Science and ethics

So, it is ok to kill someone if you render him unconcious and anesthesized first?

No, it's not ok to kill someone - and no where, I think, in what I've said have I indicated the above.

If I were to encounter the situation in the initial post and my only options were to save one or the other - I would save the one most likely to experience suffering. I will go further on a limb here....I believe that if the choice were between a dog and a tank of frozen embryos I would choose the dog because I know the dog would experience horrible suffering and fear if it were burned alive, but the embryos - even though human, have no ability to feel anything yet.

Correct. In real life as in any ethical consideration, you MAY NOT save a life at the expense of another - unless it is your own.

Why not?

Let's say you are in a sinking boat and you only have enough time to save some of the people - do you dive in and grab and save as many as you can in the time you have, knowing some will die or do you throw up your hands and just save yourself?

Any ethical consideration MUST exclude considerations of personal profit or aggrandizement. That is why a moral good is thought of as ITS OWN REWARD. I have no problems when personal profit coincides with a moral good. By all means, reap the rewards.

If you read about this particular case you'll see that personal profit or self aggrandizement was not desired.

However, ethical dilemmas are so precisely because what one WANTS to do contradicts what one OUGHT to do.

True - but what defines "ought"? That is wide open.
 
Werbung:
No, it's not ok to kill someone - and no where, I think, in what I've said have I indicated the above.

You said that it is the suffering that you react to, did you not? And here, you are talking exclusively to a percieved suffering.

What is the relationship of your perception of something relative to what that something is? And since when is it ok to define a human being on the sole basis of another's perception?

If I were to encounter the situation in the initial post and my only options were to save one or the other - I would save the one most likely to experience suffering.

There it is again. What makes you think another person 'suffers' more or less from the same situation? That somehow, the utilitarian calculations of pain and pleasure are anywhere near objective they may be couched in mathematical terms?

I will go further on a limb here....I believe that if the choice were between a dog and a tank of frozen embryos I would choose the dog because I know the dog would experience horrible suffering and fear if it were burned alive, but the embryos - even though human, have no ability to feel anything yet.

I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. Does an animal feel less suffering when it is slaughtered for food. Or that the imperatives of human existence can somehow become contingent on what an animal feels?

In your moral calculations, your dog has more worth than a human stranger.


Because the imperative of saving a human life in one becomes absurd if you end human life in another in the process.

Let's say you are in a sinking boat and you only have enough time to save some of the people - do you dive in and grab and save as many as you can in the time you have, knowing some will die or do you throw up your hands and just save yourself?

It is perfectly reasonable to just save yourself. For that, you need no rational calculation, hence no morality. Surely any animal would be inclined to do the same.

However, saving another at the risk of your own life, goes beyond inclinations of self-preservation, hence an action done according to a higher or rational principle - hence a moral imperative.

If you read about this particular case you'll see that personal profit or self aggrandizement was not desired.

True - but what defines "ought"? That is wide open.

Surely, you can think of something that would accrue to no other good but itself.

The preservation of human life, in whatever form it takes, and the conditions necessary to support its potential, constitutes a moral or categorical imperative. It isn't simply a means towards a higher end. It is an end that is good in and of itself.

And so, we have, from rational thought, discerned one standard for which any action ought to conform to.
 
You said that it is the suffering that you react to, did you not? And here, you are talking exclusively to a percieved suffering.

No, it isn't percieved suffering in the sense that the living creature has a nervous system, pain receptors and burning is known to be extremely painful by those who have survived such incidents. It is perceived in the sense that I am percieving that potential for suffering in another being - but then, that is what empathy is all about and empathy for another creatures suffering is an attribute of a higher animal.

What is the relationship of your perception of something relative to what that something is? And since when is it ok to define a human being on the sole basis of another's perception?

I'm not sure what you are asking me here...

There it is again. What makes you think another person 'suffers' more or less from the same situation? That somehow, the utilitarian calculations of pain and pleasure are anywhere near objective they may be couched in mathematical terms?

Biologically speaking you certain conditions need to exist to experience suffering (pain receptors, nervous system, brain) and to experience fear and anticipation of suffering (some sort of higher consciousness). That part (perception of pain) can be measured in fairly objective ways. If the necessary biological components are missing - is there suffering?

Mathmatics is not a language I understand well enough to debate in.

I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. Does an animal feel less suffering when it is slaughtered for food. Or that the imperatives of human existence can somehow become contingent on what an animal feels?

It makes plenty of sense.

Which causes more suffering:

a clean bullet to the head or hacking a live animal up with an ax?

putting an animal through a stressful shipping experience, long waits in an unfamiliar chutes and stockyards where it can sense the panic of slaughtering (smell of blood, what ever noises are made) or local slaughter at facility designed to reduce stress and a quick relatively painless death? (look up Temple Grandin's book)

This isn't just "bleeding heart" talking here either - stress and suffering produce biochemical changes in the animal that can be objectively measured. Behavior can also be measured though that is more subjective.

Humans are animals. We consider ourselves "higher animals". Why? One reason is that we have the potential for empathy and compassion that transcends species. We have the ability to see beyond the immediate of stomach and sex. Because of this compassion we see the embryo as a potential human being and we see other living creatures as beings that can experience suffering too.

In your moral calculations, your dog has more worth than a human stranger.

It depends on the situation and the stranger I think.

Because the imperative of saving a human life in one becomes absurd if you end human life in another in the process.

You did not end the life. You can not be held morally responsible for the lives you could not save but you could be held morally responsible for not trying to save any at all.

It is perfectly reasonable to just save yourself. For that, you need no rational calculation, hence no morality. Surely any animal would be inclined to do the same.

However, saving another at the risk of your own life, goes beyond inclinations of self-preservation, hence an action done according to a higher or rational principle - hence a moral imperative.

Agreed.

Surely, you can think of something that would accrue to no other good but itself.

The preservation of human life, in whatever form it takes, and the conditions necessary to support its potential, constitutes a moral or categorical imperative. It isn't simply a means towards a higher end. It is an end that is good in and of itself.

And so, we have, from rational thought, discerned one standard for which any action ought to conform to.

Why just human life? What makes human life - in any form - so special?

PaleRider says the law. But I'm looking for something more to convince me. I believe he will accuse me of mental masturbation but I find this kind of discussion interesting.

When we talk about abortion I am looking at it as ending a potential life and yes I use the word potential - not potential human, I do not argue that, but potential life. Do we have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival?

And if that is the case - at the very least, all human life is or should be sacred. How can you possibly approve of war or the death penalty?

And yes, I am digressing from the topic.
 
No, it isn't percieved suffering in the sense that the living creature has a nervous system, pain receptors and burning is known to be extremely painful by those who have survived such incidents. It is perceived in the sense that I am percieving that potential for suffering in another being - but then, that is what empathy is all about and empathy for another creatures suffering is an attribute of a higher animal.

Disagree. The imperative to save human life, in whatever form it manifests, does not make any distinctions on this basis.


I'm not sure what you are asking me here...

There is something dreadfully wrong in assigning relative values to human life - especially when you base these values on perception alone. If you view the life of, say an adult as having more worth than that of a fetus, what is stopping you from doing the same with rich and poor, healthy and infirm, old and young, etc.? You would be perpetuating a defective premise to its absurd conclusion.

Biologically speaking you certain conditions need to exist to experience suffering (pain receptors, nervous system, brain) and to experience fear and anticipation of suffering (some sort of higher consciousness). That part (perception of pain) can be measured in fairly objective ways. If the necessary biological components are missing - is there suffering?

Mathmatics is not a language I understand well enough to debate in.

I was refering to bentham's utilitarianism, where he formulated a numerical scale for human pain and pleasure. And because of this, he thought he has discovered the mathematics of ethics. Plain nonsense.

You are associating the imperative of life with the amount of suffering - that is, the relationship between a stimuli and reaction, no? From this point of view, there is no difference between a comatose person or the fetus - the least people covered with this imperative.

This contradicts the very essence of an imperative, does it not? A moral or categorical imperative is a command of reason. The more helpless the human being, the stronger the imperative to protect, no? Surely, the strong is the least likely to be in need of protection.

And so, what you consider as borderline permissible when it comes to killing, is in fact, the more heinous to human reason.

It makes plenty of sense.

Which causes more suffering:

a clean bullet to the head or hacking a live animal up with an ax?

putting an animal through a stressful shipping experience, long waits in an unfamiliar chutes and stockyards where it can sense the panic of slaughtering (smell of blood, what ever noises are made) or local slaughter at facility designed to reduce stress and a quick relatively painless death? (look up Temple Grandin's book)

This isn't just "bleeding heart" talking here either - stress and suffering produce biochemical changes in the animal that can be objectively measured. Behavior can also be measured though that is more subjective.

Regardless of the manner in which we slaughter animals for food, eating is a necessity for human survival.

Humans are animals. We consider ourselves "higher animals". Why? One reason is that we have the potential for empathy and compassion that transcends species. We have the ability to see beyond the immediate of stomach and sex. Because of this compassion we see the embryo as a potential human being and we see other living creatures as beings that can experience suffering too.

That is not the point. Human survival cannot be made contingent on the suffering (or lack of suffering) in animals. It should be the other way around - that the worth of an animal's life depends on how it's life pertains to human survival.

Anyway, I do not agree that humans are animals, although it may be helpful to think that way for taxonomical purposes, or understanding biology and physiology.

It depends on the situation and the stranger I think.

LOL. That's a scary thought.

You did not end the life. You can not be held morally responsible for the lives you could not save but you could be held morally responsible for not trying to save any at all.

I was refering to stem cell research. You need the stem cells from a live fetus, no? And in harvesting the stem cell, you kill the fetus, no?

So you are, in fact, killing one to save the life of another.

Why just human life? What makes human life - in any form - so special?

What do you mean?

Because humans are rational. And you need rationality to discern the principles in your own actions. So, only a rational being can be made to act according to a moral good.

Or, because the life in yourself is fundamentally the same as the life in another. So an imperative to save your own life carries the same weight as the imperative to save the life of another.

As for the worth of an animal's life, it should be contingent to human life, in the same way that the prey's life is contingent to its predator.

PaleRider says the law. But I'm looking for something more to convince me. I believe he will accuse me of mental masturbation but I find this kind of discussion interesting.

When we talk about abortion I am looking at it as ending a potential life and yes I use the word potential - not potential human, I do not argue that, but potential life. Do we have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival?

No.

A categorical imperative accrues to no other good but itself. Therefore, no further justification is required. Nor is there other subjective conditions that would make it otherwise.

Remember how an infinite regress is irrational? The reasoning is the same. At some point, you arrive at a good in and of itself.

And if that is the case - at the very least, all human life is or should be sacred. How can you possibly approve of war or the death penalty?

I don't.

And yes, I am digressing from the topic.

It was worth it.
 
Disagree. The imperative to save human life, in whatever form it manifests, does not make any distinctions on this basis.

What makes it an imperative?

There is something dreadfully wrong in assigning relative values to human life - especially when you base these values on perception alone. If you view the life of, say an adult as having more worth than that of a fetus, what is stopping you from doing the same with rich and poor, healthy and infirm, old and young, etc.? You would be perpetuating a defective premise to its absurd conclusion.

I see your point but - can't any premise be taken to a ridiculous extreme? For example preserving human life at all costs? I'm thinking of the sorts of choices doctors in emergency triage situations have to make all the time or keeping people who are braindead on life support.

I was refering to bentham's utilitarianism, where he formulated a numerical scale for human pain and pleasure. And because of this, he thought he has discovered the mathematics of ethics. Plain nonsense.

Interesting that someone would even think to apply mathmatics to ethics...I would agree, it does sound like nonsense.

You are associating the imperative of life with the amount of suffering - that is, the relationship between a stimuli and reaction, no? From this point of view, there is no difference between a comatose person or the fetus - the least people covered with this imperative.

Yes perhaps - but if you could only choose to save some, which should you save and using what criteria?

This contradicts the very essence of an imperative, does it not? A moral or categorical imperative is a command of reason. The more helpless the human being, the stronger the imperative to protect, no? Surely, the strong is the least likely to be in need of protection.

But isn't that then assigning relative values to it?

And so, what you consider as borderline permissible when it comes to killing, is in fact, the more heinous to human reason.

Both the baby and the fetus are equally helpless to escape the situation unaided - how do you then make your choice?

Regardless of the manner in which we slaughter animals for food, eating is a necessity for human survival.

I agree that eating is necessary for human survival. I agree that eating meat is as well in many cultures.

But if we are a moral and ethical species - then do we not have a moral obligation to the other species who's freedom we have curtailed?

Another poster said something along the lines of this: if we have the ability to affect the happiness or suffering of another animal, then we have an ethical obligation to that animal. (I'm not quoting this right - I can't remember it exactly).

That is not the point. Human survival cannot be made contingent on the suffering (or lack of suffering) in animals. It should be the other way around - that the worth of an animal's life depends on how it's life pertains to human survival.

I disagree - though in practice that is the case. Ghandi said that the true test of a civilization's ethics was in how it treats it's animals and I think it is a sense of larger ethics (rather than just our own species) which seperates us from the rest of animals.

Anyway, I do not agree that humans are animals, although it may be helpful to think that way for taxonomical purposes, or understanding biology and physiology.

Well...what makes humans not animals? What makes them different?

LOL. That's a scary thought.

Ahh come on - don't tell me if you had a choice between rescuing Adolph Hitler or your dog you'd wouldn't choose your dog? (on second thought don't answer):D

What do you mean?

Because humans are rational. And you need rationality to discern the principles in your own actions. So, only a rational being can be made to act according to a moral good.

How can you tell whether or not another species is rational?

Or, because the life in yourself is fundamentally the same as the life in another. So an imperative to save your own life carries the same weight as the imperative to save the life of another.

It's biologically the same - but is biology all that matters? Or is the fact that it is a life that is important?

As for the worth of an animal's life, it should be contingent to human life, in the same way that the prey's life is contingent to its predator.

Why?

If you remove an animals means to survive on it's own in it's natural environment (through domestication) don't you have a moral obligation to it - an ethical responsibility for it's wellbeing?

If you are not hungry and not in danger, then what is the value of another animals life?


Do you mean "No" - we do not have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival? In otherwords - not just human life?

A categorical imperative accrues to no other good but itself. Therefore, no further justification is required. Nor is there other subjective conditions that would make it otherwise.

Remember how an infinite regress is irrational? The reasoning is the same. At some point, you arrive at a good in and of itself.

Can you give me some examples of categorical imperatives then? Surely - the sacredness of all life would fall in that?


Though we will, and do - disagree on many things, I respect that a great deal :)
 
Disagree. The imperative to save human life, in whatever form it manifests, does not make any distinctions on this basis.

There is something dreadfully wrong in assigning relative values to human life - especially when you base these values on perception alone. If you view the life of, say an adult as having more worth than that of a fetus, what is stopping you from doing the same with rich and poor, healthy and infirm, old and young, etc.? You would be perpetuating a defective premise to its absurd conclusion.

I was refering to bentham's utilitarianism, where he formulated a numerical scale for human pain and pleasure. And because of this, he thought he has discovered the mathematics of ethics. Plain nonsense.
on the contrary while his idealism is way off, math could be used in the application of ethics, given that we had an omnipotent grip on ALL values contained therein, however, this is completely implausible and we definitely don't have the ability to do it. But, don't disregard the fact that it COULD exist, it would simply require way more data than we could ever hope to acquire in the situations in which it would be applied.


You are associating the imperative of life with the amount of suffering - that is, the relationship between a stimuli and reaction, no? From this point of view, there is no difference between a comatose person or the fetus - the least people covered with this imperative.
Sort of, however, a fetus has no bonding agent to the many at large. Don't take that the wrong way, but I'm simply saying that there is no reaction (suffering) by those who "know" the fetus, when it expires. Comatose persons, differ greatly in this. A good example of the similarity is found in comatose persons with no family, life support will not be around for them for long, unless they by prearrangement have taken care of this facet. While one could liken a fetus' chance of becoming a person to a comatose person who MAY recover, one must also assume that since a chance of recovery exists in those comatose persons they still may be effected by their own death since their brain is functioning on some level, typically (as with schaivo (spelling?)) this creates a serious situation in which a determination must be heavily weighed in on. All in all coyote is quite correct in his statement.

This contradicts the very essence of an imperative, does it not? A moral or categorical imperative is a command of reason. The more helpless the human being, the stronger the imperative to protect, no? Surely, the strong is the least likely to be in need of protection.
What defines strong? What defines weak? And what imperative do I have to protect the weak? If you had a feeble old woman at a bank during a robbery, and a young (16-18) male who was completely healthy, who would you choose to save if that choice was given to you and you knew surely the other was to die? Would you choose the one who could keel over tomorrow from a stroke? Would you choose the one who will more likely survive for another 70 years without ail?

And so, what you consider as borderline permissible when it comes to killing, is in fact, the more heinous to human reason.
Human reason has many heinous facets....and it is also relative.

Regardless of the manner in which we slaughter animals for food, eating is a necessity for human survival.
and one can survive on vegetables alone, millions do it...not me, but that is still an invalid argument. The amount of food created in the space it takes to raise the animal for slaughter is much greater than the meat produced by far.

That is not the point. Human survival cannot be made contingent on the suffering (or lack of suffering) in animals. It should be the other way around - that the worth of an animal's life depends on how it's life pertains to human survival.
so I suppose since animals go extinct every year in the rain forests chopped down for the wood and for placement of crops, its ok, since the food grown there in the forests place is for the greater good of the humans.

Anyway, I do not agree that humans are animals, although it may be helpful to think that way for taxonomical purposes, or understanding biology and physiology.
we are animals, you can't define us outside that, we are what we are. of course it'll digress into a religious argument if you deny this I'm sure, as that is the only outlet, and it lacks reason.


I was refering to stem cell research. You need the stem cells from a live fetus, no? And in harvesting the stem cell, you kill the fetus, no?

So you are, in fact, killing one to save the life of another.
re read up on some of that stem cell research, the reason for the fetus' termination is not to gather the stem cells in those cases, many laws exist worldwide to ensure that stem cells are not harvested this way. It's more in line with organ donation, you're dead, why throw away what could save another?

What do you mean?

Because humans are rational. And you need rationality to discern the principles in your own actions. So, only a rational being can be made to act according to a moral good.

Or, because the life in yourself is fundamentally the same as the life in another. So an imperative to save your own life carries the same weight as the imperative to save the life of another.

As for the worth of an animal's life, it should be contingent to human life, in the same way that the prey's life is contingent to its predator.
Delusions of human grandeur, we think therefor we rule. We exist in such large numbers and as we do because we reached this pinnacle, there are many animals in existence which show rationality.

Vultures, in egypt, often use rocks to break open the shells of ostrich eggs becuase they can't do it themselves since the eggs are too hard.

Woodpecker finches use improvised tools to pry grubs out of wood, observers have seen first a finch trying to pry the grubs out of a log, when this didn't work, it grabbed a twig in its beak and attempted again succeeding. Another finch was observed clipping off a part of a forked twig to fashion a tool for such usage.

Green herons are seen dropping small rocks into water to fool fish into thinking it is food at which point they swoop down and grab them. This behavior may arise from a pebble or such accidentally being dropped into the water and the heron seeing it attracts the fish, this is a very difficult connection to make between accidentally dropping a pebble and then using it as bait. It isn't seen in all green herons and is in fact rare, which means it isn't just a behavior that they all possess but rather likely something rationalized.


Chimpanzees are very adept and coming up with rationalized tool usage. Chimps playing with a stick figured out how to open its cage and escaped, they also often use sticks to get things from high areas and then drag it into their cages when it falls using sticks.

Another example of primate ingenuity lies in the hooded monkey, who not only used a stick, but fashioned a crude spoon by splitting a hollow read to scoop yogurt out of a tube too small for their hands.

these are all examples of rationality in animals...rationality is NOT what seperates us from them.




rf;
 
What makes it an imperative?

An imperative is a command of reason that relates an action to its rational end. It may be both subjective or objective.

A subjective end, hence a subjective imperative, is merely a means to a higher end. An objective end, hence a categorical imperative, no longer acrues to a higher end but itself.

I see your point but - can't any premise be taken to a ridiculous extreme? For example preserving human life at all costs? I'm thinking of the sorts of choices doctors in emergency triage situations have to make all the time or keeping people who are braindead on life support.

A logical premise cannot give rise to an illogical conclusion - except through defective reasoning. We know a fallacious premise when the application of sound reasoning leads to a fallacious conclusion.

Example. Naive set theory results in the barber's or russell's paradox. Hence, naive set theory is a fallacy and must be replaced by the more formalized axiomatic set theory.

There are very compeling reasons to be skeptical about 'brain-dead' states. My wife was in a comma for almost a month. Prognosis indicated massive brain damage. She awoke one morning, as if she was merely asleep a fortnight. Aside from partial memory loss, she is fine, with occassional (annual to bi-annual) siezures. She even remembers her dream of a fenced-in garden in full bloom and an unidentified presence nearby. Oh, and she felt so tired in the dream, prompting her to look for an entrance to the garden to rest.

Interesting that someone would even think to apply mathmatics to ethics...I would agree, it does sound like nonsense.

You need to read it to begin to understand the extent of his nonsense. That is utilitarianism at its absurd worst.

Yes perhaps - but if you could only choose to save some, which should you save and using what criteria?

The answer is there, in the conditions you have set for this particular situation. One cannot be held to conform to a categorical imperative when he is powerless to do so. Some will inevitably die, some, with another's help will live. And it is enough for the medical practitioner to do his best under such circumstances - save, alleviate the suffering, hope, whatever it takes to uphold human life and dignity.

But isn't that then assigning relative values to it?

No. It is assigning the moral worth of an action - not assigning relative worth to human life.

Both the baby and the fetus are equally helpless to escape the situation unaided - how do you then make your choice?

There are sins of commission and sins of omission. And even in omission, there is a difference between a conscious choice to do nothing and being powerless to do something.

Under all these circumstances, one is given the rational faculty to discern and act accordingly.

I agree that eating is necessary for human survival. I agree that eating meat is as well in many cultures.

But if we are a moral and ethical species - then do we not have a moral obligation to the other species who's freedom we have curtailed?

Correct. As long as such an obligation does not supersede our obligations to ourselves and our fellow man.

Another poster said something along the lines of this: if we have the ability to affect the happiness or suffering of another animal, then we have an ethical obligation to that animal. (I'm not quoting this right - I can't remember it exactly).

Happiness and misery, as transient or ephemeral emotional states, are not themselves indicative of a good, no? We are obliged to conform to a good, and not to a calculation of pleasure and pain. And this simple assertion results in the concept of duty.

I disagree - though in practice that is the case. Ghandi said that the true test of a civilization's ethics was in how it treats it's animals and I think it is a sense of larger ethics (rather than just our own species) which seperates us from the rest of animals.

There is no contradiction.

Caring for the environment, that is, conforming to its natural balance as closely as possible, is in the best interest of everyone, including ourselves.

Well...what makes humans not animals? What makes them different?

The ability to discern good as the end of his actions.

Ahh come on - don't tell me if you had a choice between rescuing Adolph Hitler or your dog you'd wouldn't choose your dog? (on second thought don't answer):D

Nothing would give me more pleasure than for hitler to have been pronounced guilty under the operation of law, and face the punishment provided for by that law.

He needed to be captured alive for that to happen, didn't he?

How can you tell whether or not another species is rational?

That is a very difficult question. You are talking of the nature of an existence as a whole. It is impossible to define to an arbitrary degree of exactness - since such a nature would necessarily include the concept of inherent potential.

It's biologically the same - but is biology all that matters? Or is the fact that it is a life that is important?

On the contrary, we are not biologically the same. Some would have a superior 'biology' than others. Sameness can only be valid in view of a particular existence or being.

Why?

If you remove an animals means to survive on it's own in it's natural environment (through domestication) don't you have a moral obligation to it - an ethical responsibility for it's wellbeing?

As I said, the ethical responsibility exist in so fas as it pertains to our survival. And by survival, not merely a biological existence, but human existence as well. This includes the conditions of human dignity.

If you are not hungry and not in danger, then what is the value of another animals life?

Do you mean "No" - we do not have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival? In otherwords - not just human life?

Include the conditions of human dignity. Having made the rational calculations, and finding no reason to kill an animal to uphold these conditions, then one shouldn't kill the animal.

Can you give me some examples of categorical imperatives then? Surely - the sacredness of all life would fall in that?

I can't find my book on kantian ethics so I would have to make do with something I googled:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kantsgrounding/summary.html

Since specific interests, circumstances, and consequences cannot be considered, the moral "law" must be a general formula that is applicable in all situations. Rather than commanding specific actions, it must express the principle that actions should be undertaken with pure motives, without consideration of consequences, and out of pure reverence for the law. The formula that meets these criteria is the following: we should act in such a way that we could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of our action to become a universal law. People have a decent intuitive sense for this law. Still, it is helpful for philosophy to state the law clearly so that people can keep it in mind.

It is nearly impossible to find examples of pure moral actions. Nearly every action we observe can be attributed to some interest or motivation other than pure morality. Yet this should not discourage us, for moral principles come from reason, not from experience. Indeed, moral principles could not come from experience, for all experiences depend on particular circumstances, whereas moral principles must have absolute validity, independent of all circumstances.

Because it applies in all circumstances, reason's fundamental moral principle may be called the "categorical imperative." The categorical imperative may be expressed according to the same formula as the moral law: act only in such a way that you could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of your action to become a universal law. When people violate the categorical imperative, they apply a different standard to their own behavior than they would want applied to everyone else in the form of a universal law. This is a contradiction that violates principles of reason.

The categorical imperative may also be formulated as a requirement that we must not treat other rational beings as mere means to our own purposes. Rational beings have the capacity to pursue predetermined objectives ("ends") by means of their will, yet in pursuing their goals they never think of themselves as mere means to another purpose; they are themselves the purpose of their actions- -they are "ends in themselves. If we treat other rational beings as mere means, we contradict the fact that all rational beings are ends in themselves. In this case, our principles could not be universal laws, and we would violate the categorical imperative.

Though we will, and do - disagree on many things, I respect that a great deal :)

I find your opinions quite critical too.
 
Werbung:
on the contrary while his idealism is way off, math could be used in the application of ethics, given that we had an omnipotent grip on ALL values contained therein, however, this is completely implausible and we definitely don't have the ability to do it. But, don't disregard the fact that it COULD exist, it would simply require way more data than we could ever hope to acquire in the situations in which it would be applied.

No. Ethics can never be derived from the 'mathematical' calculations of pleasure and pain.

A simple pleasure - extrapolated exponentially - can prove to be just as painful.

Sort of, however, a fetus has no bonding agent to the many at large. Don't take that the wrong way, but I'm simply saying that there is no reaction (suffering) by those who "know" the fetus, when it expires. Comatose persons, differ greatly in this. A good example of the similarity is found in comatose persons with no family, life support will not be around for them for long, unless they by prearrangement have taken care of this facet. While one could liken a fetus' chance of becoming a person to a comatose person who MAY recover, one must also assume that since a chance of recovery exists in those comatose persons they still may be effected by their own death since their brain is functioning on some level, typically (as with schaivo (spelling?)) this creates a serious situation in which a determination must be heavily weighed in on. All in all coyote is quite correct in his statement.

Wrong.

Morality is a statement of what we OUGHT to do as against what we WANT to do. Devising a morality that is left to the vagaries of an individual's sentiment contradicts the very essence of morality.

What defines strong? What defines weak? And what imperative do I have to protect the weak? If you had a feeble old woman at a bank during a robbery, and a young (16-18) male who was completely healthy, who would you choose to save if that choice was given to you and you knew surely the other was to die? Would you choose the one who could keel over tomorrow from a stroke? Would you choose the one who will more likely survive for another 70 years without ail?

Strong and weak can be defined by the amount of help from everyone else necessary to uphold life and human dignity within that individual.

While the situations change - the imperatives remain THE SAME.

Human reason has many heinous facets....and it is also relative.

No. Human ACTIONS have many heinous facets - not human reason.

and one can survive on vegetables alone, millions do it...not me, but that is still an invalid argument. The amount of food created in the space it takes to raise the animal for slaughter is much greater than the meat produced by far.

What are you talking about????

Vegetarian diets are not adviceable on physically developing children and adults who are required strenous physical tasks.

so I suppose since animals go extinct every year in the rain forests chopped down for the wood and for placement of crops, its ok, since the food grown there in the forests place is for the greater good of the humans.

Duh???

Human exploitation of his natural environment must be limited to what is SUSTAINABLE. Otherwise, he is doing harm to himself, or to future human beings. Environmental engineering was developed precisely to mitigate the adverse effects of human intervention in the enviroment.

we are animals, you can't define us outside that, we are what we are. of course it'll digress into a religious argument if you deny this I'm sure, as that is the only outlet, and it lacks reason.

You are the one presenting a 'we are what we are' argument and I'm the one who lacks reason, eh?

Do you have any control on the depth of nonsense your opinions stoop to.

re read up on some of that stem cell research, the reason for the fetus' termination is not to gather the stem cells in those cases, many laws exist worldwide to ensure that stem cells are not harvested this way. It's more in line with organ donation, you're dead, why throw away what could save another?

No. There are particular stem cells that are harvested exclusively from live fetus, aside from those from human organs. At least that is my understanding of it.

Delusions of human grandeur, we think therefor we rule. We exist in such large numbers and as we do because we reached this pinnacle, there are many animals in existence which show rationality.

Rational enough to discern and act according to principles that are good?

The only 'delusions of grandeur' around here manifests when you pretend your opinions has any intellectual worth.

Vultures, in egypt, often use rocks to break open the shells of ostrich eggs becuase they can't do it themselves since the eggs are too hard.

Woodpecker finches use improvised tools to pry grubs out of wood, observers have seen first a finch trying to pry the grubs out of a log, when this didn't work, it grabbed a twig in its beak and attempted again succeeding. Another finch was observed clipping off a part of a forked twig to fashion a tool for such usage.

Green herons are seen dropping small rocks into water to fool fish into thinking it is food at which point they swoop down and grab them. This behavior may arise from a pebble or such accidentally being dropped into the water and the heron seeing it attracts the fish, this is a very difficult connection to make between accidentally dropping a pebble and then using it as bait. It isn't seen in all green herons and is in fact rare, which means it isn't just a behavior that they all possess but rather likely something rationalized.

Chimpanzees are very adept and coming up with rationalized tool usage. Chimps playing with a stick figured out how to open its cage and escaped, they also often use sticks to get things from high areas and then drag it into their cages when it falls using sticks.

Another example of primate ingenuity lies in the hooded monkey, who not only used a stick, but fashioned a crude spoon by splitting a hollow read to scoop yogurt out of a tube too small for their hands.

these are all examples of rationality in animals...rationality is NOT what seperates us from them.

rf;

These are all examples of rationality, eh?

No wonder you post nonsense in such quantity and depth. Your standard of rationality is ridiculously low.
 
Back
Top