Atheists, Ethics & Medical Experimentation

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

No. These are arguments, not opinions. My point is that if your dividing line, which you think is "natural", is actually arbitrary, then the suspicion is that you have drawn it so as to include "people you feel comfortable claiming as fellow humans", which is exactly what the racist does.

If the dividing line is arbitrary, then one person can draw it to include apes, another to include all life, a third to include only H. sapiens. None of these is any more objective than the rest. Some reflect real, and objective, boundaries, but that does not thereby make them suitable for determining a moral boundary.

As to the question of racism, I am of course mildly racist (strongly biased in favour of Jews, for example) - have you tried the Harvard implicit association tests?



The basis of determining species is not genetics, though. Taxonomy remains a rather a dull matter of physiology and physical characteristics.



Currently I don't - or at least I draw it around all life. What I'd like to see is you explain what "natural" means in your sentence...? To me, "natural" is one of those markers, like "it's only commonsense", which indicate a hidden prejudice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm sorry but I dont agree.

Your argument suggests that evolution of phylums into separate species is irrelevant and that the natural barriers of inter species prcreation is also irrelevant.

Thats nuts. I'm sorry but it is the equivalent of saying that a wide river, wountain range or ocean does not form a natural barrier between locations.

You can draw your dividing line in what ever way you feel you can justify it, but there are better arguements for other ones. In terms of genetics and species, your argument would suggest that fish are the same as people ... while they do share a large number of genes they are sufficiently different genetically to warrant a separation.

You are comparing me to a racist because I draw the line based around genetics. Thats not racism, thats looking at the facts and saying "I am a human" and "this is a fish".

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

Unfeasable in my lifetime, and perhaps unfeasable if we consider that us humans, with all our numbers and intelligence, would not let a superior species emerge.

Well you are not arguing morals or ethics you are just selfish.
It seems your maxim is: "no skin of my nose", not a philosophical one of what is right and what is wrong.

It's an argument for not needing to eat them, not not eating them.

Of course it's an argument, "not eating" can easily be derived from "not needing to eat" in an appropriate context.

Ok, so let's breed more different varieties of animals for consumption.

?

My deontology is based on logic. What is logic to you?

You haven't given one logical argument yet.
You don't eat humans Humans because you don't. You eat animals because you do.
This is not logic or reason, it's just dogma with absolute no rational enquiry.
Any counter argument you just rebut with some sort "no skin of my nose" maxim. This is ignoring the essences of morals.

I have heard no argument to convince me otherwise.

This is just stupid. A cow is a sentient being and a tree is not. There's a massive difference between sawing a Cow's leg off when still alive and a sawing a tree when still alive. If you can't see that, there's no point debating with you.

Your tongue is either in your cheek, you have misunderstood the question (i.e. you think the Cow is dead or under an anaesthetic, but it's not) or you really think a Cow's pain is completely irrelevant or doesn't have sentience or pain at all - perhaps this is indicative of a low empathy rating.
I don't think we'll ever agree if it's the latter. I really don't respect people who have absolutely no sympathy at all for the pain of an animal and equate it with that of a tree.

EDIT:
I edited the last part there after some advice from Mod, it was:
Your tongue is either in your cheek, or you're just a twat (i.e. low empathy rating).

Dades

Steady there, TR.
People are allowed disagree with you.

EDIT

Um, leaving the original remark there is not an edit.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well you are not arguing morals or ethics you are just selfish.
It seems your maxim is: "no skin of my nose", not a philosophical one of what is right and what is wrong.

So what is a "philosophical" notion of what is right and what is wrong and what is wrong with my "no skin off my nose logic"?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Of course it's an argument, "not eating" can easily be derived from "not needing to eat" in an appropriate context.

That's assuming I understand and accept the context, which I do not as you have not convinced me otherwise.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You haven't given one logical argument yet.
You don't eat humans Humans because you don't. You eat animals because you do.
This is not logic or reason, it's just dogma with absolute no rational enquiry.
Any counter argument you just rebut with some sort "no skin of my nose" maxim. This is ignoring the essences of morals.

No one defines morals. You clearly have some sort of belief system re: morality which I don't share. Empathy isn't logical, where is your logic?

Tim Robbins wrote:

This is just stupid. A cow is a sentient being and a tree is not. There's a massive difference between sawing a Cow's leg off when still alive and a sawing a tree when still alive. If you can't see that, there's no point debating with you.

Your tongue is either in your cheek, you have misunderstood the question (i.e. you think the Cow is dead or under an anaesthetic, but it's not) or you really think a Cow's pain is completely irrelevant or doesn't have sentience or pain at all - perhaps this is indicative of a low empathy rating.
I don't think we'll ever agree if it's the latter. I really don't respect people who have absolutely no sympathy at all for the pain of an animal and equate it with that of a tree.

EDIT:
I edited the last part there after some advice from Mod, it was:
Your tongue is either in your cheek, or you're just a twat (i.e. low empathy rating).

Well yes, I have a low empathy level towards animals. Your lack of respect for me is illogical. I respect you despite your beliefs as I respect Catholics and Muslims. Would you not share the same view?

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

So what is a "philosophical" notion of what is right and what is wrong and what is wrong with my "no skin off my nose logic"?

Because we are discussing morals, "no skin off my nose" is amoral not illogial.

That's assuming I understand and accept the context, which I do not as you have not convinced me otherwise.

I doubt I could ever convinve you, you seem to be amoral and not use reason on this issue.

No one defines morals. You clearly have some sort of belief system re: morality which I don't share. Empathy isn't logical, where is your logic?

Incorrect, Kant, Hume, McGinn, Singer several philosophers have written on moral philosophy and how why might deduce what is right and what is wrong.
It's a massive area in philosophy, the application of reason to deriving morality.

Noone is saying empathy is logical.
the argument w.r.t to empathy is it's quite hard to derive any morality if you have no or very little empathy.

Well yes, I have a low empathy level towards animals. Your lack of respect for me is illogical. I respect you despite your beliefs as I respect Catholics and Muslims. Would you not share the same view?

The Law is consistent with me. Cruelty to animals is unacceptable. Your analogy is illogical.

Dades

JC 2K3 wrote:

No one defines morals. You clearly have some sort of belief system re: morality which I don't share. Empathy isn't logical, where is your logic?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Incorrect, Kant, Hume, McGinn, Singer several philosophers have written on moral philosophy and how why might deduce what is right and what is wrong.

Tim, are you suggesting that absolute morals exist, and are not a subjective matter?

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Tim, are you suggesting that absolute morals exist, and are not a subjective matter?

I am saying logic and reason can be used in deriving morals.
As for moral absolutism, yeah things like human rights, even JC 2K3 might agree that noone should be walloped over the head with hammer and it is wrong because it is just is wrong.
However, in general morals aren't absolute and there is an element of subjectivity.

Tar.Aldarion

Because the majority of people think something, it doesn't make it objective and it most certainly does not make it right.
Not everyody used to think hitting somebody was wrong, or slavery, or etc, oin fact, quite the opposite. It is just our modern fancy that any of our morals should be absolute.
Morals are only subjective in my opinion, you can't use logic and reason that is not biased by your own mind, unless you are quite the phenomenologist.
Something perfectly logical to you is so because of your own mind, logic is just ignorance by numbers.

Hivemind187

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Because the majority of people think something, it doesn't make it objective and it most certainly does not make it right.
Not everyody used to think hitting somebody was wrong, or slavery, or etc, oin fact, quite the opposite. It is just our modern fancy that any of our morals should be absolute.
Morals are only subjective in my opinion, you can't use logic and reason that is not biased by your own mind, unless you are quite the phenomenologist.
Something perfectly logical to you is so because of your own mind, logic is just ignorance by numbers.

Posted by Tim Robbins
I am saying logic and reason can be used in deriving morals.
As for moral absolutism, yeah things like human rights, even JC 2K3 might agree that noone should be walloped over the head with hammer and it is wrong because it is just is wrong.
However, in general morals aren't absolute and there is an element of subjectivity.

In support of Tar I would clarify that the evolved morals argument I made earlier on does not necessarily mean "morals" in a cognitive sense, only in an empathetic sense.

Tim, with all due respect, "its wrong because it is just wrong" is an argument by assertion. You could use the same logic to say "god exists because he just does" - an argument many atheists have been subjected to over the years.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Tim, with all due respect, "its wrong because it is just wrong" is an argument by assertion. You could use the same logic to say "god exists because he just does" - an argument many atheists have been subjected to over the years.

A good point, clearly and concisely put. It is argument from asertion.

My argument in this debate is that one can you use reason to deduce morals and morals just aren't argument from asertion.

I was trying to think of one case of where a deduction is not necessary, not used and the moral is a case of a fundamental or an absolute i.e. an argument from asertion that is not derived from logic or reason.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

A good point, clearly and concisely put. It is argument from asertion.

My argument in this debate is that one can you use reason to deduce morals and morals just aren't argument from asertion.

I was trying to think of one case of where a deduction is not necessary, not used and the moral is a case of a fundamental or an absolute i.e. an argument from asertion that is not derived from logic or reason.

An argument can be made for why murder is abohorent to most individuals, why hild abandonment seems so awful, why rape is a particularly nasty one to man people ... and yet not to others.

The evolution of empathic responses to these things can be understood rationally when you understand why they come into existance. Murder is not conducive to the overall survival of the species, neither is child abandonment. rape is a more difficult one and probably became taboo later as the empathic facility developed.

These things still happen in nature and in man all the time so they are not universal constants.

Morals and morality are merely the label we put on these evolutionary constructs in order to better understand them. The trouble is that as cognitive and abstractly thinking creatures we can develop other morals based not on evolutionary imperitive but on sociological response to te environment, circumstance or as the percieved and superstitious belief in the desires of an omnipotent being (offerings of everythig from fruit to money to livestock to people in he name of appeasing a diety and avoiding punshiment).

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm sorry but I dont agree.

Your argument suggests that evolution of phylums into separate species is irrelevant and that the natural barriers of inter species prcreation is also irrelevant.

Thats nuts. I'm sorry but it is the equivalent of saying that a wide river, wountain range or ocean does not form a natural barrier between locations.

I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm saying here. Species is pretty much a natural division in the same sense that, as you say, a mountain range is - that I agree with.

However, it makes no more sense to use species as a moral dividing line than it does to use a mountain range. Genetic separation prevents two organisms from breeding, yes, but what has that to do with the moral treatment of one as opposed to the other?

To summarise - species is not an arbitrary division itself, but using it as a moral dividing line is totally arbitrary.

Hivemind187 wrote:

You can draw your dividing line in what ever way you feel you can justify it, but there are better arguements for other ones. In terms of genetics and species, your argument would suggest that fish are the same as people ... while they do share a large number of genes they are sufficiently different genetically to warrant a separation.

To warrant a separation genetically or taxonomically. How do you justify using the genetic distance as a moral measure?

Hivemind187 wrote:

You are comparing me to a racist because I draw the line based around genetics. Thats not racism, thats looking at the facts and saying "I am a human" and "this is a fish".

Oh, please! I am not comparing you to a racist - I am pointing out that the racist's claim is as good as yours. He says "I am not racist, I'm just looking at the facts and saying 'I am a human' and 'this is a black man/Jew/Asian/woman'".

The definition of human that you use is no less arbitrary than the racist's. It doesn't matter that species can be separated genetically, because you haven't shown why genetic difference should be used to answer moral questions.

I think this is a blind spot people have. They draw a line which includes eveyone they want to define as "human" in the sense of "deserving of treatment equal to me", and if that line coincides with something scientifically measurable, they claim that it's a scientifically valid line for determing rights. It isn't - it's a scientifically valid line for determining something else (species, or phylum, or whatever).

A scientifically valid line for determining taxonomic status is not scientifically valid for determining moral status - unless one can show that taxonomic status is a proper determinant of moral status. No-one has even attempted to do so.

vexed,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm saying here. Species is pretty much a natural division in the same sense that, as you say, a mountain range is - that I agree with.

However, it makes no more sense to use species as a moral dividing line than it does to use a mountain range. Genetic separation prevents two organisms from breeding, yes, but what has that to do with the moral treatment of one as opposed to the other?

To summarise - species is not an arbitrary division itself, but using it as a moral dividing line is totally arbitrary.



To warrant a separation genetically or taxonomically. How do you justify using the genetic distance as a moral measure?



Oh, please! I am not comparing you to a racist - I am pointing out that the racist's claim is as good as yours. He says "I am not racist, I'm just looking at the facts and saying 'I am a human' and 'this is a black man/Jew/Asian/woman'".

The definition of human that you use is no less arbitrary than the racist's. It doesn't matter that species can be separated genetically, because you haven't shown why genetic difference should be used to answer moral questions.

I think this is a blind spot people have. They draw a line which includes eveyone they want to define as "human" in the sense of "deserving of treatment equal to me", and if that line coincides with something scientifically measurable, they claim that it's a scientifically valid line for determing rights. It isn't - it's a scientifically valid line for determining something else (species, or phylum, or whatever).

A scientifically valid line for determining taxonomic status is not scientifically valid for determining moral status - unless one can show that taxonomic status is a proper determinant of moral status. No-one has even attempted to do so.

vexed,
Scofflaw

Hang on a second.

My point is that human beings developed morality through gradual evolution and natural selection. You have dragged me over on this point by saying that I dont know where to draw lines.

You have missed a vital point here.

Human beings, like any other animal, inherently attract to like. Thats just the way things work. You CAN draw a line genetically to say what is human and what is not just as you could to say what is a plant and what is not a plant.

Different species are different species and we can point to specific divisions between them.

"Awarding rights" is the arbitrary notion since, at the base level, nothing has any "rights". There is only survival of most adapted species to their environment. "Morals" are equally an arbitrary and human invention used to describe certain things we "feel" to be right and other things that align with a political or ideological philosophy (which in most cases are equally constructs of the cognitive, abstract thinking mind).

I'm sorry if we got our wires crossed but I think you may have mis understood me at some point.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

Hang on a second.

My point is that human beings developed morality through gradual evolution and natural selection. You have dragged me over on this point by saying that I dont know where to draw lines.

You have missed a vital point here.

Human beings, like any other animal, inherently attract to like. Thats just the way things work. You CAN draw a line genetically to say what is human and what is not just as you could to say what is a plant and what is not a plant.

Different species are different species and we can point to specific divisions between them.

"Awarding rights" is the arbitrary notion since, at the base level, nothing has any "rights". There is only survival of most adapted species to their environment. "Morals" are equally an arbitrary and human invention used to describe certain things we "feel" to be right and other things that align with a political or ideological philosophy (which in most cases are equally constructs of the cognitive, abstract thinking mind).

I'm sorry if we got our wires crossed but I think you may have mis understood me at some point.

Hmm. You may well be right about getting our wires crossed. OK. Out of interest, then, can you see what I'm saying - that using species as a line for arbitrarily assigning rights is no less arbitrary than using race, or phylum?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. You may well be right about getting our wires crossed. OK. Out of interest, then, can you see what I'm saying - that using species as a line for arbitrarily assigning rights is no less arbitrary than using race, or phylum?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I can see what you are saying but I would argue that "rights" are as arbitrary as any lines for awarding them.

There is a difference between species, a measurable one. In terms of "race" as in white, black, brown, yellow etc I think thats is slightly less specific than species.

Consider it like "breeds" rather than species. You can have an alsation cross with a terrier, but you cant cross a terrier with a pig. The two dogs are different breeds of the same species.

Racists tend to divide people along breed lines. Which is mad really since they share almost identical sets of genes. They are basing that division on colour (they claim otherwise but thats what they do) and a kind of "my tribe your tribe" mentality. This is completely arbitrary when you take genetics into account.

However, I can see an argument for drawing a distinction between separate species and for deciding how we should deal with them on that basis.

I can also understand the intellectual desire and conflict to extend those same rights to animals, insects and plants to.

I dont necessarily have to agree with it.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

I can see what you are saying but I would argue that "rights" are as arbitrary as any lines for awarding them.

Sure. It's not like they have any objective existence.

Hivemind187 wrote:

There is a difference between species, a measurable one. In terms of "race" as in white, black, brown, yellow etc I think thats is slightly less specific than species.

Consider it like "breeds" rather than species. You can have an alsation cross with a terrier, but you cant cross a terrier with a pig. The two dogs are different breeds of the same species.

Racists tend to divide people along breed lines. Which is mad really since they share almost identical sets of genes. They are basing that division on colour (they claim otherwise but thats what they do) and a kind of "my tribe your tribe" mentality. This is completely arbitrary when you take genetics into account.

This is usually where I and my interlocutor begin to regard each other as less than mentally capable...

The problem, as I see it, is that all you've done is moved an arbitary line to another, equally arbitrary, although more easily identifiable, position.

The racist says that "race" is what is important. Now, while we cannot tell the DNA of one race from another, the racist does not need a DNA test to tell him who is white, and who is not - the visual evidence is immediate and sufficient for his purposes. So your argument that the genes are almost identical the racist can simply set aside. If he requires some sort of justificatory mantra, he can point out that a 1-2% difference is sufficient to produce the difference between man and chimpanzee, and that the tiny genetic differences between races shouod be seen in that light.

You say that "species" is what is important. Now, we can tell the DNA of one species from another, so at first glance your division seems less arbitrary than the racist's.

However, what neither have addressed is that all their lines do is tell you what race someone is, or what species something is.

Consider the racist and the non-racist. What makes Captain Stormfront a racist and me not? Do I deny that I can tell the difference between a white man and a non-white man? No, of course not - I don't usually have much difficulty determining ethnic origin.

What differentiates the racist from the non-racist is not the ability to tell someone's ethnic origin - it is that he believes you can determine the superiority/inferiority of the individual on that basis.

Hivemind187 wrote:

However, I can see an argument for drawing a distinction between separate species and for deciding how we should deal with them on that basis.

I can also understand the intellectual desire and conflict to extend those same rights to animals, insects and plants to.

I dont necessarily have to agree with it.

Indeed. You can believe, for example, that one can determine the superiority/inferiority of organisms on the basis of their taxonomic classification. It's exactly the same methodology as racism, but with a slightly better-defined, and more inclusive, boundary - the drawing of a boundary, and the determination of superiority/inferiority, are just as arbitrary.

Hmm. Please note that I am not accusing you of racism. I consider your position to be better than that of a racist (by virtue of its greater inclusiveness), but no less arbitrary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure. It's not like they have any objective existence.



This is usually where I and my interlocutor begin to regard each other as less than mentally capable...

The problem, as I see it, is that all you've done is moved an arbitary line to another, equally arbitrary, although more easily identifiable, position.

The racist says that "race" is what is important. Now, while we cannot tell the DNA of one race from another, the racist does not need a DNA test to tell him who is white, and who is not - the visual evidence is immediate and sufficient for his purposes. So your argument that the genes are almost identical the racist can simply set aside. If he requires some sort of justificatory mantra, he can point out that a 1-2% difference is sufficient to produce the difference between man and chimpanzee, and that the tiny genetic differences between races shouod be seen in that light.

You say that "species" is what is important. Now, we can tell the DNA of one species from another, so at first glance your division seems less arbitrary than the racist's.

However, what neither have addressed is that all their lines do is tell you what race someone is, or what species something is.

Consider the racist and the non-racist. What makes Captain Stormfront a racist and me not? Do I deny that I can tell the difference between a white man and a non-white man? No, of course not - I don't usually have much difficulty determining ethnic origin.

What differentiates the racist from the non-racist is not the ability to tell someone's ethnic origin - it is that he believes you can determine the superiority/inferiority of the individual on that basis.



Indeed. You can believe, for example, that one can determine the superiority/inferiority of organisms on the basis of their taxonomic classification. It's exactly the same methodology as racism, but with a slightly better-defined, and more inclusive, boundary - the drawing of a boundary, and the determination of superiority/inferiority, are just as arbitrary.

Hmm. Please note that I am not accusing you of racism. I consider your position to be better than that of a racist (by virtue of its greater inclusiveness), but no less arbitrary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AH!

But, you can draw up a distinction between the complexity of lifeforms.

Flat worms are evolutionarily less complicated than earthworms. A bacterium is evolutionarily less complex than a barnacle.

The same can be said that a human being is evolutionarily more complex than a jelly fish or a sea cucumber.

These gaps are huge (and with good reason) but they do illustrate where lines can be drawn.

You could base it on the diploblastic/triploblastic differences. You could draw the line at the species level. While the place of the line appears arbitrary it is based on something that is a physical barrier between two different sets.

The racist view is not based on this barrier-type system. It is based on irrational, illogical and emotional concepts - often with a healthy dose of pseudo science thrown in to confuse gullible people. The racist uses sociological differences, skin pigmentation, religious affiliation etc conveniently ignoring a physical barrier. In this sense the racist is utterly arbitrary basing the argumentative line at a place that suits his ideology, not what suits the observable facts.

Whether you like where that line is drawn is irrelevant. If it has a logical justification for being there then it is not arbitrary. It is there for a reason.

What do you think?

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

AH!

But, you can draw up a distinction between the complexity of lifeforms.

Flat worms are evolutionarily less complicated than earthworms. A bacterium is evolutionarily less complex than a barnacle.

The same can be said that a human being is evolutionarily more complex than a jelly fish or a sea cucumber.

These gaps are huge (and with good reason) but they do illustrate where lines can be drawn.

You could base it on the diploblastic/triploblastic differences. You could draw the line at the species level. While the place of the line appears arbitrary it is based on something that is a physical barrier between two different sets.

Yes. The moral "line in the sand" follows a line that is not in itself arbitrary. My point is that following that particular line rather than any other is arbitrary.

What you're suggesting above, if you like, is that "complexity" is a good measure to use to discriminate between organisms - in the sense of assigning them greater or lesser rights.

What is the rationale behind complexity as a basis for the assignment of rights? What measure of complexity are we using? And will we, amazingly, find that human beings are the "most complex" organisms?

So, yes, you can indeed draw up a distinction between the complexity of lifeforms - but you still need to justify using complexity as a measure for distinguishing rights, and provide an objective measure of complexity that discriminates, as you do, between human and non-human.

Hivemind187 wrote:

The racist view is not based on this barrier-type system. It is based on irrational, illogical and emotional concepts - often with a healthy dose of pseudo science thrown in to confuse gullible people. The racist uses sociological differences, skin pigmentation, religious affiliation etc conveniently ignoring a physical barrier. In this sense the racist is utterly arbitrary basing the argumentative line at a place that suits his ideology, not what suits the observable facts.

The racist does claim that their racism is based on a barrier-type system. At the end of the day, the unapologetic racist simply says that non-Caucasians are inferior, that you can tell non-Caucasians by their "racial characteristics", and that the differences are profound and obvious to those not blinded by liberal prejudice.

What you mean is that the line the racist draws does not trace any strong genetic boundary, although he would very much like it to be. Yours is drawn on a strong genetic boundary.

What neither of you seem to be able to explain is why a genetic boundary is a suitable place for placing a dividing line between "organisms with rights" and "organisms without rights", or why one boundary is magically better than another.

Without that, the racist may be talking claptrap, but you can't prove it - all you can do is say that your line is "better" than his, without providing any reason why that is so.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Whether you like where that line is drawn is irrelevant. If it has a logical justification for being there then it is not arbitrary. It is there for a reason.

You have not offered a logical justification for assigning rights one side of the line, but not the other - so there is no justification for any such line. That it is traced over race, creed, colour, species, phylum, makes no difference whatsoever - all of those are arbitrary in moral terms.

Hivemind187 wrote:

What do you think?

I think I'm faced with cognitive dissonance! You insist that the line you use as a boundary for assigning rights is not an arbitrary line. I keep saying, yes, the line is not arbitrary in itself - it represents some real physical distinction between organisms - but that what is arbitrary is using some physical distinction between organisms as a moral dividing line, which you assign rights on only one side of.

Why is any physical difference a reason for assigning something rights?

The only reason I can see is that physical difference X "works" - in the sense that it keeps in those who you want to keep in, and excludes those you don't.

If you feel all men are brothers, and entitled to the same rights as yourself, you use a physical difference that gives you that result - species, for example.

If you feel that only men are deserving of rights, and women not, you use a physical difference that gives you that result - be it menstruation or two X chromosomes.

If you feel that only Caucasians are deserving of rights, then you use a physical difference that gives you that result - skin colour, or ethnic origin.

So, as far as I can tell, you and the racist operate exactly the same way - you want a result that "feels right", and you pick a criterion to give you that result. That your criterion is more objectively measurable is irrelevant, because you have only really chosen it on the basis of how well it fits your prejudices. After all, the XX/XY difference is extremely strong, but I don't think you'd accept someone saying that we can discriminate on that basis simply because the line between them has a "logical justification for being there".

You need to show why genetic divergence from humanity (or you) is a good criterion for assigning rights - otherwise you might as well come clean, and admit that you use it because it produces the result you like.

Usual disclaimer: please don't take my use of "prejudice" as offensive. I mean it in the most literal sense - that you are drawing the line where it gives you the result you have prejudged as right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes. The moral "line in the sand" follows a line that is not in itself arbitrary. My point is that following that particular line rather than any other is arbitrary.

What you're suggesting above, if you like, is that "complexity" is a good measure to use to discriminate between organisms - in the sense of assigning them greater or lesser rights.

What is the rationale behind complexity as a basis for the assignment of rights? What measure of complexity are we using? And will we, amazingly, find that human beings are the "most complex" organisms?

So, yes, you can indeed draw up a distinction between the complexity of lifeforms - but you still need to justify using complexity as a measure for distinguishing rights, and provide an objective measure of complexity that discriminates, as you do, between human and non-human.



The racist does claim that their racism is based on a barrier-type system. At the end of the day, the unapologetic racist simply says that non-Caucasians are inferior, that you can tell non-Caucasians by their "racial characteristics", and that the differences are profound and obvious to those not blinded by liberal prejudice.

What you mean is that the line the racist draws does not trace any strong genetic boundary, although he would very much like it to be. Yours is drawn on a strong genetic boundary.

What neither of you seem to be able to explain is why a genetic boundary is a suitable place for placing a dividing line between "organisms with rights" and "organisms without rights", or why one boundary is magically better than another.

Without that, the racist may be talking claptrap, but you can't prove it - all you can do is say that your line is "better" than his, without providing any reason why that is so.



You have not offered a logical justification for assigning rights one side of the line, but not the other - so there is no justification for any such line. That it is traced over race, creed, colour, species, phylum, makes no difference whatsoever - all of those are arbitrary in moral terms.



I think I'm faced with cognitive dissonance! You insist that the line you use as a boundary for assigning rights is not an arbitrary line. I keep saying, yes, the line is not arbitrary in itself - it represents some real physical distinction between organisms - but that what is arbitrary is using some physical distinction between organisms as a moral dividing line, which you assign rights on only one side of.

Why is any physical difference a reason for assigning something rights?

The only reason I can see is that physical difference X "works" - in the sense that it keeps in those who you want to keep in, and excludes those you don't.

If you feel all men are brothers, and entitled to the same rights as yourself, you use a physical difference that gives you that result - species, for example.

If you feel that only men are deserving of rights, and women not, you use a physical difference that gives you that result - be it menstruation or two X chromosomes.

If you feel that only Caucasians are deserving of rights, then you use a physical difference that gives you that result - skin colour, or ethnic origin.

So, as far as I can tell, you and the racist operate exactly the same way - you want a result that "feels right", and you pick a criterion to give you that result. That your criterion is more objectively measurable is irrelevant, because you have only really chosen it on the basis of how well it fits your prejudices. After all, the XX/XY difference is extremely strong, but I don't think you'd accept someone saying that we can discriminate on that basis simply because the line between them has a "logical justification for being there".

You need to show why genetic divergence from humanity (or you) is a good criterion for assigning rights - otherwise you might as well come clean, and admit that you use it because it produces the result you like.

Usual disclaimer: please don't take my use of "prejudice" as offensive. I mean it in the most literal sense - that you are drawing the line where it gives you the result you have prejudged as right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There iss no prejudgment in what I am saying.

Firstly, right are an arbitrary concept (you didnt tackle that bit) and as arbitrary concepts go, why not assign equally arbitrary points where rights change from one set to another.

Morals are also arbitrary beyond the self serving and species promoting instincts. Those have developed by means of gradual evolution.

I am not saying that we SHOULD assign more rights to one group or species rather than another - in a strictly intellectual sense you are correct - but the fact is that we do. As a species we do it automatically.

My argument for complexity is deliberately vague and gaps deliberately huge.

Humans could well be seen as being at the top in terms of complexity for the great ape species. Opposable thumbs, highly complex temporal and frontal lobes, abstract thinking patterns, critical thinking ... plenty of reasons.

You could say that whales and dolphins are the highest order of seabound mammals because of their demonstrated capacity for learning and teaching and the highly developed brains they have as well a what is suspected to be language.

I could go on but there it is. I think you get my reasoning.

The question is not whether we "should" do something, since that is an abstract moralism that we choose to follow or not to follow. The Questions is what we already "do" follow. We hunt certain animals for food, mainly because of their abundance, inability to escape or the profit we gain from a single capture (deer and cow for example provide meat, leather, horn, sinew and bone for a range of purposes).

The assigning of "rights" to anything is done arbitrarily and w focus on humans, in my opinion, because WE ARE humans. We can empathise directly with others. We can understand their thoughts and emotions based on body language and transference. It is a lot more difficult to do that with a sea snail or a single streptococcus.

karen3212

I also draw my arbitrary line between humans and animals, at this time in my world. Our morals are instinctive and a result of evolution.
My line is drawn where it best suits my genetic survival based on the information from the world I live in.

Had I been born in a different time with different challenges for survival, I may have been a racist - I am not sure. But if I had been raised in an environment that told me we(as I knew my kin) needed to work lesser humans to survive, I think our genes would have been selfish enough to use everything we saw as less human, and protect those that were most likely to promote our genetic survival.

I at least in this world have come to see and know how like me all races of people are by virtue of travel, television, books. I imagine the racists back in the day were taught racism that went back to a time when competition between groups was seen as necessary for survival –perhaps.

In today's world, as I see it, my genes and I need other humans the world over more than animals, to survive. Again my morals are instinctive and refined with cultural information- as I see it even a comatose non sentient human is probably more likely to hold the key to a cure to the next spread of a deadly disease, than an animal. Perhaps my reasoning is faulty, and the amimal is not in competition, but I can only guess as to why I am putting my arbitrary line, between humans and animals. I am absorbing information from my culture, and it is helping reform my morals. I am not saying that my morals are right or my line is in the right place, it is just that cooperation with other humans is more likely to lead to my genetic survival in this world, and animals more likely to be in competition with me for their genetic survival.

I do feel for animals and do not like to see them suffer; I think this is a cultural addition to my morals due to knowing that they are sentient beings. Would I agree with using them for experimentation? Yes as long as humans need this to survive. Empathy toward the comatose non-sentient patient is still too strong and I believe that without reasoning and science, only an abberant would use a comatose non-sentient patient for experimentation instead. Assuming here that there is zero chance of recovery for said person.

Also instinctively, I have a compulsion to swat a fly, which may mean I am lower on the empathetic scale than others here are. Again I think I feel the competition here. When my logic kicks in though, I resist.

For me humans draw up there moral codes - based on instinct - refined by reason, new information and experience. Scientists and logical thinkers come up with the reasons for placing the lines, raise the consciousness of the layman, and the laws will change to fit the new learning.

I am very interested to know, why the sociopath gene has survived, is there any advantage in them evolutionarily speaking.

Tar.Aldarion

Becaseu perhaps all people don't need other people to survive? Maybe no society is evolutionary progress.

PoleStar

I apologise if this point has been raised already but havent read all the replies!

In response to the OP I always find it amusing the question as to where morals come from in the non-believers.

The religiously inclined like to think that they are god derived.

However what happened before modern day religions which are all Abrahamic derived?

What did people do then when there was no holy book with its rules about living (a lot of which dont seem moral to me!)? Did they rely on that big ball of flame in the sky to tell them (people worshipped the sun no?), I cant imagine they got too many replies.

What about religions that are so at conflict with each other in some departments? Christians think adultery is abominable and yet Muslims are allowed to keep more than one wife! Some Arab states believe the just thing to do in case of robbery is to chop off the offending hand. Western Europeans think that is an imoral act!

Conclusion: morals are defined by society, they are just as much a cultural thing as are other customs such as what music we listen to, what food we eat. Of course some basic "morals" were surely a product of societies evolution: back in the day, a clan would be much more successful surely if they had "good morals" which involved not killing each other etc compared to their immoral neighbours who had no problems with ransacking their own kinspeoples houses and killing etc.

Why does god have to be necessary for everything in this world! Cant I take it that I am a reasoned being in my own right that can do something "good" as we have defined it without being shown the light from the man above?

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

There iss no prejudgment in what I am saying.

Firstly, right are an arbitrary concept (you didnt tackle that bit) and as arbitrary concepts go, why not assign equally arbitrary points where rights change from one set to another.

The whole discussion only arises because rights are an arbitrary concept. If they were non-arbitrary, we would have research ethicists.

Because the choice to assign rights is arbitrary, one can erect any scheme one likes for assigning them. However, any such scheme should be rational and defensible, since otherwise it is simply a reiteration of prejudice.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Morals are also arbitrary beyond the self serving and species promoting instincts. Those have developed by means of gradual evolution.

A point that is either irrelevant, or self-defeating - some of us are obviously evolving in the direction of including other life in our morality.

Hivemind187 wrote:

I am not saying that we SHOULD assign more rights to one group or species rather than another - in a strictly intellectual sense you are correct - but the fact is that we do. As a species we do it automatically.

OK, but how is that different from "we should assign all races equal rights, but the fact is that we do assign Caucasians more rights - as a race we do it automatically".

Hivemind187 wrote:

My argument for complexity is deliberately vague and gaps deliberately huge.

Humans could well be seen as being at the top in terms of complexity for the great ape species. Opposable thumbs, highly complex temporal and frontal lobes, abstract thinking patterns, critical thinking ... plenty of reasons.

You could say that whales and dolphins are the highest order of seabound mammals because of their demonstrated capacity for learning and teaching and the highly developed brains they have as well a what is suspected to be language.

I could go on but there it is. I think you get my reasoning.

Yes - pick a criterion on which we appear to come out on top, and use that.

Hivemind187 wrote:

The question is not whether we "should" do something, since that is an abstract moralism that we choose to follow or not to follow. The Questions is what we already "do" follow. We hunt certain animals for food, mainly because of their abundance, inability to escape or the profit we gain from a single capture (deer and cow for example provide meat, leather, horn, sinew and bone for a range of purposes).

And we discriminate against other races. Murder happens, rape happens - are they then moral?

Morality is all about "should" - it makes no sense to say "this is right because it happens".

Hivemind187 wrote:

The assigning of "rights" to anything is done arbitrarily and w focus on humans, in my opinion, because WE ARE humans. We can empathise directly with others. We can understand their thoughts and emotions based on body language and transference. It is a lot more difficult to do that with a sea snail or a single streptococcus.

Yes, that's why we do what we do, and has no bearing on what we should do - because, again, if we use that rule, we allow the racist to say that he/she feels cannot empathise with black people, and therefore they should have lesser rights.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Scofflaw wrote:

OK, but how is that different from "we should assign all races equal rights, but the fact is that we do assign Caucasians more rights - as a race we do it automatically".

Because it's in our interests to afford equal rights to non-Caucasians. If they aren't happy we're in danger.

When the animals get educated and pissed off due to our mistreatment of them and start attacking us and rebelling, then perhaps we should afford proper rights to them.

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

Because it's in our interests to afford equal rights to non-Caucasians. If they aren't happy we're in danger.

When the animals get educated and pissed off due to our mistreatment of them and start attacking us and rebelling, then perhaps we should afford proper rights to them.

So, here in Ireland, it's OK to discriminate against non-Caucasians, because they constitute too small a fraction of the population to be dangerous?

Or are you claiming that historically that's why Caucasians decided to "give them" rights? If so, I'd be interested as to how you prove your case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Speaking in legal terms, Ireland could not discriminate against non-Caucasians(ie. have discriminatory laws against them) as the international backlash would be too great. That's what the "danger" would be.

I can't think of any example of minority groups being granted equal rights after being opressed without some sort of movement/uprising.

It's all about a complex balance of power between various groups and schools of thought.

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

Speaking in legal terms, Ireland could not discriminate against non-Caucasians(ie. have discriminatory laws against them) as the international backlash would be too great. That's what the "danger" would be.

An international backlash? Hmm. The only countries that would count would be other European countries, who also have tiny minorities of non-Caucasians. Why would they care?

Or are we talking about, say, being afraid Ghana might institute international sanctions against us? Or declare war?

JC 2K3 wrote:

I can't think of any example of minority groups being granted equal rights after being opressed without some sort of movement/uprising.

So - forgive me, I can't find it in my history books - when did the Chinese uprising for their rights take place? The Nigerians? Tongans?

JC 2K3 wrote:

It's all about a complex balance of power between various groups and schools of thought.

That plays a small part in it, but is certainly not the only factor. It totally fails to explain why rights were granted at times when European powers were capable of smashing any opposition (which they remain capable of, to a large extent), and non-Caucasian fractions of European populations were much smaller even than now. Even worse, it can never explain why we give rights to animals at all - or to any other powerless group.

It's a clever-sounding thesis - and has the advantage of making its proponents sound world-wearily cynical, but it doesn't actually seem to bear much resemblance to the facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Scofflaw wrote:

An international backlash? Hmm. The only countries that would count would be other European countries, who also have tiny minorities of non-Caucasians. Why would they care?

They'd care because being racist is seen as very wrong by most of the developed world. We'd be kicked out of the EU and it'd be a diplomatic disaster.

Scofflaw wrote:

So - forgive me, I can't find it in my history books - when did the Chinese uprising for their rights take place? The Nigerians? Tongans?

In what places are you referring to? No one is opressed racially in their own country and not all minority groups were discriminated against. I simply said any group that was opressed in some country had to undergo some sort of struggle to be granted equal rights.

Scofflaw wrote:

That plays a small part in it, but is certainly not the only factor. It totally fails to explain why rights were granted at times when European powers were capable of smashing any opposition (which they remain capable of, to a large extent), and non-Caucasian fractions of European populations were much smaller even than now. Even worse, it can never explain why we give rights to animals at all - or to any other powerless group.

Because sometimes its in a power's best interest to grant rights rather than spending money on a war?

And animals don't have legal rights. They have laws protecting them from cruelty.

Also, giving minority groups rights when we didn't have to can simply be an indicator that a sympathetic agenda had influence on the balance of power.

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

They'd care because being racist is seen as very wrong by most of the developed world. We'd be kicked out of the EU and it'd be a diplomatic disaster.

Yes, those are exactly the countries I was referring to as having only very small non-Caucasian percentages. Why, in turn, do they care?

JC 2K3 wrote:

In what places are you referring to? No one is opressed racially in their own country and not all minority groups were discriminated against. I simply said any group that was opressed in some country had to undergo some sort of struggle to be granted equal rights.

You're aware that the Chinese in Ireland had equal rights long before the EU and the rise of China? Same for the Jews, and Africans, etc etc...

JC 2K3 wrote:

Because sometimes its in a power's best interest to grant rights rather than spending money on a war?

Except that we've granted equal rights to all kinds of people whose countries have neither the capability nor intention of going to war with us, or with any of the countries that have chosen to grant them rights. Indeed, we've granted equal rights to people who we don't have any of in the country.

JC 2K3 wrote:

And animals don't have legal rights. They have laws protecting them from cruelty.

Effectively the same thing. Most people's rights only exist in non-discrimination legislation.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Also, giving minority groups rights when we didn't have to can simply be an indicator that a sympathetic agenda had influence on the balance of power.

Which is to say people doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do? Or are you going for the really silly option of claiming that there is, say, a pro-Ghanaian faction in the Dáil?

I'm afraid the thesis you offer is one of the "simple, obvious, and wrong" ones.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, those are exactly the countries I was referring to as having only very small non-Caucasian percentages. Why, in turn, do they care?

Status quo standards.

Same reason why a politician could lose his seat for committing adultery back in the 19th century.

All relative to what people's popular opinions are. As I referred to it before, a "balance of power" of sorts.

Scofflaw wrote:

You're aware that the Chinese in Ireland had equal rights long before the EU and the rise of China? Same for the Jews, and Africans, etc etc...

Except that we've granted equal rights to all kinds of people whose countries have neither the capability nor intention of going to war with us, or with any of the countries that have chosen to grant them rights. Indeed, we've granted equal rights to people who we don't have any of in the country.

You're not getting what I'm trying to say. The Chinese were never opressed in Ireland in the first place. It's not always in a society's interest to opress a minority group....

Scofflaw wrote:

Which is to say people doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do? Or are you going for the really silly option of claiming that there is, say, a pro-Ghanaian faction in the Dáil?

Ghanians aren't opressed in Ireland because we've no reason to opress them.

Essentially my point is that rights are afforded to minority groups by the majority ultimately in the interests of the majority(And vice versa, ie. minority groups are opressed if it's ultimately in the majority's interest). What dictates what makes it in the majority's interest is public opinion, which is generally random, yet can be influenced in many ways.