Killer Philosophy

So far, I've seen you go from "Humans are not animals" to "Scientifically humans are animals". You modified your argument/wording to suit the alternatives thrown at you without explaining exactly what you believe.

The problem here is that no matter what, the morality will have to be subjective. You're using a philosophical ideal to mold a subset into a basis for a definition. Since not everyone subscribes to the same philosophical ideals, the definition will vary across the board, as will the idea of morality amongst humans and animals.

As for the animals you've mentioned, they make and use rational judgements every day. Their day to day agenda is to survive and possibly reproduce. They will meet these requirements however they deem appropriate and if it's within their ability. A humans day to day agenda will be different from "animals" because of the advanced nature of humans.

All in all, this so called philosophy is another excuse to try and supersize humanity's ego and separate them from what they deem as "inferior".

Food for thought: A wasp doesn't sting just for the hell of it, it attacks when threatened. Is that instinct or a sign of moral judgement based on it's day to day agenda?

Quote from: Soze on April 13, 2009, 01:20:56 PM

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.

What do you call morals? There was a dog I read about that nurtured every animal brought into a animal clinic, including its natural predators.
They can do the rest of that stuff, just not to the same extent as more intelligent creatures. Creating explanations may not be as refined as a scientific methodology approach but its a less complicated form of classical conditioning. A happens, then B happens, therefore causation is assumed. An animal might see another animal cowering under a porch, and they become afraid as well, because they understand that there is a likely source of fear.
I'm sorry, but how do you define thinking critically?
Evaluating things seems even more obvious that we share this attribute. Simple evaluation of a bowl of water allows the cat to know to consuming by drinking instead of chewing. Animals' predictive abilities are often better than our own. Consider tsunami's and earthquakes. Natural disasters are often preceded by erratic animal behavior and abrupt migratory patterns.

Quote from: Soze on April 13, 2009, 01:20:56 PM

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.

You have to recognize another's emotions in order to be rational now?

From the Michigan State University

Quote from: https://www.msu.edu/course/phl/200/phl200/fall99/esquith_1/Tupper.htm

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.

I know lionesses hunt and bring the food to the lions for them to eat, before even eating any themselves. Isn't this a act of generosity that benefits the companion?

So far, I've seen you go from "Humans are not animals" to "Scientifically humans are animals". You modified your argument/wording to suit the alternatives thrown at you without explaining exactly what you believe.

The way science defines animals is different from how philosophy defines animals. That's why I have to distinguish them both to simplify the debate and eliminate any confusions. In philosophy, we define animals as non-rational things with no moral capacity and, to some philosophers, no moral rights. Kant assumes that animals are non-rational things with no self-consciouse.  It's the whole idea of personhood and moral community. That's different from science. Most philosophers, since Aristotle's time to now, agree with "the rational animal is man". Thus, philosophically, humans are not animals.

Since not everyone subscribes to the same philosophical ideals, the definition will vary across the board, as will the idea of morality amongst humans and animals.

I agree with that.

@ Soze: Animals aren't rational according to Kantian philosophy (Contractarian to some certain extent, although I haven't read much about that). Utilitarianism, which also does not regard animals as rational agents, equates animals with humans by consequences such as happiness or utility, interests, and pain. We separate from animals due to our rationality. I'm not going over that again. Using science, we see that most animals aren't even rational or human-like; there are only a few that are close to us, but close does not make human. You can't use a few to represent the whole group. Thus, animals, as a whole, does not equate to humans in terms of rationality. Also, reason allows us to solve complex problems; animals can only solve simple problems, and that's different from us. For example, the highly intelligent dolphin can solve simple puzzles while most animals can't, but you can't ask the dolphin to solve a calculus problem. That's not human.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 13, 2009, 02:15:58 PM

So far, I've seen you go from "Humans are not animals" to "Scientifically humans are animals". You modified your argument/wording to suit the alternatives thrown at you without explaining exactly what you believe.

The way science defines animals is different from how philosophy defines animals. That's why I have to distinguish them both to simplify the debate and eliminate any confusions. In philosophy, we define animals as non-rational things with no moral capacity and, to some philosophers, no moral rights. Kant assumes that animals are non-rational things with no self-consciouse.  It's the whole idea of personhood and moral community. That's different from science. Most philosophers, since Aristotle's time to now, agree with "the rational animal is man". Thus, philosophically, humans are not animals.

So then, by the bolded part, it's philosophically ok for people to do this? I mean, philosophically, the animals have no moral rights and thus humans are allowed to appeal to apathy in regards? I find that a highly disturbing argument.

Also, I've proven that bolded "definition" as being completely skewed and biased.

It's not philosophically OK to do animal cruelty. I've yet to see a philosopher arguing the otherwise. They have no moral rights, but that does not mean we have to treat them cruelly. Kantian philosophy states that cruelty to animals is an indirect duty to humans. As I've stated before, Kant states that we treat non-rational things (animals) with compassion to strengthen the feelings of compassion with rational beings (humans), and that our duties to animals are only indirect duties to humans. For example, you mistreat your friend's dog, and your friend is unhappy about that; you've indirectly mistreated your friend.

Then we have the utilitarian argument, which states that animal cruelty is immoral because of animal suffering and pain, which decreases pleasure. Thus, according to the principles of equality, we should consider the interests of animals (that is, their unwillingness to suffer) as equal as the interests of humans; both can suffer pain, so there are no differences.

That's different the animal's right argument.

Kantian philosophy is garbage. I feel that from the arguments you've provided for it, that there's a lot of circle jerking going on in the process. You're applying no moral rights which would then allow humans to appeal to apathy towards them (this doesn't limit that down to cruelty, that's just one example), and then turning around saying that they are a vessel and could be used as the scapegoat for apathetic actions towards another person.

Is this philosophy just an excuse to make humans sound superior or what? Because, as I said, I've proven the ideals false (as has Soze) as to whether or not animals can make rational judgement. Unless this philosophy has exceptions, humans and animals is pretty concise as to what they are referring to.

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.

He discovered the philosophy of hedonism, and lived it as completely as any Roman.

Kantian philosophy is garbage.

Every philosophical theory has criticism. That does not make such theory "garbage." The argument that morality is subjective based on moral language faces as much criticism as any other arguments. Does that make the argument on ethical subjectivism (See Simple Subjectivism) garbage?

I feel that from the arguments you've provided for it, that there's a lot of circle jerking going on in the process. You're applying no moral rights which would then allow humans to appeal to apathy towards them (this doesn't limit that down to cruelty, that's just one example), and then turning around saying that they are a vessel and could be used as the scapegoat for apathetic actions towards another person.

Read my posts on indirect duty again: it is wrong to be cruel to animals because doing so reduces the feelings of compassion with humans. It has nothing to do with scapegoats or vessels; it's our indirect duty. That's the basic of Kant's argument. Now, when talking about animal rights, we have Tom Reagan (not a Kantian) arguing that animal cruelty is wrong because we violate their rights, and their rights, which is equal to ours, comes from their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life (which he does not fully explain). Also, there are Kantians out there that does not fully agree with Kant. Some Kantians think animals have rights. For example, Mary Anne Warren, a Kantian, criticizes Reagan's argument on this mysterious inherent value and provides an argument that animal rights are weaker than human rights because animals are not rational, and thus these weaker animal rights require us not to be cruel to them. Weaker does not mean we're better than them. I also does not fully agree with Kant, although I agree that we are distinct from animals. I'm not just providing arguments on my side, but I'm addressing arguments from all sides.

Is this philosophy just an excuse to make humans sound superior or what?

Rationality does not make us superior to or "better" than animals; it's used to make a distinction. In fact, with rationality (intelligence and knowledge through reasoning), we are much more dangerous than animals, which would make us morally inferior to them. Rationality has nothing to do with perfectionism. Thus, we aren't better than or superior to animals; it's just that we are different from them.

I was wrong in the beginning, as language is associated with rationality in the whole concept of "reason". Language is related to reason in rationality, and we cannot share moral equality with animals because we can't reason with them (Warren's argument):

Why not extend this recognition of moral equality to other creatures, even though they cannot do the same for us? The answer is that we cannot. Because we cannot reason with non-human animals, we cannot always solve the problems which they may cause without harming them-although we are always obligated to try. We cannot negotiate a treaty with the feral cast and foxes, requiring them to stop preying on endangered native species in return for suitable concessions on our part.

We are equal to other humans, as we can reason with them to share the same moral equality (live peacefully without sexism or racism through agreement, for example). However, we can't accomplish that with animals.

Because, as I said, I've proven the ideals false (as has Soze) as to whether or not animals can make rational judgement.

You didn't prove anything. Just because some animals have a few of our traits does not make all animals on equal ground as us, or does it make them as human. They can't even reason with us. I have yet to see or read any sources showing a single animal existed on this planet that can behave, think, or perform as same as a human. Your argument, on the basis of animal rights and animals as humans, is just one of many arguments I read in my philosophy class. I've provided arguments from both sides, Kantian and utilitarian, on this issue. If you don't agree with them, fine, as I'm not expecting that.

Just because something does not equal something else does not mean they are different. If one animal swims faster than another is the slower animal no longer a fish? We are clearly the most intelligent animal on the planet. My question, if a person is mentally impaired to the point that they lack logic, empathy, and the ability to act "morally" are they lower than animals that can do so? Can we treat mentally impaired people like we do animals? What makes them different from animals?

So kantian deals strictly from human to non-human? I can understand the logic behind it then, I was under the assumption that it was still directed at the whole.

I have to ask how do we know that animals aren't as rational as we are. We know they may not be as smart as we are but how do we know that they don't try to increase the groups happiness. how do we know they don't think about things, albeit at a lower level then us. it is a assumption not even a philosophical point.

They don't think about things, we can tell this because we know they lack development in the part of the brain that thinks about things. Truthfully they do think at a lower level, they just think at a level we would not call conscious. (for most but higher mammals do think in a way we would call thought)

When you feel good is that itself not a thought? I think we have defined thoughts to the point where it is linguistic, but we have shown that animals can learn language. We have apes that learn american sign language and even invent their own symbols for things. Meaning they not only mimic us but learn to create language.

Animals are not below us, they are just at a different point in evolution, given enough time I have no doubt that another animal would take our place in the evolutionary chain, developing language and technology. My money would be on the octopus, if it became land dwelling its penchant for using tools and critical thinking would eventually lead it to the place we know hold, but with increased dexterity and more arms.

So is anyone else loving Ted?

So Kantian deals strictly from human to non-human? I can understand the logic behind it then, I was under the assumption that it was still directed at the whole.

Sounds like its philosophical basis is made to fit its conclusions. Philosophy should make no assumptions about things that can be explored scientifically. Lack of rationality in anything nonhuman is one such assumption that defines the paradigm of thought Kant uses, and so it is not surprising to see that it is also one of his conclusions.

In short, what Bundy said is true.

i like how Raist put it more

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 14, 2009, 04:23:37 PM

So Kantian deals strictly from human to non-human? I can understand the logic behind it then, I was under the assumption that it was still directed at the whole.

Sounds like its philosophical basis is made to fit its conclusions. Philosophy should make no assumptions about things that can be explored scientifically. Lack of rationality in anything nonhuman is one such assumption that defines the paradigm of thought Kant uses, and so it is not surprising to see that it is also one of his conclusions.

Scientific knowledge is not the ultimate form. It is highly affected and directed by the influence of technology. Read Hanna Arendt's The Human Condition to understand more about how the discovery of the Archimedean Point influenced thought of the meaning of things. Philosophy must make assumptions that science can't get near to. Without it, evil becomes banal.

Took me awhile to see this, but I don't like to leave things unanswered. 

Scientific knowledge is not the ultimate form. It is highly affected and directed by the influence of technology. Read Hanna Arendt's The Human Condition to understand more about how the discovery of the Archimedean Point influenced thought of the meaning of things. Philosophy must make assumptions that science can't get near to. Without it, evil becomes banal.

I don't disagree.

Sounds like its philosophical basis is made to fit its conclusions. Philosophy should make no assumptions about things that can be explored scientifically. Lack of rationality in anything nonhuman is one such assumption that defines the paradigm of thought Kant uses, and so it is not surprising to see that it is also one of his conclusions.