 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2009 22:45, andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
> is of course nonsense.
modulo clerical errors
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
> is of course nonsense.
That's not what I was trying to say.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
>> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
>> of nature, this is illogical.
>
> Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
> good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.
>
> Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.
Prove that the behaviors you condemn are "contrary to nature."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
>> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
>> of nature, this is illogical.
>
> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2009 0:29, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much
>>>> as possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but
>>>> of kinds of life, here.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>>
>> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
>> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form
>> it is of course nonsense.
>
> That's not what I was trying to say.
>
Ok, then I didn't understand what you were trying to say.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
>> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>
> Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
Because it allows us to.
You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
the person is capable of understanding morals.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient
>>> species
>>> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>>
>> Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
>
> Because it allows us to.
>
> You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
> because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
>
> You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
> the person is capable of understanding morals.
I am aware that man has the capacity for reason and volition, and
therefore is a proper subject for moral judgment.
That does not necessitate that when man does X, it is better or worse
than when nature does X.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2009 12:43 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> I am aware that man has the capacity for reason and volition, and
> therefore is a proper subject for moral judgment.
>
> That does not necessitate that when man does X, it is better or worse
> than when nature does X.
Do you think that two different people, with different skill sets,
should hold different positions within the same company?
In particular, a Software Engineer and a Customer Service rep both have
very different job descriptions, and very different abilities.
Is it fair to say that they should each be held to different standards
precisely because of their abilities and situations?
If so, then it is also fair to judge Man by a different standard than we
judge animals by. If not, then I wonder how you get on at work.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:4a059bca$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient
species
> >> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
> > Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
> Because it allows us to.
>
> You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
> because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
>
> You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
> the person is capable of understanding morals.
To nitpick, those are not analogous. A correct one might be:
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a06d749$1@news.povray.org...
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:4a059bca$1@news.povray.org...
> > On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> > > Warp wrote:
> > >> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient
> species
> > >> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>
> > > Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
>
> > Because it allows us to.
> >
> > You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
> > because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
> >
> > You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
> > the person is capable of understanding morals.
To nitpick, those are not analogous. A cat is not to mice as a man is to
man. A correct one might be:
You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice.
You cannot hold a man morally responsible for killing a family of cows. (In
most societies)
You cannot hold a man morally responsible for killing a family of dogs. (In
some societies)
...etc
Also, it's not about understanding morals, but establishing them. Cats (as
well as dogs/wolves) also have established behaviour. Those are much less
complex than ours naturally, but they also hold each other responsible, and
punish those who don't obey the rules.
But in the end, I agree with your main point: We have different expectations
from humans than we have from cats. It would be silly to try to apply the
same rules to different things and different situations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
