Your opinion: Do animals have souls?

[Niirewen]

I had a conversation today with a man at my church who strongly believes that animals do not have the capacity to feel love or emotion, and that pets are only attached to their owners because they feed them. I'm not very knowledgable on this subject, but being an animal lover, I disagreed, and continue to disagree with him. I thought this might be a good topic for discussion and I was wondering if some of you would care to give your opinions. So, what do you think?

[Thorin]

Your question seem to be two fold:

1) Do animals have souls?

2) Do animals show love and emotion.

The answer to # 2 is a definite yes and not just because you feed them (unless they are cats :D ) Anybody who says otherwise might learn from observing, nevermind watching the discovery channel.

The answer to # 1 is a definite no if you are talking about some essence that survives death and floats around to 'doggy heaven'. For that matter, neither does mankind.

The Bible says that all creatures have the breath of life. The essence of life that God gave at creation is in us. It also says that when something dies, the body returns to dust and the breath to God who gave it. This breath is not conscious or immortal, but the life spark that made us alive. All animals and people ARE souls. They do not HAVE them (see Genesis 2:1,2). The immortality of the soul is a Greek dualistic belief, not a Christian or Hebraic belief.

Regardless of that, do I believe that God will resurrect and restore our beloved pets in heaven? We can only assume, but I would say yes. For some people, the only loved ones they've had were their pets. Pets who loved them unconditionally and stayed by their side loyally for 10-20 years. I would think that God loves us enough that he would want us to be happy with any sort of 'loved one' in heaven. Of course it is all speculation.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I had a conversation today with a man at my church who strongly believes that animals do not have the capacity to feel love or emotion, and that pets are only attached to their owners because they feed them. I'm not very knowledgable on this subject, but being an animal lover, I disagreed, and continue to disagree with him. I thought this might be a good topic for discussion and I was wondering if some of you would care to give your opinions. So, what do you think?

I think that the first thing to be decided is what a soul is. Western religion defines a soul as the "essential you" that lives in your body and that goes to heaven or hell, depending. Eastern religion says that there is only one soul, and that's God, and we're all of us God, just as each wave is the ocean.

As for animals. I posted this elsewhere, but I think it fits here: I once saw, on a TV show, a mother harp seal weeping for her child as she saw it being bludgeoned and then skinned alive so that its fur could be used as a coat for some rich lady. I have seen dogs leap with love for their owner, and/or for their children. So as far as I'm concerned, animals have more than just "live bodies." By the way, some Eastern religions say that people reincarnate as animals if they screwed up, and that animals can eventually evolve into humans, to say nothing of American Indian beliefs in the powers of animals.

I think what's important is to treat both animals and ourselves and each other well, and the rest will take care of itself.

Lotho

[Niirewen]

You're right, Thorin, my question is sort of two-fold, it's just that he thought of the two as almost the same (animals do not feel emotion, therefore they have no souls, and vice versa), but they probably should be approached as two different questions. Anyway, I appreciate both of your opinions, and your informaion is very helpful, especially your references to the Bible, Thorin. If the same discussion ever comes up again I will be well prepared. Thank you!

:)

[celebdraug]

animals are just the same ah humans in most ways. they move and eat and sleep and all, so they have sould too (if you believe humans have souls too).
All living beings have souls!

[Merry]

Definition: In the Bible, "soul" is translated from the Hebrew ne´phesh and the Greek psy·khe´. Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. To many persons, however, "soul" means the immaterial or spirit part of a human being that survives the death of the physical body. Others understand it to be the principle of life. But these latter views are not Bible teachings.

Where does the Bible say that animals are souls?

Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 25: "God went on to say: 'Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls* . . . ' And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. . . . And God went on to say: 'Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds . . . ' And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind." (*In Hebrew the word here is ne´phesh. Ro reads "soul." Some translations use the rendering "creature[s].")

Lev. 24:17, 18: "In case a man strikes any soul [Hebrew, ne´phesh] of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul [Hebrew, ne´phesh] of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul." (Notice that the same Hebrew word for soul is applied to both mankind and animals.)

Rev. 16:3: "It became blood as of a dead man, and every living soul* died, yes, the things in the sea." (Thus the Christian Greek Scriptures also show animals to be souls.) (*In Greek the word here is psy·khe´. KJ, AS, and Dy render it "soul." Some translators use the term "creature" or "thing.")

[Beleg]

Lotho what's your defination of eastern religion?

[Barliman Butterbur]

animals are just the same ah humans in most ways. they move and eat and sleep and all, so they have sould too (if you believe humans have souls too).
All living beings have souls!

As you said: IF you believe humans have souls too. I think what we're getting at is, does our essential "I-ness" survive death? This, for me, is something neither provable nor disprovable, although it sure would be nice to finally get to an eternal realm akin to heaven!

Lotho

[Barliman Butterbur]

Lotho what's your definition of eastern religion?

Well, basically Hinduism and Buddhism. In one of my posts I outlined the basic tenets of Hinduism (which was appreciated by some of the readers here, I suggest looking it up by doing that search thingie), and the main difference between the two is that one postulates the existence of God and the other (Buddhism) doesn't. I float between the two, that's why I consider myself an agnostic.

Lotho

AFTERPOST EDIT: Have we finally gotten rid of those quotebox scrollbars? Yippee!:D

[Thorin]

Definition: In the Bible, "soul" is translated from the Hebrew ne´phesh and the Greek psy·khe´. Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. To many persons, however, "soul" means the immaterial or spirit part of a human being that survives the death of the physical body. Others understand it to be the principle of life. But these latter views are not Bible teachings.

:eek: Wow! I thought I was the only member on this forum who believed this! Another Bible following believer! Who-hoo! There aren't many of them, that's for sure! (I'm probably going to get my hands slapped for that comment!)

[Eriol]

:eek: Wow! I thought I was the only member on this forum who believed this! Another Bible following believer! Who-hoo! There aren't many of them, that's for sure! (I'm probably going to get my hands slapped for that comment!)

:D

*slaps Thorin's hands*

When this thread was opened I thought I'd wait a while to see the problems of ambiguous usage of the word "soul" sorted out. It was a good move, and the discussion was very good as regards that.

If "soul" is to be taken in the "Bible sense" espoused by Merry and Thorin, I think that animals have souls. One question, though, for Merry: what is the difference between "the life that a person or an animal enjoys" (the Bible teaching) and "the principle of life" (a non-Biblical teaching according to you)?

However, I see no linkage between soul in the Biblical (Genesis) sense and the expression of emotions. Can animals feel love? Heck, I know people who can't :D. But "emotion" is also an ambiguous word. Most of us include things such as fear and sexual drive under "emotion", and there is no doubt that higher animals feel this. When we discuss love, however, I think we have gone beyond the animal ability.

Finally, I see no linkage between soul in the Biblical sense and the belief in a part of the self that survives death. One does not contradict the other, or to state it more clearly, humans can have a soul and a spirit, while animals have only a soul.

My opinion is: we don't have enough data for any firm opinion ;). I think animals and plants have "souls" in the biblical sense; I believe that humans have an immortal spirit; I think that animals can't feel love.

[Celebthôl]

My opinion is: we don't have enough data for any firm opinion ;). I think animals and plants have "souls" in the biblical sense; I believe that humans have an immortal spirit; I think that animals can't feel love.
Ahhh, but if it comes to that, how do we (humans) know that we have souls? We don't have "enough data for any firm opinion" there either ;) we can have faith and all, but theres not really anything to suggest either way of it ;)

[Thorin]

:DFinally, I see no linkage between soul in the Biblical sense and the belief in a part of the self that survives death. One does not contradict the other, or to state it more clearly, humans can have a soul and a spirit, while animals have only a soul.

My opinion is: we don't have enough data for any firm opinion ;). I think animals and plants have "souls" in the biblical sense; I believe that humans have an immortal spirit; I think that animals can't feel love.Ah, my dear Eriol. When are you going to start putting more validity to what is in the Bible? There is ample enough resource to show that there is no such thing as a difference between "mortal soul" and "immortal spirit". There is nothing at ALL to suggest one lives on and the other doesn't. Interesting that your view seems to differ on the typical Catholic belief that the 'soul' survives death (i.e. man has an immortal soul, animals do not) Now it is not the soul, but the 'spirit' that is immortal? On the contrary the spirit is nothing more than the spark(breath) that creates life (soul). When one ceases to exist, so does the other. The spirit returns to God who gave it (as given evidence by Job, Solomon, Stephen being stoned and Christ on the cross) but it is not immortal, nor is it translated or used in the scriptures as being immortal. It is the life principle (probably more metaphoric). You cannot look at the word for 'spirit' used in these instances and interpret it as immortal.

We've been through this before.

I can guarantee that you are going to have to rely on your "sacred tradition" to back up your views, because it isn't in the Bible (from which your church is supposed to have derived their beliefs from). Of course Paul and all the other disciples believed in resurrection, not immortality so you're going to have to rely on 'church tradition' not apostolic tradition.

Conclusion: both animals and humans do not have souls, but are souls. Mankind will be resurrected to immortality at the second coming of Christ and all life will be restored in the New World at the end of time (maybe even including our beloved pets).

[omnipotent_elf]

This may come as a sock to most people, BUT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY THING LIVING ON THE PLANET. AS SUCH, NOT EVERYTHING IS BASED ON US.
additionally, whether animals have a soul or not shouldn't be determined on christian beliefs- nor any religious beliefs, cause as far as we all know, they dont have any religion.

now as you seem intent on presenting the widely practiced (on this forum anyways) christian belief - for an alternative view : look at buddhist
- if they are to be believed than animals do have a soul. They gain it through reincarnation. One of the things I love about buddhism, is that it is possible that the humans only gained their "soul" through reincarnation. It is possible that the animal orignally contained the sould, and that through re-incarnation a human gained what was once an animals soul. (but dont get me wrong, i myself am not a firm believer in re-incarnation, just putting froward a belief system which i happen to understand and i think is more feasible....juts my humble opinion)


Conclusion: both animals and humans do not have souls, but are souls. Mankind will be resurrected to immortality at the second coming of Christ and all life will be restored in the New World at the end of time (maybe even including our beloved pets). .

Human beings will almost ensure that the world is uninhabitable anyways, but what makes you think that humans will be the ones who will be resurrected?. Hmm? They have done nothing to the world, except kill, enslave and destroy. They even overpopulate. To me, this idea that humans will be resurrected is highly foolish. Humans have done nothing to warrent a resurrection.... but this is getting of topic

[Barliman Butterbur]

Ahhh, but if it comes to that, how do we (humans) know that we have souls? We don't have "enough data for any firm opinion" there either ;) we can have faith and all, but theres not really anything to suggest either way of it ;)

My kinda guy!:D

Lotho

[Eriol]

Ahhh, but if it comes to that, how do we (humans) know that we have souls? We don't have "enough data for any firm opinion" there either ;) we can have faith and all, but theres not really anything to suggest either way of it ;)

I have immediate data about my own self; more immediate than any other kind of data. There's plenty of data there. I have no access to data about animals' selves. Also, "soul" in the Biblical sense (used - so far - in this thread) is obviously present in humans. I think you are referring to an immortal self :).

We've been through this before.

Yep :D. I don't have any qualms about relying on sacred tradition. My Church is not supposed to have "derived" its beliefs from the Bible; my Church wrote the Bible, and had beliefs before there was any Christian Bible. It's the other way around, the Bible is supposed to have derived from my Church ;). And I never said that my views on "spirit" are Biblical. I said they don't contradict the Bible. We have also been through this before :).

I simply call the immortal self "spirit" to avoid confusion with the word "soul". The more technical term would be "intellectual soul", but I hope (hehe) that what I mean by "soul" and "spirit" in this thread is clear.

additionally, whether animals have a soul or not shouldn't be determined on christian beliefs- nor any religious beliefs, cause as far as we all know, they dont have any religion.

Does this means that atheists and agnostics (without any religion) don't have a soul? hehe, just a joke. I agree, Christian beliefs do not determine anything. They are either right or wrong. Reality is the real thing (an interesting turn of phrase).

The inquiry is about reality, not about Christian beliefs. Nonetheless, Christians have beliefs, and have reasons behind the beliefs. Just as Buddhists ;). We have to decide what is more likely to be true. Christians are sometimes considered "blind believers", but we have very good reasons to believe... you'd be surprised ;).

[celebdraug]

The Soul is the essential to all living beings, wether them being humans or animals!

The soul is something that cant be touched, smelt, sely, IT IS JUST THERE!

[Merry]

:D

If "soul" is to be taken in the "Bible sense" espoused by Merry and Thorin, I think that animals have souls. One question, though, for Merry: what is the difference between "the life that a person or an animal enjoys" (the Bible teaching) and "the principle of life" (a non-Biblical teaching according to you)?


I agree with the statement that humans and animals are souls rather than we have souls.

Not at any point do I suggest that humans and animals share the same standard of mental and emotional thoughts. God clearly made animals to be in subjection to us and Jesus Christ came to the earth and died on our behalf and not for pets (or else he could have come to save the earth in the form of a lion or horse which is a rediculus idea).

The Bible account shows that, of all earth's creatures, only man was made in God's image and likeness. He was given dominion over all others of earth's creatures. (Gen. 1:26-28) Though interested in the animal creation and in naming its many members, Adam "found no helper as a complement of him" among them. (Gen. 2:19, 20) They were all subhuman, well described by Jesus' disciples Peter and Jude as "unreasoning animals."-2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10.

True, animals play, they display emotions such as pleasure, depression, affection, fear, anger and anxiety. They also differ from one another as individuals, showing distinctive characteristics between kinds and within kinds. Yet, as Hans Bauer, on the basis of much evidence and research, points out in his book Animals Are Quite Different (translated from German by James Cleugh): "However much [an animal's] actions may resemble, in their effects, those of human beings . . . it is never upon abstract ideas that an animal bases its career or even the separate acts of which that career is composed. . . . Nothing an animal does or omits to do ever happens anywhere in consequence of a train of ideas, deliberate consideration or belief." Rather, he concludes, "It is a result of the environmental conditions with which the animal has to cope."-Page 34; compare Psalm 32:9.

Humans, by contrast, can form ideas, they can use deductive and inductive reasoning, reaching conclusions that require going from a specific case or incident to the formation of a general rule, or they can reason from cause to effect or effect to cause. Man can therefore use knowledge and understanding gained from past experiences to solve new problems that arise. He can thus consciously and of his own will build on his knowledge and understanding. He can also comprehend, believe in and hold to standards of right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice. Animals can do none of these things.

[Merry]

Human beings will almost ensure that the world is uninhabitable anyways, but what makes you think that humans will be the ones who will be resurrected?. Hmm? They have done nothing to the world, except kill, enslave and destroy. They even overpopulate. To me, this idea that humans will be resurrected is highly foolish. Humans have done nothing to warrent a resurrection.... but this is getting of topic

Maybe you should start a thread as you have some interesting points here. If you would be good enough to tolerate my use of the christian bible one more time you will read at Revelation 11:18:

18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth."

Mankind has a lot to answer for and the bible talks about their future but notice the scripture at Psalm 37:29:

The righteous themselves will possess the earth,
And they will reside forever upon it.

Not all humans are destined for the chop!!

[HLGStrider]

additionally, whether animals have a soul or not shouldn't be determined on christian beliefs- nor any religious beliefs, cause as far as we all know, they dont have any religion.
This is like saying that whether animals have thyroid glands or not shouldn't be determined by medicine because animals don't practice medicine.

They either have it or they don't. It doesn't matter whether they know they have it or not. If I don't know I have a thyroid gland, I still have one. . .unless you stole it. Who has my thyroid gland!

[Dr. Ransom]

Ah, I did find another philosophy thread! I'm so happy now.

Ok, a few things to point out.

To those working from a Christian worldview:

Thorin and Eriol, the belief that mankind is essentially 2 parts; body and soul/spirit is Dicotomism. 3 parts, body, soul and spirit is Tricotomism. Sometimes the Bible seems to deliniate between Soul and Spirit, and sometimes there interchangable. I tend to lean towards the Dicotomist position just because it's more simple... but than that might be the dualistic influence ;-) The only difference between humans and animals that the bible expliciately mentioned in the Bible that i know of is the reference to man being imago dei or, in the image of God. There are plenty of other places that seem to hint at what that means, but nothing is explicately pointed out. Thorin, I hold the text to be authoritive, so if I'm wrong point it out... but learn a bit of the positive side of post-modernism and don't bash Eriol so bad for holding his only slightly heretical views ;-) lol

As for the eternality of the soul, I fail to see why it makes a difference. We know that ultimately only God is truely eternal, without beginning or end. Whether it is natural law that causes resurrection, or a product of direct intervention seems superfilous to me. Even anhiliationism is possible reguardless of probable, to say otherwise would contradict soverienty. I'm just thinking this through guys, so please comment on this paragraph.

To the pagans (lol):

It is extremely important to discuss philosophy and theology in a context such as this for 2 reasons:

1. To not discuss the ultimate questions, both cause and effect of belief, will allow a person to hold contradictory opinions; which is illogical and dissuades any argument or pursuasiveness they might otherwise have had, which is why this was a rediculous thing to say (though I understand it was ment as humor and I did not fail to laugh): "whether animals have a soul or not shouldn't be determined on christian beliefs- nor any religious beliefs, cause as far as we all know, they dont have any religion.

2. Since science and observation will only go so far in discussing metaphysics, we must rely on our God given intellect and logic to guide us. Some of us believe in a source of authority (i.e. the Bible). So to not use that authority to shape our thinking would be illogical. Think about it. Everybody has a worldview coming from somewhere, it's impossible not too, to deny this is not to learn the positive lessons of Post-Modernism.


As to my personal Opinion? God can do whatever he wants, either resurrect animals or not. We know from Biblical passages that animals will be in the Kingdom, whether they're new creation or re-creation doesn't seem to matter, since animals don't seem to have a mind, only a brain. The difference between the two is another million mile long philosophical hitchike which I don't really understand and will avoid for now.

Ransom

[Lantarion]

I feel that the Buddhist view of 'souls' is the closest to my own..
It holds that all things have a soul of their own: people, animals, plants, everything. It is only their physcial forms, the veils in front of their true being (a lot like the hröar of Tolkien!), that we perceive within our world, Maya.
And what I also hold to be close to my own perceptions is that in the end everything is apart, or not apart but simply is one single soul, called Atman (I believe).

So yes in my opinion animals do have souls. :)
But I do not equate the soul with consciousness; whether animals have consciousness or not is another matter.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Ah, I did find another philosophy thread! I'm so happy now.

Ok, a few things to point out.

To those working from a Christian worldview:

Thorin and Eriol, the belief that mankind is essentially 2 parts; body and soul/spirit is Dicotomism. 3 parts, body, soul and spirit is Tricotomism. Sometimes the Bible seems to deliniate between Soul and Spirit, and sometimes there interchangable. I tend to lean towards the Dicotomist position just because it's more simple... but than that might be the dualistic influence ;-) The only difference between humans and animals that the bible expliciately mentioned in the Bible that i know of is the reference to man being imago dei or, in the image of God. There are plenty of other places that seem to hint at what that means, but nothing is explicately pointed out. Thorin, I hold the text to be authoritive, so if I'm wrong point it out... but learn a bit of the positive side of post-modernism and don't bash Eriol so bad for holding his only slightly heretical views ;-) lol

As for the eternality of the soul, I fail to see why it makes a difference. We know that ultimately only God is truely eternal, without beginning or end. Whether it is natural law that causes resurrection, or a product of direct intervention seems superfilous to me. Even anhiliationism is possible reguardless of probable, to say otherwise would contradict soverienty. I'm just thinking this through guys, so please comment on this paragraph.

To the pagans (lol):

It is extremely important to discuss philosophy and theology in a context such as this for 2 reasons:

1. To not discuss the ultimate questions, both cause and effect of belief, will allow a person to hold contradictory opinions; which is illogical and dissuades any argument or pursuasiveness they might otherwise have had, which is why this was a rediculous thing to say (though I understand it was ment as humor and I did not fail to laugh):

2. Since science and observation will only go so far in discussing metaphysics, we must rely on our God given intellect and logic to guide us. Some of us believe in a source of authority (i.e. the Bible). So to not use that authority to shape our thinking would be illogical. Think about it. Everybody has a worldview coming from somewhere, it's impossible not too, to deny this is not to learn the positive lessons of Post-Modernism.


As to my personal Opinion? God can do whatever he wants, either resurrect animals or not. We know from Biblical passages that animals will be in the Kingdom, whether they're new creation or re-creation doesn't seem to matter, since animals don't seem to have a mind, only a brain. The difference between the two is another million mile long philosophical hitchike which I don't really understand and will avoid for now.

Ransom

All I know for sure is, if animals wore shoes they'd have soles!:D

Lotho

[HLGStrider]

All I know for sure is, if animals wore shoes they'd have soles
Gosh. . .I wish I'd thought of that answer. . .and at least one animal is a sole! (The fish. . .)

[Barliman Butterbur]

Gosh. . .I wish I'd thought of that answer. . .and at least one animal is a sole! (The fish. . .)

Now just WAIT A MINNOW! I hope your not going to start CARPING on this!:p

Lotho

[e.Blackstar]

I have a very simple answer to this:look at all of the animals (cats, dogs, and the like) who have risked their own lives to save a stranger. I beleive that animals have souls in terms of complex emotions, not, per se, particular religious views.

[Helcaraxë]

I agree with the statement that humans and animals are souls rather than we have souls.

Not at any point do I suggest that humans and animals share the same standard of mental and emotional thoughts. God clearly made animals to be in subjection to us and Jesus Christ came to the earth and died on our behalf and not for pets (or else he could have come to save the earth in the form of a lion or horse which is a rediculus idea).

The Bible account shows that, of all earth's creatures, only man was made in God's image and likeness. He was given dominion over all others of earth's creatures. (Gen. 1:26-28) Though interested in the animal creation and in naming its many members, Adam "found no helper as a complement of him" among them. (Gen. 2:19, 20) They were all subhuman, well described by Jesus' disciples Peter and Jude as "unreasoning animals."-2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10.

True, animals play, they display emotions such as pleasure, depression, affection, fear, anger and anxiety. They also differ from one another as individuals, showing distinctive characteristics between kinds and within kinds. Yet, as Hans Bauer, on the basis of much evidence and research, points out in his book Animals Are Quite Different (translated from German by James Cleugh): "However much [an animal's] actions may resemble, in their effects, those of human beings . . . it is never upon abstract ideas that an animal bases its career or even the separate acts of which that career is composed. . . . Nothing an animal does or omits to do ever happens anywhere in consequence of a train of ideas, deliberate consideration or belief." Rather, he concludes, "It is a result of the environmental conditions with which the animal has to cope."-Page 34; compare Psalm 32:9.

Humans, by contrast, can form ideas, they can use deductive and inductive reasoning, reaching conclusions that require going from a specific case or incident to the formation of a general rule, or they can reason from cause to effect or effect to cause. Man can therefore use knowledge and understanding gained from past experiences to solve new problems that arise. He can thus consciously and of his own will build on his knowledge and understanding. He can also comprehend, believe in and hold to standards of right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice. Animals can do none of these things.

"God clearly made animals in subjection to us."? I cannot disagree more. Let me give you an example. A person is so mentally disabled that they cannot form any coherent thought. They cannot use reasoning. Do they deserve to live less than us? Should they be in subjection to us? Did God make the person in subjection to us? Animals, if anything deserve to live more than people. They do not destroy the world. If Jesus came to Earth to save people and not animals, than I would say that Jesus is self-centered and narrow-mined. Humans are animals as much as elphants or lions. The very notion that humans are in some way "superior" to animals enrages me.

MB

[Eriol]

The very notion that humans are in some way "superior" to animals enrages me.

MB

Humans are superior to animals in many ways, just as animals are superior to humans in many ways. You can't swim as well as a dolphin, or run as well as a gazelle, but there is one thing (among others) that you can do that they can't, and it is to get enraged over a notion ;).

Food for thought... of course there is more things that you can do such as play a piano or write a sonnet (even if you are a bad player or poet :D), but moral indignation is one of the most startling differences.

[Helcaraxë]

What I meant when I said "superior" was the notion that they are "of a higher level of existence". Of course they are mentally superior, but that should make no difference in how they are treated.

MB

[Eriol]

Why not? What is the basis of ethics, for you?

I wouldn't say that it is "mental superiority" -- in that I agree with you -- but I don't see how it follows from this that all life forms should be treated in the same way.

Indeed, for me it is the ability to feel moral indignation -- in other words, moral awareness -- that is the defining characteristic of a moral agent, and for me only moral agents have rights. Non-moral agents are oblivious to what we do to them, precisely because they are non-moral.

[Helcaraxë]

How are non-moral agents oblivious to what we do to them? A cat can feel pain and it is not a moral agent. And as I said, simply because a being is less intelligent or not self-aware does not negate our responsibility to care for them and respect them, simply because they are alive. And only moral agents have rights? So the mentally disabled person I mentioned earlier has no rights? Who are you to say that something has no rights? What gives you that prerogative to say that anything has no rights? Should you be the moral standard by which the world is judged?

MB

[Eriol]

How are non-moral agents oblivious to what we do to them? A cat can feel pain and it is not a moral agent. And as I said, simply because a being is less intelligent or not self-aware does not negate our responsibility to care for them and respect them, simply because they are alive. And only moral agents have rights? So the mentally disabled person I mentioned earlier has no rights? Who are you to say that something has no rights? What gives you that prerogative to say that anything has no rights? Should you be the moral standard by which the world is judged?

MB

Wow, many questions. Will you answer mine if I answer yours? Remember, my question is "What is the basis of ethics, for you?"

Now to your questions.

How are non-moral agents oblivious to what we do to them? A cat can feel pain and it is not a moral agent.

He can feel pain, but he can't judge pain as good or evil, else he would be a moral agent. It is precisely the knowledge of good and evil that defines a moral agent.

And as I said, simply because a being is less intelligent or not self-aware does not negate our responsibility to care for them and respect them, simply because they are alive.

And this is the assertion that you must prove, somehow, if you want your ethics to be reasonable. Or is it an axiom that must be accepted as self-evident? I don't see why it is true. I don't care for ants or viruses. I don't see why I should have any responsibility to care for them as beings with intrinsic value.

And only moral agents have rights?

Yes, in my view.

So the mentally disabled person I mentioned earlier has no rights?

Not at all, because there is no reason to believe that a mentally disabled person is not a moral agent. It is intrinsic to the word person. Mentally disabled persons are clearly moral agents in that they have the awareness of moral categories (something that animals lack). It would be a greater challenge to my views to ask about babies and fetuses. But I can invoke the notion of potentiality (potential moral agents) to deal with that.

Who are you to say that something has no rights?

I'm the guy devising an ethical theory :D. Who are you to say that I can't say that something has no rights? Is it a moral absolute, "we can't decide which beings have rights?". You are in the same boat as I am, Morgoth's Bane... you are devising an ethical theory. So there is no reason to be shocked at my presumption, since it is as big as yours and as that of all who ever thought about such matters.

What gives you that prerogative to say that anything has no rights?

My reason, and the fact that I'm trying to work out what exactly is a right, or what is not a right. Just as my reason gives me the prerogative to say that 2+2=4, and to say that the sky is blue, it also gives me the prerogative to establish what is a right and what isn't. The concept does not come out of the blue. It was devised by humans to explain a feature of the world as perceived by them. To try to understand the concept is simply... human :).

Should you be the moral standard by which the world is judged?

There is no specific impediment to that conclusion :D ;). However, I did not reach it, and did not say it. But if I did -- if I had concluded that "Eriol's opinions are the moral standard by which the world's is judged" -- then you would have to prove that this is a wrong conclusion; to be shocked would not suffice. Either ethics are rational, or they are not. If they are rational, they are liable to proof. If they are not, we're both wasting our time here :).

What I did say is that my reason is powerful enough to detect the values -- the moral standard -- by which the world is judged. This is not the same thing as to claim that I am the judge. Just as the discovery of algebra would not make me the judge of algebra.

Don't forget my question. What is the basis of ethics, for you? If you won't offer a counter-proposal I'll have to stick with mine -- that morally aware agents have intrinsic value, and that morally unaware beings (they don't merit the name of agents) don't have intrinsic value. It is self-consistent and it agrees with most moral codes of mankind. I don't see any problem with it. Perhaps you see, and you can point them out to me. However, in the absence of any problem with it and of any alternative, I must stick with it.

[Helcaraxë]

The cat does not understand morality, it is true. Does that make it right to inflict pain on a cat? The cat is oblivious to what we do to it, you say. Oblivious? Hardly. The cat is keenly aware of its own pain. So the argument that only moral agents have rights is a fallacious one.

For me the basis of ethics is a matter of equality. For the sole reason that an organism is alive, it deserves to exist. The level on which it exists is irrelevant. Whether or not it is a moral agent also makes absolutely no difference. An organism’s rights are not contingent of the magnitude of its understanding of morality. And saying that the disabled person is a moral agent is also groundless. They have no sense of morality, being so mentally disabled. How can they be a moral agent?

It is exactly because your moral code coincides with many others created by mankind that I find it immoral. Most of mankind's moral codes are self-centered, because most people do not understand properly the nature of the beings which they condemn as inferior.

MB

[Elfhelm25]

(All I know for sure is, if animals wore shoes they'd have soles!
Lotho )

This is quite possibly my favorite response anyone has given yet ! Kudos ! I had quite a chuckle over this one. Then again I am a fan of cheesy animal jokes. For example, what do you get when you cross a ....no wait, I won't put people through that pain.

Basically, humans have been around for maybe 100 000 years....civilisations for maybe 6000...... The world is about 6 billion years old. Animals have been around for billions of years. We have been around for thousands. And you're telling ME we're the ones with eternal souls ?????

PFFFFFFFFFFT!


Native Americans believed that EVERYTHING had a soul, trees, animals, even discarded objects. I find this very interesting.

Anyhoo, my point being who really knows what a soul is , anyways ? For all we know we could just be functioning directly from our brains and maybe NOTHING has a soul. Ok, I don't believe that. But it's still a valid option.

I like to think that everything that follows a cycle of life has a soul. And that nothing really dies. And that nothing is really superior to anything else. After all, every living thing in the world dies and thus becomes the same in the end- part of the earth. So everything for the most holiest of thous to the lowliest of the low, in any form, all end up biting the dust and decaying the same way. Which is a nice , humble thought, in my opinion. :cool:

EDIT (Added):P.S. I likes the way Morgoth'sBane thinks. :)

[Helcaraxë]

Lanty, did you sneak that in there? :eek: You little cheat! :eek: :D

Elfhelm, I also like the Native American perspective. It fosters a heathy mutual connection between a person and their surroundings and encourages a harmonious and benficial coexistence.

MB

[Eriol]

The cat does not understand morality, it is true. Does that make it right to inflict pain on a cat? The cat is oblivious to what we do to it, you say. Oblivious? Hardly. The cat is keenly aware of its own pain. So the argument that only moral agents have rights is a fallacious one.

Point out the fallacy, then, MB... It is clearly right to inflict pain in a cat to save a baby. Right? It is not right to inflict pain needlessly, but if the cat had a right to life just because it's alive, the food web would break and antibiotics would be murderous to all the bacteria.

And THAT's a fallacy.

If your proposal is "all living beings have rights", then you should kill yourself right now. Your survival is endangering to millions (quite literally, millions) of life forms that are threatened by it. The lesser evil is mass suicide of human beings. This may be a kind of ethic, but it is clearly not a human ethic. Any human ethic -- by definition -- serves human beings. You can't escape that...

It is exactly because your moral code coincides with many others created by mankind that I find it immoral. Most of mankind's moral codes are self-centered, because most people do not understand properly the nature of the beings which they condemn as inferior.


And it is precisely because YOU can find this code immoral -- ANY code immoral -- that you have a right to live according to YOUR code, and therefore any violence against you is a moral violence. To a being without moral awareness, there is no moral violence, hence no rights.

It may sound cold-hearted, but it is still true. And this does not mean we should inflict pain in animals needlessly (I wonder, from where did you deduce that??). But it DOES mean that if a man inflicts pain in an animal, it is in a different category than pain inflicted by animal on animal, or than pain inflicted by man on man.

[HLGStrider]

Does that make it right to inflict pain on a cat?
Yes, but not because the cat has a soul or is a moral agent, but because the cat is creature created by God and therefore belongs to him and is given to us only in stewardship.

But by the same token, even as an avid cat lover, I'd say there is nothing wrong with eating a cat anymore than there is something wrong with eating a cow.

It is exactly because your moral code coincides with many others created by mankind that I find it immoral.

Which doesn't strike me as a good reason to find something immoral. . .because it is like something else. It's like rejecting Islam because it is like Christianity in some ways or Christianity because it is like Judaism in some ways.

Man kind is the only creature that makes moral codes.
And you're telling ME we're the ones with eternal souls ?????
I don't get why because animals (not THESE animals, but animals in general) have been around longer they are the ones who should have immortal souls. Even in the creation theory, humans were made after animals, as the finishing touch.

I like to think that everything that follows a cycle of life has a soul. And that nothing really dies. And that nothing is really superior to anything else.
But is it true? Why do you think this? I don't believe nothing is superior, because somethings too obviously are.

It fosters a heathy mutual connection between a person and their surroundings and encourages a harmonious and benficial coexistence.
Generally, what I see in people and cultures that have this sort of value is a general insensitivity towards human life. India, for instance, where they have holy cows and infanticide. A lot of native cultures also devalued humanity.

Generally, without the understanding that humans are more than animals, humans become animals. After all, nature is a matter of the weak killing the strong. If humans are just another part of nature, they are no more held to any value of life than any other animal. If animals prey upon each other, why can't we as humans prey upon each other.

And it is a myth that animals only kill when they need to. My cat was just attacked by the neighbors dog who has killed two other neighborhood cats. That dog is more than well fed.

[Helcaraxë]

Point out the fallacy, then, MB... It is clearly right to inflict pain in a cat to save a baby. Right? It is not right to inflict pain needlessly, but if the cat had a right to life just because it's alive, the food web would break and antibiotics would be murderous to all the bacteria.

And THAT's a fallacy.

If your proposal is "all living beings have rights", then you should kill yourself right now. Your survival is endangering to millions (quite literally, millions) of life forms that are threatened by it. The lesser evil is mass suicide of human beings. This may be a kind of ethic, but it is clearly not a human ethic. Any human ethic -- by definition -- serves human beings. You can't escape that...



And it is precisely because YOU can find this code immoral -- ANY code immoral -- that you have a right to live according to YOUR code, and therefore any violence against you is a moral violence. To a being without moral awareness, there is no moral violence, hence no rights.

It may sound cold-hearted, but it is still true. And this does not mean we should inflict pain in animals needlessly (I wonder, from where did you deduce that??). But it DOES mean that if a man inflicts pain in an animal, it is in a different category than pain inflicted by animal on animal, or than pain inflicted by man on man.

It is not a fallacy. The reason the food web does not break with my philosophy is because the need for ecological balance is stronger than the moral rights of any individual. If this balance was disrupted significantly, it would cause the deaths of far more organisms than are eaten to maintain that balance. It's something of a sacrifice.

And why should I kill myself right now? You are forgetting that I have rights also. Many millions of bacteria floating in the air are probably threatening my life as well. They are not obliged to kill themselves either. Both of us have rights, and thus neither of us should kill ourselves.

You seem to come very confidently to the conclusion that "no moral awareness means no rights." I would like some proof of this, as it is what I've been arguing against the whole time, so it cannot be dismissed as true out of hand.


Does that make it right to inflict pain on a cat?

Yes, but not because the cat has a soul or is a moral agent, but because the cat is creature created by God and therefore belongs to him and is given to us only in stewardship.

But by the same token, even as an avid cat lover, I'd say there is nothing wrong with eating a cat anymore than there is something wrong with eating a cow.

Quote:
It is exactly because your moral code coincides with many others created by mankind that I find it immoral.


Which doesn't strike me as a good reason to find something immoral. . .because it is like something else. It's like rejecting Islam because it is like Christianity in some ways or Christianity because it is like Judaism in some ways.

Man kind is the only creature that makes moral codes.
Quote:
And you're telling ME we're the ones with eternal souls ?????

I don't get why because animals (not THESE animals, but animals in general) have been around longer they are the ones who should have immortal souls. Even in the creation theory, humans were made after animals, as the finishing touch.

Quote:
I like to think that everything that follows a cycle of life has a soul. And that nothing really dies. And that nothing is really superior to anything else.

But is it true? Why do you think this? I don't believe nothing is superior, because somethings too obviously are.

Quote:
It fosters a heathy mutual connection between a person and their surroundings and encourages a harmonious and benficial coexistence.

Generally, what I see in people and cultures that have this sort of value is a general insensitivity towards human life. India, for instance, where they have holy cows and infanticide. A lot of native cultures also devalued humanity.

Generally, without the understanding that humans are more than animals, humans become animals. After all, nature is a matter of the weak killing the strong. If humans are just another part of nature, they are no more held to any value of life than any other animal. If animals prey upon each other, why can't we as humans prey upon each other.

And it is a myth that animals only kill when they need to. My cat was just attacked by the neighbors dog who has killed two other neighborhood cats. That dog is more than well fed.



Elgee, I was not saying that I find your moral code immoral simply because it coincided with many others created by mankind. I was only saying that I disagreed with most moral codes created by mankind.

Holy cows and infanticide is not following the moral code of mutually beneficialy existence. That is a very extreme view, and does not coincide with mine. And by the way, humans are animals ;) I'm not saying we should devaluate humans, only that we should not devaluate animals.

And I don't see where you are going when you dispell the myth about animals eating each other. I agree, but animals have no moral awareness, and cannot know what they are doing. But that does not mean that they should be treated as inferior. Animals are not being immoral when they kill another animal for food because of the ecological balance. When they kill another animal for no reason, they cannot be held accountable as they have no moral awareness. The food web is perfectly natural. It does not violate my moral code for the reasons I said to Eriol above.


I'm the guy devising an ethical theory :D. Who are you to say that I can't say that something has no rights? Is it a moral absolute, "we can't decide which beings have rights?". You are in the same boat as I am, Morgoth's Bane... you are devising an ethical theory. So there is no reason to be shocked at my presumption, since it is as big as yours and as that of all who ever thought about such matters.




Giving something rights is far different than taking them away or denying them. Even if rights that are given are not rightly given, this could cause no harm (if not taken to extremes). On the other hand, if you take away the organism's rights, you are making it acceptable for someone to do anything they wish to the animal, harmful or no. Even if this is morally correct (which I dispute), it causes far more harm than it should.

MB

[HLGStrider]

The reason the food web does not break with my philosophy is because the need for ecological balance is stronger than the moral rights of any individual.Why?
I would disagree. I think the reason a whole is valueable is that it is composed of individuals and individual rights trump collective rights. This comes up most often in human governments, and it is a very destructive philosophy in that form. In your form, I just don't agree with it.

It's something of a sacrifice.
But yet it isn't. Animals do not sacrifice. No creature willingly lets a predator catch it. They fight against this sacrifice. To them it is not a moral obligation. Why should it be to us?

And by the way, humans are animals
Then why are we held to a higher standard? Do we hold chimps to a higher standard than dogs?

I agree, but animals have no moral awareness, and cannot know what they are doing.When they kill another animal for no reason, they cannot be held accountable as they have no moral awareness.
They cannot be held accountable for the good either, then, so good emotions are just as void as bad emotions, and with animals you are left with a blank. Neither capable of good nor bad.
Humans, however, are capable of good and bad. Why the profound difference? It seems to me to be a huge difference.

On the other hand, if you take away the organism's rights, you are making it acceptable for someone to do anything they wish to the animal, harmful or no.
No. I think we'd both agree that a rock has no rights. However, it can belong to someone else. If I have a rock and my brother destroys that rock he has hurt me. If I have made a statue out of a rock, that statue has no rights, but I have the rights of the owner of that statue, and therefore hurting that statue is a violation of my rights. God is the creator of animals. Therefore he is the owner of animals, therefore he has property rights on them, and therefore we cannot just do anything we want with them.

I think that's perfectly logical.

[Helcaraxë]

Why?
I would disagree. I think the reason a whole is valueable is that it is composed of individuals and individual rights trump collective rights. This comes up most often in human governments, and it is a very destructive philosophy in that form. In your form, I just don't agree with it.

I agree, that the whole is valuable because of the rights of the individual. But considering the whole will ultimately protect the rights of the individual more than if you only considered the individual.

But yet it isn't. Animals do not sacrifice. No creature willingly lets a predator catch it. They fight against this sacrifice. To them it is not a moral obligation. Why should it be to us?


Of course the animal tries to prevent the sacrifice. But this is because it does not understand that its own sacrifice is necessary. Animals do not intentionally sacrifice, but they must participate in the sacrifice. To animals it is not a moral obligation because animals have no moral obligations. It should be an obligation to us, because we do.



Then why are we held to a higher standard? Do we hold chimps to a higher standard than dogs?

We do, but we shouldn't.

They cannot be held accountable for the good either, then, so good emotions are just as void as bad emotions, and with animals you are left with a blank. Neither capable of good nor bad.
Humans, however, are capable of good and bad. Why the profound difference? It seems to me to be a huge difference.


It is a substanital difference. I'm just saying that the difference shouldn't matter. A dog's inability to consider "right" and "wrong" has no effect on its ability to love, to feel pain, ect. Although these abilities shouldn't matter either.


No. I think we'd both agree that a rock has no rights. However, it can belong to someone else. If I have a rock and my brother destroys that rock he has hurt me. If I have made a statue out of a rock, that statue has no rights, but I have the rights of the owner of that statue, and therefore hurting that statue is a violation of my rights. God is the creator of animals. Therefore he is the owner of animals, therefore he has property rights on them, and therefore we cannot just do anything we want with them.

I think that's perfectly logical.


A rock is not alive, so that is an invalid analogy. And by the same token, people are also the property of God, in Christianity.

MB

[Merry]

"God clearly made animals in subjection to us."? I cannot disagree more. Let me give you an example. A person is so mentally disabled that they cannot form any coherent thought. They cannot use reasoning. Do they deserve to live less than us? Should they be in subjection to us? Did God make the person in subjection to us? Animals, if anything deserve to live more than people. They do not destroy the world. If Jesus came to Earth to save people and not animals, than I would say that Jesus is self-centered and narrow-mined. Humans are animals as much as elphants or lions. The very notion that humans are in some way "superior" to animals enrages me.

MB

I cannot believe this reasoning!! I've enjoyed everyone's opinion but this just seems childish and a bit blasphemous. Please try and curb your rage and insults again Jesus as it is offensive.

So are you trying to tell me that the bible was written for animals? Are you trying to tell me that Jesus came from the heavens to take form of man, be born of a woman and died for a guinea pig?

The scriptures talk about God's covenant with man and he wrote laws for their benefit and made his kingdom to restore man to the paradise earth that he intended.

I completely agree that animals are less disruptive than man and yes animals may appear more deserving but they are not the focus of God's purpose.

Should a mentally ill person or physically disabled person be in subjection to us? NO NO NO! Jesus spent a large part of his earthy ministry work curing those sick ones and then taught them about his fathers kingdom. Unfortunate humans are not less than animals.

Animals were made by God and have a place in his paradise world and God will protect them but he will not resurrect or save one specific animal based on their behavior and dedication to him during their life.

[Helcaraxë]

Childish? Blasphemous? I'm not a Christian, Merry, and for my religion (or rather philosophy), It is just as offensive to deny that animals have souls. So saying I'm being offensive doesn't really hold water as to me you are being offensive as well. Jesus may have died only for people. But as a non-Christian, I cannot believe Jesus is the son of God, thus I cannot believe he died for people (or anyone, for that matter).

~Helcaraxë

[Thorin]

Childish? Blasphemous? I'm not a Christian, Merry, and for my religion (or rather philosophy), It is just as offensive to deny that animals have souls. So saying I'm being offensive doesn't really hold water as to me you are being offensive as well. Jesus may have died only for people. But as a non-Christian, I cannot believe Jesus is the son of God, thus I cannot believe he died for people (or anyone, for that matter).

~HelcaraxëOkay guys, please!!!! Gothmog the Great and Terrible will swoop down on us with all his balrog fury if we don't tone it down. We are all entitled to our opinion so let's respect that!

I am so tired of ignorant, uncontrollable people giving religious discussion a bad name on this forum. Everytime we get to discuss religion a mod seems to shut it down in a heartbeat, valid or not in our opinion. Let's not be like that and give the mods fuel.

PM each other if there are legitimate beefs

[Merry]

I'm sorry MB, I didn't mean to get annoyed but I'd like to try and keep some respect for each other which I felt was missing for a few posts.

[Helcaraxë]

Yes, we should probably keep religion out of the picture in this thread. Just as a side note, I don't think anyone actually attacked anyone else, just their religion. But I apologize if I have offended.

~Helcaraxë

[Eriol]

It is not a fallacy. The reason the food web does not break with my philosophy is because the need for ecological balance is stronger than the moral rights of any individual. If this balance was disrupted significantly, it would cause the deaths of far more organisms than are eaten to maintain that balance. It's something of a sacrifice.

And why should I kill myself right now? You are forgetting that I have rights also. Many millions of bacteria floating in the air are probably threatening my life as well. They are not obliged to kill themselves either. Both of us have rights, and thus neither of us should kill ourselves.

It's a matter of math. If all lives have rights, then two lives have more right than one, and one million lives have more right than one. Therefore, if you kill yourself you will be saving more lives than if you stay alive, and it is the ethically preferred action according to strict "biosism" (the belief that all life forms have the same rights. I think I just invented this word :D). If you count "life" as "the number of living individuals", you fall into this problem. If you have other ways to quantify "life", such as "amount of biomass", you fall into similar problems. The "amount of biomass" approach would probably mean that you should kill yourself and be used as fertilizer in a Sequoia forest :D.

The way to escape that conundrum would be to postulate that the right of a life form is absolute, and should never be violated. But this would condemn the food web and be completely unfeasible.

You seem to come very confidently to the conclusion that "no moral awareness means no rights." I would like some proof of this, as it is what I've been arguing against the whole time, so it cannot be dismissed as true out of hand.

Well, yes, I come very confidently to this conclusion, because I've thought about this for years and have written many pages on it :eek:. (Not in this forum :D). I think it is proven to be true by a reductio ad absurdum that follows if we affirm the opposite. As this:

Let as assume that a being without moral awareness has a right.

A right, by definition, entails an obligation. If I have the right to live, you are obliged to not kill me.

But for the right to be operationable (i.e., for both sides of it, "right" and "obligation", to work), all agents involved must be able to recognize the concept of right and obligation.

Animals do not recognize these concepts. They can't conceive of either rights or duties. (That's why it is nonsense to convict an animal as a murderer even if he kills a man. He did commit a murder, but since he does not recognize either rights or obligations, he stands outside morality).

So when one "breaches the right of an animal", he does not do so from the point of view of the animal, only from the point of view of a moral agent. A non-moral agent can't even conceive of "breaching a right".

Therefore, a non-moral agent can't recognize a right (since he can't recognize obligations).

And this contradicts the first premise (That a being without moral awareness may have a right).

An example of this reasoning:

If I kill a cow, it does not feel infringed in its rights, because it can't know what is a right. And a "right" is something that does not exist in substantive reality. It does not have weight; there are no atoms dedicated to rights. It is a "spiritual reality" in religious parlance, or at the very least a "non-material reality" in ontological terms.

A right is discovered and recognized by those who have the right and those who have the obligation to abide by the right. To speak of a cow having a right is imprecise; what it means is that a human confers a right on a cow by assuming an obligation. The cows in India are not different from the cows in Brazil, the only change is in the human beings surrounding them. The cows in India have the right to not be killed, because the men there assume the obligation to not kill them. Since the men in Brazil assume no such obligation, then a cow here has no such right.

Even this manner of speaking is ambiguous since the "right of a cow to not be killed" in India does not belong to the cow, it is a gift from the humans who can withdraw it at any moment. Unlike human rights which must (because of reciprocity and consistency) obey some rules. No one can decree that murder is right, because this is self-contradictory.

But my point is, any right begins with a moral agent identifying an obligation to abide by it. It is meaningless to speak of rights (or obligations) without moral agents.

[Helcaraxë]

It's a matter of math. If all lives have rights, then two lives have more right than one, and one million lives have more right than one. Therefore, if you kill yourself you will be saving more lives than if you stay alive, and it is the ethically preferred action according to strict "biosism" (the belief that all life forms have the same rights. I think I just invented this word :D). If you count "life" as "the number of living individuals", you fall into this problem. If you have other ways to quantify "life", such as "amount of biomass", you fall into similar problems. The "amount of biomass" approach would probably mean that you should kill yourself and be used as fertilizer in a Sequoia forest :D.

The way to escape that conundrum would be to postulate that the right of a life form is absolute, and should never be violated. But this would condemn the food web and be completely unfeasible.


Again, its a matter of ecological balance. Killing bacteria would'nt have much of an effect. Killing myself would.



Well, yes, I come very confidently to this conclusion, because I've thought about this for years and have written many pages on it :eek:. (Not in this forum :D). I think it is proven to be true by a reductio ad absurdum that follows if we affirm the opposite. As this:

Let as assume that a being without moral awareness has a right.

A right, by definition, entails an obligation. If I have the right to live, you are obliged to not kill me.

But for the right to be operationable (i.e., for both sides of it, "right" and "obligation", to work), all agents involved must be able to recognize the concept of right and obligation.

Animals do not recognize these concepts. They can't conceive of either rights or duties. (That's why it is nonsense to convict an animal as a murderer even if he kills a man. He did commit a murder, but since he does not recognize either rights or obligations, he stands outside morality).

So when one "breaches the right of an animal", he does not do so from the point of view of the animal, only from the point of view of a moral agent. A non-moral agent can't even conceive of "breaching a right".

Therefore, a non-moral agent can't recognize a right (since he can't recognize obligations).

And this contradicts the first premise (That a being without moral awareness may have a right).

An example of this reasoning:

If I kill a cow, it does not feel infringed in its rights, because it can't know what is a right. And a "right" is something that does not exist in substantive reality. It does not have weight; there are no atoms dedicated to rights. It is a "spiritual reality" in religious parlance, or at the very least a "non-material reality" in ontological terms.

A right is discovered and recognized by those who have the right and those who have the obligation to abide by the right. To speak of a cow having a right is imprecise; what it means is that a human confers a right on a cow by assuming an obligation. The cows in India are not different from the cows in Brazil, the only change is in the human beings surrounding them. The cows in India have the right to not be killed, because the men there assume the obligation to not kill them. Since the men in Brazil assume no such obligation, then a cow here has no such right.

Even this manner of speaking is ambiguous since the "right of a cow to not be killed" in India does not belong to the cow, it is a gift from the humans who can withdraw it at any moment. Unlike human rights which must (because of reciprocity and consistency) obey some rules. No one can decree that murder is right, because this is self-contradictory.

But my point is, any right begins with a moral agent identifying an obligation to abide by it. It is meaningless to speak of rights (or obligations) without moral agents.

The fact that animals do not understand rights and obligations makes it even more necessary for us to make sure that their rights are upheld. If something does not understand rights, it can still have rights. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that for rights to be effective both parties must be able to recognize it. You killed the cow. The cow certainly does not understand that it is wrong to kill it. But I do. It is our responsibility to make sure the rights of animals are upheld, as they cannot do so for themselves. Do you say a person who got their legs blown off by a grenade does not have the right to move? They certainly cannot do so by themself. But it is you responibility to give them a wheelchair, to make sure their rights are upheld as far as is possible.

~Helcaraxë

[Eriol]

Again, its a matter of ecological balance. Killing bacteria would'nt have much of an effect. Killing myself would.

Hehe, you should check up on your ecological status. Killing bacteria is SURE to have more of an ecological effect than killing yourself. Also, your criterion is not (or was not) "ethics is based on the ecological balance", but rather on the rights of the living forms. If you want to think of the ecological balance as a standard, you'll have to define it (not an easy thing at all!), and to choose some parameters to measure it; and this means discarding other parameters. If you will think of biomass, you will neglect energy flow. If you think of abundance, you'll neglect biodiversity. And so on.

Of course, the parameter you choose will be chosen on the basis of a judgment of value which will be itself ethical. And therefore the "ecological balance" can be at best a derived guideline, never a guiding principle.

The fact that animals do not understand rights and obligations makes it even more necessary for us to make sure that their rights are upheld. If something does not understand rights, it can still have rights. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that for rights to be effective both parties must be able to recognize it. You killed the cow. The cow certainly does not understand that it is wrong to kill it. But I do. It is our responsibility to make sure the rights of animals are upheld, as they cannot do so for themselves. Do you say a person who got their legs blown off by a grenade does not have the right to move? They certainly cannot do so by themself. But it is you responibility to give them a wheelchair, to make sure their rights are upheld as far as is possible.

~Helcaraxë

I'd like to see your definition of a right to make sense out of this concept. I can't understand a right without an obligation. And an obligation -- by definition -- is applied only on morally aware beings. An obligation means that if one refrains from doing it he's doing an immoral act. But only a moral agent can do an immoral act.

The wheelchair example is quite illustrative. No one would say that the cow is immoral if it does not deliver a wheelchair. But, as you say, the right to a wheelchair is obvious. However, it does not oblige cows (and other animals).

If they can't be obliged, they don't have rights. It is inherent in the definition of right. So you probably have a less-than-usual definition, go ahead and show it :).

[Helcaraxë]

Hehe, you should check up on your ecological status. Killing bacteria is SURE to have more of an ecological effect than killing yourself. Also, your criterion is not (or was not) "ethics is based on the ecological balance", but rather on the rights of the living forms. If you want to think of the ecological balance as a standard, you'll have to define it (not an easy thing at all!), and to choose some parameters to measure it; and this means discarding other parameters. If you will think of biomass, you will neglect energy flow. If you think of abundance, you'll neglect biodiversity. And so on.

I think of ecological balance as a whole, considering both biomass, energy flow, and all else, and I try to make reasonable decisions based upon as many of these factors as I am able to think of. I don't see why killing a group of bacteria would have more of an effect on the ecological balance than me. I have more of an effect, for good or ill (I like to think good since it justifies my existence) on the ecological balance than bacteria.

Of course, the parameter you choose will be chosen on the basis of a judgment of value which will be itself ethical. And therefore the "ecological balance" can be at best a derived guideline, never a guiding principle.



I'd like to see your definition of a right to make sense out of this concept. I can't understand a right without an obligation. And an obligation -- by definition -- is applied only on morally aware beings. An obligation means that if one refrains from doing it he's doing an immoral act. But only a moral agent can do an immoral act.

The wheelchair example is quite illustrative. No one would say that the cow is immoral if it does not deliver a wheelchair. But, as you say, the right to a wheelchair is obvious. However, it does not oblige cows (and other animals).

If they can't be obliged, they don't have rights. It is inherent in the definition of right. So you probably have a less-than-usual definition, go ahead and show it :).

I don't see where it is inherent.

a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

--Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

Whether a cow has rights is not dependent on whether it can fulfill the obligation to uphold other's rights. Since it does not have the capability of upholding that obligation, it cannot be expected to. But just because it cannot fulfill an obligation does not mean that we, as humans, are not obligated to uphold its own rights. A person with no legs is obliged to help another legless person get a wheelchair. However, they must be released from this obligation as they are physically incapable of doing so. But the fact that the person cannot upohld another's rights does not negate the necessity for upholding their own rights. I mean: the fact that the person cannot fulfill the obligation to get the legless person a wheelchair because they are themselves legless, does not mean that we are released from the obligation to get that person a wheelchair.

~H-ë

[Eriol]

I think of ecological balance as a whole, considering both biomass, energy flow, and all else, and I try to make reasonable decisions based upon as many of these factors as I am able to think of. I don't see why killing a group of bacteria would have more of an effect on the ecological balance than me. I have more of an effect, for good or ill (I like to think good since it justifies my existence) on the ecological balance than bacteria.

Unfortunately, there is no measure of "ecological balance". There is no meta-measurement that encompasses biomass, energy flow, biodiversity, etc. etc. And even if there were, you would have to show (through a reasoning) that this ought to be the ethical standard.

Please observe the inherent ethical judgement in the last sentence, above. "This ought to be the ethical standard." In other words, the ethic of the ecological balance does not stand on its own (even if it were a measurable thing, or something that could be agreed upon by all parties involved). It needs some other ethic to support it, something that sustains the sentence "this ought to be...". There is no "ought" without a prior ethic.

I don't see where it is inherent.

It is inherent in the "justly entitled" part of that definition. There is one and only one meaningful sense of "justly entitled": it means that to deny it would be unjust. Take a man. Does he have a right to have legs? Sure he does, to the extent that it would be flagrantly unjust for any of us to take away his legs. But if an unfortunate accident takes away his legs, does this mean that the accident was unfair? How can a mindless accident be unfair?

We all have the right to bodily integrity. But that does not mean that if we lose a leg to, let's say, a shark attack, then the shark is a criminal and an unjust and unfair agent. It does mean, however, that if a man takes away one of our legs, then he is surely an unjust agent.

This shows quite clearly how a right is only the mirror image of an obligation, and does not exist in the abstract. We have the right to air? Sure. No one can suffocate another man. But if you go to the moon without equipment, you don't call the moon unfair. Does that mean that you lost your right? No. It means that a right is simply (as the definition says) something that you are entitled to. "Entitled". You have a title to that. Animals don't recognize titles. Moons don't recognize titles.

The example of the legless man and the wheelchair (as any other example) reinforces this point. If the legless man lived in an island, alone, it would be nonsensical for us to say that he had a right to locomotion. It is only in the company of other men that share our compassionate ethic of helping the disabled (which is, by the way, not at all the default of the human race, primitive peoples left their disabled to die) that we can say that he "has a right".

[Helcaraxë]

Unfortunately, there is no measure of "ecological balance". There is no meta-measurement that encompasses biomass, energy flow, biodiversity, etc. etc. And even if there were, you would have to show (through a reasoning) that this ought to be the ethical standard.

I disagree. Regardless of exactly how we could measure the ecological balance, if living things are existing in harmony with one another, there is an ecological balance. It's not really a subjective concept.

Please observe the inherent ethical judgement in the last sentence, above. "This ought to be the ethical standard." In other words, the ethic of the ecological balance does not stand on its own (even if it were a measurable thing, or something that could be agreed upon by all parties involved). It needs some other ethic to support it, something that sustains the sentence "this ought to be...". There is no "ought" without a prior ethic.

The ecological balance supercedes the individual right, but it does not cancel it. Ethics are never agreed upon by all parties, and it would be foolish to expect them to. Your ethics do not stand on their own any more than mine do. You are saying this ought to be the ethical standard in the same way as I am.



It is inherent in the "justly entitled" part of that definition. There is one and only one meaningful sense of "justly entitled": it means that to deny it would be unjust. Take a man. Does he have a right to have legs? Sure he does, to the extent that it would be flagrantly unjust for any of us to take away his legs. But if an unfortunate accident takes away his legs, does this mean that the accident was unfair? How can a mindless accident be unfair?

This does not further your argument. A cow cannot be held responsible for obligations. But this does not mean the cow does not impose obligations on us. A cow's rights are not dependent on its ability to fulfill other obligations.

We all have the right to bodily integrity. But that does not mean that if we lose a leg to, let's say, a shark attack, then the shark is a criminal and an unjust and unfair agent. It does mean, however, that if a man takes away one of our legs, then he is surely an unjust agent.

Exactly what I am saying. Again, this does not further your argument.

This shows quite clearly how a right is only the mirror image of an obligation, and does not exist in the abstract. We have the right to air? Sure. No one can suffocate another man. But if you go to the moon without equipment, you don't call the moon unfair. Does that mean that you lost your right? No. It means that a right is simply (as the definition says) something that you are entitled to. "Entitled". You have a title to that. Animals don't recognize titles. Moons don't recognize titles.

Animals don't recogine "entitled." If a cow tramples a man, of course the cow is not responsible. But if a man shoots a cow in the head for no reason than it is the man's fault. The fact that a cow cannot fulfill its responsibility to other cows does not make the obligation non-existent. Since animals cannot look after their own rights, the responsibility passes to us. Of course, right is meaningless without an obligation, as an obligation is what defines a right. But as I said, the obligation to uphold a cow's rights is our responsibility.

The example of the legless man and the wheelchair (as any other example) reinforces this point. If the legless man lived in an island, alone, it would be nonsensical for us to say that he had a right to locomotion. It is only in the company of other men that share our compassionate ethic of helping the disabled (which is, by the way, not at all the default of the human race, primitive peoples left their disabled to die) that we can say that he "has a right".

Yes, but a cow, as a living thing (and not being alone) has a right, and since other cows cannot fulfill the obligation, we must do so. It's a responsibility that we have because a cow is unable to fulfill that obligation.

[Ireth Telrúnya]

I had a conversation today with a man at my church who strongly believes that animals do not have the capacity to feel love or emotion, and that pets are only attached to their owners because they feed them. I'm not very knowledgable on this subject, but being an animal lover, I disagreed, and continue to disagree with him. I thought this might be a good topic for discussion and I was wondering if some of you would care to give your opinions. So, what do you think?

Niirewen: First I'd like to know the definion of soul. What it is...though I do believe animals have feelings at least those animals who have greater brain capacity. Like dolphings and chimpanzees and maybe dogs....I'm not sure about parrots :) (somehow related to me, they are...)

[Eriol]

I disagree. Regardless of exactly how we could measure the ecological balance, if living things are existing in harmony with one another, there is an ecological balance. It's not really a subjective concept.

"If living things are living in harmony, there is an ecological balance"

I detect a circularity there :).

It is incredibly subjective, Helcaraxë, and this is borne out by the fact that there are different ways to measure it. "Harmony" is not measurable. And I'm sure that "harmony" in the eyes of a virus is very different from "harmony" in the eyes of a man.

The ecological balance supercedes the individual right, but it does not cancel it. Ethics are never agreed upon by all parties, and it would be foolish to expect them to. Your ethics do not stand on their own any more than mine do. You are saying this ought to be the ethical standard in the same way as I am.

On the contrary, ethics must be agreed upon by all parties or else they won't be ethics at all. A thief agrees that stealing is wrong; just watch his reaction when you steal from him. Likewise, a murderer agrees that murder is wrong, as witnessed by his reaction if we suggest his own murder.

Universality is one of the defining characteristics of ethics: it must be the same system for all ethical agents or it won't be an ethics at all.

The fact that we are arguing about this, by the way, shows that ethics is conceived by both of us to be universal. You don't shrug when you see a guy killing an animal needlessly. You say: "That's wrong!", because you think your ethics stand on their own and are valid for everybody, not just for you. You would not argue about the subject if you did not want to convince others; and to convince others of something, you and the others must hold the same standards.

If ethics really did not stand on their own you'd have to bully others into agreeing with you, instead of arguing with them.


This does not further your argument. A cow cannot be held responsible for obligations. But this does not mean the cow does not impose obligations on us. A cow's rights are not dependent on its ability to fulfill other obligations.

A cow never imposed an obligation on me. It never imposed an obligation on you either. It is you who are proposing an obligation, not the cow.

Animals don't recogine "entitled." If a cow tramples a man, of course the cow is not responsible. But if a man shoots a cow in the head for no reason than it is the man's fault. The fact that a cow cannot fulfill its responsibility to other cows does not make the obligation non-existent. Since animals cannot look after their own rights, the responsibility passes to us. Of course, right is meaningless without an obligation, as an obligation is what defines a right. But as I said, the obligation to uphold a cow's rights is our responsibility.

I defined an obligation as something recognized by an ethical agent as something he must not refrain from. Your definition of obligation, on the other hand, seems to be something that is inherent in the nature of things, whether or not there is an ethical agent contemplating them or not. A cow "has" a right, whether or not there is an ethical agent to act based on that right.

The answer to that is very simple: I disagree. You'll have to show me that. To state it as true without argument is not enough. You'll also have to breach the Humean barrier that "an ought can't be derived from an is". No matter how the world is, how the world ought to be is something that only an ethical agent can decide. It is not empirical, and it can't be empirical, ever.

Yes, but a cow, as a living thing (and not being alone) has a right, and since other cows cannot fulfill the obligation, we must do so. It's a responsibility that we have because a cow is unable to fulfill that obligation.

No, it is a responsibility that YOU impose on others. Not the cow, and not "nature"; neither of those can impose responsibilities and obligations on others.

In other words, unless you can show some credentials to the effect that you define the ethics of other people against their will, I'll have to keep my opinion that ethics is a consistent system. To give rights to all living beings would break the consistency of the system (and in fact entail the mass murder of many, many "detrimental beings", including humans), defeat its own purpose, and what bothers me the most, it is without any theoretical justification.

Oh, and it can't be measured, just as "harmony" and "ecological balance" can't be measured and are up for grabs according to the observer -- i.e., it breaks the universality postulate (which as we have seen is implicitly accepted by all people, including yourself, when they argue about something).

[Helcaraxë]

"If living things are living in harmony, there is an ecological balance"

I detect a circularity there :).

It is incredibly subjective, Helcaraxë, and this is borne out by the fact that there are different ways to measure it. "Harmony" is not measurable. And I'm sure that "harmony" in the eyes of a virus is very different from "harmony" in the eyes of a man.

Just as your moral code can also be subjective. How far does a person's rights extend? If a man hacks off another's hand, is his right to one of his hands forfeit? You might say yes, but it is an entirely sunjective concept. And I'll talk about the natural balance later in my post.


On the contrary, ethics must be agreed upon by all parties or else they won't be ethics at all. A thief agrees that stealing is wrong; just watch his reaction when you steal from him. Likewise, a murderer agrees that murder is wrong, as witnessed by his reaction if we suggest his own murder.

Maybe ethics must be agreed upon by all parties to be effective in the long run, but we, as parties, certainly do not agree.

Universality is one of the defining characteristics of ethics: it must be the same system for all ethical agents or it won't be an ethics at all.

The fact that we are arguing about this, by the way, shows that ethics is conceived by both of us to be universal. You don't shrug when you see a guy killing an animal needlessly. You say: "That's wrong!", because you think your ethics stand on their own and are valid for everybody, not just for you. You would not argue about the subject if you did not want to convince others; and to convince others of something, you and the others must hold the same standards.

If ethics really did not stand on their own you'd have to bully others into agreeing with you, instead of arguing with them.




A cow never imposed an obligation on me. It never imposed an obligation on you either. It is you who are proposing an obligation, not the cow.

Just as it is you who is imposing an obligation on me. There are no absolute moral truths, Eriol. You impose the obligation on me not to kill another person because you believe that that is the best way to live together (at least I assume that's why you do so). A cow does not impose an obligation, this is true. But that does not mean the obligation is non-existent. Because a cow cannot do it for themselves, we must take the responsibility.



I defined an obligation as something recognized by an ethical agent as something he must not refrain from. Your definition of obligation, on the other hand, seems to be something that is inherent in the nature of things, whether or not there is an ethical agent contemplating them or not. A cow "has" a right, whether or not there is an ethical agent to act based on that right.

That's not really what I am saying. I agree with your definition of obligation; obligations are not inherent and require a moral agent. But we are moral agents. Since we can contemplate matters of morality, we must recognize obligations.

The answer to that is very simple: I disagree. You'll have to show me that. To state it as true without argument is not enough. You'll also have to breach the Humean barrier that "an ought can't be derived from an is". No matter how the world is, how the world ought to be is something that only an ethical agent can decide. It is not empirical, and it can't be empirical, ever.

You are doing the same thing as me, Eriol. A person exists so they ought to have a right. It isn't as if your moral code has some mighty foundation that mine is lacking. You say, "people are moral agents, and because of this, they must have rights.



No, it is a responsibility that YOU impose on others. Not the cow, and not "nature"; neither of those can impose responsibilities and obligations on others.

Again, you are doing the same thing. Only we can impose obligations on ourselves. Since a cow cannot do so, we must be responsible and do it in its place.

In other words, unless you can show some credentials to the effect that you define the ethics of other people against their will, I'll have to keep my opinion that ethics is a consistent system. To give rights to all living beings would break the consistency of the system (and in fact entail the mass murder of many, many "detrimental beings", including humans), defeat its own purpose, and what bothers me the most, it is without any theoretical justification.

It is with as much theoretical justification as yours, Eriol. You are doing the same thing I am. And I already explained how it would not break the sytem. I give rights to all living things and my system isn't broken. I already explained how it would not entail mass murder, as nature is more important than individual rights as it deals with the rights of all.

I believe that to some extent, a society can be judged by how it treats its lower-class people. Does the society protect them? Does it give them the rights they deserve? The same thing can be applied to us and nature.

Oh, and it can't be measured, just as "harmony" and "ecological balance" can't be measured and are up for grabs according to the observer -- i.e., it breaks the universality postulate (which as we have seen is implicitly accepted by all people, including yourself, when they argue about something).

Not really. As long are things are balanced then they are balanced. It is possible to subjectively distort the balance in the eye of the beholder, just as it is possible to distort you moral code in the eye of the beholder. But just as your moral code can be seen objectively, so can the ecological balance. As long as all species are thriving (and I think the layperson can tell the difference between an endangered species and a common one ;) ), as long as there is enough food to properly support life on earth, as long as there is enough land so that species don't unecessarily intrude on one another (one reason why I think overpopulation is a bad thing), As long as forests are not being destroyed and thereby increasing carbon dioxide levels, as long as the polar ice caps are still frozen ;) ;) ..I could go on. All of these are factors in the natural balance, and all of them are perceptible.

~Helcaraxë

[Eriol]

If a man hacks off another's hand, is his right to one of his hands forfeit?

This addresses the matter of punishment, not the matter of rights. What is clear, and non-subjective, is that the person who hacked off another man's hand would not welcome the same thing being done to himself. In other words, he agrees that hacking off people's hands is wrong.

Maybe ethics must be agreed upon by all parties to be effective in the long run, but we, as parties, certainly do not agree.

Oh, but we do agree. We agree that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, aggression is wrong... don't we?

Just as it is you who is imposing an obligation on me. There are no absolute moral truths, Eriol.

"There are no absolute moral truths"... let's discuss that later ;), but there are objective ways to detect what is a candidate for a moral truth and what is not. I talked of some of them earlier. Universality, Rationality, Reciprocity (what is lacking in your system by the way)... all of us agree that ethics must follow those principles (among others). And it is shown to be agreed upon by us when we argue about it. The fact that we argue shows that we believe in Reason; the fact that we argue shows that we think that what is ethically correct for me is also correct for you; and so on.

When we indulge in argument to reach a conclusion about ethics, we show, by our actions, that we have a lot of agreements about the nature of ethics. This is why I can't agree with a blanket statement such as "there are no absolute moral truths". And neither can you, by the way. You can't be an "absolute moral relativist" for the following reasons:

1) It is a self-contradictory oxymoron
2) The fact that you argue shows that you think that you are right and that you can convince others of that fact
3) The fact that you are not bullying others to agree with you shows that you think that reason is a tool to achieve it; an "absolute moral relativist" must limit himself to bullying, never to argument, or he'll be contradicting himself.

All of those considerations of your own behavior (and that of other humans) show that there are some ethical rules that are absolutely true. Take the prohibition of murder. You say that "I [Eriol] impose the obligation on you not to kill another person because I believe that that is the best way to live together". Not at all! This obligation is imposed on you by human nature, not by me. If the following premises are true:

1) You are human
2) I am human
3) You would disapprove if I killed you

Then it follows that you must accept that murder is wrong, or fall into contradiction. And this is what happens in fact; there was never a murderer who did not agree that his own murder would be wrong :). The only way to break the reasoning is to fall into a solipsism that denies "humanity" to everybody else except the murderer. This is so contradictory that only philosophers could fall for it :D.

The same reasoning from basic principles show that theft is wrong, that slavery is wrong, that bodily aggression is wrong, etc. This is not a subjective ethics, this is a human ethics that is borne out by human behavior throughout time and space. No human ever approved of his own murder or robbery or slavery or aggression.

That's not really what I am saying. I agree with your definition of obligation; obligations are not inherent and require a moral agent. But we are moral agents. Since we can contemplate matters of morality, we must recognize obligations.

Note the contradiction in your views here, Helcaraxë. You say that "there are no absolute truth", and then you say that "we must recogize obligations", even though "they are not inherent and require a moral agent!" It couldn't be clearer. I am a moral agent, and I disagree with you. Why should I recognize this obligation, then? After all, there are no absolute moral truths...

Note, this is all for the sake of argument. I did not say anything about my own ethics so far in this thread. I abhor people who mistreat animals. I abhor them, but I can't say that they are committing a crime. If a man kills his dog after slowly torturing it, I loathe him, but I can't really punish him without committing a crime, myself. Because I can't see any foundation for "animals' rights". It's not that I like to kill animals, but every theory of animals' rights that I have met so far falls into great contradictions and is completely without basis. (I can't force a man to help a fellow human in need, either, though I surely think that if he refrains from doing it, he's wrong).

An action may be loathsome or regrettable without it being unethical.

It isn't as if your moral code has some mighty foundation that mine is lacking.

Yes. My code has a mighty foundation that yours is lacking. My code is based upon observable human behavior. Yours isn't. My code is universal. Yours isn't.

Compare these two "moral directives"

"Theft is wrong"

"Humans should try to fly without equipment, just like Superman"

The first is inherent in human nature. We all agree on it. The second is unfeasible and ridiculous. Both, however, are "ought-statements", that describe not how the world is, but rather how it should be. This means both statements are modeled after ethics. Why do we reject the second? If there really were no absolute moral truths the second would be as valid as the first. But quite clearly, it isn't.

The limiting factor is not our imagination, it is human nature. People can't fly. But all of them agree that theft is wrong. Your code falls into the second category... for at least these reasons:

1) it is not universalizable
2) it needs an interpreter ("Ecological balance" is not an obvious concept)
3) it is unfeasible

I'll get into more detail about its shortcomings in the end of the post.

It is with as much theoretical justification as yours, Eriol. You are doing the same thing I am. And I already explained how it would not break the sytem. I give rights to all living things and my system isn't broken.

Well, I can get into more detail now :). If all living things have the right to live, and billions of them are killed at every second, what does it really mean, "to have a right to live"? This is what I mean by "unfeasible". Your rights are abstractions, they are not achievable goals. I can refrain from theft and murder, but I can't refrain from killing other life forms.

I believe that to some extent, a society can be judged by how it treats its lower-class people.

This is a bit off-topic, but I don't think "society" can be blamed for anything. "Society" does nothing at all. It is not a moral agent, and therefore it has no obligations :).

"Society" is as much an abstraction as "Nature" and "ecological balance" and "harmony". All of them carry an unwarranted authority in your views, one that you should prove from first principles (just as I think I proved that murder is wrong from first principles).

Not really. As long are things are balanced then they are balanced. It is possible to subjectively distort the balance in the eye of the beholder, just as it is possible to distort you moral code in the eye of the beholder. But just as your moral code can be seen objectively, so can the ecological balance. As long as all species are thriving (and I think the layperson can tell the difference between an endangered species and a common one ;) ), as long as there is enough food to properly support life on earth, as long as there is enough land so that species don't unecessarily intrude on one another (one reason why I think overpopulation is a bad thing), As long as forests are not being destroyed and thereby increasing carbon dioxide levels, as long as the polar ice caps are still frozen ;) ;) ..I could go on. All of these are factors in the natural balance, and all of them are perceptible.

~Helcaraxë

"As long as things are balanced they are balanced". I think I detect another circularity there :D. It shows how much your code needs "a translator", a person to define what is balance and what is not. In other words, it is not universal, and indeed it could not be followed by mankind before the 19th century and the advent of Ecology. An ethic that condemns more than 99,99% of humans is "unfeasible"...

Let's talk ecology now, then. Do you know the best and easiest way to control the greenhouse effect? To bring atmospheric carbon "back to balance"? I'll tell you. Let's raze all forests to the ground, bury the trunks in the deep sea, and replace them with fast-growing crops. The problem will be solved in a few decades.

Would your code judge this action to be wrong? Why? Well, perhaps because razing all forests to the ground would mean a tremendous impact on biodiversity. But what is more important, the "balance" of carbon or the "balance" of biodiversity? Perhaps there is such a thing as the "balance of carbon and biodiversity". It was never observed, though.

Biodiversity is one parameter in which the notion of "balance" is misleading. With biodiversity, it is a matter of "the more, the merrier". There is no question of "balance". So, from another POV, any action decreasing biodiversity is to be condemned.

As you can see, when you integrate many different variables into an amorphous concept such as "ecological balance" is troublesome. It is no wonder that there is no such thing as an "ecological index". It can't be done. I should know, I'm an ecologist myself :D.

Let me offer another "reductio ad absurdum". If man colonizes Mars, should he take with him diseases and pests, or should he select the life forms that he will take to Mars, leaving diseases and pests behind?

[Helcaraxë]

This addresses the matter of punishment, not the matter of rights. What is clear, and non-subjective, is that the person who hacked off another man's hand would not welcome the same thing being done to himself. In other words, he agrees that hacking off people's hands is wrong.

That is irrelevant. Is the person's hand (his right to a hand) forfeit? It's not about punishments, it's about rights.


Oh, but we do agree. We agree that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, aggression is wrong... don't we?


I agree. But we obviously disagree about animal rights. Unless you argue that in actuality we agree upon that as well....?

"There are no absolute moral truths"... let's discuss that later ;), but there are objective ways to detect what is a candidate for a moral truth and what is not. I talked of some of them earlier. Universality, Rationality, Reciprocity (what is lacking in your system by the way)... all of us agree that ethics must follow those principles (among others). And it is shown to be agreed upon by us when we argue about it. The fact that we argue shows that we believe in Reason; the fact that we argue shows that we think that what is ethically correct for me is also correct for you; and so on.


"All of which are lacking in your system.." You're doing the same thing as before, Eri. Back this up, and then we'll discuss it. Reciprocity lacking in my system? My system is based upon reciprocity (if you are using the normal definition of reciprocity as "mutual dependence").

When we indulge in argument to reach a conclusion about ethics, we show, by our actions, that we have a lot of agreements about the nature of ethics. This is why I can't agree with a blanket statement such as "there are no absolute moral truths". And neither can you, by the way. You can't be an "absolute moral relativist" for the following reasons:

1) It is a self-contradictory oxymoron
2) The fact that you argue shows that you think that you are right and that you can convince others of that fact
3) The fact that you are not bullying others to agree with you shows that you think that reason is a tool to achieve it; an "absolute moral relativist" must limit himself to bullying, never to argument, or he'll be contradicting himself.


"I, myself, can't agree with that statement?" Yet again you have jumped to a conclusion without a reasonable foundation for doing so. Moral truths are intended to be absolute, but when they are applied (or even conceived) they are made subjective because we are by nature subjective. Whenever we even think about moral truth, the though is always subjective because we are fundamentally subjective. I don't agree with the statemnt that everything is subjective. But morality falls into a different category because it is entirely a construction of the human mind. Any school of thought that has no foundation in reality is entirely subjective. And that is what morality fundamentally is. An abstraction. Morality would not even exist but for us. Morality is a product of our abstract thinking about how something should be treated. There is very little that is objective about ethics at all.

All of those considerations of your own behavior (and that of other humans) show that there are some ethical rules that are absolutely true. Take the prohibition of murder. You say that "I [Eriol] impose the obligation on you not to kill another person because I believe that that is the best way to live together". Not at all! This obligation is imposed on you by human nature, not by me. If the following premises are true:

1) You are human
2) I am human
3) You would disapprove if I killed you



[QUOTE=Eriol]Then it follows that you must accept that murder is wrong, or fall into contradiction. And this is what happens in fact; there was never a murderer who did not agree that his own murder would be wrong :). The only way to break the reasoning is to fall into a solipsism that denies "humanity" to everybody else except the murderer. This is so contradictory that only philosophers could fall for it :D.


Eriol, think about it. Of course you are the one imposing the obligation on me! (Unless you argue that I am also imposing the obligation on myself, but that's irrelevant.) You are saying that I should not muder. I happen to agree with you, but in this case the obligation originates with you. I daresay I would disapprove if you killed me. But to disapprove is subjective. I must accept that murder is wrong or fall into contradicition, this is true. But the very word, "wrong" or "right" is subjective. It alls falls back on this simple fact: we are creating an abstract set of principles not inherent in nature itself. Ergo, because the set of principles ultimately originates in our minds, it is subjective.

The same reasoning from basic principles show that theft is wrong, that slavery is wrong, that bodily aggression is wrong, etc. This is not a subjective ethics, this is a human ethics that is borne out by human behavior throughout time and space. No human ever approved of his own murder or robbery or slavery or aggression.


But to approve or disapprove is entirely subjective. It is not born out of human behavior, but out of our own conception of how we should act. There is nothing inherent about it.



Note the contradiction in your views here, Helcaraxë. You say that "there are no absolute truth", and then you say that "we must recogize obligations", even though "they are not inherent and require a moral agent!" It couldn't be clearer. I am a moral agent, and I disagree with you. Why should I recognize this obligation, then? After all, there are no absolute moral truths...


There is no contradiction. All I am saying is that ethics are not present except by our own intervention. It does not follow that all moral truths, subjective though they are, are useless. Morality is a thing created by our own minds. But it is a thing created by our own minds that can be applied to the real world. No moral truths are inherent, and all require a moral agent. As moral agents, we must try to create a moral framework that works. If we fail, we fail. The system isn't perfect. Subjectivity is the flaw. But don't blame me, I didn't create it. :D

Note, this is all for the sake of argument. I did not say anything about my own ethics so far in this thread. I abhor people who mistreat animals. I abhor them, but I can't say that they are committing a crime. If a man kills his dog after slowly torturing it, I loathe him, but I can't really punish him without committing a crime, myself. Because I can't see any foundation for "animals' rights". It's not that I like to kill animals, but every theory of animals' rights that I have met so far falls into great contradictions and is completely without basis. (I can't force a man to help a fellow human in need, either, though I surely think that if he refrains from doing it, he's wrong).

But you see, Eriol, for all practical purposes you are giving animals rights. You abhor people who mistreat them. Do you think it is wrong to mistreat an animal? You may deny it, but by the very fact that you dislike the mistreatment of animals, you are saying that it is wrong to do so. It's something of a loop.

[QUOTE=Eriol]An action may be loathsome or regrettable without it being unethical.


But ethics only have meaning when applied. We can rave about our moral truths in the abstract, but what really matters is the moral truth's practical effects. Why shouldn't something that is loathsome and regrettable to many people be unethical?



Yes. My code has a mighty foundation that yours is lacking. My code is based upon observable human behavior. Yours isn't. My code is universal. Yours isn't.


What do you mean by "universal"? That many people accept it? That doesn't really hold water, as if many people accept it, that does not make it ethical. Or do you mean that it encompasses many things? In that case, my moral code is far, far more universal than yours.

Your moral code is based upon human behaviour. Perhaps. But this is a somewhat flimsy foundation. Is human behaviour automatically right? I sure don't think so. Apparently you don't either, or you wouldn't be arguing that we should behave in a certain way. You are saying that we should behave in a certain way. This is not based in human nature. If you said that we should always act according to our nature, no matter what that entails, be it murder, theft, ect.. than you would be making a moral code based upon human nature.

Compare these two "moral directives"

"Theft is wrong"

"Humans should try to fly without equipment, just like Superman"

The first is inherent in human nature. We all agree on it. The second is unfeasible and ridiculous. Both, however, are "ought-statements", that describe not how the world is, but rather how it should be. This means both statements are modeled after ethics. Why do we reject the second? If there really were no absolute moral truths the second would be as valid as the first. But quite clearly, it isn't.


Eriol: "theft is wrong" is not inherent in human nature. It is subjective, as I demonstated earlier. It may be rooted in human behaviour, but your analysis of human behaviour is entirely subjective.





Continued..


~Helcaraxë

[Helcaraxë]

...continued

The limiting factor is not our imagination, it is human nature. People can't fly. But all of them agree that theft is wrong. Your code falls into the second category... for at least these reasons:



1) it is not universalizable
2) it needs an interpreter ("Ecological balance" is not an obvious concept)
3) it is unfeasible

I'll get into more detail about its shortcomings in the end of the post.


For the third time, moral truths are abstract. As such, they are subjective.

Your moral truth falls into the same category. First, you must define universalizable. Yours needs an interpreter too. You are being the interpreter. You are saying that I should do this, that I shouldn't do that according to your own moral code. And because your moral truth is subjective, it automatically requires an interpreter.



Well, I can get into more detail now :). If all living things have the right to live, and billions of them are killed at eve