within the ambit of the exceptions then you are a free man, else you will face the relevant penalties.
What is moral is not directly related to politics, the legislature and the judiciary but within the individual's moral faculty. The onus is on the individual [with guide from the collective] to develop and improve the competency of one's own Moral Quotient [MQ] under various circumstances. This will involve actual neural changes in the brain of the individual.
Hope you see why a 'Moral Absolutism With Ethical Relativism System' is more effective than a Moral Relativistic System.
What I meant by "To answer you question "What morally relevant property do all and only humans possess?" I give the following statements: Human beings are generally better than other species at improving the states of their lives, improving their species," Was that humans are generally better at improving the states of their lives and their species than other species. Our higher intelligence and better communication abilities doe that. Our ability at advanced communication and long term thought gives us the potential for much more effective self-improvement and improvement of our species than nonhuman animals. For nonhuman animals, the concept of improving their species doesn't even exist in their consciousness. Social organisms like apes will attempt to improve the lives of themselves and members of their groups (much less efficiently than humans are capable of). Humans can actually guide and care for their species, and not only their species but nonhuman life too. I think someone could even do a decent job arguing that humans are better at improving the lives of other species than those species are at improving their own lives. Our more advanced worldly knowledge gives us that ability.
this argument again already presupposes that you have to look at the level of the species. Let's look at the class of mammals instead. For the very same reasons that you mentioned, mammals are better at improving the states of their lives and their class, because within this group of mammals there are mammals with with higher intelligence and better communication than non-mammals (not all mammals have high intelligence, but neither have all humans high intelligence). In the class of reptiles or the class of birds there are no individuals who have similar levels of intelligence as those of some mammals. Some mammals can even help non-mammals (I am a mammal and I work in a bird rescue center so I help birds). So your argument is equally valid when you change "human" into e.g. "primate" or "mammal" and "species" into e.g. "order" or "class". So why did you pick "human" and "species"? If you cannot give a sensible answer, there is unnecessary arbitrariness left in your ethic.
Quote:
I think it could be said there is a sharp divide between humans and other animals though, because of our creativity.
there is no sharp divide: some humans have levels of creativity not higher than those of non-humans. And look at our ancestors: who was the first ancestor who had creativity?
Quote:
Just the same...in a scenario I'll bring together 10,000 mice from all over the world. Then I'll bring together 10,000 people from all over the world. Then I'll have one person with the cumulative knowledge of humanity attempt to cure those 10,000 mice of all their medical problems. Then I'll have one person with the cumulative knowledge of humanity attempt to cure those 10,000 people of all their medical problems. I'd suspect the person attempting to cure the humans would get done faster.
I'm not so sure about that. Most medical experiments are done on mice. It very often happens that we find a cure for the mouse, but then the cure doesn't seem to work for humans.
Quote:
Ourselves would be those of us who exist now...so not our ancestors.
that is unnecessary, avoidable arbitrariness again. Why looking at the current time and not those who lived 200 years ago or 200 years from now? The 20th and 21st centuries are just arbitrary centuries.
Quote:
Yep. I've heard it said race is a social construct.
I would rather say a mental construct.
Quote:
What do those emotions feel like those animals though? What's it like to think like those animals?
what's it like to think like some mentally disabled humans who eat their own poop? What do their emotions feel like?
Quote:
I've think I've ranted enough about value of lives that you'd know my thoughts on that. I don't think humans have more value than nonhumans because they're human. I think they tend to have more value than nonhumans because humans tend to have more ideal characteristics than nonhumans. It's sad that the mentally disabled people your sister works with have that mentality. A colder way of saying that, is to say they have less value, presumably to themselves or society or both at this time in their lives.
even if they have less value according to your interpretation of value, they still have basic rights, like the right not to be used against their will as a means to someone else's ends. And those disabled humans have no more ideal characteristics than pigs and chickens, so to avoid discrimination, we have to gove the basic rights to pigs and chickens as well.
Quote:
Sometimes it is wise to dictate what others should like, because sometimes the future me will thank others for treating the past me in a way the past me didn't like.
Ok, I give you a choice. I can treat you now the way you like to be treated now, given the fact that now you are not well-informed, or I can treat you the way you would like to be treated when you would be well-informed and rational. What do you prefer?
Not ALL arbitrariness is bad. We have to standardize whether we drive on the right or on the left, for instance. Though each country must ARBITRARILY choose either the left or the right, but never both, this does not amount to a moral problem. In fact it is a moral good, because having "arbitrary" rules is better than hitting and killing each other.
Nonetheless, there is something to be said for some type of human value equality as a founding moral principle. I'd argue that it's not simple arbitrariness that's morally problematic; rather, it's starting with arbitrariness as a basic assumption rather than a consequence of logistical necessity. Even then, the amount of moral wrongness embodied within an arbitrary principle is variable, not fixed, and contingent on the existence of trade-offs. This is why, for example, cannibalism may be acceptable (or at least less objectionable) if the alternative is everyone starving to death, while killing someone to eat them when perfect alternative dining options are available is at the same time very wrong. Both are equally "arbitrary", but there is a tradeoff in one case that does not exist in the other.
Also, the degree of moral wrongness in an arbitrary principle depends on the underlying moral value of the entity in question. For example, it is far more morally wrong for one person to kill their neighbor's children to satisfy a desire of their own kids for more play space, than it is to kill a neighbor's tree to allow their own tree to have more root space. Both are equally arbitrary, however, the human children have a value which the tree does not.
Last edited by ncole1; 01-16-2016 at 08:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
