3 ms·

Sorry for the way I put it. The meaning was "argument without a moral stand". If moral is considered logic, they are false. If moral is not considered automatic

Sorry for the way I put it. The meaning was "argument without a moral stand". If moral is considered logic, they are false. If moral is not considered automatically as logic, then most of us faced, or will face, a situation where their choice will be based on moral, and thus not logic?

grondilu 12y ago
Let me replace the issue in its context. In the article it is written that the current extinction is the only one that is due to a singular species. I do believe this is pretty much wrong considering how likely it is that the biggest paleontological extinction event was due to an archaean genus (not a species, but pretty damn close). If someone states that 2+2 = 5, should I shut up and not state that 2+2 = 4 in case some people give this fact some bad moral interpretation?
- DodgyEggplant 12y ago
  I would suggest a different context. If someone states that 2+2 = 5, and at the same time he/she states that somebody is bleeding to death nearby, now - than the 2+2=5 is the less important statement, if at all. But the real issue is that it's far from 2+2=5. Consuming the biosphere is not gas release. It is a moral choice that individuals, communities and nations can change daily.
  - grondilu 12y ago
    > Consuming the biosphere is not gas release. It is a moral choice that individuals, communities and nations can change daily. They can, but they don't. I don't understand your point. The choice you're talking about is being made. It's not because you don't like it that it doesn't exist. In any case what matters is what is actually done, not what could be done in an ideal world. So to me the impact of methanosarcina on the environment is indeed comparable to the impact of Homo sapiens, in the sense that both are extinctions induced by biotic agents.
krick 12y ago
What is "moral"? I can ask 5 different people and get 5 different answers, unless they are all raised and properly brainwashed in the same cultural group.
- DodgyEggplant 12y ago
  Correct. When we speak of moral we assume that there are choices, and then you pick one. If there is no choice, there is no moral. The description of what happened to animals and wildlife (especially from the 20th century) as a deterministic force of nature, a.k.a gas release, can lead us to think that this is how evolution works, no choice, no moral. You can say "I support ivory jewels" or "I object ivory jewels". Both opinions are very different than saying "ivory jewels is a natural force of nature like gas release". The level of nature depletion by humans is, to some extent, a choice.
  - krick 12y ago
    Not really. You can speak of moral only if you are one of these 5 people who made a "choice". And, in fact, only if you are talking to people, that support your choice. In other case your speaking of moral is nothing more than saying "I'm right because I think I'm right" which isn't really an argument. So, to be able to think about the world more clearly the "neutral position" is invented. There's no moral, no good or bad, there's just stuff that happens, causes and effects. And from that point of view primate, making nuclear weapons and causing extinction of the species is no different from some bacteria, who filled atmosphere with metane. But that, again, has nothing to do with what actual author of this thread was saying. So I'm saying it only to point out that your appeal to morality is invalid. And if you'd ask me, I don't want elephants to extinct, but that doesn't make neutral arguments bad. It might be my position that goes against neutral one, but speaking is not really of much value in that case.
    - DodgyEggplant 12y ago
      That's my point. We are one of those 5 people. Daily. What we consume, eat, how we influence others, the agenda we vote for, is a choice. The bacteria has no such choice, we do. So we can, and should, take a moral stand. Always.

grondilu 12y ago

Let me replace the issue in its context. In the article it is written that the current extinction is the only one that is due to a singular species. I do believe this is pretty much wrong considering how likely it is that the biggest paleontological extinction event was due to an archaean genus (not a species, but pretty damn close). If someone states that 2+2 = 5, should I shut up and not state that 2+2 = 4 in case some people give this fact some bad moral interpretation?

DodgyEggplant 12y ago
I would suggest a different context. If someone states that 2+2 = 5, and at the same time he/she states that somebody is bleeding to death nearby, now - than the 2+2=5 is the less important statement, if at all. But the real issue is that it's far from 2+2=5. Consuming the biosphere is not gas release. It is a moral choice that individuals, communities and nations can change daily.
- grondilu 12y ago
  > Consuming the biosphere is not gas release. It is a moral choice that individuals, communities and nations can change daily. They can, but they don't. I don't understand your point. The choice you're talking about is being made. It's not because you don't like it that it doesn't exist. In any case what matters is what is actually done, not what could be done in an ideal world. So to me the impact of methanosarcina on the environment is indeed comparable to the impact of Homo sapiens, in the sense that both are extinctions induced by biotic agents.

krick 12y ago

What is "moral"? I can ask 5 different people and get 5 different answers, unless they are all raised and properly brainwashed in the same cultural group.

DodgyEggplant 12y ago
Correct. When we speak of moral we assume that there are choices, and then you pick one. If there is no choice, there is no moral. The description of what happened to animals and wildlife (especially from the 20th century) as a deterministic force of nature, a.k.a gas release, can lead us to think that this is how evolution works, no choice, no moral. You can say "I support ivory jewels" or "I object ivory jewels". Both opinions are very different than saying "ivory jewels is a natural force of nature like gas release". The level of nature depletion by humans is, to some extent, a choice.
- krick 12y ago
  Not really. You can speak of moral only if you are one of these 5 people who made a "choice". And, in fact, only if you are talking to people, that support your choice. In other case your speaking of moral is nothing more than saying "I'm right because I think I'm right" which isn't really an argument. So, to be able to think about the world more clearly the "neutral position" is invented. There's no moral, no good or bad, there's just stuff that happens, causes and effects. And from that point of view primate, making nuclear weapons and causing extinction of the species is no different from some bacteria, who filled atmosphere with metane. But that, again, has nothing to do with what actual author of this thread was saying. So I'm saying it only to point out that your appeal to morality is invalid. And if you'd ask me, I don't want elephants to extinct, but that doesn't make neutral arguments bad. It might be my position that goes against neutral one, but speaking is not really of much value in that case.
  - DodgyEggplant 12y ago
    That's my point. We are one of those 5 people. Daily. What we consume, eat, how we influence others, the agenda we vote for, is a choice. The bacteria has no such choice, we do. So we can, and should, take a moral stand. Always.