Killer Philosophy

The following is a paraphrase of a tape-recorded conversation between Ted Bundy and one of his victims in which Bundy justifies his murder:

Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments", that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved either right or wrong. I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured it out for myself - what apparently the chief justice couldn't figure out for himself - that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring - the strength of character - to throw off shackles?.I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable "value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig, or a sheep, or a steer? Is your life more to you that a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham, and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me - after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.

Discuss.

Thats why chickens are good people.


No seriously, humans aren't animals.  This dude was seriously fucked up.  And his thought process shows that.  Otherwise we might as all head out to the jungle and suck, fuck, fight, and die like the rest of 'em

[/thread]

Humans are not equal to animals; animals, unlike humans, are non-rational things and do not belong to the moral community (same thing to all fetuses). However, killing an animal would be an indirect duty to humans.

Discuss.

NO U!



...He is making the argument for individualized, morals, standards, and rules. This is valid on a theoretical micro level, but cannot sustain a society constructively on a macro level. Piranhas do not eat each other when skeletonizing a cow, because instinctual they are not driven to. If earlier communities of piranhas ate each other, the society would be unstable and diminish. Basic evolution drives this. Just look at the instinct for people to form gangs or groups and  discriminate against others. Interdependence and stability in a network helps ensure survival. Empathy is one such product of this process, and I suspect he lacks it. As an outlier to the societal norms, he correctly uses logic to deduce that pigs and humans are not significantly different, yet they how they are treated varies significantly. His only 'flaw' in view of the public is applying the self destructive nature he feels entitled to on members of his own group: humans. Quite frankly what we do to animals is wrong, but I still eat meat because evolution allows me to not care about the pigs as much as it makes me care for my family. Sounds harsh, but how many people are in tears thinking about starving African children every night?

Society needs stability and therefore society needs universal laws. To put himself above society is the actual flaw.

Quote from: Proleg on April 12, 2009, 06:07:01 PM

Discuss.

NO U!



...He is making the argument for individualized, morals, standards, and rules. This is valid on a theoretical micro level, but cannot sustain a society constructively on a macro level. Piranhas do not eat each other when skeletonizing a cow, because instinctual they are not driven to. If earlier communities of piranhas ate each other, the society would be unstable and diminish. Basic evolution drives this. Just look at the instinct for people to form gangs or groups and  discriminate against others. Interdependence and stability in a network helps ensure survival. Empathy is one such product of this process, and I suspect he lacks it. As an outlier to the societal norms, he correctly uses logic to deduce that pigs and humans are not significantly different, yet they how they are treated varies significantly. His only 'flaw' in view of the public is applying the self destructive nature he feels entitled to on members of his own group: humans. Quite frankly what we do to animals is wrong, but I still eat meat because evolution allows me to not care about the pigs as much as it makes me care for my family. Sounds harsh, but how many people are in tears thinking about starving African children every night?

Society needs stability and therefore society needs universal laws. To put himself above society is the actual flaw.

Isn't that what I said? 

Isn't that what I said? 

The content of our posts definitely overlap, but I got the feeling that you think less of animals than of humans. I eat animals only because the alternative is highly impractical, but I do believe that my own moral principles apply to other sentient beings, like pigs.
...And I used evolution to come to my conclusions.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 07:12:38 PM

Isn't that what I said? 

The content of our posts definitely overlap, but I got the feeling that you think less of animals than of humans. I eat animals only because the alternative is highly impractical, but I do believe that my own moral principles apply to other sentient beings, like pigs.
...And I used evolution to come to my conclusions.

Pigs have morals?  So if the laws allowed it you would eat human, and feel no different than eating a pig, is that what you are saying?

Morality exists due to the existence of humans. With our rationality and sentience, we invent, recognize, and respect morality. Assume we humans do not exist in this world: animals alone would have no morals, morality would not exist within them or their community, and they would not understand what morality is. We created morality by our reasoning, so we are part of the moral community. This is also the definition of "person".

However, "animal" is a vague term. For me, I accept apes as part of the moral community, because they do have some sense of morality.

Society needs stability and therefore society needs universal laws. To put himself above society is the actual flaw.

Given Bundy's brand of subjectivity, what would be the basis for universal law? It's all very well to say "that which makes society stable is moral", but that is itself a value judgment relative to your personal dispositions.

Morality exists due to the existence of humans. With our rationality and sentience, we invent, recognize, and respect morality. Assume we humans do not exist in this world: animals alone would have no morals, morality would not exist within them or their community, and they would not understand what morality is. We created morality by our reasoning, so we are part of the moral community. This is also the definition of "person".

However, "animal" is a vague term. For me, I accept apes as part of the moral community, because they do have some sense of morality.

So you are saying that all humans think alike and have the same level of morality?

My point, which is borrowed from Kant, was that morality exists so long as rationality exists; morality cannot exist without rational agents, agents that can evaluate their actions through their reasons, knowledge, and experiences.

As for your question, yes. I believe that all humans, with no outside influence, would agree on the same level of morality. For example, we all understand that killing innocent people is unjust and thus wrong. However, other factors, such as culture or religion, may change how they view the morality of their actions.

My point, which is borrowed from Kant, was that morality exists so long as rationality exists; morality cannot exist without rational agents, agents that can evaluate their actions through their reasons, knowledge, and experiences.

As for your question, yes. I believe that all humans, with no outside influence, would agree on the same level of morality. For example, we all understand that killing innocent people is unjust and thus wrong. However, other factors, such as culture or religion, may change how they view the morality of their actions.

Did you take environmental ethics too? most of the philosophy you mention is stuff I learned last semester in environmental ethics.
Any way I follow mostly utilitarianism. I don't have problems killing and eating animals as long as it is done in a human manner. I consider the way he killed that person particularly evil because He purposefully caused her mental and physical pain before he killed her. I do consider killing humans worse then killing animals because of our rationality. the other reason is that I know I think, so it is easy to believe all other humans think, However I do not know that animals think verse react to stimulus. I consider it wrong to kill a chimpanzee or a Dolphin because of their rationality.
Last our we sure Pigs are sentient. I know elephants and dolphins are but are we sure about pigs? a link would be nice.

Given Bundy's brand of subjectivity, what would be the basis for universal law? It's all very well to say "that which makes society stable is moral", but that is itself a value judgment relative to your personal dispositions.

My basis of morality is dependent on the likelihood that it is a evolutionary construct. I actually don't care about society as much as myself.

Quote from: Proleg on April 12, 2009, 08:13:09 PM

Given Bundy's brand of subjectivity, what would be the basis for universal law? It's all very well to say "that which makes society stable is moral", but that is itself a value judgment relative to your personal dispositions.

My basis of morality is dependent on the likelihood that it is a evolutionary construct.

Why?

As for your question, yes. I believe that all humans, with no outside influence, would agree on the same level of morality. For example, we all understand that killing innocent people is unjust and thus wrong. However, other factors, such as culture or religion, may change how they view the morality of their actions.

What about inside influence? You do realize humans develop greed and savagery when in competition with another creature, right? I wouldn't even really call those influences, just nature at it's finest. Would you then consider them animals or humans?

Also, morality is not determined by being human or not. Animals have been known to show remorse, fear, and show judgmental behavior. My dog used to sit in his cage when he knew he had done something he wasn't supposed to do, without my needing to scold him or anything. That shows morality. Ergo, morality is subjective and nothing more than a set of influenced/pre-programmed set of mental guidelines. It has nothing to do with being an "animal" or human. As stated, if that were really the case, there are a few people in history I would call animals and not humans.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 09:20:41 PM

My basis of morality is dependent on the likelihood that it is a evolutionary construct.

Why?

Why what? Why do I believe morals are an evolutionary product?

Quote from: Proleg on April 12, 2009, 09:25:49 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 09:20:41 PM

My basis of morality is dependent on the likelihood that it is a evolutionary construct.

Why?

Why what? Why do I believe morals are an evolutionary product?

I was hoping you'd elaborate on what you meant.

No seriously, humans aren't animals.  Otherwise we might as all head out to the jungle and suck, fuck, fight, and die like the rest of 'em

[/thread]

Bold: By what definition? As far as the scientific community is concerned, we most certainly aren't plants or robots, so that only leaves....

Italics: Reality check; We did! We just ended up evolving because of this and grew larger and more complex brains capable of gradually learning and storing more and more information and become more and more self aware. As I stated before, morality is completely subjective.

Did you take environmental ethics too?

Not really environmental. Just meta, first and second order, and applied ethics.

Any way I follow mostly utilitarianism. I don't have problems killing and eating animals as long as it is done in a human manner.

Actually, an utilitarian would argue that killing animals is wrong because they, like us, can suffer and feel pain. See Peter Singer's argument.

I do consider killing humans worse then killing animals because of our rationality.

I agree with that.

What about inside influence? You do realize humans develop greed and savagery when in competition with another creature, right?

Yes. However, our reason allows us to evaluate the morality of our action, so we can tell what's right and what's wrong. With our rationality, we can see that greed or savagery is wrong. Rationality is what makes us human or "personhood."

I wouldn't even really call those influences, just nature at it's finest. Would you then consider them animals or humans?

Depends if they are rational or not.

Also, morality is not determined by being human or not. Animals have been known to show remorse, fear, and show judgmental behavior. My dog used to sit in his cage when he knew he had done something he wasn't supposed to do, without my needing to scold him or anything. That shows morality.

That would be Hume's argument: that morality exists independently of us and reason. His argument is based on subjectivism.

Ergo, morality is subjective and nothing more than a set of influenced/pre-programmed set of mental guidelines. It has nothing to do with being an "animal" or human. As stated, if that were really the case, there are a few people in history I would call animals and not humans.

That's entirely up to you. For me, I do not believe morality is subjective. For example, in Simple Subjectivism, James Rachels criticizes that with subjectivism, there would be no moral disagreements, as each other is saying different subjects. When I say capital punishment is wrong, this subject is different from yours saying capital punishment is right. You can't say my moral judgment is false, and I can't say your moral judgment is false, mainly because we are just reporting our attitudes. My moral judgment is true only to me. Thus, according to Simple Subjectivism, we are infallible.

However, we are fallible, and there are moral disagreements in this world. Therefore, I agree with Kant that morality is objective (see: ethical objectivism) due to rationality, and that we bind to our duty and do not expect reward (consequences) for our action. Morality arises as we act in accordance to our duty, disregarding subjectivism or consequentialism. For example, we help others not because we desire to, but because it is our duty.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 12, 2009, 09:34:02 PM

Would you then consider them animals or humans?

Depends if they are rational or not.

You make it sound like a binary option.
Animals make logical rational connections are the time, but aren't necessarily rational agents.

You make it sound like a binary option.
Animals make logical rational connections are the time, but aren't necessarily rational agents.

Well, that's fresh to me. Most of the philosophy papers I read conclude that the only rational animal is human. Philosophers who argue that humans and animals are the same make arguments on equal interests and happiness but not on rationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Animal

Quote from: Soze on April 12, 2009, 11:11:30 PM

You make it sound like a binary option.
Animals make logical rational connections are the time, but aren't necessarily rational agents.

Well, that's fresh to me. Most of the philosophy papers I read conclude that the only rational animal is human. Philosophers who argue that humans and animals are the same make arguments on equal interests and happiness but not on rationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Animal

Humans are quick to distinguish themselves from other animals. But animals can not only comprehend things but also make causal connections, and sometimes even manipulate their environment based on these connections to meet their own wants and needs.

One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

Can animals reason?

I'm an animal and I can reason.

I'm talking about other animals, hence the "human vs animal" debate.

Can animals reason?

Explain the ape grouping methods, the ability for a dolphin to recognize itself in a mirror... These are all rational actions. Would you then deny the likelyhood of these animals having morality?

This argument is really strikingly similar to the argument that asks whether or not animals are able to think. A common misconception is that people like to associate thought with language (more often than not, you can find yourself thinking with a 'voice' in your mind to yourself). But if you've ever owned a cat or a dog, it's painfully obvious that animals are capable of thinking just as we do.

As Soze said, humans are quick to draw the line between human and animal. Morality doesn't separate us from them anymore than anything else would. We are animals. We will always be animals.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 12, 2009, 09:11:28 PM

Any way I follow mostly utilitarianism. I don't have problems killing and eating animals as long as it is done in a humane manner.

Actually, an utilitarian would argue that killing animals is wrong because they, like us, can suffer and feel pain. See Peter Singer's argument.

Ok I am going from memory here So I could be wrong, but if I remember there is two types of utilitarianism. one type is to decrease the amount of suffering and the other is to increase the amount of pleasure. If I followed the one to increase the amount of pleasure then killing the animal would be wrong. However if I was trying to decrease the amount of suffering then killing the animals int a way that they felt no physical or emotional pain would not be wrong. I vaguely remember Singers argument but I can't get onto the website That explained it and I can't find my book.
correct me if I am wrong.

I've read arguments similar to yours, such as considering animals as "persons".

Explain the ape grouping methods, the ability for a dolphin to recognize itself in a mirror... These are all rational actions. Would you then deny the likelyhood of these animals having morality?

Yes, some animals do have some sense of self-awareness. As I've stated, I do accept apes as part of the moral community. Indeed, "animal" is a very broad term; I agree with that. However, can every animal, just like us, make sound judgments, think critically, create explanations, compare things, evaluate things, predict events, etc, as the whole idea of reason in rationality? Can they also think themselves as unique compared to others?

This argument is really strikingly similar to the argument that asks whether or not animals are able to think. A common misconception is that people like to associate thought with language (more often than not, you can find yourself thinking with a 'voice' in your mind to yourself). But if you've ever owned a cat or a dog, it's painfully obvious that animals are capable of thinking just as we do.

I do not associate rationality with language.

Morality doesn't separate us from them anymore than anything else would.

It's not morality that separates us from animals; it's rationality. I know some animals have morals, such as apes. But I doubt that they can evaluate actions: they know some of their actions are wrong, but do they know why are the actions wrong? Can they tell why my actions are wrong?

We are animals. We will always be animals.

Scientifically, yes we are. However, in terms of philosophical usage, most Kantian philosophers, such as Mary Anne Warren or Philippa Foot, would disagree with that. I would never equate myself to a chicken, crocodile, or cat, although I'm an opponent on animal cruelty. Even Mill, an utilitarian (we all know utilitarianism favors animals), distinguishes humans from animals in terms of mental satisfaction; it is impossible for them to experience the higher pleasures we have.

"Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites." - John Stuart Mill

Can animals reason?

I'd say yes.
But what do you call this?

But animals can not only comprehend things but also make causal connections, and sometimes even manipulate their environment based on these connections to meet their own wants and needs.

I'd say yes.

So spiders, crabs, horses, and lions can make sound and moral judgments, create explanations, think critically, evaluate things, predicting events just like us? I don't think so.

But what do you call this?

Quote

But animals can not only comprehend things but also make casual connections, and sometimes even manipulate their environment based on these connections to meet their own wants and needs.

I don't see how that can equate them to us, as we know they are incapable to do absolutely everything we do; they have some of our traits, but not all. It's natural that some animals can do that, but that does not meet the requirements of being a human with moral rights. From an utilitarian point of view, animals can recognize their own happiness, but they cannot recognize the happiness of others.

From the Michigan State University

In most cases, an animal will maximize their own happiness and pleasure without regard to others happiness. An animal has no way of determining which course of action will sum to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number, it is unclear whether an animal even possesses the self-awareness to acknowledge others' happiness.