S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
spencelo
Guest
What’s your philosophical definition of “personhood?”You are using “personality” in a way that the original source does not intend. You use it more in a way of “personification”, but in a philosophical sense, the word “personality” means “personhood.” American English is replete with examples of words being artificially narrowed in their meaning.
Let’s be clear here: animals are not persons. That is the root of the original basis for the moral theological principle laid out above. Let’s not muddy the waters with American’s narrow uses of words. They lead to wrong conclusions.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
It may be logically fallacious, but I think it would practically pragmatic.That would be logically fallacious.
S
spencelo
Guest
So to be clear: you believe that the research program in my hypothetical is justifiable?In point of fact, one person’s cure does justify the suffering and death of animals if it is medically necessary to reach the cure.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
It follows from the fact that you draw the distinction between whether killing insects is acceptable based on their a) ability to experience pain and b) possession of self-awareness.This doesn’t follow from anything I’ve said. But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances - perhaps if enough lives were at stake.
That is arguing in a circle. In essence, you’re saying “moral values are true because they’re true.”Fundamental moral propositions simply have an objective truth value.
Where do you find their “objective truth value?” On the basis of what ultimate relation does that value rest?
S
spencelo
Guest
It doesn’t follow because in your example, there is no context. You simply ask if I would mutilate a severely retarded human. To what end? For sadistic pleasure? For food? For what?It follows from the fact that you draw the distinction between whether killing insects is acceptable based on their a) ability to experience pain and b) possession of self-awareness.
No, I’m not arguing in a circle at all. You asked what makes an action wrong “other than the fact that it makes you feel bad.” Answer: because the action is objectively wrong.That is arguing in a circle. In essence, you’re saying “moral values are true because they’re true.”
Where do you find their “objective truth value?” On the basis of what ultimate relation does that value rest?
S
spencelo
Guest
What’s your answer to my op hypothetical?Since all my previous attempts have been successful, I don’t see why this one won’t:thumbsup:
I think I would start by saying you think animals = humans and humans = animals.
And we think humans = animal i
Simples.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I don’t want to get into dissecting that article right now, so I’ll just answer your immediate question. Suffice it to say, though, it was little more than a “high-falutin” way of saying what everyone already knows by common sense.
But back to your question. Those levels include:
a) personal will (no lower animal acts on anything other than instinct, habit or mimicked behavior. Human beings have the ability to, in the very least, attempt to work against these things. Animals do not.)
b) a sense of self
c) ethical standards/sense of objective morality
d) the ability to reflect on one’s past
e) the ability to think in the abstract
f) the ability to make moral decisions and actions, for good or evil
g) the capacity to love (note: love is not here understood as emotional attachment)
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
For any reason whatsoever.It doesn’t follow because in your example, there is no context. You simply ask if I would mutilate a severely retarded human. To what end? For sadistic pleasure? For food? For what?
Yes, you are arguing in a circle. Reread what you just wrote. I’ll break it down into simpler language:No, I’m not arguing in a circle at all. You asked what makes an action wrong “other than the fact that it makes you feel bad.” Answer: because the action is objectively wrong.
Me: What makes an action objectively wrong?
You: Because the action is objectively wrong.
Arguing in a circle.
The question is: what makes anything objectively wrong to begin with?
S
spencelo
Guest
Animals actual possess many of those characteristics - definitely (a), (b), (d), (e), and (g).I don’t want to get into dissecting that article right now, so I’ll just answer your immediate question. Suffice it to say, though, it was little more than a “high-falutin” way of saying what everyone already knows by common sense.
But back to your question. Those levels include:
a) personal will (no lower animal acts on anything other than instinct, habit or mimicked behavior. Human beings have the ability to, in the very least, attempt to work against these things. Animals do not.)
b) a sense of self
c) ethical standards/sense of objective morality
d) the ability to reflect on one’s past
e) the ability to think in the abstract
f) the ability to make moral decisions and actions, for good or evil
g) the capacity to love (note: love is not here understood as emotional attachment)
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I think you have implicitly assumed what you are yet to proveWhat’s your answer to my op hypothetical?
Your argument is essentially
a) A person is sick
b) A cure requires death of x million animals
c) Catholic moral theology would allow one to proceed with (b)
d) But (b) is unethical
e) Therefore the Catholic Theology is unethical
Your argument is logically flawed in that you have not yet shown (d). You already assume (b) is unethical.
As far as it goes for Catholics, they judge the ethical nature of (b) using Catholic Theology as the standard. For them, there is no issue.
If you want to disagree, you have to propose an alternate standard for your ethics and justify your authority to propose such a system of ethics so that we might need to consider what you have to say. Otherwise, we Catholics do not see the dilemma.
Now so far, different philosophers have attempted to construct morally consistent ethical frameworks to serve as ethical foundations. However, none of these standards can be shown to be authoritative with respect to reflecting reality. Hence, no one should really care about them other than for intellectual curiosity.
In short, a Catholic approaches this issue as follows
- Catholic Church is the authority one should give assent to with respect to transcendent truths
- Ethics/Morality if it exists, would need to be founded on some transcendent truths
- Thus one believes in the Catholic teachings regarding the matter
- Person X has not shown any authority to speak on transcendent truths
- Therefore his ideas/thoughts/philosophies are not worthy of belief
B
Bradski
Guest
This is a very interesting topic. Personally I think that in years to come, our treatment of animals will be seen as a great moral failing.
That a mosquito has less ‘value’ than an ape is, I’d say, undeniable. I just killed a mosquito a few minutes because it had the temerity to hover around the back of my hand. But I would put myself in harms way, up to a point, to prevent harm being done to an ape.
There is a continuum of ‘value’ stretching from us down to, I don’t know, bacterium. So there is no line to say we can treat this creature as we’d like but not this one. How we place value on individual creatures is something to which there is possibly no answer. Or at least one on which we can agree.
That a mosquito has less ‘value’ than an ape is, I’d say, undeniable. I just killed a mosquito a few minutes because it had the temerity to hover around the back of my hand. But I would put myself in harms way, up to a point, to prevent harm being done to an ape.
There is a continuum of ‘value’ stretching from us down to, I don’t know, bacterium. So there is no line to say we can treat this creature as we’d like but not this one. How we place value on individual creatures is something to which there is possibly no answer. Or at least one on which we can agree.
S
spencelo
Guest
Right, and your claim doesn’t follow from anything I said.For any reason whatsoever.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that there are fundamental moral facts in the world that do not depend on any further facts, so my answer is perfectly noncircular.Yes, you are arguing in a circle. Reread what you just wrote. I’ll break it down into simpler language:
Me: What makes an action objectively wrong?
You: Because the action is objectively wrong.
Arguing in a circle.
The question is: what makes anything objectively wrong to begin with?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Whether an animal is same as a human being is not a scientific question. It is a question that deals with a transcendent truth. However, for most people, this truth is accessible as common sense. But in the end, for certainty, one needs access to the transcendent.Animals actual possess many of those characteristics - definitely (a), (b), (d), (e), and (g).
As I said before, Catholics have access to these truths through the teachings of the Church. The Church is very clear that Animals are not the same as Human persons. There is nothing left to discuss on that particular point unless you can tell us how you received access to the alternate set of transcendent truths you propose i.e. Animals are same Humans Persons.
Once you do that, we can analyze the method you have used to access the transcendent knowledge and determine if what you say is worthy of belief. Till then, I feel that you are merely stating your opinion on what the truth about animal vs. human life might be.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I think we will be better able to understand you if you explained to us how you have access to these “fundamental moral facts” and what reasons you can give us to justify your access mechanism.I’m sympathetic to the idea that there are fundamental moral facts in the world that do not depend on any further facts, so my answer is perfectly noncircular.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Um, no. I don’t know what kind of pseudoscience you’ve been reading, but let’s go through the list.Animals actual possess many of those characteristics - definitely (a), (b), (d), (e), and (g).
a) the distinction here is tied in to some of the items further down the line, so I’ll draw it there.
b) animals have no fundamental sense of right and wrong. For experimental proof, leave some food sitting on the table and leave the room for a while and see how wrong your dog thinks it is to eat your food. Later, see how consistent his attitude is by trying to get to his food while he’s eating. Animals act, at best, on instincts towards pack survival. Domesticated animals may extend this behavior to humans, for obvious reasons.
d) animals do not think about all the bad things they’ve done in their life; nor do they lie about recalling with joy the time you threw the ball for them for an hour straight. No animal shows any signs of such cognitive reverie.
e) Ok, so show me one animal who can grasp a universal, communicate an immaterial concept or solve an arithmetic problem. This is where the idea of a true “will” comes into play as well. The will pertains to the ability to act upon abstract purposes, to act towards complex and unobservable ends, to act for deliberate reasons that transcend one’s immediate environment, etc.
g) Animals experience affection. Love, properly understood, does not depend on affection or attachment. No animal, for example, loves its enemies.
S
spencelo
Guest
I merely stated my belief that research program would be unethical - I realize I didn’t argue for it. I was more interested to see what Catholics here thought.I think you have implicitly assumed what you are yet to prove
Your argument is essentially
a) A person is sick
b) A cure requires death of x million animals
c) Catholic moral theology would allow one to proceed with (b)
d) But (b) is unethical
e) Therefore the Catholic Theology is unethical
Your argument is logically flawed in that you have not yet shown (d). You already assume (b) is unethical.
But from my pov, the fact that Catholicism entails such an intuitively absurd consequence is telling. It would be like if Catholicism permitted the torture and rape of a young child. If Catholicism permitted that, the onus wouldn’t be on me to explain why that action is wrong.
L
LilyM
Guest
Or 10 million viruses or bacteria? They are living beings too.Do you think a single human life is more valuable than 10,000,000 cockroaches?
How to reconcile the idea that all life is equally worthwhile with the notion that we are currently pushing for the utter eradication of what littl remains of the polio virus? Or the smallpox virus?
To muddy the waters a bit further - what if you were told that the suffering of those 10 million animals would end up saving the lives of 10 BILLION human sufferers of whatever disease the man has? And that each of those sufferers would otherwise go through far more pain from the disease than the animals in the course of finding the cure?
S
spencelo
Guest
That would take us far left-field from the present discussion, but I believe my answer sufficiently answers any objection of circularity.I think we will be better able to understand you if you explained to us how you have access to these “fundamental moral facts” and what reasons you can give us to justify your access mechanism.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Yes, it does because I think such treatment of a human being is intrinsically evil for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, we can immediately transpose any conditions you wish upon it and the two propositions become equivalent. Therefore, my question follows perfectly from what you said.Right, and your claim doesn’t follow from anything I said.
Your being sympathetic to the idea does not provide a logical case for the truth of that idea. I may be sympathetic to the idea that there are dinosaurs on Mars. If you ask me to provide a logical ground for that belief and I say “Because there are dinosaurs on Mars,” my reasoning is circular.I’m sympathetic to the idea that there are fundamental moral facts in the world that do not depend on any further facts, so my answer is perfectly noncircular.
The same goes for you if I ask you to provide a defense for your belief in objective moral facts and your response is “I believe there are objective moral facts.” How can you demonstrate the truth of that statement? If you can’t, you don’t have a logical case for it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.