8 ms·

Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down vot

Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.

overcast 10y ago
That's the side effect of being self conscious beings, with the capacity of understanding things deeper than survival 101. If other animals had this capacity, you can't say it's just man made thing.
- virmundi 10y ago
  You've made it a side-effect. As a conscious being I know that there is a circle of life. I know that animals eat each other. I know that without getting into franen-foods, the human body evolved to eat other animals too. You picked an ethic. Probably because it felt good. I too picked an ethic. Mine is Christian with a good deal of Epicurean infusion. Religiously I believe we can eat animals, but need to care for the whole world (that's man's job). So I eat them. I don't kill things for the fun of it. Presuming an agnostic world view for a moment, the same applies. You can do what you want. There are consequences. You've made one of them feeling bad at the thought of eating a complex animal. Why does that matter? I'm not saying you're totally wrong for thinking that. Just try to understand truly why. Is it because something got imported into your world view to make you think that it should matter. If so is that a valid importation?
  - cicero 10y ago
    Christianity (at least Catholicism) has an animal ethic that is not man-made, but comes from divine revelation. Genesis says that man is given the responsibility to care for creation, and while since the time of the flood we have permission to eat animals, the general (at least Catholic) interpretation is that doesn't mean we can be cruel to animals. In other words, if we have a reasonable need to kill an animal for food, it may be done in as humane a way as is practical. Otherwise, we should care for them.
    - virmundi 10y ago
      I agree. In the comment above I played it from two world views. The one you espouse is the same (or similar enough) as the Christian view I mentioned. The agnostic view is there since I think, or at least assume, the majority of people on HN are agnostic. From such a view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat or, in this specific case, a creature of intelligence. Such an argument comes from emotion. That's as equal as anything else in an agonistic, amoral universe. I just want to people to realize that it's a simple choice, not an absolute. Further, I prefer people coming from such a world view to ponder what they view properly. I find many pull from a Judeo-Christian ethic without realizing it. I'd like people to either break from it for a new model, or, at least, realize there is common ground between them and their theistic peers.
      - cicero 10y ago
        I certainly agree that many people today hold to Christian ethics while rejecting the supernatural basis for it, not realizing that their worldview doesn't support their ethics.
      - chc 10y ago
        This seems a bit ethnocentric. Judeo-Christianity did bring some novel moral requirements, but the ones that it shares with most agnostics and atheists are not Judeo-Christian inventions. For example, Buddhists have been practicing compassion without any need for the Hebrew god for thousands of years, and Jains are some of the most extreme animal rights wonks you'll meet.
        virmundi 10y ago
        That is a valid critique of my context. I presumed a Post-Enlighment Western world view of a European atheist bent. Unfortunately Buddhists and Jains don't get away any better. They have an underlying belief in a Universal truth. The Universe can punish (at least for Buddhists; I have trouble pinning Jains down on from a karmic perspective since I'm not terribly familiar with them). Edit: critic -> critique
      - 10y ago
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    > As a conscious being I know that there is a circle of life I would argue there are two pre-requisites for that: consciousness, and culture. With no culture, starting from zero, during the limited span of a single life, it would be pretty hard to come up with grand concepts such as the circle of life.
danans 10y ago
That seems like reductio ad absurdum. You could argue amorality in the specific case of you vs. the octopus, in the wild, but that's now how most of us get the octopus or other animals we eat. The instinctual human ability to mentalize about another creature's state of being is likely where our capacity to, for example, domesticate animals and keep them as a food source came from in the first place. That same ability is what enables us to consider the ethics of whether or not, or how much, to eat them. Unless one is strictly involved in a predator-prey food relationship (i.e. hunting is your only means of procuring animal-based food), you can't separate the practice of mass-production or collection of animals for food with the "worry" about their welfare, both at an individual and population level.
- virmundi 10y ago
  Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. For the general concept of animal herd vs people collective (effectually herd vs herd), this doesn't much matter. The best argument one can muster its that we, being rational, should preserve a reasonable food chain. The idea goes like this: A stable, sustainable food chain allows us to continue living; continue living is a good thing; therefore we will manage the food chain. Nothing here says that we should exclude from the food chain anything with an intelligence. Such a pronouncement is merely a feel good. It's an extension onto the animals of the view that we, ourselves, would not like to be eaten. If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. Drawing an arbitrary line is ok for the individual. It has no weight as moral imperative or generalizable postulate.
  - danans 10y ago
    > Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. There are personal (and group) ethics which the OP appeared to be reflecting on when they pondered whether or not to eat the octopus. These arise from a mix of rational, irrational, habitual, and even hypocritical thought processes, and that's all part of the human condition.
  - 10y ago
chc 10y ago
This seems fundamentally to be an argument against ethics in general. Whatever your personal values may be, a viewpoint that would justify nearly any atrocity is not very useful.
- virmundi 10y ago
  It is an argument against an absolute truth. Ironically, the absolute truth is, under an agnostic view, there is no Truth. Every ethics system that we have is a might makes right. People need to realize this. When someone makes any ethics claim they have to realize that it is at best only useful for a specific location and point in time. Eating animals or not is a preference. Who we keep alive and who we don't is too. What I wanted to make people think about is why they hold their views. What assumptions are they making? Are those assumptions sound? For example, why not kill people for food? Best argument I can have from an amoral background (the universe created ducks that rape and hamsters that eat their young) is it destabilizes a society. The assumption is that society is good. Therefore anything that makes it worse, is bad. An interesting thing to ponder are questions like "Is society good?" Could we have limited cannibalism? Would that make society more stable?
  - chc 10y ago
    The words "truth" and "god" are not synonyms. I don't know if there is a god, but I feel quite certain there are things that are true.
    - virmundi 10y ago
      Why? Let me limit that a bit: why are there ethical/moral truths? There are probably statistical truths. Such as generally don't kill people. However, every society has loopholes or outs for such a law. What leads you to believe that there is a universal truth especially in light of the fact that the universe does little to actively preserve life, and doesn't seem to evolve too many creates that could even care.
      - drinkjuice 10y ago
burkaman 10y ago
All ethics are entirely manmade, so this is not particularly helpful. Are you ok with torturing criminals, as long as they seem like they'd be willing to torture you?
- virmundi 10y ago
  No, because we've found empirically that torture doesn't work. If it did, why not? I know many will not like that conclusion, but again, presuming an amoral universe, and I have little evidence outside of a religious world view that I'm wrong to presume such, there is no right or wrong. You admitted in your first sentence. Comment is helpful in that many people, from all backgrounds, assume that ethics are absolute. An atheist will never claim otherwise in discourse. However, they act contrarily to this view. They get mad when someone violates one of their rules. Edit: corrected to empirically.
  - Falling3 10y ago
    Torture is used for reasons other than obtaining information. It's also used as a form of punishment/vengeance. Does that context change your answer?
    - virmundi 10y ago
      If we're doing it for those reason, sure, go ahead as long as you don't weaken society. An arbitrary line is that society is good. If you Torture and it causes civil unrest to the degree that it destabilizes an otherwise productive society, then you should not do it.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    I doubt most people around here are moral absolutists. I didn't downvote your comment, but it did feel a little irrelevant, in that "ethics are manmade" applies to every situation if you believe it, and no situation if you don't. I'm not sure what you mean by your atheist comment. It is not contradictory to hold strong morals while accepting moral relativism. As long as you accept that there is no objective moral truth, but have some coherent basis for your beliefs, there is no contradiction. Having no morals whatsoever would be inhuman.
Mikeb85 10y ago
This. Everytime I feel bad about eating meat, I just watch Planet Earth.
- PerfectElement 10y ago
  Are there any other situations where you look up to lions as the compass for your ethical conduct?
  - scardine 10y ago
    Honest question, why not? Are you better than lions? Are you better than sharks? Are you better than the bacteria in your guts? They all are pretty successful. Humans are so arrogant.
    - booleandilemma 10y ago
      Arrogant, maybe, but we're the only species that has the wherewithal to expand life as we know it beyond this one rock. The future of the DNA that we all share (animals, plants, fungi, bacteria) is riding on us.
    - PerfectElement 10y ago
      Straw man. I never asked who is better, specially because that word doesn't mean anything on its own. Better than lions in which aspect? Lions are much better than me at hunting, but on making moral judgements that aim to minimize harm, I think I am better. If you go down the road of basing your morals on what lions do, you will end up trying to justify why infanticide is a good practice when a father dies. Or why might makes right. I agree that humans are arrogant. That is pretty evident in the way they treat other species.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
To sidestep the ethical debate, I'd point out that your presumption that all other animals would simply "eat you" is itself anthropocentric, and incorrect. Many other species show the capacity for affection and altruism.
PerfectElement 10y ago
Are you saying that we shouldn't have any moral consideration towards beings that don't have the cognitive capacity to understand ethics? If that's the case, do you think it's okay if a human sets a dog on fire just for fun? How about mentally challenged humans? Should their pain be disregarded? P.S: I didn't down vote.
- virmundi 10y ago
  I'm arguing that any moral consideration you have is arbitrary. If you want to protect dogs, go ahead. If the person lighting them kills you in the process, I can't necessarily say it's wrong, as an agnostic. If you can band together with other pro-life dog watchers, you can probably force your view. You don't have any more hold on the Truth than the Dog Lighters of America. You're not more legitimate in an ultimate sense. It comes down to, who can create a board with the biggest nail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II). I just want people to realize that.
  - PerfectElement 10y ago
    No, it's not arbitrary at all. It's based on the concept that inflicting pain and suffering on another being should be justified. I'm sure that given the choice between not being tortured and being tortured, you would pick the former. And that's because you recognize that pain -even if subjective and sometimes necessary- is a negative feeling for the one experiencing it. What's arbitrary is saying that you don't want to inflict pain on human babies but are okay with inflicting pain on baby pigs, assuming both are equally capable of experiencing pain and distress. You are picking an arbitrary trait (species) and ignoring the relevant one (ability to feel pain).
azakai 10y ago
> Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Alternatively, some scientists and philosophers believe that ethics predate human beings - that they exist in many if not all social animals. In other words, some basic ethical emotions evolved. They then form the basis for our more sophisticated ethical and legal systems. Also, while you can argue that at some level the universe is "amoral" - it's just particles and laws of physics, right? - you can see that logic requires similar ethical systems in all social creatures. Things like "don't harm others, reciprocate help that you receive, help your elders, protect the young, etc." At some level, those derive logically for social organisms. So one could argue that such ethical laws are fixed and given in the same way that higher mathematics is fixed and given.
- __s 10y ago
  The mathematics of ethics is very much rooted in Game Theory
elastic_church 10y ago
> Really down voting because you don't agree? High expectations for someone thats been here for almost 10 years But I should correct you, ALL ethics are manmade, although I'm sure you are aware because anybody that would say that has accepted nihilism and the futility of moral relativity.
- virmundi 10y ago
  > High expectations for someone thats been here for almost 10 years. A) now you've gone and made me feel old. :( B) I hope to raise awareness about how HN should be. I'm not making a rallying cry, "Make HN Great Again!" We should be more civil. People coming in for the first time might not know that.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    Okay, I agree with the civility, I wasn't trying to be hurtful
zematis 10y ago
There's quite a bit of philosophical support behind the view that there are objective moral truths. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ for a not so brief overview. Also related is moral cognitivism and/or noncognitivism (are moral statements factual statements, or more like expressions of emotion, preference or command?). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ Here's a drastically simplified argument for moral realism: 1. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering. 2. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering, I am personally making a factual claim. 3. My intuition of 1. provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true. Addendum: When dealing with philosophy, often intuitions are the best evidence we've got. 4. If I have the intuition described in 1, 1 is a factual claim, and my intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is some evidence of an objective moral fact. C. Therefore, there is some evidence of an objective moral fact. Finally, here's a survey of academic philosophers. You can Ctrl-F for "moral realism" and "cognitivism" to see what proportion of philosophers hold these views. You'll note that both views have >50% support. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl Of course, a view's popularity doesn't guarantee its truth. But Philosphers aren't dummies, so it does show that it's at least plausible. Edit: formatting & philpapers link
- virmundi 10y ago
  I'm a theist. I totally agree that there are absolute truths. You're logic breaks down at step 2. If I don't agree with 1, your whole argument breaks down. In my experience debating philosophy throughout my education, seldom is there a Joker as in Heath Ledger's character. If a person fully believes that others don't count, at all, then the rule breaks down. Take a counter example: homosexuals. Most societies, regardless of source, were anti-homosexual. This is historically accurate (modern times are uprooting them, but let's say we're in the 1950's). 1. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality. 2. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality, I am personally making a factual claim. 3. My intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true. 4. If I have the intuition describe in 1, 1 is a factual claim, and my intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is some evidence of an objective moral fact. C. Therefore, there is some evidence for any objective moral fact. We've now shown an implication that homosexuality is in fact immoral in a general sense. Are we ok with this? Why? Why not? Our ethics and morality, sans a center like an unmoved mover, can vacillate. Sometimes this is "good" (such as gay or interracial marriage [I am neither]) for me as it brings improved economic conditions that selfishly improve my lot directly or possibly, which I arbitrarily deem as good, from an agnostic world view. Sometimes it's "bad" (for example expelling Jews from the Spain since it took the engineers and literate people, which limited economic freedom and would have probably negatively impacted my Spanish life if my present personality and general thoughtful profession was true then). As a quick aside for the postulate of cultural issues with homosexuality, http://news.trust.org//item/20140516162146-jipm9/ http://news.trust.org//item/20140516162146-jipm9/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome which shows that Rome did not really have a great view of homosexual relationship. You didn't want to be the receiver. If you were, you were property.
asciimo 10y ago
They would eat us for their own survival. We are now at a technological point that we eat them for our own pleasure. I argue that the latter if frivolous.

overcast 10y ago

That's the side effect of being self conscious beings, with the capacity of understanding things deeper than survival 101. If other animals had this capacity, you can't say it's just man made thing.

virmundi 10y ago
You've made it a side-effect. As a conscious being I know that there is a circle of life. I know that animals eat each other. I know that without getting into franen-foods, the human body evolved to eat other animals too. You picked an ethic. Probably because it felt good. I too picked an ethic. Mine is Christian with a good deal of Epicurean infusion. Religiously I believe we can eat animals, but need to care for the whole world (that's man's job). So I eat them. I don't kill things for the fun of it. Presuming an agnostic world view for a moment, the same applies. You can do what you want. There are consequences. You've made one of them feeling bad at the thought of eating a complex animal. Why does that matter? I'm not saying you're totally wrong for thinking that. Just try to understand truly why. Is it because something got imported into your world view to make you think that it should matter. If so is that a valid importation?
- cicero 10y ago
  Christianity (at least Catholicism) has an animal ethic that is not man-made, but comes from divine revelation. Genesis says that man is given the responsibility to care for creation, and while since the time of the flood we have permission to eat animals, the general (at least Catholic) interpretation is that doesn't mean we can be cruel to animals. In other words, if we have a reasonable need to kill an animal for food, it may be done in as humane a way as is practical. Otherwise, we should care for them.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    I agree. In the comment above I played it from two world views. The one you espouse is the same (or similar enough) as the Christian view I mentioned. The agnostic view is there since I think, or at least assume, the majority of people on HN are agnostic. From such a view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat or, in this specific case, a creature of intelligence. Such an argument comes from emotion. That's as equal as anything else in an agonistic, amoral universe. I just want to people to realize that it's a simple choice, not an absolute. Further, I prefer people coming from such a world view to ponder what they view properly. I find many pull from a Judeo-Christian ethic without realizing it. I'd like people to either break from it for a new model, or, at least, realize there is common ground between them and their theistic peers.
    - cicero 10y ago
      I certainly agree that many people today hold to Christian ethics while rejecting the supernatural basis for it, not realizing that their worldview doesn't support their ethics.
    - chc 10y ago
      This seems a bit ethnocentric. Judeo-Christianity did bring some novel moral requirements, but the ones that it shares with most agnostics and atheists are not Judeo-Christian inventions. For example, Buddhists have been practicing compassion without any need for the Hebrew god for thousands of years, and Jains are some of the most extreme animal rights wonks you'll meet.
      - virmundi 10y ago
        That is a valid critique of my context. I presumed a Post-Enlighment Western world view of a European atheist bent. Unfortunately Buddhists and Jains don't get away any better. They have an underlying belief in a Universal truth. The Universe can punish (at least for Buddhists; I have trouble pinning Jains down on from a karmic perspective since I'm not terribly familiar with them). Edit: critic -> critique
    - 10y ago
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  > As a conscious being I know that there is a circle of life I would argue there are two pre-requisites for that: consciousness, and culture. With no culture, starting from zero, during the limited span of a single life, it would be pretty hard to come up with grand concepts such as the circle of life.

danans 10y ago

That seems like reductio ad absurdum. You could argue amorality in the specific case of you vs. the octopus, in the wild, but that's now how most of us get the octopus or other animals we eat. The instinctual human ability to mentalize about another creature's state of being is likely where our capacity to, for example, domesticate animals and keep them as a food source came from in the first place. That same ability is what enables us to consider the ethics of whether or not, or how much, to eat them. Unless one is strictly involved in a predator-prey food relationship (i.e. hunting is your only means of procuring animal-based food), you can't separate the practice of mass-production or collection of animals for food with the "worry" about their welfare, both at an individual and population level.

virmundi 10y ago
Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. For the general concept of animal herd vs people collective (effectually herd vs herd), this doesn't much matter. The best argument one can muster its that we, being rational, should preserve a reasonable food chain. The idea goes like this: A stable, sustainable food chain allows us to continue living; continue living is a good thing; therefore we will manage the food chain. Nothing here says that we should exclude from the food chain anything with an intelligence. Such a pronouncement is merely a feel good. It's an extension onto the animals of the view that we, ourselves, would not like to be eaten. If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. Drawing an arbitrary line is ok for the individual. It has no weight as moral imperative or generalizable postulate.
- danans 10y ago
  > Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. There are personal (and group) ethics which the OP appeared to be reflecting on when they pondered whether or not to eat the octopus. These arise from a mix of rational, irrational, habitual, and even hypocritical thought processes, and that's all part of the human condition.
- 10y ago

chc 10y ago

This seems fundamentally to be an argument against ethics in general. Whatever your personal values may be, a viewpoint that would justify nearly any atrocity is not very useful.

virmundi 10y ago
It is an argument against an absolute truth. Ironically, the absolute truth is, under an agnostic view, there is no Truth. Every ethics system that we have is a might makes right. People need to realize this. When someone makes any ethics claim they have to realize that it is at best only useful for a specific location and point in time. Eating animals or not is a preference. Who we keep alive and who we don't is too. What I wanted to make people think about is why they hold their views. What assumptions are they making? Are those assumptions sound? For example, why not kill people for food? Best argument I can have from an amoral background (the universe created ducks that rape and hamsters that eat their young) is it destabilizes a society. The assumption is that society is good. Therefore anything that makes it worse, is bad. An interesting thing to ponder are questions like "Is society good?" Could we have limited cannibalism? Would that make society more stable?
- chc 10y ago
  The words "truth" and "god" are not synonyms. I don't know if there is a god, but I feel quite certain there are things that are true.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    Why? Let me limit that a bit: why are there ethical/moral truths? There are probably statistical truths. Such as generally don't kill people. However, every society has loopholes or outs for such a law. What leads you to believe that there is a universal truth especially in light of the fact that the universe does little to actively preserve life, and doesn't seem to evolve too many creates that could even care.
    - drinkjuice 10y ago

burkaman 10y ago

All ethics are entirely manmade, so this is not particularly helpful. Are you ok with torturing criminals, as long as they seem like they'd be willing to torture you?

virmundi 10y ago
No, because we've found empirically that torture doesn't work. If it did, why not? I know many will not like that conclusion, but again, presuming an amoral universe, and I have little evidence outside of a religious world view that I'm wrong to presume such, there is no right or wrong. You admitted in your first sentence. Comment is helpful in that many people, from all backgrounds, assume that ethics are absolute. An atheist will never claim otherwise in discourse. However, they act contrarily to this view. They get mad when someone violates one of their rules. Edit: corrected to empirically.
- Falling3 10y ago
  Torture is used for reasons other than obtaining information. It's also used as a form of punishment/vengeance. Does that context change your answer?
  - virmundi 10y ago
    If we're doing it for those reason, sure, go ahead as long as you don't weaken society. An arbitrary line is that society is good. If you Torture and it causes civil unrest to the degree that it destabilizes an otherwise productive society, then you should not do it.
- burkaman 10y ago
  I doubt most people around here are moral absolutists. I didn't downvote your comment, but it did feel a little irrelevant, in that "ethics are manmade" applies to every situation if you believe it, and no situation if you don't. I'm not sure what you mean by your atheist comment. It is not contradictory to hold strong morals while accepting moral relativism. As long as you accept that there is no objective moral truth, but have some coherent basis for your beliefs, there is no contradiction. Having no morals whatsoever would be inhuman.

Mikeb85 10y ago

This. Everytime I feel bad about eating meat, I just watch Planet Earth.

PerfectElement 10y ago
Are there any other situations where you look up to lions as the compass for your ethical conduct?
- scardine 10y ago
  Honest question, why not? Are you better than lions? Are you better than sharks? Are you better than the bacteria in your guts? They all are pretty successful. Humans are so arrogant.
  - booleandilemma 10y ago
    Arrogant, maybe, but we're the only species that has the wherewithal to expand life as we know it beyond this one rock. The future of the DNA that we all share (animals, plants, fungi, bacteria) is riding on us.
  - PerfectElement 10y ago
    Straw man. I never asked who is better, specially because that word doesn't mean anything on its own. Better than lions in which aspect? Lions are much better than me at hunting, but on making moral judgements that aim to minimize harm, I think I am better. If you go down the road of basing your morals on what lions do, you will end up trying to justify why infanticide is a good practice when a father dies. Or why might makes right. I agree that humans are arrogant. That is pretty evident in the way they treat other species.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

To sidestep the ethical debate, I'd point out that your presumption that all other animals would simply "eat you" is itself anthropocentric, and incorrect. Many other species show the capacity for affection and altruism.

PerfectElement 10y ago

Are you saying that we shouldn't have any moral consideration towards beings that don't have the cognitive capacity to understand ethics? If that's the case, do you think it's okay if a human sets a dog on fire just for fun? How about mentally challenged humans? Should their pain be disregarded? P.S: I didn't down vote.

virmundi 10y ago
I'm arguing that any moral consideration you have is arbitrary. If you want to protect dogs, go ahead. If the person lighting them kills you in the process, I can't necessarily say it's wrong, as an agnostic. If you can band together with other pro-life dog watchers, you can probably force your view. You don't have any more hold on the Truth than the Dog Lighters of America. You're not more legitimate in an ultimate sense. It comes down to, who can create a board with the biggest nail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II). I just want people to realize that.
- PerfectElement 10y ago
  No, it's not arbitrary at all. It's based on the concept that inflicting pain and suffering on another being should be justified. I'm sure that given the choice between not being tortured and being tortured, you would pick the former. And that's because you recognize that pain -even if subjective and sometimes necessary- is a negative feeling for the one experiencing it. What's arbitrary is saying that you don't want to inflict pain on human babies but are okay with inflicting pain on baby pigs, assuming both are equally capable of experiencing pain and distress. You are picking an arbitrary trait (species) and ignoring the relevant one (ability to feel pain).

azakai 10y ago

> Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Alternatively, some scientists and philosophers believe that ethics predate human beings - that they exist in many if not all social animals. In other words, some basic ethical emotions evolved. They then form the basis for our more sophisticated ethical and legal systems. Also, while you can argue that at some level the universe is "amoral" - it's just particles and laws of physics, right? - you can see that logic requires similar ethical systems in all social creatures. Things like "don't harm others, reciprocate help that you receive, help your elders, protect the young, etc." At some level, those derive logically for social organisms. So one could argue that such ethical laws are fixed and given in the same way that higher mathematics is fixed and given.

__s 10y ago
The mathematics of ethics is very much rooted in Game Theory

elastic_church 10y ago

> Really down voting because you don't agree? High expectations for someone thats been here for almost 10 years But I should correct you, ALL ethics are manmade, although I'm sure you are aware because anybody that would say that has accepted nihilism and the futility of moral relativity.

virmundi 10y ago
> High expectations for someone thats been here for almost 10 years. A) now you've gone and made me feel old. :( B) I hope to raise awareness about how HN should be. I'm not making a rallying cry, "Make HN Great Again!" We should be more civil. People coming in for the first time might not know that.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  Okay, I agree with the civility, I wasn't trying to be hurtful

zematis 10y ago

There's quite a bit of philosophical support behind the view that there are objective moral truths. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ for a not so brief overview. Also related is moral cognitivism and/or noncognitivism (are moral statements factual statements, or more like expressions of emotion, preference or command?). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ Here's a drastically simplified argument for moral realism: 1. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering. 2. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering, I am personally making a factual claim. 3. My intuition of 1. provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true. Addendum: When dealing with philosophy, often intuitions are the best evidence we've got. 4. If I have the intuition described in 1, 1 is a factual claim, and my intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is some evidence of an objective moral fact. C. Therefore, there is some evidence of an objective moral fact. Finally, here's a survey of academic philosophers. You can Ctrl-F for "moral realism" and "cognitivism" to see what proportion of philosophers hold these views. You'll note that both views have >50% support. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl Of course, a view's popularity doesn't guarantee its truth. But Philosphers aren't dummies, so it does show that it's at least plausible. Edit: formatting & philpapers link

virmundi 10y ago
I'm a theist. I totally agree that there are absolute truths. You're logic breaks down at step 2. If I don't agree with 1, your whole argument breaks down. In my experience debating philosophy throughout my education, seldom is there a Joker as in Heath Ledger's character. If a person fully believes that others don't count, at all, then the rule breaks down. Take a counter example: homosexuals. Most societies, regardless of source, were anti-homosexual. This is historically accurate (modern times are uprooting them, but let's say we're in the 1950's). 1. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality. 2. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality, I am personally making a factual claim. 3. My intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true. 4. If I have the intuition describe in 1, 1 is a factual claim, and my intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is some evidence of an objective moral fact. C. Therefore, there is some evidence for any objective moral fact. We've now shown an implication that homosexuality is in fact immoral in a general sense. Are we ok with this? Why? Why not? Our ethics and morality, sans a center like an unmoved mover, can vacillate. Sometimes this is "good" (such as gay or interracial marriage [I am neither]) for me as it brings improved economic conditions that selfishly improve my lot directly or possibly, which I arbitrarily deem as good, from an agnostic world view. Sometimes it's "bad" (for example expelling Jews from the Spain since it took the engineers and literate people, which limited economic freedom and would have probably negatively impacted my Spanish life if my present personality and general thoughtful profession was true then). As a quick aside for the postulate of cultural issues with homosexuality, http://news.trust.org//item/20140516162146-jipm9/ http://news.trust.org//item/20140516162146-jipm9/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome which shows that Rome did not really have a great view of homosexual relationship. You didn't want to be the receiver. If you were, you were property.

asciimo 10y ago

They would eat us for their own survival. We are now at a technological point that we eat them for our own pleasure. I argue that the latter if frivolous.