|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 12, 2012 01:40 AM |
|
|
People are born with some moral intuitions, and acquire other ethical principles throughout life, adopting some from their culture, some from their peers, etc. However, these intuitions are usually independent conclusions such as "X is wrong" (without reference to a more fundamental moral principle) or heuristics such as "X is wrong because only [group of people] do X, and we don't want to be like [group of people]". A framework consisting of such beliefs can't really be called a moral framework - it's proto-moral at best.
However, there are other forms of morality that aren't based on cultural norms, and are universal - universal in the sense that they are culturally independent, applicable to all humans, and meant to be held by everyone who is capable of holding them (not universal in the sense of them already being held by everyone). One example is utilitarianism: do that which maximizes people's well-being. The specific applications is dependent on people's preferences, which may be partially culturally dependent, but the overall moral framework is culturally independent. Similarly, Objectivism holds that you should act in your properly understood self-interest. Again, that is culturally independent. Ethical values may be defined by culture and intuition (although if they are, it's questionable whether they can really be called "ethical values"), but culture and intuition are by no means the only possible sources of values.Quote:
with great power comes great responsability
According to whom? Why? How?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2013 11:04 PM |
|
|
So as not to take the "France legalizes gay marriage" topic off-topic
On Page 4, Gnomes said:Quote:
As to the question of whether I believe that bestiality should be legal... show me how a cat or dog can give consent.
To which I say, do animals consent to being eaten or put into cages? If not, why should having sex with them be treated differently?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 12:16 AM |
|
|
I guess for me it's not so much a moral thing as it is the "Ickiness" factor. I think that sex should be a consensual act when done with a living being, and most animals are unable to give that without literally walking over to you and licking your privates.  I find caging animals in unhealthy conditions to be a bit more "icky", to be honest, and such conditions should not be forced on them. Killing for food is the least "icky" of the three (and I find it acceptable), so mer.
So there. These are personal feelings of ew and nothing more. Go ahead and call me close-minded, like I know you want to. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 12:22 AM |
|
|
The obvious point that follows is, many people consider male homosexuality to be "icky". Does that mean it should be illegal?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 01:01 AM |
|
|
Aha, I new you would go there. !
I've never said that bestiality should be illegal, just that I find it icky. That is not reason enough to make something illegal. In my mind, it has to be inherently harmful to have legal action taken against it, which bestiality and homosexuality are not. Now because I find it icky, I will not be spearheading any movement to make bestiality legal... but I also will not object to it if it becomes so. Let other people and their dog do what they want, just don't tell me about it.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 02:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
To which I say, do animals consent to being eaten or put into cages? If not, why should having sex with them be treated differently?
To which I say, why should humans be treated any differently? Consent shouldn't matter, right?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 02:56 AM |
|
|
An animal does not possess the level of sentience or maturity to understand the concept of consent. Therefore it should not be legal.
Exactly like a child. Illegal.
Same Gender sex between fully consenting adults is indeed "Icky" but should be legal as an adult is able to conceptualize, live and own up to their own actions. As I said, sentience and or maturity.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 04:42 AM |
|
|
There's a difference between children and animals - children have rights even though they can't consent. Consider that it is illegal (and immoral) to kill and eat a six-year-old human, while it is certainly legal (and moral) to kill and eat a six-year-old cow. Neither can consent to being killed - in fact, neither can consent to anything. In terms of rights, an animal is more like a rock than like a child - no one asks the rock for its consent to be kicked or drilled through, but no one is complaining about that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 05:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
children have rights
Says who? Seems an arbitrary distinction.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 06:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Same Gender sex between fully consenting adults is indeed "Icky" but should be legal as an adult is able to conceptualize, live and own up to their own actions. As I said, sentience and or maturity.
I dont know about you, but nobody objects to lesbians, only gay men, and nobody finds lesbians icky...
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 06:34 PM |
|
|
I'm still upset about this.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Drakon-Deus 
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 06:35 PM |
|
|
I'm pretty sure there are people who object to lesbians and can find them "icky" as well, myself included.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 06:55 PM |
|
|
I assure you, there's no such thing.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 10:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Says who? Seems an arbitrary distinction.
Children above a certain (young) age are capable of both intentionally harming others and abiding by agreements not to. They are capable of what can reasonably be called moral reasoning. Therefore they should be included in a Hobbesian social contract to not harm or be harmed, and so they have rights. The same is not true for animals - as a kind, they cannot abide by non-aggression pacts, so they don't have rights.
More to the point, it is inconsistent for someone who doesn't believe in animal rights to say that they have some right to not have bestiality imposed on them. If it's okay to kill them, why isn't it okay to have sex with them?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 11:02 PM |
|
|
|
So... uh... if I understand correctly, the animals don't have rights because they haven't read Thomas Hobbes?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 25, 2013 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
okay to kill them, why isn't it okay to have sex with them?
Adds insult to injury. Besides, last thing I want is someone literally ****ing with my food.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 12:38 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:27, 26 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Children above a certain (young) age are capable of both intentionally harming others and abiding by agreements not to. They are capable of what can reasonably be called moral reasoning. Therefore they should be included in a Hobbesian social contract to not harm or be harmed, and so they have rights. The same is not true for animals - as a kind, they cannot abide by non-aggression pacts, so they don't have rights.
Two gaps in here:
1- Not only children of a certain age have rights, all of them does.
2- In modern life, animals are, in practice, totally harmless to us.
The ones who harm (like rats with disease) are not protected anyway.
Quote:
More to the point, it is inconsistent for someone who doesn't believe in animal rights to say that they have some right to not have bestiality imposed on them. If it's okay to kill them, why isn't it okay to have sex with them?
One is not possible to give up without serious consequences as of now, the other is. You overtheorize and overestimate the laws necessity to be consistent. There are many laws that are inconsistent with each other, feasibility plays a serious part in law as well as theoretical consistency.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 12:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Therefore they should be included in a Hobbesian social contract to not harm or be harmed, and so they have rights. The same is not true for animals - as a kind, they cannot abide by non-aggression pacts, so they don't have rights.
Says who? Says who? Maybe if I say it enough times, the point will sink in. Any answer you could possibly give is easily countered with "Says Who?"
Quote:
More to the point, it is inconsistent for someone who doesn't believe in animal rights to say that they have some right to not have bestiality imposed on them. If it's okay to kill them, why isn't it okay to have sex with them?
Nor more inconsistent than it is to say that if you should be able to have sex with animals, then it should be ok to have sex with corpses, or children, or a woman under anesthesia.
UNLESS you make a moral distinction. But morality is ultimately subjective. Either way you're drawing a line somewhere, and even if society is unanimous on where that line is drawn, the standards which guide the choice are still in the end a matter of belief and opinion. There's no scientific data or first-principles model (or metric, for that matter) to lead to an unqualified answer of: "this way is the best way".
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 12:56 AM |
|
|
Pretty much anything goes when marriage is redefined as any gender + any gender. Such a "secular" marriage will never be anything but a sham if it is not male-female, but there is no reason to exclude people with other sexual fetishes from redefining marriage their way too.
Any person + any person becomes anyone + anyone + anyone +.... That becomes anyone + anyone + any species + any species. The decay and degradation of society until everything eventually collapses. Societies fall from within via moral decay. Rejoice liberals, you are the destroyers of worlds.
____________
Revelation
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 26, 2013 01:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You overtheorize and overestimate the laws necessity to be consistent. There are many laws that are inconsistent with each other, feasibility plays a serious part in law as well as theoretical consistency.
This is a stick Mvass has been stumbling over since I've known him on these forums. He has an obsession with consistency and doesn't seem to be able/want to recognize that inconsistency is not synonymous with incompatibility, and only the ladder is necessarily dangerous. It's an almost universal personality trait among hardcore Rand fans. What on the surface might be inconistent to some extent is really just a person making differing judgments based on context.
The idea behind why animal sex/torture should be allowed is that if you allow animals for pets/consumption/etc but not for torture and sex, you're creating a high risk scenario for other violations against human freedoms, although I haven't seen this demonstrated much in practice. Places that provide some basic protections for animals are better in general at providing an abundance of civil liberties for people as well. China is a country that is very liberal in so far as animal laws are concerned, yet it's human rights record is less than stellar. The Chinese government isn't the sole reason for why this is, but I think it's almost irrefutable that national laws help sculpt the national culture. Protecting animals by default helps to protect people as well, and it comes at minimal inconvenience.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
