Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Posted: January 12 2014 at 10:22
The Pessimist wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Omnivorian. It is our nature.
This isn't really an argument. So are sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder and rape. Morality fights the natural urge in almost all cases.
I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument,
or were you thinking of taking a course?
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Posted: January 12 2014 at 11:50
Dean wrote:
The Pessimist wrote:
It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway
I'm
a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human
intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that
has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are
today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We
weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic
society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather...
well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only
just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating
deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and
we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to
be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as
you've stated, it could not be.
You are mixing intellect (the capacity for learning) with intelligence (the acquisition and application of knowledge) and knowledge itself. The capability of the human mind has not evolved over time, a Neolithic human is identical in every way to a modern human (there is some speculation that brain volume has decreased over the past 12,000 or so years but that is highly speculative based upon limited data and the assumption that increased DHA omega-3 fatty acid from a higher proportion of fish in the prehistoric diet - if brain size was a measure of intelligence it is however an argument that we are less intelligent that out prehistoric forebears). Our sum of human knowledge has increased but only in proportion to our understanding of the world around us, our level of relative intelligence in regard to what we need to know is unchanged, it is a fair assumption that you cannot knap flint tools, that does not make you more or less intelligent it is simply knowledge you do not possess. Knowing more things does not make you more intelligent and it does not increase your intellect.
We cannot measure the IQ of prehistoric people, in more recent history there are things that bronze age people could achieve that confounds us today because of our arrogant view of more "primitive" times.
I definitely mixed the two, apologies for my ignorance. I will alter my point to accommodate this. Wouldn't you agree that certain moral points have emerged due to knowledge acquired by the human race through philosophical contemplation and the scientific process?I'm just curious as it will help me address my point better.
The Pessimist wrote:
But let me elaborate my point further
with examples:
I consider religion to be a naturally occurring
phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that
envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion
(discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I
can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I
would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the
human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our
race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open
door with you on that one.
Let's also take the Maori tribe. A
dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in
cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are
thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of
cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is
now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation
and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would
be fighting nature.
I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.
And
thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it
counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome
to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I
feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long
way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still
on.
You are still constructing a strawman, (albeit indirectly perhaps), as these "examples" are neither illustrative nor are they equivalents. The arrogance that civilisation is morally superior to these "primitive" examples has oft been a disingenuous justification for ethically dubious practices - the slave trade is a prime example of that, as is the forced conversion of indigenous peoples to western ideology and religion. With the benefit of hindsight and "enlightenment" we see things differently now, but they believed they were being morally ethical because they deemed themselves to be morally superior ... that was an arrogance.
Perhaps it is a strawman, and it was definitely unintentional. Maybe I'm being vague as I'm not saying that because a group"primitive" or lesser developed that they are less moral. In fact I'd consider capitalist fascism incredibly immoral. Lesser developed countries should barely even come into the argument as development has nothing to do with knowledge acquired, e.g. most, if not all, of my favourite musicians come out of poverty. I'm not (edit) trying to say that the smarter you are the more moral you are either, and I can see why if you take my point like that it would be enraging. Of course, people can be incredibly intelligent and still commit crimes against humanity (Mao being of the infamous). Slavery would be another example of this. I am trying to say though that there are certain things we have learned, or come to agreement on, as a collective, that have changed our moral coding. This comes through knowledge.
The Pessimist wrote:
Regarding this:
"The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..."
I
would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives
from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me
has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be
an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.
You are old fashioned.
Surely primitive tribes live alongside nature are more moral and ethical than any so-called civilised culture. My point several posts back is the disassociation between the food on the supermarket shelf and the animal in the field has permitted the unethical treatment of livestock, this is a product of civilisation, a civilisation that you claim is more moral than an uncivilised one. Once you introduce morality into lifestyle choices you open a whole can of worms. Stick with your emotional decision, it is more honest than any contrived moral justification.
If someone is being uncivilised then they are generally being immoral to some degree. Once again I think this is a case of different definitions, as a tribe that lives an ethical life with nature is what I would call a more civilised society then any first world country that I can think of. For me, civilised and moral are the same word, whereas I think you're using the word to describe how powerful and organised the nation is. In fact, the dictionary tells us both uses of the word are correct.
ExittheLemming:
I don't recall saying that I think I'm better than everyone else, but if it came across that way then I do apologise profusely. This was in response to many people saying that being omnivorous is the natural occurrence. I would agree, and without repeating myself, I think my definition of natural is very different to yours. I would presume (at a risk) that you consider the natural evolution on human morality to be a natural phenomenon. I'd consider the basic state before certain moral developments to be the natural state, and the moral steps we take afterwards to be a manmade extension or development on that natural state. No-one can deny however that morality is a constantly changing thing.
Slarti:
Sorry about how that came across, I was in a rather foul mood this morning.
Edited by The Pessimist - January 12 2014 at 11:53
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Posted: January 12 2014 at 11:57
Good luck on the resolution Pessimist. I tried vegetarianism for a while as well as a raw-food only diet, the latter which was very hard. Neither one lasted too terribly long for me but that's just me. Lots of people do fine with it, so happy eating! Let us know what you think of the health affects after a while, good or bad.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 12 2014 at 12:45
The Pessimist wrote:
I definitely mixed the two, apologies for my ignorance. I will alter my point to accommodate this. Wouldn't you agree that certain moral points have emerged due to knowledge acquired by the human race through philosophical contemplation and the scientific process?I'm just curious as it will help me address my point better.
Certainly newly acquired knowledge raises ethical questions we've not had to consider before, that much I will grant you. However this does not result in the emergence of a new morality.
[My low opinion of philosophical contemplation will not permit me to acknowledge that we have gained any knowledge through the staring at navel lint, it's when philosophy imposes morality things tend to go titsup in a major way, as your examples in the next paragraph demonstrate. The moral dilemmas of philosophical thought experiments solve nothing except the perpetuation of moral philosophy as an academic discipline. I may be a lone voice speaking out against philosophy as an intellectual pursuit, but for me it should be placed on the "not needed on the voyage" pile of luggage along with alchemy and astrology.]
The Pessimist wrote:
Perhaps it is a strawman, and it was definitely unintentional. Maybe I'm being vague as I'm not saying that because a group"primitive" or lesser developed that they are less moral. In fact I'd consider capitalist fascism incredibly immoral. Lesser developed countries should barely even come into the argument as development has nothing to do with knowledge acquired, e.g. most, if not all, of my favourite musicians come out of poverty. I'm not (edit) trying to say that the smarter you are the more moral you are either, and I can see why if you take my point like that it would be enraging. Of course, people can be incredibly intelligent and still commit crimes against humanity (Mao being of the infamous). Slavery would be another example of this. I am trying to say though that there are certain things we have learned, or come to agreement on, as a collective, that have changed our moral coding. This comes through knowledge.
I do not believe that it does. We didn't learn that slavery is bad through the acquisition of knowledge for example. Knowledge can give us a better understanding of certain things and overturn long-held beliefs, such as the idea that cold-blooded animals feel no pain or that plants do not react to stress (re: Tim's earlier quip that carrots have feelings too) - if that changes how we treat fish, reptiles, lobster, oysters, squid and carrots then that was not necessarily a moral decision or one that changed our moral code (whatever that is) - the morality of not causing suffering was pre-existing, we have simply extended it to encompass another life-form.
The Pessimist wrote:
If someone is being uncivilised then they are generally being immoral to some degree. Once again I think this is a case of different definitions, as a tribe that lives an ethical life with nature is what I would call a more civilised society then any first world country that I can think of. For me, civilised and moral are the same word, whereas I think you're using the word to describe how powerful and organised the nation is. In fact, the dictionary tells us both uses of the word are correct.
It seems that on this forum I cannot repeat this often enough: when words have more than one meaning we cannot mix them willy-nilly in our conversations, if we have been at cross-purposes then the context of where and how the word was used dictates which meaning was in use. If I were to use civilised and moral in the same sentence it would be a tautology for me to use one as the synonym of the other as you have here. Fortunately the dictionary definitions of civilised do not tell us that civilised = moral, (I should chuck your dictionary in the bin and buy a better one if I were you): one definition is that civilised means having a high state of culture and development both social and technological while the other means cultured and/or polite - neither means "moral". You can be civilised in both meanings of the word and still lack morality.
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Posted: January 12 2014 at 13:34
Dean wrote:
The Pessimist wrote:
I definitely mixed the two, apologies for my ignorance. I will alter my point to accommodate this. Wouldn't you agree that certain moral points have emerged due to knowledge acquired by the human race through philosophical contemplation and the scientific process?I'm just curious as it will help me address my point better.
Certainly newly acquired knowledge raises ethical questions we've not had to consider before, that much I will grant you. However this does not result in the emergence of a new morality.
[My low opinion of philosophical contemplation will not permit me to acknowledge that we have gained any knowledge through the staring at navel lint, it's when philosophy imposes morality things tend to go titsup in a major way, as your examples in the next paragraph demonstrate. The moral dilemmas of philosophical thought experiments solve nothing except the perpetuation of moral philosophy as an academic discipline. I may be a lone voice speaking out against philosophy as an intellectual pursuit, but for me it should be placed on the "not needed on the voyage" pile of luggage along with alchemy and astrology.]
The Pessimist wrote:
Perhaps it is a strawman, and it was definitely unintentional. Maybe I'm being vague as I'm not saying that because a group"primitive" or lesser developed that they are less moral. In fact I'd consider capitalist fascism incredibly immoral. Lesser developed countries should barely even come into the argument as development has nothing to do with knowledge acquired, e.g. most, if not all, of my favourite musicians come out of poverty. I'm not (edit) trying to say that the smarter you are the more moral you are either, and I can see why if you take my point like that it would be enraging. Of course, people can be incredibly intelligent and still commit crimes against humanity (Mao being of the infamous). Slavery would be another example of this. I am trying to say though that there are certain things we have learned, or come to agreement on, as a collective, that have changed our moral coding. This comes through knowledge.
I do not believe that it does. We didn't learn that slavery is bad through the acquisition of knowledge for example. Knowledge can give us a better understanding of certain things and overturn long-held beliefs, such as the idea that cold-blooded animals feel no pain or that plants do not react to stress (re: Tim's earlier quip that carrots have feelings too) - if that changes how we treat fish, reptiles, lobster, oysters, squid and carrots then that was not necessarily a moral decision or one that changed our moral code (whatever that is) - the morality of not causing suffering was pre-existing, we have simply extended it to encompass another life-form.
The Pessimist wrote:
If someone is being uncivilised then they are generally being immoral to some degree. Once again I think this is a case of different definitions, as a tribe that lives an ethical life with nature is what I would call a more civilised society then any first world country that I can think of. For me, civilised and moral are the same word, whereas I think you're using the word to describe how powerful and organised the nation is. In fact, the dictionary tells us both uses of the word are correct.
It seems that on this forum I cannot repeat this often enough: when words have more than one meaning we cannot mix them willy-nilly in our conversations, if we have been at cross-purposes then the context of where and how the word was used dictates which meaning was in use. If I were to use civilised and moral in the same sentence it would be a tautology for me to use one as the synonym of the other as you have here. Fortunately the dictionary definitions of civilised do not tell us that civilised = moral, (I should chuck your dictionary in the bin and buy a better one if I were you): one definition is that civilised means having a high state of culture and development both social and technological while the other means cultured and/or polite - neither means "moral". You can be civilised in both meanings of the word and still lack morality.
To answer both your first two paragraphs, this is turning into a classic Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. Do we really need to continue? I'm completely a relativist as I think it's quite dangerous and unreliable to say that morality is an unmovable thing, yet you seem to be absolutist for your own reasons. Correct me if I'm not mistaken? This argument is one of the oldest in the book.
And I really thought as a scientist you would appreciate the importance of philosophy as science can't function without it. Would you dismiss the great philosophers like Nietzsche, Plato and Marx as pseudoscientists? At least we agree that astrology and alchemy are fantasy.
Regarding the last paragraph I apologise for my literal ignorance. However, I would say that being civilised (a la the second half of the definition) is an integral part of being moral, but I suppose that's just me hating rudeness and littering.
Finnforest, thanks man. It's been nearly two weeks and I'm starting to feel a bit better health wise. Also my wallet is feeling better too I must say! Vegetarianism is cheap. I don't really miss meat either which is good I suppose.
I don't recall saying that I think I'm better than everyone else, but if it came across that way then I do apologise profusely. This was in response to many people saying that being omnivorous is the natural occurrence. I would agree, and without repeating myself, I think my definition of natural is very different to yours. I would presume (at a risk) that you consider the natural evolution on human morality to be a natural phenomenon. I'd consider the basic state before certain moral developments to be the natural state, and the moral steps we take afterwards to be a manmade extension or development on that natural state. No-one can deny however that morality is a constantly changing thing.
No need for apologies,I enjoyed our exchanges but I was guilty of being my usual abrasive self, Thanks for providing such a thought provoking thread.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 12 2014 at 18:48
The Pessimist wrote:
To answer both your first two paragraphs, this is turning into a classic Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. Do we really need to continue? I'm completely a relativist as I think it's quite dangerous and unreliable to say that morality is an unmovable thing, yet you seem to be absolutist for your own reasons. Correct me if I'm not mistaken? This argument is one of the oldest in the book.
Am I? Frankly I neither know nor care, sorry if that sounds belittling - it is not, it is merely a reflection of how low my opinion of formal philosophy is. I never said morality is unmovable, I do not say it is absolute - murder is wrong n'est pas? How about war and capital punishment? Are they sanctioned murder that is morally acceptable? I say a life is a life regardless of how it is taken so if it is intentional then it is murder. Period. No ifs, no buts. Yet (as I understand it) that is still not moral absolutism; conversely the evolution of morality (as a function of intelligence and civilisation) as you paint it is not moral relativism either as that would imply that there existed a time when murder (as we define it today) was morally acceptable ("Hey, Ug - you killed my Pa! I love you man"). I say morality existed in human species before we had a formal system for it - morality adapts to increasing knowledge, we do not invent new moralities to accommodate this improved view of the world. If that has a fancy name then so be it.
The Pessimist wrote:
And I really thought as a scientist you would appreciate the importance of philosophy as science can't function without it. Would you dismiss the great philosophers like Nietzsche, Plato and Marx as pseudoscientists? At least we agree that astrology and alchemy are fantasy.
How does science fail to function without philosophy? [please don't answer that here - I've gone into this countless times in several threads here over the past 6½ years - it is a question to think about, not to answer... how "philosophical" is that ]
I would dismiss all three of them in a heatbeat, and if we could have done that before Hitler and Stalin had swallowed their bs and distorted it to their own ends then all the better. {Plato doesn't get a free pass for failing to inspire a despot, he simply didn't produce anything of any value}
Philosophy is not a pseudo-science - it is not a science, if it is pseudo anything it would be pseudo-intellectual - the art of pretending to be more clever than one really is. Really? Yup - take the above "Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism" ... and the answer is? ... there is no answer. Does it solve anything? ... No. Does it increase the sum of human knowledge? ... no. It sounds clever but it's babble and the only time you'll ever see it is on a Philosophy A-level exam paper (or in a interweb discussion forum).
In classical Greece Philosophy was an umbrella term for all disciplines of wisdom, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, music, poetry, drama, alchemy, astrology and thinking about the meaning of bellybutton fluff. Since then we have split out the physical sciences and called them science, we have split out the practical arts and called them the humanities, and what remained after slinging out the obvious charlatans alchemy and astrology has been called philosophy more or less by default.
The Pessimist wrote:
Regarding the last paragraph I apologise for my literal ignorance. However, I would say that being civilised (a la the second half of the definition) is an integral part of being moral, but I suppose that's just me hating rudeness and littering.
Ah no it isn't part of being moral nor is it a consequence, but I do know what you mean.
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Posted: January 12 2014 at 20:19
Dean wrote:
The Pessimist wrote:
To answer both your first two paragraphs, this is turning into a classic Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. Do we really need to continue? I'm completely a relativist as I think it's quite dangerous and unreliable to say that morality is an unmovable thing, yet you seem to be absolutist for your own reasons. Correct me if I'm not mistaken? This argument is one of the oldest in the book.
Am I? Frankly I neither know nor care, sorry if that sounds belittling - it is not, it is merely a reflection of how low my opinion of formal philosophy is. I never said morality is unmovable, I do not say it is absolute - murder is wrong n'est pas? How about war and capital punishment? Are they sanctioned murder that is morally acceptable? I say a life is a life regardless of how it is taken so if it is intentional then it is murder. Period. No ifs, no buts. Yet (as I understand it) that is still not moral absolutism; conversely the evolution of morality (as a function of intelligence and civilisation) as you paint it is not moral relativism either as that would imply that there existed a time when murder (as we define it today) was morally acceptable ("Hey, Ug - you killed my Pa! I love you man"). I say morality existed in human species before we had a formal system for it - morality adapts to increasing knowledge, we do not invent new moralities to accommodate this improved view of the world. If that has a fancy name then so be it.
I'm interested in how you see the killing of one man to save a thousand, or the killing of a man to save a child etc etc etc I'm sure these scenarios bore you rotten (they do for me) but I think it'll be a valid stepping stone in this argument.
The Pessimist wrote:
And I really thought as a scientist you would appreciate the importance of philosophy as science can't function without it. Would you dismiss the great philosophers like Nietzsche, Plato and Marx as pseudoscientists? At least we agree that astrology and alchemy are fantasy.
How does science fail to function without philosophy? [please don't answer that here - I've gone into this countless times in several threads here over the past 6½ years - it is a question to think about, not to answer... how "philosophical" is that ]
Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, science is the tool used to answer it. Philosophy doesn't provide answers by nature, but it is the heart of the rational process in which answers are created. Through philosophy we have also come to understand that in the science world no-one is proving anything right, rather coming up with the best answer so far. That is a philosophical system. Sorry, I know you didn't want an answer but your question really surprised me so I had to.
I would dismiss all three of them in a heatbeat, and if we could have done that before Hitler and Stalin had swallowed their bs and distorted it to their own ends then all the better. {Plato doesn't get a free pass for failing to inspire a despot, he simply didn't produce anything of any value}
If you are saying that the philosophy of Marx is a bad thing purely based on the people who have read it then I really implore you to read his Manifesto... Also, Hitler and Stalin may have read Marx's work, but neither of them were actually Marxists. They both followed their own nutty systems. It's also debatable whether either of them were communist.Marx himself often criticised Stalin's "communism", claiming that for Stalin to actually be Marxist then he would have disintegrated the bourgeoise, which he didn't.
Philosophy is not a pseudo-science - it is not a science, if it is pseudo anything it would be pseudo-intellectual - the art of pretending to be more clever than one really is. Really? Yup - take the above "Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism" ... and the answer is? ... there is no answer. Does it solve anything? ... No. Does it increase the sum of human knowledge? ... no. It sounds clever but it's babble and the only time you'll ever see it is on a Philosophy A-level exam paper (or in a interweb discussion forum).
I think saying it is useless is a fair statement, but then again so are most things really if you look at them from a survival aspect. Philosophy is just a way on contemplating how to make life more understandable. Democracy comes from philosophical reasoning. So do morals. Determinism/Freewill are philosophical standpoints. Every debate that has ever been had ever is a result of a philosophical knot. If debates, and hence dialectics, were ruled by science, they wouldn't even exist. The fact that scientists by practise can't take anything as 100% fact is a philosophical decision. Philosophy may be useless at the academic level that you speak of, but it is an inescapable part of life's fabric.
In classical Greece Philosophy was an umbrella term for all disciplines of wisdom, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, music, poetry, drama, alchemy, astrology and thinking about the meaning of bellybutton fluff. Since then we have split out the physical sciences and called them science, we have split out the practical arts and called them the humanities, and what remained after slinging out the obvious charlatans alchemy and astrology has been called philosophy more or less by default.
Once again I'll repeat that philosophy is an integral part of all subjects.
The Pessimist wrote:
Regarding the last paragraph I apologise for my literal ignorance. However, I would say that being civilised (a la the second half of the definition) is an integral part of being moral, but I suppose that's just me hating rudeness and littering.
Ah no it isn't part of being moral nor is it a consequence, but I do know what you mean.
Special Collaborator
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 14735
Posted: January 12 2014 at 23:57
I'm a dog! Of course i eat meat. I also eat anything that falls off the kitchen table and the occasional poop on the street during my walks. Yum!
Seriously! I used to be the biggest carnivore on the planet being raised in the US state of Nebraska being one of the biggest beef producers in the country. I even had the exhilarating pleasure of working in a slaughterhouse on the kill floor. Ever wonder what a gelatinous carpet of coagulated blood looks and feels like while you're walking through it?
After many years of playing with my diet and as a college student of biology and ecological sciences i have been searching for the right balance regarding this question for a long time. I have found several things to be true.
1. I believe the human body requires small amounts of animal proteins and enzymes for optimal health. This doesn't always have to come from eating an animal itself but through non-pasteurized dairy and egg products. I have noticed that every vegan i have known is always extremely lethargic and has trouble with clear cognitive functions. I'm not saying it's not possible to be a healthy vegan just very difficult to ensure the proper substances that a body requires.\
2. I have been become mostly vegetarian over time simply because i have lost my taste for most meat. I now only ever eat small amounts of fish occasionally or other bottom dwellers of the sea such as crab, lobster or shell fish. My larger concern is the sustainability issue which dictates which species i consume when i do. I favor wild Alaskan salmon since it is one of the most sustainable sources of animal protein we can get on the west coast of the USA and i also never tire of it. I no longer eat mammals and do eat birds but only when i'm a guest at someone's house and rarely do so at that since everyone i know is aware of my preferences.
3. Sustainability leads to yet another issue usually ignored by vegans and vegetarians who think they are saving the planet by not consuming meat. It is a fact that in order to grow enough vegetation that we devour on a daily basis that habitat is cleared for soy plantations, cornfields, strawberry patches etc. The amount of deforestation that occurs every day is still rising so we can feed the population of the planet that grows by about a million people every few days. When we clear habitat where animals live, those animals die and some species even go extinct. I think it would make much more sense to eat animals that are wild and live in their natural habitat if we cull them in a sustainable way. Here in California it seems to me that people should be eating more deer since there is an abundance. I do not eat deer but it makes more sense to me than eating tofu (which i also don't eat) since deer do not require a lot of resources. On the other hand there are many feral pigs that are devastating the delicate ecology of our wildlands here and all over the world including on fragile ecosystems on island habitats such as Hawaii. By all means i'm all for the consumption of those invasive species that are wreaking havoc on the balance of the whole.
I think it should be about the perspective of the big picture. We should ascertain the situation at hand and act accordingly. In that way some of the Asian countries have been doing for centuries. There is also the possibiltiy of one of the most readily available forms of animal protein on the entire planet and that is one of consuming insects. This has saved millions in Africa during the centuries through dry spells and instabilities in political structures. It is actually catching on across the world as something more hip as i've seen cooking shows catering to adventurous eaters who are willing to sautee grasshoppers and the like in garlic and have a go at it.
Yadda yadda yadda. Just my two cents worth. Great topic :)
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 13 2014 at 01:33
The Pessimist wrote:
I'm interested in how you see the killing of one man to save a thousand, or the killing of a man to save a child etc etc etc I'm sure these scenarios bore you rotten (they do for me) but I think it'll be a valid stepping stone in this argument.
Gah! These stupid thought experiments do not bore me, they are pointless - they sound clever and "intellectual" but they're stupid, futile and completely useless.
The Pessimist wrote:
Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, science is the tool used to answer it. Philosophy doesn't provide answers by nature, but it is the heart of the rational process in which answers are created. Through philosophy we have also come to understand that in the science world no-one is proving anything right, rather coming up with the best answer so far. That is a philosophical system. Sorry, I know you didn't want an answer but your question really surprised me so I had to.
"Why does a flower have colour?" may be a philosophical question (with a small "p") but it is not a question posed by Philosophy (with a big "P") - any philosopher contemplating the colour of a flower would never arrive at the correct answer. In theoretical science Philosophy is not coming up with any "best answers" the scientists are - it may be a philosophical system but it is not Philosophy.
The Pessimist wrote:
If you are saying that the philosophy of Marx is a bad thing purely based on the people who have read it then I really implore you to read his Manifesto... Also, Hitler and Stalin may have read Marx's work, but neither of them were actually Marxists. They both followed their own nutty systems. It's also debatable whether either of them were communist.Marx himself often criticised Stalin's "communism", claiming that for Stalin to actually be Marxist then he would have disintegrated the bourgeoise, which he didn't.
...and if we could have done that before Hitler and Stalin had swallowed their bs and distorted it to their own ends then all the better. All formal philosophies get distorted and twisted, they all go titsup.
The Pessimist wrote:
I think saying it is useless is a fair statement, but then again so are most things really if you look at them from a survival aspect. Philosophy is just a way on contemplating how to make life more understandable. Democracy comes from philosophical reasoning. So do morals. Determinism/Freewill are philosophical standpoints. Every debate that has ever been had ever is a result of a philosophical knot. If debates, and hence dialectics, were ruled by science, they wouldn't even exist. The fact that scientists by practise can't take anything as 100% fact is a philosophical decision. Philosophy may be useless at the academic level that you speak of, but it is an inescapable part of life's fabric.
Philosophy has failed to make life more understandable. You cannot claim that morals come from philosophical reasoning when I am arguing that they are an inherent trait of human beings and ethical philosophy comes from those traits. Determinism vs Freewill is the daftest waste of time ever contemplated that, again, produces nothing, answers nothing, solves nothing. Discussion is not Philosophy (with a big "P"). A philosophical decision made by scientists is made by scientists, not Philosophers.
The Pessimist wrote:
Once again I'll repeat that philosophy is an integral part of all subjects.
Being an integral part of all subjects is not the Philosophy (with a big "P") I stand in opposition to.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 15 2014 at 09:38
The trope: "Chicken: what everything exotic or visually off-putting invariably tastes like, only cheaper" seems to apply to faux meats as well. If only a carrot tasted like chicken...
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Posted: January 16 2014 at 07:42
Dean wrote:
The Pessimist wrote:
I'm interested in how you see the killing of one man to save a thousand, or the killing of a man to save a child etc etc etc I'm sure these scenarios bore you rotten (they do for me) but I think it'll be a valid stepping stone in this argument.
Gah! These stupid thought experiments do not bore me, they are pointless - they sound clever and "intellectual" but they're stupid, futile and completely useless.
The Pessimist wrote:
Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, science is the tool used to answer it. Philosophy doesn't provide answers by nature, but it is the heart of the rational process in which answers are created. Through philosophy we have also come to understand that in the science world no-one is proving anything right, rather coming up with the best answer so far. That is a philosophical system. Sorry, I know you didn't want an answer but your question really surprised me so I had to.
"Why does a flower have colour?" may be a philosophical question (with a small "p") but it is not a question posed by Philosophy (with a big "P") - any philosopher contemplating the colour of a flower would never arrive at the correct answer. In theoretical science Philosophy is not coming up with any "best answers" the scientists are - it may be a philosophical system but it is not Philosophy.
The Pessimist wrote:
If you are saying that the philosophy of Marx is a bad thing purely based on the people who have read it then I really implore you to read his Manifesto... Also, Hitler and Stalin may have read Marx's work, but neither of them were actually Marxists. They both followed their own nutty systems. It's also debatable whether either of them were communist.Marx himself often criticised Stalin's "communism", claiming that for Stalin to actually be Marxist then he would have disintegrated the bourgeoise, which he didn't.
...and if we could have done that before Hitler and Stalin had swallowed their bs and distorted it to their own ends then all the better. All formal philosophies get distorted and twisted, they all go titsup.
The Pessimist wrote:
I think saying it is useless is a fair statement, but then again so are most things really if you look at them from a survival aspect. Philosophy is just a way on contemplating how to make life more understandable. Democracy comes from philosophical reasoning. So do morals. Determinism/Freewill are philosophical standpoints. Every debate that has ever been had ever is a result of a philosophical knot. If debates, and hence dialectics, were ruled by science, they wouldn't even exist. The fact that scientists by practise can't take anything as 100% fact is a philosophical decision. Philosophy may be useless at the academic level that you speak of, but it is an inescapable part of life's fabric.
Philosophy has failed to make life more understandable. You cannot claim that morals come from philosophical reasoning when I am arguing that they are an inherent trait of human beings and ethical philosophy comes from those traits. Determinism vs Freewill is the daftest waste of time ever contemplated that, again, produces nothing, answers nothing, solves nothing. Discussion is not Philosophy (with a big "P"). A philosophical decision made by scientists is made by scientists, not Philosophers.
The Pessimist wrote:
Once again I'll repeat that philosophy is an integral part of all subjects.
Being an integral part of all subjects is not the Philosophy (with a big "P") I stand in opposition to.
They are not pointless, as your answer to this would explain whether you really do think there is a universal morality or not. They may never happen, but that doesn't mean that these questions shouldn't be answered. Not everything has to be strictly pragmatic, although I think that's probably where the roots of your disdain for philosophy come from: its lack of pragmatism.
And that question is a very childish one, and doesn't really mock Philosophy at all. How much Philosophy have you actually delved into just out of curiosity? I mean after all, Aristotle arguably created logic. Pythagoras was a philosopher. Nietzsche was an important political writer who's works came out of Philosophy. Marx's Philosophical writings Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto are two of the most influential books in European politics, whether it was misinterpreted or not. You can't argue that it's all disposable codswallop when it's all had such a profound influence on every single walk of life.
The Philosophy of Science is a cornerstone of science, even though its foundation is circular logic and thus proves science not actually a complete answer at all (but the best we have so far).
How the text is interpreted is not up to the author. Least of all can a misinterpretation be blamed on the subject of the text itself. The fault is entirely down to the person doing the misinterpreting.
"Philosophy has failed to make life more understandable." Well this I just outright disagree with. It has enlightened countless people through the ages. It may have failed to make life less understandable for you, but that doesn't mean it has failed completely. For some people, like myself, it opens doors. The purpose of Philosophy isn't to prove, solve or answer. Not everything has to have that as its main purpose. Music does neither of those things either as it is totally ambiguous. That doesn't mean it is useless however: it enriches our lives! Philosophy does the same. It gives us the facility to doubt EVERYTHING, which is a valuable human trait amongst the enlightened. As far as I'm aware, in the words of Richard Feynman, doubt is essential to science. Whilst I'm not saying that the facility to doubt was put there by formal Philosophy, doubting IS a philosophical process.
DvsFW may be daft to you, but many people including myself find it very interesting and relevant.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 16 2014 at 18:33
*sigh* this seems like an awful lot of hard work to justify feeling good about having a less varied and less interesting diet.
The Pessimist wrote:
They are not pointless, as your answer to this would explain whether you really do think there is a universal morality or not. They may never happen, but that doesn't mean that these questions shouldn't be answered. Not everything has to be strictly pragmatic, although I think that's probably where the roots of your disdain for philosophy come from: its lack of pragmatism.
You want to use the question to determine which kind of "philosophical" person I am, well, I'm the kind that doesn't answer the question.
My answer would not explain anything, and certainly not whether I really do think there is a universal morality. Trying to fathom what I believe based upon my answer is silly - just ask me the direct question. Lack of pragmatism is not a problem, many things in this world lack pragmatism. Is there a universal morality? - no, of course not, that's absurd - there is however, a universal susceptibility (or capability) for morality - whatever that mechanism is it is natural and inherent - call it conscience, empathy, self-preservation, survival instinct, nurture, parent-instinct, selfishness, altruism, herd-instinct, pack-behaviour - whatever, and since nature abhors a vacuum, if the capability is there then a morality will occupy the space. So that is the basis for all morality, it's always been there and it's constant - but it is not a universal morality. We are a social-animal - we need to live in a social group in order to survive. In nature these come in two main flavours - herd and pack: a herd animal is self-sufficient in the food it eats (vegetation) but congregate in large numbers for mutual protection, no animal in the herd is dependant on any other; a pack animal is not self-sufficient in the food it eats (meat or meat and vegetation), it needs other members of the pack to help it gather food and so each animal in the pack dependant on the other members. We fit into the "pack" category, this makes us protective of other animals in the pack because we depend on them to survive. That fundamental basic instinct is the corner-stone of all morality. Your 1 vs 1000 thought experiment is a test of that basic instinct - do we allow one to die so the pack or tribe survives (thus aiding our survival) or do we let the 1000 perish to save the one... well, it depends on the "one" really doesn't it, but since we are denied the necessary information to make an informed decision the answer lacks meaning - pragmatic or otherwise - flipping a coin or rolling a dice is equally as valid in such a bound-limited thought experiment.
The Pessimist wrote:
And that question is a very childish one, and doesn't really mock Philosophy at all. How much Philosophy have you actually delved into just out of curiosity? I mean after all, Aristotle arguably created logic. Pythagoras was a philosopher. Nietzsche was an important political writer who's works came out of Philosophy. Marx's Philosophical writings Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto are two of the most influential books in European politics, whether it was misinterpreted or not. You can't argue that it's all disposable codswallop when it's all had such a profound influence on every single walk of life.
Sorry, which question? The flower colour one? That wasn't to mock Philosophy nor is it childish, it was a valid and somewhat typical example of a scientific question - all scientific enquiry starts with that seemingly simple question: 'Why does 'X' have/do/make/cause "Y"?' - you said Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, I merely illustrated that with an example of scientific enquiry that philosophical contemplation would get no further than posing the initial question. The apparently childish "Why does a Flower have colour?" reveals a mass of scientific data from physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, psychology and probably a few others I've not thought of - it is not a simple question.
However, Philosophy does not ask those questions, (well not since the Renaissance anyway) - scientist do not go running to the Philosophy department for the next big puzzle to solve. And in my opinion, Philosophy stopped being relevant when it stopped asking those kinds of questions.
I have read enough of Philosophy to sit here arguing with you, Aristotle gets a free pass because he was the first true scientist, (his list of achievements are more than just formal logic) but with many of those ancient Greek philosophers, as I have said before, some of them were more than just "Philosophers" in the modern sense, there was no separation of science, art and contemplating your navel, so Aristotle, Pythagoras and later, Archimedes, were as much Scientists as they were Philosophers. Socrates and Plato on the other hand are said to have been less interest in the physical and natural aspects of the world - whether that is true or not we cannot say because we can only judge them on what they left behind, we do know they did contemplate music and light but not in the same physical way that Pythagoras and Aristotle did, they were more interested in the effects of music than the mechanics of it. This interests me en passantbecause I am interested in science - I would equally cite Galileo and Newton as Philosopher/Scientists of interest for their scientific studies and discoveries, not for their philosophical output. Nietzsche, Kant, Wittgenstein and all those dudes do not interest me, I know enough to know they do not tempt me to look further. Is/was their influence profound? Sure. Should it have been? Probably not. Marx is slightly different because I am a socialist, but let's be honest here - socialism has failed as a political movement, just as every extreme politics will ultimately fail - the concept is noble and sound, but in practice it is untenable in this or any other world - as is any other philosophy. (and probably universal suffrage is the only true success of socialism, though I think Marx believed that socialism would be a consequence of universal suffrage).
The Pessimist wrote:
The Philosophy of Science is a cornerstone of science, even though its foundation is circular logic and thus proves science not actually a complete answer at all (but the best we have so far).
Or philosophy of science is the somewhat redundant means of examining what science does from a philosophical viewpoint (this circular logic thing is a gas isn't it). It does not prove that science is not a complete answer at all, it struggles to prove its own worth by making such a claim. Science is well aware that it is not a complete answer - science does not deal in absolutes.
The Pessimist wrote:
How the text is interpreted is not up to the author. Least of all can a misinterpretation be blamed on the subject of the text itself. The fault is entirely down to the person doing the misinterpreting.
You do seem to be preoccupied with absolutes. The author is not to blame? Blame is applicable to both sides and to the text itself. This has been the truth through the ages and is a truth today. If the words can be misinterpreted then they will be misinterpreted, if the words are ambiguous or lead to conflicting conclusions then they will be misinterpreted. The fault is not just in the misinterpretation but also in the composition.
(I suspect you're not going to understand why I showed that)
The Pessimist wrote:
"Philosophy has failed to make life more understandable." Well this I just outright disagree with. It has enlightened countless people through the ages. It may have failed to make life less understandable for you, but that doesn't mean it has failed completely. For some people, like myself, it opens doors.
Show me one example of Philosophy making life more understandable. Nothing spectacular, just a simple example.
The Pessimist wrote:
The purpose of Philosophy isn't to prove, solve or answer. Not everything has to have that as its main purpose. Music does neither of those things either as it is totally ambiguous. That doesn't mean it is useless however: it enriches our lives! Philosophy does the same.
If like music, Philosophy is just an entertainment and a diverting pastime then that's just fine by me. Astrology also is just an entertaining and diverting pastime, I think it is hokum and mostly harmless, whereas Philosophy is hokum and considerably less harmless. Nations do not go to war because they like different music or are of opposing star signs, but give a man a Philosophy...
The Pessimist wrote:
It gives us the facility to doubt EVERYTHING, which is a valuable human trait amongst the enlightened. As far as I'm aware, in the words of Richard Feynman, doubt is essential to science. Whilst I'm not saying that the facility to doubt was put there by formal Philosophy, doubting IS a philosophical process.
"amongst the enlightened"?!?! Is this available to all übermensch? Oh, please...
Philosophy does not give us doubt. Doubt is another natural survival trait that every human posses from a very early age - that need to question everything, to take nothing for granted, to never to assume - Early education attempts to drum that out of us - learn by rote, believe what you are told, don't question your elders. Doubting is a philosophical process but it is not the sole property (or invention) of Philosophy.
The Pessimist wrote:
DvsFW may be daft to you, but many people including myself find it very interesting and relevant.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.160 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?
Topic Options
The Pessimist wrote:
] 
