🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Your opinion: Do animals have souls?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
Because it can neither decide where to fly the plane nor sell it to someone. The one that possesses the plane can do these things.
The one that controls can influence the plane. But the one that possesses it can decide how he has to influnece it and can eventually give the plane away. Because of this fact the definition for 'control' and the one for 'possession' have to be different.
But I demonstrated that this reasoning is circular. You can't say "possession is different from control because one can possess but not control." That's essentially saying "possession is different from control because they are separate."


CONTROL DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSCIOUSNESS!!!
Which is the point that I have been supporting.

Control requires the ability to react to the environment.
Again, this is very debatable, but I no longer see the relevance of debating it.

Taking something into control requires consciousness bcesause you simply cannot unconsciously take something into control. The act of taking something into control requires the will to take it. It requires the ability to decide over the thing taken into control.
Here again, is a circularity. You said "taking something into control requires consciousness because you cannot unconsciously take it into control." This is like saying "taking control requires consciousness because it is a conscious act," which is actually the wording you used earlier, but this is circular.

Regardless, what relevance does taking control vs. establishing control have to animals and whether they can possess?

I don't agree. The moon influences the tides of the sea. But it does not control the sea. The sun influences the tanning of my skin. But it does not control my skin.
Control is not influence.
Didn't we go through this many times? It requires active influence!


By not having the wish or the ability to take it into control. The aotopilot has neither the wish nor the ability to take the plane into control. It just controls it.
But because the autopilot is immediately caused by humans, the autopilot really controls nothing.

There is a difference between controlling and taking something into control. A difference which requires a will to overcome. The taxi driver controls the taxi. But he does not take it into control. The taxi belongs to his boss and he brings it back in the evening. But he would be able to decide to steal the taxi. Just drive away with it. By this action he would take it into his own control.
And because this situation is possible we have to differ between 'control' and 'taking into control'.
If we don't, we deny the possibility of this situation.
You said earlier that there is a difference between establishing control and taking control. So the wolf only establishes control over the chicken but the taxi driver takes the taxi into control? The only reason that you have given to differentiate them is saying that taking control requires consciousness because it is conscious, which I said earlier is circular.

I disagree. Water, air, lava and many other things move. But they do not control anything. They just influence things. Thus it needs more than movement to control something. It requires the ability to react.
No, water, air and lava do not move of their own accord. Didn't we go through this? But I have yet to see the necessity of reaction.


Because it is possible for a computer to establish control over a satellite (send pictures, hold it in the orbit, catch sunlight...) but not to take over the satellite (move it at its own will) there must be a difference between these two.
And yet you have not said why taking control requires will, other than using the argument that it requires free will because it is a willful action. ;)

Nope. The tissue controls the follicle. The follicle controls the hair. And the tissue controls the follicle in reaction to informations from the blood, the air and other informations. Thus it also reacts to something. It does not react to the hair but to other information. But this does not oppose the hypothsis that control just requires reaction on environmental information.
The tissue controls the follicle which controls the hair, so it indirectly controls the hair. Remember the distinction we agreed upon between ultimate and immediate controllers? But your argument earlier was that it received feedback from the controlled. But I see no reason to argue this point further, as I do not see the relevance of whether control involves feedback from the environment.


You can possess a piece of land. You give this land to a peasant that he may plant whatever he wants on it and just pay you a share of his income that results from the harvest. This is quite usual.
In this case the peasant takes the land into control. He decides what to plant, he decides when to water and fertilize the land and so on. He is the one in control. But you are still the one that possesses the land.
Thus there must be a difference between 'being in control' and 'possessing'. And the difference is, that the one that possesses the land is the only one allowed to sell it or give it away. The peasant is not allowed to do so. He is just allowed to cultivate it as he wants.
Thus I came to this distinction.
Why does the peasant not possess the land? This is yet another circularity. You are saying that possession requires the ability to give the thing away, and then supporting it by saying "the peasant does not possess the land because he cannot give it away." Do you see the circularity?

Possession does not only require the ability to decide what should happen to it or give orders to the one that controls it, it also requires the ability to give it away.
I still do not see any reason why this should be true, because you can't justify the proposition that possession requires the ability to give it away by saying that "possession requires the ability to give it away, and this is justified by the fact that the peasant does not possess the land because he cannot give it away."

Another example may be the slaves. Though they are in control of their body they do not possess it. Their owner may sell them or give them away at will. He is the one that possesses them by right. This is a clear indication that there is a difference between 'being in control' and 'possessing'.
No, the circularity is still present when you say "possession is the ability to give the thing away, and this is supported by the fact that the slave does not possess itself because it can't give itself away." Surely you see this circularity?

And the ripping open of the tyre is a direct result of my active throwing of a nail on the street.
No, it's an indirect result. The tire being ripped open is a direct result of the nail being on the street, but you throwing the nail out the window only indirectly causes the ripping of the tire.


That's right. It does not change the fact that the wolf kills the chicken. But it changes the situation. In one case it is a consciuos act and in the other it is a reflex.
But you have not provided reasonable, non-circular support for the proposition that the fact that one of the wolf's actions is unconscious means that in this action he is not taking control.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
But to summarize my point without messing with the uses of control:

Being alive does not give you possession over yourself. For centuries slavery was an accepted piece of social structure. From the earliest cultures over the feudalism until modern times there have always been slaves. People that were bought and sold. Humans that had no right to decide where to go and had to work hard for no payment.
children that were born to slaves were automatically slaves themselves. They were owned by their masters.

The masters of the slaves were the ones that possessed them. They could do whatever they wanted with their slaves. And these humans were not only animate but conscious of themselves. And in spite of that they were regarded as possessions before the law.
Unfortunately, summarizing your point requires messing with the uses of control. You are saying that the slave controls itself, but that the owner possesses it, which is falling back on your argument earlier that stated why possession is different from control. But this argument doesn't hold water.

The slaves still controlled themselves, and they still were the ultimate controllers, since the slave owners did not utilize mind control. Even if they had some extent of control, it was not rightful control, because it was wrested from the thing which really should control itself.

This went on until the constitutions of several countries forbade slavery. Sentences like 'everybody is born free' and others were included in legel texts to stop slavery and to give everyone that was born the right to life his life the way he wanted.
But before these laws slavery was legal. It was even morally correct. Not from todays point of view but certainly so in the past.
It was morally correct from a subjective point of view, but it was still not rightful control, and thus violated inherent morality.

Thus being born does not automatically lead to the right to decide over ones fate. We need laws to ensure freedom for everyone. Just because slavery is forbidden, we reagrd everybody in control of his own fate. If there were no such laws we would still trade with humans.
And there are no such laws for animals. Nowhere can we find a law that reads 'All animals are born free' or 'All animals hereby have a right to live unharmed by others'
And as long as these rights are not there it does not even matter whether an animal could eventually take control over itself. Or what the difference between control and possession is. As long as these rights are not there the animals have no such rights.
But they do! Inherent rights! It is not morally correct to take control of an animal's life because the animal is the rightful possessor, or controller, or whatever you want to call it, independent of any artificial law to the contrary!

Slavery was wrong even before that was realized, because the control is not rightful. The same goes for animals.

If somedays such laws should be decided by the people and the government all meat-factories would have to be closed and everyone would become a vegetarian. But until this day everyone that is not offended by animals being killed may eat meat.
Does the fact that people are not offended by it make it morally correct?

But it is not morally correct (inherently not morally correct) to kill animals because you are wresting control of their lives from them when you are not the original and rightful controller.
 

Tarlanc

Registered User
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Helcaraxë said:
But I demonstrated that this reasoning is circular. You can't say "possession is different from control because one can possess but not control."
But that's exactly the point. If in any situation anyone or anything is able to control but not to possess something, this is the proof that control cannot be identical with possession.
And there are many of these situations. Because of that, your hypothesis that control is possession is falsified.
This is not circular at all.

Here again, is a circularity. You said "taking something into control requires consciousness because you cannot unconsciously take it into control."
I say that taking over control requires consciousness because it includes the act of taking. That is, you have to acquire it consciously. You can not take anything without the will to take it.
And because of that you are not able to take something into control if you are not able to take something at all.

Regardless, what relevance does taking control vs. establishing control have to animals and whether they can possess?
NOTHING. That's what I have been trying to make clear all the time. Control does not tell us anything about possession.

Didn't we go through this many times? It requires active influence!
That's right. But you must not forget the word 'active'.

But because the autopilot is immediately caused by humans, the autopilot really controls nothing.
The autopilot can, without any humans near it, start, land and fly the plane. It can control the speed, the height and the course of the plane. It can control all the flying systems of the plane. It controls the plane.
It was programmed before to do thid, but it nevertheless is controlling the plane when it is activated.
But in no case it possesses the plane. And it will never take over the plane. It can just du what it was programmed to do. And that's flying the plane.

You said earlier that there is a difference between establishing control and taking control. So the wolf only establishes control over the chicken but the taxi driver takes the taxi into control?
Now you mixed things up. I said there was a difference between 'control' and 'taking something into control' and that the taxi driver merely controls the taxi. And the wolf does not control the chicken, but the life of the chicken, by killing it in a reflex. And he takes the body of the chicken into control if he takes the chicken to his lair or eats it.

No, water, air and lava do not move of their own accord. Didn't we go through this?
Yes, we did go through this. But you still say that control requires movement, which is not correct. Because water also moves.

The tissue controls the follicle which controls the hair, so it indirectly controls the hair. Remember the distinction we agreed upon between ultimate and immediate controllers? But your argument earlier was that it received feedback from the controlled.
I never said that it recieves feedback from the controlled! You can go through all my posts to check it.
I said that control is based on feedback. But hence I understood feedback as the reaction on information, this was obviously confusing you. The controller gets information and reacts to it.

But hair growth is an accidential reaction. It has no ultimate controller. The information given to the follicle are not given consciously to grow the hair. They are just secreted by the tissue in reaction to other informations. Thus the tissue controls the follicle. But it does so without consciousness. It can thus not be the ultimate controller.

Why does the peasant not possess the land? This is yet another circularity.
This is no circularity. The farmer does not have the possession rights. If you go to the town hall and ask the officials who possesses this land, they will name the owner and not the peasant. He dies not possess it. That's a fact. He has no deed.

You are saying that possession requires the ability to give the thing away, and then supporting it by saying "the peasant does not possess the land because he cannot give it away." Do you see the circularity?
This is no circularity this is an example.
I wanted to demonstrate that being in possession of something requires more that just being in control of it. And the example with the peasant on the land he does not own is a fitting example. He is the one that tends the land and decides on what he wants to cultivate, but he does not possess it.
The one that possesses the land is able to give it away. And this is no assumption, this is a fact. You can ask the one that owns the land. He really can sell it to you.

No, it's an indirect result. The tire being ripped open is a direct result of the nail being on the street,
So is the starving tree. The starving is a direct result of a lack of nutritients. The lack of nutritients are the direct result of the vine actively eating the nutritients.
Thus the starving of the tree is an indirect result of the vine eating.
 

Tarlanc

Registered User
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Helcaraxë said:
The slaves still controlled themselves, and they still were the ultimate controllers, since the slave owners did not utilize mind control.
Exactly. But they were possessed nevertheless.
They were being sold, bought and declared as rtightful possessions by law.
So how can you go on declaring that control is possession, when it is obvious that these are different things.
Control is a physical, being in control a conscious and possession a legal concept.

It was morally correct from a subjective point of view,
And it is morally incorrect from the subject point of view of the western world of today. Perhaps slavery will come again in some 100 years. And then it will be morally correct again.

but it was still not rightful control, and thus violated inherent morality.
How can you be this arrogant to think that your subjective morality corresponds to some 'iherent morality', some cosmic law?
You can be as wrong as the slave masters of ancient rome which found it morally correct to kill salves but incorrect not to offer sacrifices to the gods.
What gives you the idea that 1) there is something as an inherent morality and 2) that you have the slightest idea of it?

Slavery was wrong even before that was realized, because the control is not rightful. The same goes for animals.
Who says this? Where is the guy that invented morality and declares what is wrong and what is right? I'd lake to talk to him.

Does the fact that people are not offended by it make it morally correct?
No, the fact that it corresponds with the present morality of this country and time makes it morally correct.
It is morally correct today in western countries to show models in Bikinis. But this was morally incorrect in the 1920ies.

But it is not morally correct (inherently not morally correct) to kill animals because you are wresting control of their lives from them when you are not the original and rightful controller.
Who is the original controller of life, then?
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
Exactly. But they were possessed nevertheless.
They were being sold, bought and declared as rtightful possessions by law.
So how can you go on declaring that control is possession, when it is obvious that these are different things.
Control is a physical, being in control a conscious and possession a legal concept.
I can go on declaring it because that paragraph was nonsense. You are doing the same thing as before: you are saying that they are different things because they were controlled but not possessed. But this in no way demonstrates how they are different, because it is circular.


And it is morally incorrect from the subject point of view of the western world of today. Perhaps slavery will come again in some 100 years. And then it will be morally correct again.
No, it won't, because it is inherently wrong. You can rant and rave about how I am being sanctimonious by arguing that my morality is different from yours, but unless you prove me wrong it is nonsensical to keep stating that all morality is subjective.

How can you be this arrogant to think that your subjective morality corresponds to some 'iherent morality', some cosmic law?
Arrogant? Arrogant for stating that some morality is different than others? Arrogant for stating that some morality is on a different ontological state of being than others? Arrogant for making claims about the nature of morality? You need to seriously reconsider what constitutes arrogance. Especially since you are doing the same thing as me: making claims about morality. You are saying it is subjective. I am saying it can be inherent. I am no more arrogant than you.
You can be as wrong as the slave masters of ancient rome which found it morally correct to kill salves but incorrect not to offer sacrifices to the gods.
What gives you the idea that 1) there is something as an inherent morality and 2) that you have the slightest idea of it?
Then again, Plato could have been wrong about the Forms, Aristotle about the nature of the soul, et cetera. Just because they could have been wrong, does this mean that they should not make statements about the world? You may be just as wrong as I.

But you ask what makes me believe that my morality corresponds to an inherent morality.

To kill is wrong because it involves taking control that is not inherently present. It is not rightfully present, because the thing naturally controls itself, and to wrest control away is to forcibly and without the consent of the original controller establish control. This control is not rightful because it supplants the real controller.

Who says this? Where is the guy that invented morality and declares what is wrong and what is right? I'd lake to talk to him.
That's where you are mistaken. Morality is never invented because it is inherent. This is precisely my point.

No, the fact that it corresponds with the present morality of this country and time makes it morally correct.
It is morally correct today in western countries to show models in Bikinis. But this was morally incorrect in the 1920ies.
That's what you need to prove. You can't just state that morality is subjective offhand without proving it.

Who is the original controller of life, then?
What do you mean? The original controller of an organism is the organism. I'm not sure if that was what you were asking.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
But that's exactly the point. If in any situation anyone or anything is able to control but not to possess something, this is the proof that control cannot be identical with possession.
And there are many of these situations. Because of that, your hypothesis that control is possession is falsified.
This is not circular at all.
What do you mean it is not circular? You have not demonstrated the difference between possession and control in these situations. You have just stated "this is possession without control" without actually stating the difference. You have said "the slave owner possesses the slave but does not control is, so possession is different from control" but you have not actually said why he possesses the slave.

I say that taking over control requires consciousness because it includes the act of taking. That is, you have to acquire it consciously. You can not take anything without the will to take it.
And because of that you are not able to take something into control if you are not able to take something at all.
Taking requires consciousness? So the wolf cannot take the chicken back to its lair? The bear cannot steal fish from storehouses? A bird cannot take seeds from a feeder?

NOTHING. That's what I have been trying to make clear all the time. Control does not tell us anything about possession.
Think about you demonstration. You said, "he slave owner possesses the slave but does not control is so they are different" without actually stating why they are different, and why he possesses the slave but doesn't control him.


The autopilot can, without any humans near it, start, land and fly the plane. It can control the speed, the height and the course of the plane. It can control all the flying systems of the plane. It controls the plane.
It was programmed before to do thid, but it nevertheless is controlling the plane when it is activated.
But in no case it possesses the plane. And it will never take over the plane. It can just du what it was programmed to do. And that's flying the plane.
First off, it is merely the instrument of the people who control the plane. This is why robots cannot really control. Thye are immediately caused by people. But this is the same nonsensical reasoning you used earlier. You say they are different because the autopilot controls it but does not possess it, without actually demonstrating the difference.

Now you mixed things up. I said there was a difference between 'control' and 'taking something into control' and that the taxi driver merely controls the taxi. And the wolf does not control the chicken, but the life of the chicken, by killing it in a reflex. And he takes the body of the chicken into control if he takes the chicken to his lair or eats it.
No, I haven't. Yet you have contradicted yourself by saying that the wolf can take it into control, because control requires the will to do it. But the wolf still takes the chicken into control because he controls its life; its life is the main factor in controlling the chicken.

Yes, we did go through this. But you still say that control requires movement, which is not correct. Because water also moves.
And we continue to go through this, because you are not listening to me. The water does not move of its own accord. It requires independent movement.

I never said that it recieves feedback from the controlled! You can go through all my posts to check it.
I said that control is based on feedback. But hence I understood feedback as the reaction on information, this was obviously confusing you. The controller gets information and reacts to it.
Debatable, but I no longer see the relevance.

But hair growth is an accidential reaction. It has no ultimate controller. The information given to the follicle are not given consciously to grow the hair. They are just secreted by the tissue in reaction to other informations. Thus the tissue controls the follicle. But it does so without consciousness. It can thus not be the ultimate controller.
Argument by assertion. Why does ultimate control require consciousness?


This is no circularity. The farmer does not have the possession rights. If you go to the town hall and ask the officials who possesses this land, they will name the owner and not the peasant. He dies not possess it. That's a fact. He has no deed.
No, it's not a fact. Now you introduce another factor: possession is only legal possession. And yet, even in giving all these examples, you are merely stating that they are different, not why. You say the farmer possesses the land but the peasant does not, which means that they are different, but you have yet to actually prove why they are different and why the peasant does not possess it. Circularity.

This is no circularity this is an example.
I wanted to demonstrate that being in possession of something requires more that just being in control of it. And the example with the peasant on the land he does not own is a fitting example. He is the one that tends the land and decides on what he wants to cultivate, but he does not possess it.
The one that possesses the land is able to give it away. And this is no assumption, this is a fact. You can ask the one that owns the land. He really can sell it to you.
Arbitrary distinction. The peasant example is nonsensical. You have not demonstrated why the peasant does not possess the land, other than saying that he cannot give it away. But you have not demonstrated why it requires the ability to give it away, because the distinction is arbitrary.

So is the starving tree. The starving is a direct result of a lack of nutritients. The lack of nutritients are the direct result of the vine actively eating the nutritients.
Thus the starving of the tree is an indirect result of the vine eating.
No, because the vine eating actively causes the death of the tree. The starving of the tree is a direct result of the vine eating it because the vine actively sucks the nutrients away. The nutrients are a part of the tree, and the vine is the direct cause of the death of the tree, because it causes an effect directly on a part of the tree. You do not affect the tire, the nail affects the tire.
 

Tarlanc

Registered User
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Helcaraxë said:
What do you mean it is not circular? You have not demonstrated the difference between possession and control in these situations.
They are not the same. If control and possession were tha same thing they could be interchanged. Thus the sentence:
The autopilot controls the plane which is possessed by the owner. Could be cahnged to: The autopilot possesses the plane which is controlled by the owner.
And these thwo sentences do mean different things. Even you must see this.

Thus possession and control can not mean the same thing. It does not matter why this is the case and it does not matter where exactly the difference lies. These two words just don't mean the same thing.

You have said "the slave owner possesses the slave but does not control is, so possession is different from control" but you have not actually said why he possesses the slave.
Because he has a the possession rights. He is the rightful possessor of the slave. It is a legal ownership.

Taking requires consciousness? So the wolf cannot take the chicken back to its lair? The bear cannot steal fish from storehouses? A bird cannot take seeds from a feeder?
The bird can eat the seeds from the feeder. But this is not taking.
By taking you actively change the holder of something. The wolf will see the chicken, pick it up and bring it to his lair. He acquires it and will defend it. It becomes his chicken.
But to do this he needs to know the difference between 'mine' and 'not mine'. Becasue he acively cahnges this property of the thing by taking it. Before you take something it is not yours. After you took it it is yours. Thus you need a feeling for the difference of these two states.
And I can again bring in the water. Water can also dislocate stones. It can move boats and it moves leaves that swim on the water. But it does not take these things. It just passively influences their location.
To take these things the water schould be able to differentiate between mine and not mine. Or between. Not taken yet and taken.

First off, it is merely the instrument of the people who control the plane. This is why robots cannot really control.
Of course they can. They actively influence the movement of planes, they build cars and ballpoint pens. Computers control the traffic lights and they control aotomatic doors and elevators. They do control these things.
They get information to which they react according to their programs.
Though they lack the consciousness and thus never can take the role of the ultimate controller they are controlling many things. But there's always a man above them. Someone who controls the computer. A programmers and users. They are the entities with consciousness that give the commands to the computers. But the computers and robots control all the same.

You say they are different because the autopilot controls it but does not possess it, without actually demonstrating the difference.
Difference: The right to sell it.
Autopilot: Controls the plane by regulation of engines and wings.
Owner: Buys and sells planes.

But the wolf still takes the chicken into control because he controls its life; its life is the main factor in controlling the chicken.
Have you any evidence for this assumption?

No, it's not a fact. Now you introduce another factor: possession is only legal possession. And yet, even in giving all these examples, you are merely stating that they are different, not why.
Nope. I dod not say that possession is only legal possession. Legal possession is just one form of possession. There's the illegal possession as well.
But legal possession is one form of possession. And if someone legally possesses something, he possesses it. Whether or not you think it is morally correct.

You say the farmer possesses the land but the peasant does not, which means that they are different, but you have yet to actually prove why they are different and why the peasant does not possess it. Circularity.
Is my english so bad or do you mess these things up to unnerve me?
I never sait that the farmer possesses the land. The farmer/peasant does tend the land. he is in control of the land. The owner possesses the land.
And the difference is that in the register the name of the owner is listed as the legal owner of this land. Not the peasants. This is the difference.
This is no circularity.
The owner possesses the land. You can see this when you ask the officials.
The farmer is in control of the land. You can sse this when you visit the farmer and look what he is doing.
These are facts. They are observable. And because the same spot of land is owned by one person and in control of another, there must be a difference.
It is not necessary to explain why there is a difference, where this difference is and what the metaphysical explanations for this difference are. There just has to be a difference. Because if there were not, the one in control and the possessor must be the same person.

You have not demonstrated why the peasant does not possess the land,
Yes I have. You can go to the officials and ask them who is the possessor of the land. And they will name you the owner. Thus the farmer cannot possess the land. This is why he does not possess it. He is not the legal possessor.

No, because the vine eating actively causes the death of the tree. The starving of the tree is a direct result of the vine eating it because the vine actively sucks the nutrients away
And the ripping of the tire is the direct result of me throwing the nail?
The throwing of the nail actively causes the tire to rip open.

the vine is the direct cause of the death of the tree, because it causes an effect directly on a part of the tree. You do not affect the tire, the nail affects the tire.
The nutritients are not part of the tree. They were just made by the tree. And normally the eating of the vine does not disturb the tree. As much as the throwing of a nail does not disturb cars. But in unfortunate situations it may be that the nutritient shortage leads to a starving of the tree. e.g. If there is no rain for a long period or it is too dark for the tree to produce nutritients, the shortage caused by the vine may lead to starvation.
Like my nail may only rip tires if a car drives over it.
It is an indirect cause.

You can take the vine away and the tree will starve all the same. Even as I can move away and the next car driving over the nail will have a ripped tire. The direct cause of the starving is the shortage. The vine just caused this shortage.

That's where you are mistaken. Morality is never invented because it is inherent. This is precisely my point.
That's where you are mistaken. Morality is always invented because it is part of the culture and time. This is precisely my point.
And I can name the time and plance of invention of many parts of todays morality.
Of course you think that the morality that was taught to you through your childhood is the right one. It makes perfect sense and where it does not you can easiliy decieve yourself and fill in the holes. But you have to see that there are many different cultures on this planet which do have another morality. And there were many cultures in the past that also had different views of right and wrong.
In the history of humanity vegetarians are just another group of people that have an own morality after which they live. You are nothing special. I am nothing special. We all do inherit our sense of morality from our parents, teacher, priests. And we will pass it on to our children.
You may hold your sense of right and wrong for the only truth. But so did the slave masters of past times and the canibals in the southern sea.
Your sens of right and wrong always seems abolutely correct to you. The soldiers that kill their enemies with bombs also have the impression that they are doing the right thing.
And thinking that your personal morality is the only one that is true of all the moralities that are and have been and will come is absolutely arrogant
Arrogance (Ar"ro*gance) (#), n.
[F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.]
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. "I hate not you for her proud arrogance." Shak.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
They are not the same. If control and possession were tha same thing they could be interchanged. Thus the sentence:
The autopilot controls the plane which is possessed by the owner. Could be cahnged to: The autopilot possesses the plane which is controlled by the owner.
And these thwo sentences do mean different things.
No, they don't. Not unless you actually explain the difference. As of yet, you have only said that they are not interchangable, but have not demonstrated why they are not interchangable. I can't explain it any more clearly than I have already.

Even you must see this.
"Even I"? As in, I am characterized by misundrstanding? As in, it is so clear that even I, with my lowly intelligence, must understand it? I hope this sentence does not mean what it sounds like.

Thus possession and control can not mean the same thing. It does not matter why this is the case and it does not matter where exactly the difference lies. These two words just don't mean the same thing.
You can't say, "this is an example of possession without control, therefore they are different" without actually showing the difference; showing why this is possession without control. Circularity. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Because he has a the possession rights. He is the rightful possessor of the slave. It is a legal ownership.
Another arbitrary statement. You now introduce the proposition that possession is only legal, and thus the possession of the slave is rightful. Why?


The bird can eat the seeds from the feeder. But this is not taking.
By taking you actively change the holder of something. The wolf will see the chicken, pick it up and bring it to his lair. He acquires it and will defend it. It becomes his chicken.
But to do this he needs to know the difference between 'mine' and 'not mine'. Becasue he acively cahnges this property of the thing by taking it. Before you take something it is not yours. After you took it it is yours. Thus you need a feeling for the difference of these two states.
And I can again bring in the water. Water can also dislocate stones. It can move boats and it moves leaves that swim on the water. But it does not take these things. It just passively influences their location.
To take these things the water schould be able to differentiate between mine and not mine. Or between. Not taken yet and taken.
Once again, water is an invalid analogy. But taking does not require the ability to understand the difference between the taken thing and the self. In other words, one does not have to understand what it means to take in order to take. The wolf does not need to know how to breath in order to breath, so why should taking be different?


Of course they can. They actively influence the movement of planes, they build cars and ballpoint pens. Computers control the traffic lights and they control aotomatic doors and elevators. They do control these things.
They get information to which they react according to their programs.
Though they lack the consciousness and thus never can take the role of the ultimate controller they are controlling many things. But there's always a man above them. Someone who controls the computer. A programmers and users. They are the entities with consciousness that give the commands to the computers. But the computers and robots control all the same.
No, not really. Computers are both immediatley caused and immediately controlled by people. Computers, you might say, are a direct result of people.


Difference: The right to sell it.
Arbitrary. Demonstrate why this should be a criterion for possession. But if you define it this way, why not say so from the beginning? In providing these examples, you have not demonstrated any difference. Now you have, in this sentence. But support this definition.

Autopilot: Controls the plane by regulation of engines and wings.
And is a direct result (and in the direct influence of) people.

Owner: Buys and sells planes.
Yes, owners buy and sell. Why do you now define possession as a legal thing?

Have you any evidence for this assumption?
It's not an assumtion, because it is used as evidence for another assumtion, and requires additional evidence to support it, but itself is not an assumtion.

Evidence: who controls the chicken's life if the wolf kills it? Certainly not the chicken. The wolf established control of the chicken's life when it killed it, because it wrested the control away from the chicken. Because of the wolf, the chicken lost control of it's life. So the wolf took control of it's life.

Nope. I dod not say that possession is only legal possession. Legal possession is just one form of possession. There's the illegal possession as well.
But legal possession is one form of possession. And if someone legally possesses something, he possesses it. Whether or not you think it is morally correct.
Have you any evidence to support this assumtion? ;)

Is my english so bad or do you mess these things up to unnerve me?
And I suppose you've never heard of a misunderstanding?

I never sait that the farmer possesses the land. The farmer/peasant does tend the land. he is in control of the land. The owner possesses the land.
And the difference is that in the register the name of the owner is listed as the legal owner of this land. Not the peasants. This is the difference.
This is no circularity.
Now this is clearer. But it was a circularity earlier. You never actually proved why they were not interchangable. But again, arbitrary. Why should it matter whether the register says that the owner owns it? When there were no registers, did people still possess things? Before there was any law regarding property, did people own things?

The owner possesses the land. You can see this when you ask the officials.
The farmer is in control of the land. You can sse this when you visit the farmer and look what he is doing.
These are facts. They are observable. And because the same spot of land is owned by one person and in control of another, there must be a difference.
It is not necessary to explain why there is a difference, where this difference is and what the metaphysical explanations for this difference are. There just has to be a difference. Because if there were not, the one in control and the possessor must be the same person.
Which is exactly the point I'm making. And this is the circularity again. You cannot say, "there is a difference because if there wasn't a difference, they would be the same." This is falwed, but you provided other evidence to explain what the difference is. Good. Now why should possession be legal, among other things? And what other things constitute possession?

Yes I have. You can go to the officials and ask them who is the possessor of the land. And they will name you the owner. Thus the farmer cannot possess the land. This is why he does not possess it. He is not the legal possessor.
And why does it matter? I'll ask again, before there was law regarding property, was there still possession?
And the ripping of the tire is the direct result of me throwing the nail?
The throwing of the nail actively causes the tire to rip open.
No, it doesn't. The ripping of the tire is caused by the nail. The nail is caused to be on the street by you. Thus you do not directly influence the tire.


The nutritients are not part of the tree. They were just made by the tree. And normally the eating of the vine does not disturb the tree. As much as the throwing of a nail does not disturb cars. But in unfortunate situations it may be that the nutritient shortage leads to a starving of the tree. e.g. If there is no rain for a long period or it is too dark for the tree to produce nutritients, the shortage caused by the vine may lead to starvation.
Like my nail may only rip tires if a car drives over it.
It is an indirect cause.
How are the nutrients not a part of the tree? The tree contains the nturients within its bark. But your nail is a direct cause of the ripping of the tire. It is you who is the indirect cause.

You can take the vine away and the tree will starve all the same. Even as I can move away and the next car driving over the nail will have a ripped tire. The direct cause of the starving is the shortage. The vine just caused this shortage.
By this reasoning, the wolf does not actually kill the chicken. The lack of blood kills the chicken. And since the wolf is the cause of the lack of blood, by your reasoning it is only the indirect cause of the chicken. But it's the direct cause, so this reasoning doesn't hold up.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
That's where you are mistaken. Morality is always invented because it is part of the culture and time. This is precisely my point.
And I can name the time and plance of invention of many parts of todays morality.
Of course you think that the morality that was taught to you through your childhood is the right one. It makes perfect sense and where it does not you can easiliy decieve yourself and fill in the holes. But you have to see that there are many different cultures on this planet which do have another morality. And there were many cultures in the past that also had different views of right and wrong.
And that's where you midunerstand me. ;) I never said the morality created by culture was inherent. I never said the morality created by human law is inherent. I said that the morality due to inherent rights is inherent. And you have yet to prove me wrong on that point.

In the history of humanity vegetarians are just another group of people that have an own morality after which they live. You are nothing special. I am nothing special. We all do inherit our sense of morality from our parents, teacher, priests. And we will pass it on to our children.
You may hold your sense of right and wrong for the only truth. But so did the slave masters of past times and the canibals in the southern sea.
Your sens of right and wrong always seems abolutely correct to you. The soldiers that kill their enemies with bombs also have the impression that they are doing the right thing.
I wonder if the slavemasters thought slavery was right because the slavemasters had an inherent right to enslave the person. If so, they would have to prove that the slaves did not have the inherent right to be free. I have proven that animals have the inherent right to live. You haven't yet disproved me. That's what separates me from the slavemasters.

And thinking that your personal morality is the only one that is true of all the moralities that are and have been and will come is absolutely arrogant
Arrogance (Ar"ro*gance) (#), n.
[F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.]
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. "I hate not you for her proud arrogance." Shak.
By this definition you are being just as arrogant as me in claiming that there is not an inherent morality. We are both trying to arrive at truth, Tarlanc. I am not being haughty in claiming that my morality is inherent. I am merely making a claim. Claims are not arrogant. Note "undue" claims are arrogant, by that defintion. Was Socrates arrogant for making the claim that morality was inherent? Was Aristotle? So anyone that claims that they are right is arrogant? Even when they did not do so in an arrogant manner? Even if they are respectful of the opinions of those who disagree with them? As I said before, you need to seriously reconsider what constitutes arrogance, because that defintion only proves that I am not being arrogant: only as arrogant as yourself for making claims, just as I am.
 

Tarlanc

Registered User
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Helcaraxë said:
No, they don't. Not unless you actually explain the difference. As of yet, you have only said that they are not interchangable, but have not demonstrated why they are not interchangable.
There is no need to lolok for a why or for a difference. The fact that they are not interchangeable in at least one statement indicates that there is a difference. And that's all I wanted to make clear.

But I can look for differences, if you want me to.
One difference is, that the one in control influences the machine whereas the owner can be on a distant location.
A further difference is, that the possessor has the right to sell it whereas the controller is not allowed to do so. Except, of course, if he stole it. But then he would be the (unrightful) possessor.

"Even I"? As in, I am characterized by misundrstanding? As in, it is so clear that even I, with my lowly intelligence, must understand it?
No. Even you in your stubborn attitude towards my arguments.

possession is only legal, and thus the possession of the slave is rightful. Why?
Possession is not only legal. Leagl possession is just one form of possession. But in the case of the slave it is a legal possession. The master possesses the slave by right according to current laws.

But taking does not require the ability to understand the difference between the taken thing and the self.
But how could you take something without knowing the meaning of possession? I mean, if you don't understand the difference between 'not mine' and 'mine' the whole act of taking makes no sense.

No, not really. Computers are both immediatley caused and immediately controlled by people. Computers, you might say, are a direct result of people.
Computers were programmed by people. But they work without people near them. Their programming and environmental information is enough to make them do something. An auto pilot may work without any pilot in the plane. It is able to control the plane without someone to command it.
It may have been created by humans, but it is able to react on the environment without any humans near it. Thus it is able to control something without immediate guidance of humans.

Demonstrate why this (right to sell it) should be a criterion for possession.
It is no criterion for possession. It is just a difference between possession and control. You did not ask for criterions. Just for differences. And this is an obvious one.

Yes, owners buy and sell. Why do you now define possession as a legal thing?
I never did. Legal possession is, as I mentioned earlier, just one form of possession. Even before there were legal texts, there was possession. When a caveman possessed a hammer this was possession, too. But even in this example the caveman could give his hammer to someone else. He could give it away (of course he could not sell it before the invention of currency).

The wolf established control of the chicken's life when it killed it, because it wrested the control away from the chicken.
And why do you think the chicken had control over its own life before that? Was it able to influence its life in any way?


Have you any evidence to support this assumtion? ;)
Which assumption? That leagl possession is a form of possession?
Evidence: I legally possess my car. I possess my car. (both are observable)

Now why should possession be legal, among other things? And what other things constitute possession?
Legal possession should be a form of possession because if it were not, all the laws concerning possession, purchase, trade and so an would be in vain. If not even legal possession is regarded as possession, theft would not be forbidden. Because no one would own anything by right. And that would be quite nonsensical.
Other things that constitute possession: The ability to give it away ;)
And of course the awareness of possession over something. Though this is not in all cases necessary.

No, it doesn't. The ripping of the tire is caused by the nail. The nail is caused to be on the street by you. Thus you do not directly influence the tire.
I am equal to the vine in this analogy.
The nail on the street is equal to the nutrition shortage.
The tree is equal to the car.
The dead of the tree is equal to the ripping of the tire.

And the analogy works. I caused the nail to lie there. The nail lying there caused an eventually passing car to get a tire ripped open.
The vine caused the nutrition shortage. The nutrition shortage eventually caused a weakened tree to die.

By this reasoning, the wolf does not actually kill the chicken. The lack of blood kills the chicken.
clever :)
But the wolf will kill the chicken actively. He does not simpl puncture a vein and go away and let the chicken eventually die. He will bite it until it does not move anymore. The killing of the chicken is a reaction to the life of the chicken. And he will not stop the act until the chicken is lifeless.
This is the difference between the vine and the tree. The vine does not care whether the tree lived or died. If it did care it would let the tree live because it is his host.

And that's where you midunerstand me. I never said the morality created by culture was inherent. I never said the morality created by human law is inherent. I said that the morality due to inherent rights is inherent. And you have yet to prove me wrong on that point.
I don't misunderstand you. I see that you have the idea that there are inherent rights and inherent morality. But that's the point I cannot accept.
All morality and all rights were fashioned by humans. They were not there until they were invented by humans. Until a culture brought them up.

I wonder if the slavemasters thought slavery was right because the slavemasters had an inherent right to enslave the person.
Of course they did. It was their god-given right to hold slaves. There was no doubt about the lower situation of the slaves in the world. Slaves were just slaves. They could be killed, tortured, sold and mistreated because they were not humans but slaves.

I have proven that animals have the inherent right to live.
No, you have not. You've just given a possible justification for such a right.

[/quote]Was Socrates arrogant for making the claim that morality was inherent? Was Aristotle? So anyone that claims that they are right is arrogant? Even when they did not do so in an arrogant manner? Even if they are respectful of the opinions of those who disagree with them?[/quote]
No, they were not arrogant. Because they did not declare that they have found the inherent truth. They just said that there is something like an inherent truth and that it is the job of humans to search it. And they also declared that we will probably never find it.
But you behave as if you had found the inherent morality. That you know what the inherent rights are. That's the difference. That's the arrogance.
Saying that there might be an inherent morality is just an assumption which can be investigated. But saying that you are right and all others are wrong is arrogant.
Declaring that the slave-masters did wrong, the people that kill animals do wrong and so on, just because it interferes with you personal morality is arrogant.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
There is no need to lolok for a why or for a difference. The fact that they are not interchangeable in at least one statement indicates that there is a difference. And that's all I wanted to make clear.
Yet to prove they are not interchangeable requires proof that they are different.

But I can look for differences, if you want me to.
One difference is, that the one in control influences the machine whereas the owner can be on a distant location.
A further difference is, that the possessor has the right to sell it whereas the controller is not allowed to do so. Except, of course, if he stole it. But then he would be the (unrightful) possessor.
This is very similar to your earlier argument. You say that the difference is such and such, but you have'nt demonstrated why this should be possession. You have given differences, but until you prove otherwise I'll have to assume that they're arbitray.
No. Even you in your stubborn attitude towards my arguments.
Ah. So by arguing with you I'm being stubborn. But even though you do not accept my arguments at face value either, you are not being stubborn. Interesting.

Possession is not only legal. Leagl possession is just one form of possession. But in the case of the slave it is a legal possession. The master possesses the slave by right according to current laws.
But I don't see why this should be an objective criterion for possession.


But how could you take something without knowing the meaning of possession? I mean, if you don't understand the difference between 'not mine' and 'mine' the whole act of taking makes no sense.
No, not really. One does not have to understand what one does. Of course if you lack the understanding of the difference between "mine" and "not mine" you can't comprehend that you are taking something, but this does not prevent you from taking. Babies (and many grown people as well ;) ) Do not understand the workings of the lungs. Does this mean they cannot breath?

Computers were programmed by people. But they work without people near them. Their programming and environmental information is enough to make them do something. An auto pilot may work without any pilot in the plane. It is able to control the plane without someone to command it.
It may have been created by humans, but it is able to react on the environment without any humans near it. Thus it is able to control something without immediate guidance of humans.
True. But robots would not work at all, near people or not near them, if humans hadn't programmed them.

It is no criterion for possession. It is just a difference between possession and control. You did not ask for criterions. Just for differences. And this is an obvious one.
And also an arbitrary one. Why should you define possession this way?

I never did. Legal possession is, as I mentioned earlier, just one form of possession. Even before there were legal texts, there was possession. When a caveman possessed a hammer this was possession, too. But even in this example the caveman could give his hammer to someone else. He could give it away (of course he could not sell it before the invention of currency).
Prove why the ability to give something away is necessary for possession. You have said that it is necessary, but I see no reasons.

And why do you think the chicken had control over its own life before that? Was it able to influence its life in any way?
Control is influence. The life is part of the chicken. An essential part. The chicken was obviously in control of itself. So it was in control of its life.

Which assumption? That leagl possession is a form of possession?
Evidence: I legally possess my car. I possess my car. (both are observable)
You still haven't proved why legality should be a criterion for possession. Why is ownership possession?

Legal possession should be a form of possession because if it were not, all the laws concerning possession, purchase, trade and so an would be in vain. If not even legal possession is regarded as possession, theft would not be forbidden. Because no one would own anything by right. And that would be quite nonsensical.
No, that's not true. You could still have legal ownership, which could be a reason theft would be forbidden. You can have other forms of legal protection besides possession.

Other things that constitute possession: The ability to give it away ;)
And of course the awareness of possession over something. Though this is not in all cases necessary.
Don't I recall you saying earlier that possession required consciousness? Aren't you know contradicted that point? If this sentence: "Though this [consciousness] is not in all cases necessary" means what it says, than I'll have to conlude that you agree with me that animals can possess.

I am equal to the vine in this analogy.
The nail on the street is equal to the nutrition shortage.
The tree is equal to the car.
The dead of the tree is equal to the ripping of the tire.

And the analogy works. I caused the nail to lie there. The nail lying there caused an eventually passing car to get a tire ripped open.
The vine caused the nutrition shortage. The nutrition shortage eventually caused a weakened tree to die.
Not really. You did not go outside of your apartment and hammer nails into tires. The nail caused the ripping of the tire not you. But the nutrients are in the tree and are part of the tree. Thus by actively affecting part of the tree, the vine actively causes the death of the tree. The vine eats an essential part of the tree, thus killing it.

clever :)
But the wolf will kill the chicken actively. He does not simpl puncture a vein and go away and let the chicken eventually die. He will bite it until it does not move anymore. The killing of the chicken is a reaction to the life of the chicken. And he will not stop the act until the chicken is lifeless.
Even if he did just puncture a vein and leave the chicken to die, he would be the direct cause. The wolf caused a change in a thing that is part of the chicken, which resulted in its death. Active. But why does the duration of the action matter? The wolf is no less active a cause of the chicken's death if he punctures one vein in its throat than if he continues and punctures several veins.
This is the difference between the vine and the tree. The vine does not care whether the tree lived or died. If it did care it would let the tree live because it is his host.
Intentions are irrelevant. The vine actively caused the death of the tree because the nutrients that it eats are a part of the tree.

I don't misunderstand you. I see that you have the idea that there are inherent rights and inherent morality. But that's the point I cannot accept.
All morality and all rights were fashioned by humans. They were not there until they were invented by humans. Until a culture brought them up.
You have said so before, and still have'nt proved the point. You know my argument. it is not a subjective matter when the control is wrested from the rightful controller. It is not a subjective matter as to who was the original controller.
Of course they did. It was their god-given right to hold slaves. There was no doubt about the lower situation of the slaves in the world. Slaves were just slaves. They could be killed, tortured, sold and mistreated because they were not humans but slaves.
And yet I wonder what proofs they offered besides "its a god-given right" as to why they could enslave people. If it is justified for superior people to enslave inferior people, I suppose they thought that all more intelligent people belonged to a higher order of beings, and thus could enslave less intelligent people? Their morality has no grounding in inherent rights. If it did, they would have to prove that their right to enslave was inherent. And it has never been proven that it is an inherent right to enslave.

No, you have not. You've just given a possible justification for such a right.
Sorry, no. I have proven that it is not a subjective matter whether the control is original or whether it has been wrested from the original controller. There is nothing subjective about that.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
No, you have not. You've just given a possible justification for such a right.
Sorry, no. I have proven that it is not a subjective matter whether the control is original or whether it has been wrested from the original controller. There is nothing subjective about that.
No, they were not arrogant. Because they did not declare that they have found the inherent truth. They just said that there is something like an inherent truth and that it is the job of humans to search it. And they also declared that we will probably never find it.
So everyone who makes a claim at knowledge is arrogant? This is completely preposterous. People search for truth. It isn't an atrocity to claim to have found it.

Let me tell you something: you are doing exactly the same thing. You are claiming that you have arrived at the truth that there is, in fact, no inherent morality. You are claiming that you are right and I am wrong as much as I am. Don't have a double standard.
But you behave as if you had found the inherent morality. That you know what the inherent rights are. That's the difference. That's the arrogance.
Saying that there might be an inherent morality is just an assumption which can be investigated. But saying that you are right and all others are wrong is arrogant.
Why? When Einstein said that all the classical physicists were wrong about the absolute qualities of space and time, was he arrogant? I have offered evidence to support my claim. You are also making claims to truth, saying that I am wrong.

Declaring that the slave-masters did wrong, the people that kill animals do wrong and so on, just because it interferes with you personal morality is arrogant.
And thus you too are being arrogant when saying that everyone who has claimed that their morality is inheret is arrogant. My morality is not personal. It is inherent. ;)
 

Tarlanc

Registered User
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Helcaraxë said:
Yet to prove they are not interchangeable requires proof that they are different.
Nope. To prove that they are not always interchangeable it requires only one example in which they are not.
And if they are not always interchangeable it means that they are not the same. And that's the only thing I wanted to show.

Ah. So by arguing with you I'm being stubborn. But even though you do not accept my arguments at face value either, you are not being stubborn. Interesting.
I never said that I am not ;)
I know I am stubborn, sceptic and hard to convince of anyting. And you should know by now, too. So you should give me arguments that even I may accept.

Of course if you lack the understanding of the difference between "mine" and "not mine" you can't comprehend that you are taking something, but this does not prevent you from taking.
So, you say that you can take something without comprehending what taking is? Give me one example in which this is possible.

Babies do not understand the workings of the lungs. Does this mean they cannot breath?
It is a reflex. You don't have to understad why your body does things as breathing, heartbeat, closing the eye when something flies towards your face and so on.
These are reflexes. A baby will start breathing after birth as soon as the lungs have filled with air one time.
But taking something is no reflex. A baby won't immediately start taking things when it is born. In the first weeks it is not able to take something. Until it has developed a sense of possession. Then it will take things and won't let them go again. It will cry if you take a toy from him because it begins to understand the meaning of having and not having something.

True. But robots would not work at all, near people or not near them, if humans hadn't programmed them.
Unless they program themselves. But the fact that they are just running programs does not occlude the fact that they are actually controlling several machines.

Prove why the ability to give something away is necessary for possession. You have said that it is necessary, but I see no reasons.
Because there must be a difference between 'being in control of something' and 'possessing something'. They are not always interchangeable, so there must be differences.
So I took the examples in which they are not interchangeable and tried to find the differences in all these examples. And the only difference that was present in all cases was the ability to give it away.
Thus it seems quite useful to include this little difference in the definition of 'possession' to distinguish it from 'being in control'.
It's qute an empiric way. But it leads to a definition of 'possession' which is applyable in all cases I can imagine.

Control is influence. The life is part of the chicken. An essential part. The chicken was obviously in control of itself. So it was in control of its life.
Control is not influence. I explained several times why not.
Life is no essential part of the chicken. A dead chicken still is a chicken. It's unable to move without assistance but it still is a chicken.
The chicken is in control of it's body, that's a fact.
But I don't see why it should be in control of its life. It has no influence on its life. It can't turn it on and off.

I mean, men can be in control of their lifes. According to my definition of possession, they are even possessing their lives because they can give it away. A bodyguard may give his life for the one he protects. Someone may give away his life to achieve something, whatsoever. Be it a liefguard that risks his life for a drowning person, be it a bomb expert that gives his life to minimize the victims....
Humans are possessing their lives. And they are able to ultimately control it by suicide.

But I don't see these things in chickens. I never heard of a chicken that offered itself to the butcher to have its collegue spared. I never heard of a chicken committing suicide. I never heard of a chicken doing something for its health so it may live longer.
So I don't see an indication for a chicken to control its life.

But I have seen farmers that controlled the life of chickens. That decided on which day the chicken is to be slaughtered, for example. This is control.

You still haven't proved why legality should be a criterion for possession.
I never even indicated in any way that I think legality is a criterion for possession. So why should I try to prove it. It is obvously wrong.

Why is ownership possession?
I don't know why. But in my understanding they are synonymes.
Do you have an example in which they are not interchangeable? If not, I will continue regarding them as synonymes and alter the use of the two for the sake of mutitude :)
It's quite boring to use the same word all the time if there are other word that mean the same thing, don't you think so?

Don't I recall you saying earlier that possession required consciousness? Aren't you know contradicted that point? If this sentence: "Though this [consciousness] is not in all cases necessary" means what it says, than I'll have to conlude that you agree with me that animals can possess.
I did not mean that consciousness is not in all cases necessary. I meant to say that the awareness that you own something is no obligate criterion for you to own it. Not in all cases. Though in the most.
For example, if you buy a car and don't know about motors, you may not be aware of the fact that you own a certain valve, tube or lid inside the motor. But you do possess it neverhteless.
Or if someone buys a square meter of jungle for you as a present, you may not be aware on the tree that stand on it and is in your possession now. But you do possess it by right.
But you are, of course conscious of the fact that you own a car or a piece of the amazonas.

Not really. You did not go outside of your apartment and hammer nails into tires.
And the vine did not climb the tree and make it starve. It just took the nutritients it needed. The ree would be able to live for years with such a parasite. As well as many cars may pass the nail without touching it.

Even if he did just puncture a vein and leave the chicken to die, he would be the direct cause. The wolf caused a change in a thing that is part of the chicken, which resulted in its death.
But the wolf would not immediately control the life of the chicken in this case. The chicken could survive this attack. As well as the tree may survive a vine on its bark.

Intentions are irrelevant.
That's true.

And yet I wonder what proofs they offered besides "its a god-given right" as to why they could enslave people.
None. Not necessary to prove why you do have certain rights. You are given them and have them. I can give my brother the right to stand on my toes for a minute every morning without ever giving a justification for this right. It exists because it was given.
Just as the right to hold slaves. This right was given to the people, so they had it.
And some centuries ago humanists thought the whole affair over and decided to withdraw the right again. So, they dont' have the right to do so anymore.
It's as simple as this.

Sorry, no. I have proven that it is not a subjective matter whether the control is original or whether it has been wrested from the original controller. There is nothing subjective about that.
Yes, it is. It is just an assumption that the chicken is in control of its life. It is a part of your subjective morality that wresting away control is wrong. It is part of your subjective perception of the wirld that the chicken has a right to live. There is no evidence to these things.
And it is no prove that killing animals is wrong. If it were you could write it in a letter to your government and it would be forbidden at once. But it won't. And you know it. It won't be sufficient to convince a whole country of their wrongdoing because it is just your subjective opinion. And you know that.
It is your personal justification for not eating meat.

My personal justification for not killing other people is, that I think it is wrong to make others suffer. And because others would suffer (the person's friends and family, eye-victims, me, because I will be caught...) I don't do it. And because of the same justification I don't steal, unnecessarily lie, cheat and so on.
But this is no part of a inherent morality. It's just part of my subjective view of the world and of right and wrong. As well as your ideas of wresting away control.

If you just said that you don't eat meat because you have the opinion that animals do have a right to live (for whatever reasons) I would respect this. We live in a world in which everyone should have the right to think whatever he wants. And I respect the decisions of other people.

But you said that you could prove that killing animals is wrong. And that's the thing I fight here. It is not possible to prove things to be right or wrong. Ethics is no science. Though it would make things much easier if it were :)

So everyone who makes a claim at knowledge is arrogant?
No, but everyone that holds its own opinion for the one and only truth is arrogant.

And thus you too are being arrogant when saying that everyone who has claimed that their morality is inheret is arrogant.
I don't want you to believe in my moral ideas. I just want you to stop saying that eating animals is inherently wrong just because you percieve it as wrong.
I tolerate vergetarians, cannibals, slave-masters ans so on. They do have their own view of the world and live according to it.
Let's say: I am tolerant against everything but intolerance :)
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
Nope. To prove that they are not always interchangeable it requires only one example in which they are not.
And if they are not always interchangeable it means that they are not the same. And that's the only thing I wanted to show.
The examples you gave do not demonstrate the difference. It just states that they are different.

So, you say that you can take something without comprehending what taking is? Give me one example in which this is possible.

It is a reflex. You don't have to understad why your body does things as breathing, heartbeat, closing the eye when something flies towards your face and so on.
These are reflexes. A baby will start breathing after birth as soon as the lungs have filled with air one time.
But taking something is no reflex. A baby won't immediately start taking things when it is born. In the first weeks it is not able to take something. Until it has developed a sense of possession. Then it will take things and won't let them go again. It will cry if you take a toy from him because it begins to understand the meaning of having and not having something.
This defintion is completely arbitrary. Taking is defined thus:
"To get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control."

So reflexive taking is very much taking, as there can be reflexive control. You provide absolutely no basis for the statement that taking requires knowledge of possession. Sorry. But unless you provide reasons I'm afraid we'll have to go by the commonly accepted defintions.

Unless they program themselves. But the fact that they are just running programs does not occlude the fact that they are actually controlling several machines.
If they programmed themselves, it would be because people programmed them to program themselves. They are controlling several machines because they are programmed to.

Because there must be a difference between 'being in control of something' and 'possessing something'.
No, there doesn't have to be.

They are not always interchangeable, so there must be differences.
First off, you have merely said they are interchangable but have provided no proof. Second: if they are not interchangable, they are different. So if we replace "not interchangable" in that sentence with "different," we get "They are sometimes different, so there must be differences." That doesn't quite work. ;)

So I took the examples in which they are not interchangeable...
And why aren't they interchangable? You have said they are many times. But you have not actually proven the uninterchangableness. I don't think that's a word. :D

...and tried to find the differences in all these examples. And the only difference that was present in all cases was the ability to give it away.
Thus it seems quite useful to include this little difference in the definition of 'possession' to distinguish it from 'being in control'. It's qute an empiric way. But it leads to a definition of 'possession' which is applyable in all cases I can imagine.
Empirical, perhaps, but also quite nonsensical. ;) You have given a great number of examples. In these examples, you have said "this is possession and this is control, and since they occur in two different instances, they are different." But this is meaningless. It's easy to word a sentence in such a way as to make them seem like to separate things. But you have not demonstrated why we cannot substitute the farmer's control with possession, and thus prove that they are equivalent. Why can't we say "the farmer possesses the land and the owner controls the land." There. I proved that they are interchangable, since you said the opposite. I am using the same proof as you. The reason why they are interchangable is because I just interchanged them and saw no difference, because you have not demonstrated a difference. I could just as easily say "Being elected is not the same thing as being chosen by the people in a democratic government to hold a position of power (the defintion of election), because in such and such a case, this person was elected but not chosen by the people to hold a position of power." Yet I still have'nt actually shown the difference.

Control is not influence. I explained several times why not.
Where? I already gave a dictionary definition. Give me an example of control without influence.

Life is no essential part of the chicken. A dead chicken still is a chicken. It's unable to move without assistance but it still is a chicken.
And when nothing but bones are left of the chicken, is it a chicken? If nothing is left of the chicken, is it a chicken? If you say no, than prove why we should still consider a chicken a chicken only at a certain point during the decay of its body. It's an arbitrary distinction.

The chicken is in control of it's body, that's a fact.
But I don't see why it should be in control of its life. It has no influence on its life. It can't turn it on and off.
And yet control is possible without the ability to turn it on and off. The life is an essential part of the chickem's body. It ceases to become a chicken and becomes the decaying corpse of a chicken when its life has gone. Quite a cheerful line of debate isn't it?
I mean, men can be in control of their lifes. According to my definition of possession, they are even possessing their lives because they can give it away. A bodyguard may give his life for the one he protects. Someone may give away his life to achieve something, whatsoever. Be it a liefguard that risks his life for a drowning person, be it a bomb expert that gives his life to minimize the victims....
Humans are possessing their lives. And they are able to ultimately control it by suicide.
Yes, according to your defintion. What has yet to be shown is why I should accept your definition.
But I don't see these things in chickens. I never heard of a chicken that offered itself to the butcher to have its collegue spared. I never heard of a chicken committing suicide. I never heard of a chicken doing something for its health so it may live longer.
So I don't see an indication for a chicken to control its life.
But according to you, possession requires the ability to give it away, not control. This is the dsitinction you made, even though there are no grounds for it. The indication is that the life is essential to the chicken. The chicken controls itself.

But I have seen farmers that controlled the life of chickens. That decided on which day the chicken is to be slaughtered, for example. This is control.
Only when they are actually in the process of slaughtering them. Otherwise it is only planning control, not control.

I never even indicated in any way that I think legality is a criterion for possession. So why should I try to prove it. It is obvously wrong.
I concur.

I don't know why. But in my understanding they are synonymes.
Do you have an example in which they are not interchangeable? If not, I will continue regarding them as synonymes and alter the use of the two for the sake of mutitude :)
It's quite boring to use the same word all the time if there are other word that mean the same thing, don't you think so?
No, I don't have an example in which they are not interchangable, because they are interchangable. But you don't have an example proving that they are not interchangable, because of the reasons I have stated over and over. You have provided examples, but not differences. By you reasoning, you could prove almost any two things are different. But that doesn't actually demonstrate the difference.

I did not mean that consciousness is not in all cases necessary. I meant to say that the awareness that you own something is no obligate criterion for you to own it. Not in all cases. Though in the most.
For example, if you buy a car and don't know about motors, you may not be aware of the fact that you own a certain valve, tube or lid inside the motor. But you do possess it neverhteless.
Or if someone buys a square meter of jungle for you as a present, you may not be aware on the tree that stand on it and is in your possession now. But you do possess it by right.
But you are, of course conscious of the fact that you own a car or a piece of the amazonas.
What's an amazonas? Regardless, you would not possess the jungle "by right." It is wrongful possession.

And the vine did not climb the tree and make it starve. It just took the nutritients it needed. The ree would be able to live for years with such a parasite. As well as many cars may pass the nail without touching it.
Yes, the vine did climb the tree and make it starve! That's exactly what it did. What else would you call working its way upwards against the pull of gravity and sucking away nutrients that are an essential part of the tree?


But the wolf would not immediately control the life of the chicken in this case. The chicken could survive this attack. As well as the tree may survive a vine on its bark.
Of course the wolf would not control the chicken's life if the chicken did not die. But if the chicken died the wolf would indeed directly control the chicken' life. He actively caused it to die, didn't he?
 
Last edited:

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
None. Not necessary to prove why you do have certain rights. You are given them and have them.
But my point is that if rights are inherent it is indeed necessary to prove that they are inherent and not given.

I can give my brother the right to stand on my toes for a minute every morning without ever giving a justification for this right. It exists because it was given.
Would that be an innate right? Did your brother, from the moment he was born, have that right? No. You are correct that he has that right. But the right is certainly not inherent.

Just as the right to hold slaves. This right was given to the people, so they had it.
And some centuries ago humanists thought the whole affair over and decided to withdraw the right again. So, they dont' have the right to do so anymore.
It's as simple as this.
I'm afraid it's not quite that simple. That's one kind of right, it's true. You have yet to prove me wrong that there are other kinds.

Yes, it is. It is just an assumption that the chicken is in control of its life. It is a part of your subjective morality that wresting away control is wrong. It is part of your subjective perception of the wirld that the chicken has a right to live. There is no evidence to these things.
Sorry, but it's not subjective. It is not an assumption that the chicken is in control of its life. The chicken controls itself and the life is an element of the chicken. And it is not part of my subjective morality that wresting away control is wrong. The defintion of wrong: "1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause." Wresting control away is certainly unjust because it is inequitable, it is certainly injurious, certainly unfair because fairness is equitable, and it is certainly harmful. And not only this, but it is inherently unjust ect. because the control is innate, in this case.

And it is no prove that killing animals is wrong. If it were you could write it in a letter to your government and it would be forbidden at once. But it won't. And you know it. It won't be sufficient to convince a whole country of their wrongdoing because it is just your subjective opinion. And you know that.
It is your personal justification for not eating meat.
If you are so convinced that it is my subjective opinion, provide a valid argument. Go ahead.

My personal justification for not killing other people is, that I think it is wrong to make others suffer. And because others would suffer (the person's friends and family, eye-victims, me, because I will be caught...) I don't do it. And because of the same justification I don't steal, unnecessarily lie, cheat and so on.
But this is no part of a inherent morality. It's just part of my subjective view of the world and of right and wrong. As well as your ideas of wresting away control.
No, I'm afraid they are not merely subjective ideas. Some control is inherent and wresting away control from these inherent controllers is inherently wrong.

If you just said that you don't eat meat because you have the opinion that animals do have a right to live (for whatever reasons) I would respect this. We live in a world in which everyone should have the right to think whatever he wants. And I respect the decisions of other people.
But you don't respect my inherent morality?

But you said that you could prove that killing animals is wrong. And that's the thing I fight here. It is not possible to prove things to be right or wrong. Ethics is no science. Though it would make things much easier if it were :)
Aristotle would be quite annoyed to hear you say that. :D If you believe that you are right, prove it and make poor Aristotle happy. ;)

No, but everyone that holds its own opinion for the one and only truth is arrogant.

So we should never really make statements that we think are true, and claim that other statements are wrong?
I don't want you to believe in my moral ideas. I just want you to stop saying that eating animals is inherently wrong just because you percieve it as wrong.
I tolerate vergetarians, cannibals, slave-masters ans so on. They do have their own view of the world and live according to it.
Let's say: I am tolerant against everything but intolerance :)
I'm not being intolerant. Am I saying, you have to agree with me? No! These are not merely perceived wrongs. Control that is inherent is inherent wrong to take. But I'm not forcing you to accept my moral ideas. I would like it if you did, because I consider some of your actions to be immoral. But I'm certainly not forcing them on you. Is that so terrible?
 

Tarlanc

Registered User
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Helcaraxë said:
The examples you gave do not demonstrate the difference. It just states that they are different.
And that's exactly what they meant to state.

This defintion is completely arbitrary. Taking is defined thus:
"To get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control."
You do have a nice dictionnary :)
This definition is quite good. Except for 'get into one's hands'. Because you can take things into your hands without taking them. But to define taking via possession, power and control is nice.

So reflexive taking is very much taking
Can you please tell me what you men by reflexive taking?

if they are not interchangable, they are different. So if we replace "not interchangable" in that sentence with "different," we get "They are sometimes different, so there must be differences." That doesn't quite work.
Of course it does. If two things are different sometimes there must be differences. That makes perfect sense.

And why aren't they interchangable? You have said they are many times. But you have not actually proven the uninterchangableness.
There's no need to look for the reason of their difference. The point is, that they are not always interchangeable.
And they are not interchangeable in the sentence 'The pilot controls the plane' (because 'the pilot possesses the plane' means something different. There are not many pilots that possess the planes they fly).
So why should they be interchangeable in the sentence 'the chicken controls its body'?

It man well be that they are not interchangeable in this example, neither. And that's what I wanted to say. Why they are not interchangeable, what the exact difference is and other details don't matter here.

But you have not demonstrated why we cannot substitute the farmer's control with possession, and thus prove that they are equivalent. Why can't we say "the farmer possesses the land and the owner controls the land."
Because that's not true. You may ask someone: 'who does possess this land?' and he will name you the owner. Not the farmer. BEcause the farmer does not possess it. So it would be wrong to say 'the farmer possesses the land'. It is a lie.

"Being elected is not the same thing as being chosen by the people in a democratic government to hold a position of power (the defintion of election), because in such and such a case, this person was elected but not chosen by the people to hold a position of power." Yet I still have'nt actually shown the difference.
That's right. These two things are different, too. This we know since elections have been manipulated. And you don't need to know the difference.

You don't need to know the exact difference between a red and a white rose. But you can see that they are not the same.

Where? I already gave a dictionary definition. Give me an example of control without influence.
I don't think that there is control without influence. But there is influence without control. The moon influences the mood of people. The water influences the coastlines....
Becasue of that influence is not equal to control. And this I told you many times.
You can say 'control requires influence' but not 'control is influence'.

And when nothing but bones are left of the chicken, is it a chicken? If nothing is left of the chicken, is it a chicken? If you say no, than prove why we should still consider a chicken a chicken only at a certain point during the decay of its body. It's an arbitrary distinction.
hehe, the old ad absurdum game :)
It's like the old game: when does snow become ice :)
But I will try to answer all the same: A chicken is a chicken as long as people refer to it as chicken.
I rather like Wittgensteins usage of language than the one of Plato. I do not think that words are absolute and are fitting exactly one thing and we have to find out what this thing is.
As long as a word is used for a thing, this thing is called like that.
And dead chickens are still called chickens. Sometimes even cooked chickens are referred to as chickens. And if you take the meat away they are normally referred to as skeletons, thus I see this as the borderline.

It ceases to become a chicken and becomes the decaying corpse of a chicken when its life has gone.
But the living chicken is decaying, too. Not as fast as when the blood stops circulating, but it decays. So, the difference is merely the movement of the chicken. Is it just a chicken when it is able to move on its own account?
Or is it only a chicken as long as the blood circulates?

But according to you, possession requires the ability to give it away, not control.
Both of them are required in my definition.

The chicken controls itself.
Actually it just controls the general movement of its body. It does not control all parts of the chicken. And even the movement of its body is not always in its control.

What's an amazonas? Regardless, you would not possess the jungle "by right." It is wrongful possession.
The Amazonas is the largest river on our planet, and at the same time one of the largest jungles. South America, if you come across a map.
But why don't you possess it by right? You bought it. You do have a deed. And on this deed is written that you now possess a square meter of the amazonas jungle. So you do possess it by right. Or better 'by current laws'.

[quoote]Yes, the vine did climb the tree and make it starve![/quote]
No, it just made it have less nutritients. The tree could have survived. But if it is sick anyway it may starve.

Of course the wolf would not control the chicken's life if the chicken did not die.
So the wolf may not know if he controlled the chicken on this day until much later, if it dies slowly?

You are correct that he has that right. But the right is certainly not inherent.
So you agree with me that there are rights that are not inherent?

The defintion of wrong: "1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause."
Whose definition?
My definition of wrong is: 'An action that is regarded as wrong by the actual general morality of your society.' I would not kill cows in Hindu regions, because it is regarded as wrong, there, for example.

If you are so convinced that it is my subjective opinion, provide a valid argument.
the only argument I need: I disagree.
I do have another opinion on this matter. This proves that there are other opinions. That proves that there are different opinions. And that's what makes your opinion (and mine) subjective. They depent on the subject.

I'm not being intolerant. Am I saying, you have to agree with me?
Yes, you do. You say that my opinion, that killing animals is right, does not match with some inherent morality. That I do wrong if I kill animals. You say that slave-masters did wrong by having slaves. But we are not wrong. We just have another definition if right and wrong.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
And that's exactly what they meant to state.
Unless you are able to actually demonstrate their uninterchangability (I don't think that's a word :D ) I'll have to assume they're not interchangble. And my example shows that your method could be used to "demonstrate" that almost any two things are different, even if by definition they are the same. Thus it is invalid.
Can you please tell me what you men by reflexive taking?
Taking that is not achieved by conscious action.
Of course it does. If two things are different sometimes there must be differences. That makes perfect sense.
They are not different sometimes. The method you have used is invalid, because of the reasons I gave in the previous post.
There's no need to look for the reason of their difference. The point is, that they are not always interchangeable.
That's the point, yes. Now prove that there actually is a difference. With that method you could say that almost any two things are different. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
And they are not interchangeable in the sentence 'The pilot controls the plane' (because 'the pilot possesses the plane' means something different. There are not many pilots that possess the planes they fly).
For the last time: NO, IT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING DIFFERENT UNLESS YOU DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCE. I've already explained many times why this is invalid; if you don't understand than I can't explain it any better than I already have.

This is the last time I'm explaining it:

I could just as easily say that election and being popularly chosen by the people in a democratic government are different. I can prove this by saying that in the sentence "the president is elected," it would mean something different because there are presidents that have been elected and yet have not been democratically chosen by the people. THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME METHOD THAT YOU HAVE USED. I have merely applied the method to a different example that follows the same format. But being elected is DEFINED as being chosen to lead democratically by the people. So the method is invalid, and for the same reason as yours: I HAVE STATED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BUT SHOWN NO DIFFERENCE.
It man well be that they are not interchangeable in this example, neither. And that's what I wanted to say. Why they are not interchangeable, what the exact difference is and other details don't matter here.
Not only have you not shown why they are different, you have not shown any difference whatsoever. Saying they are different is not sufficient.
Because that's not true. You may ask someone: 'who does possess this land?' and he will name you the owner. Not the farmer. BEcause the farmer does not possess it. So it would be wrong to say 'the farmer possesses the land'. It is a lie.
Nonsensical. You are saying, "the farmer does not possess it because to say that he possessed it would be a lie." Explain in a non-circular way WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. Again, we're going in circles here.
That's right. These two things are different, too. This we know since elections have been manipulated. And you don't need to know the difference.
If they are manipulated than they are not truly democratic. But this is missing the point. I have said that there is a difference but have not shown any difference. So it's invalid. and this is true for any two things; you can say there is a difference and say "in this example they are not interchangable" but still not actually demonstrate their uninterchangableness.

You don't need to know the exact difference between a red and a white rose. But you can see that they are not the same.
You don't need to know the exact difference, but you do need to know that they are different. There is an attribute that is different. That is the reason they are different. I could say "a white rose and a rose that reflects the light in such a way so that the color is similar to that of ivory are different because it is possible for a white rose not to reflect the light in such a way so that the color is similar to that of ivory." But I have not actually shown any difference. As it turns out, it's not possible. Any rose that reflecs the light in such a way so that the color is similar to that of ivory is (by defintion) white.
I don't think that there is control without influence. But there is influence without control. The moon influences the mood of people. The water influences the coastlines....
Becasue of that influence is not equal to control. And this I told you many times.
You can say 'control requires influence' but not 'control is influence'.
A more precise defintion is required. Control is active influence by an animate thing. So it is a specific type of influence. Give me an example of control without active influence by an animate thing.
hehe, the old ad absurdum game :)
It's like the old game: when does snow become ice :)
But I will try to answer all the same: A chicken is a chicken as long as people refer to it as chicken.
I rather like Wittgensteins usage of language than the one of Plato. I do not think that words are absolute and are fitting exactly one thing and we have to find out what this thing is.
As long as a word is used for a thing, this thing is called like that.
And dead chickens are still called chickens. Sometimes even cooked chickens are referred to as chickens. And if you take the meat away they are normally referred to as skeletons, thus I see this as the borderline.
I don't see why whether the chicken is a chicken is determined by how we refer to it. We can refer to an elephant as a chicken; will this make the elephant a chicken?

But the living chicken is decaying, too. Not as fast as when the blood stops circulating, but it decays. So, the difference is merely the movement of the chicken. Is it just a chicken when it is able to move on its own account?
Or is it only a chicken as long as the blood circulates?
The former. When it can no longer move at all of its own accord than it becomes an inanimate object. But only when all animate movement ceases.
Both of them are required in my definition.
Why should I accept your defintion?

Actually it just controls the general movement of its body. It does not control all parts of the chicken. And even the movement of its body is not always in its control.
Yes it is. Not always its voluntary control, but always its control.


The Amazonas is the largest river on our planet, and at the same time one of the largest jungles. South America, if you come across a map.
Ah. In America we call it the Amazon. And it's the widest, though not the longest, so it depends on how you define "largest." Of course in Spanish "largo" means long, so if we consider the similar origins of Spanish and English as well as the fact that English has a greater vocabulary by a factor of ten than any other language, we can conclude that "largest" means "longest." :D :D :D So no, it's not the largest. :D

But why don't you possess it by right? You bought it. You do have a deed. And on this deed is written that you now possess a square meter of the amazonas jungle. So you do possess it by right. Or better 'by current laws'.
Because legal possession is not inherent possession.

No, it just made it have less nutritients.
Making it have less nutrients is the same thing as making it starve, because making something have less food is, by defintion, starving it.

The tree could have survived. But if it is sick anyway it may starve.
Irrelevant.

So the wolf may not know if he controlled the chicken on this day until much later, if it dies slowly?
I don't think the wolf knows anything about control, nor does it matter. If the wolf actively and directly caused the chicken to die, he controlled it's life.


So you agree with me that there are rights that are not inherent?
Only inherent rights are inherent. Subjective rights are subjective. So yes, I agree.


Whose definition?
I forgot exactly where I got that. One of my two usual online dictionaries: Merriam-Webster online or dictionary.com.
My definition of wrong is: 'An action that is regarded as wrong by the actual general morality of your society.' I would not kill cows in Hindu regions, because it is regarded as wrong, there, for example.
Of course if you define wrong as something that depends on society, than all wrongs will be subjective by defintion! But this is not an ordinary defintion, and I don't see why it is not arbitrary.
the only argument I need: I disagree.
I do have another opinion on this matter. This proves that there are other opinions. That proves that there are different opinions. And that's what makes your opinion (and mine) subjective. They depent on the subject.
There are other opinions. This does not make it non-inherent. "Inherent" does not imply that it is impossible to deny that it is inherent. Only that the rights exist regardless of these opinions. People may have differeing opinions about almost any truth, but this does not make all truths subjective.
Yes, you do. You say that my opinion, that killing animals is right, does not match with some inherent morality. That I do wrong if I kill animals. You say that slave-masters did wrong by having slaves. But we are not wrong. We just have another definition if right and wrong.
You are wrong. Unless you prove me wrong. You can have different defintions and still be wrong. Prove why it is not inherently wrong to violate inherent control. I've demonstrated why it is inherently wrong. Propose a valid counter-argument.
 

Tarlanc

Registered User
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
And my example shows that your method could be used to "demonstrate" that almost any two things are different, even if by definition they are the same. Thus it is invalid.
Definitions are made by humans. Even if something ist right by one definition, it can be wrong by another one. Definitions and Encyclopedias are not the absolute truth. They continually change as well as our language.
So, if something is stated to be the same by one definition in some context, this does not mean that these things are the same in other circumstances. And to show that they are not the same you just need one example in which they do not mean the same thing.

That's the point, yes. Now prove that there actually is a difference. With that method you could say that almost any two things are different.
Right. Almost any two things are different. If they were not different, there were no need for two of them ;)
If possession and control were the same thing we could forget one of these words. Who needs two words that mean the same thing?

In Rational science you would be right. There it is necessary to prove the difference to show that something is different. In mathematics, for example you can say: 2 and 3 are different because their difference is 1.

But in empiric sciences you don't need to point out the difference. You just need a piece of evidence that shows that they are different. Afterwards you can go looking for differences, if you please, but it is not necessary.
If don't need to understand the difference between an apple and an orange. I just need one point in which they are different to show that they are not the same. And afterward I can investigate their differences. Taste, color, composition,...

And linguistics is an empirical science. Thus, to prove that two words are different I just need one example in which they don't mean the same thing. And then I can look for differences.

It's perfectly simple:
Observation: 'take something into control' is synonymous for 'take something in possession'
Hypothesis: 'control' equals 'possession'
Evidence: The observation mentioned above
Opposing fact: A pilot may control a plane that is possessed by someone else.

Hypothesis falsified.

Nonsensical. You are saying, "the farmer does not possess it because to say that he possessed it would be a lie." Explain in a non-circular way WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.
There is no need to do so.

I have said that there is a difference but have not shown any difference.
Yes. And it was perfectly valid. Because there are examples that support your statement that they are different.

I could say "a white rose and a rose that reflects the light in such a way so that the color is similar to that of ivory are different because it is possible for a white rose not to reflect the light in such a way so that the color is similar to that of ivory." But I have not actually shown any difference. As it turns out, it's not possible. Any rose that reflecs the light in such a way so that the color is similar to that of ivory is (by defintion) white.
But you know that this is gibberish, don't you?
Why should someone try to show the difference between two white roses by looking at their ability to reflect light?
If I have two roses that have the same color, the difference may lie somewhere else. Perhaps one of them has more leaves.

Give me an example of control without active influence by an animate thing.
I don't have any. Actually I am quite convinced that there is no control without active influence.

I don't see why whether the chicken is a chicken is determined by how we refer to it. We can refer to an elephant as a chicken; will this make the elephant a chicken?
Of course it will. If you call an elephant a chicken, this elephant is a chicken. Of course this does not mean that he grows feathers and ends up in a box of Chicken Mc Nuggets. But if he is called a chicken, he is one.
But you'd have to think of another name for chickens, then. To aviod confusion.
Elephant is just a name that was given to that animal. Chicken would fit as well. And if you use the word 'chicken' for elephants this becomes their proper name.
I, for example, call chicken 'gĂĽggeli'. This does not change the appearance of this animal. Just its name.

The former. When it can no longer move at all of its own accord than it becomes an inanimate object. But only when all animate movement ceases.
Thus a dead man will remain a man until his movement ceases? You know that hair will gros for months after a man is dead? This is movement of his body. I don't know how feathers of chicken behave after death, but I think you should take another criterion for being a chicken.
Especially because chicken can run around for a while when they are chopped off their head.

I don't think the wolf knows anything about control, nor does it matter. If the wolf actively and directly caused the chicken to die, he controlled it's life.
The wlf does not have to care. But you as an observer might care.
Near-to-absurd example: If a wolf bites a chicken once and lets it go. And you shoot the wolf, so it is dead. A week afterwards the chicken dies because of the blood-loss on this day. Would you as an observer say: 'This wolf, that has been dead for a week, controls the life of this chicken' ?
That would be absurd. Because the wolf is an inanimate object, by this time.

Only inherent rights are inherent. Subjective rights are subjective. So yes, I agree.
OK. Now one mor question: How do I recognize an inherent right? How do I tell the difference between an inherent and a subjective right, when I come across a right.
The right for the freedom of the press, for example. Is it inherent or subjective?

Of course if you define wrong as something that depends on society, than all wrongs will be subjective by defintion! But this is not an ordinary defintion, and I don't see why it is not arbitrary.
Exactly! That's my point. According to this definition of wrong (which I have) all wrongs are subjective.
According to one that believes that God told us what is right and wrong by the way of the Bible, all wrongs would be objective, because they come from God and are the absolute truth.
And by your definition, which links right and wrong to justice (...action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.) it depends on the perception of justice and is therefore subjective, too. Because justice cahnges with time. If you think that revenge is just, then it is right to beat someone up as a revenge. But if you have the opinion, that taking revenge is unjust, it is wrong.

There are other opinions. This does not make it non-inherent.
No. But it makes it un-objective. And thus it is subjective.

Prove why it is not inherently wrong to violate inherent control. I've demonstrated why it is inherently wrong.
I can not do this. First off, I don't believe in inherent morality. Secondly, even if there were something as an inherent morality, I don't know how this must look like. So I can't make statements about inherent morality. And neither can you.
Perhaps it is inherently right to kill a thief. We can not know. Perhaps it is inherently wrong to look at a woman that is married. We can impossibly know.
Even if there is such a thing as an inherent morality, this would not help us. Because there is no book in which all inherent rights and wrongs are listed.

All you have done is pointing out that, according to your understanding it is wrong to kill an animal. And you have come to this conclusion by rational thinking, outgoing from premisses you have made. Like the premise that it is wrong to wrest away control from something.

But scientifically spoken, it is not possible to prove anything. All we can do, is making hypotheses. And they remain true until they are falsified. This is the scientific way. There are other ways. And one of them was treaden by you. You have created a dogmatic construction which leads to the conclusion that killing an animal is wrong.

I don't claim the sicentific way to be the absolute truth. It's just another way to describe our world. We may never find out what the absolute truth is. To be frank, I don't even think that there is something like an absolute truth.
But we can try to descirbe our world. By science, by belief, by dogmatic constructions. And we can live as good as we may in our own systems. Believing that our way is correct and thus keeping our consciousness clean.

I know that it may be inherently wrong to kill animals. It may be inherently wrong to wear white shoes after labour day. It may be wrong to speak out loud the name of God. But I will never know what exactly is inherently right or wrong. Thus I will continue to do what I hold for right and true and keep myself from doing what I percieve as wrong.
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Tarlanc said:
Definitions are made by humans. Even if something ist right by one definition, it can be wrong by another one. Definitions and Encyclopedias are not the absolute truth. They continually change as well as our language.
So, if something is stated to be the same by one definition in some context, this does not mean that these things are the same in other circumstances. And to show that they are not the same you just need one example in which they do not mean the same thing.
Defintions do not have absolute value, but the things they desribe do. Words and defintions are representations; the point I'm making is that the word "possession" and the word "control" stand for the same thing. You have used two different words in two different ways, but this does not prove that they are different.
Right. Almost any two things are different. If they were not different, there were no need for two of them ;)
If possession and control were the same thing we could forget one of these words. Who needs two words that mean the same thing?
It's called a synonym. No-one needs two words that mean the same thing. But they come in handy when writing poetry and the like. The truth is that, for whatever reason, English has a vast arrray of seemingly useless words.

In Rational science you would be right. There it is necessary to prove the difference to show that something is different. In mathematics, for example you can say: 2 and 3 are different because their difference is 1.

But in empiric sciences you don't need to point out the difference. You just need a piece of evidence that shows that they are different. Afterwards you can go looking for differences, if you please, but it is not necessary.
If don't need to understand the difference between an apple and an orange. I just need one point in which they are different to show that they are not the same. And afterward I can investigate their differences. Taste, color, composition,...
You have used two words that mean the same thing in different ways. They still aren't different.

And linguistics is an empirical science. Thus, to prove that two words are different I just need one example in which they don't mean the same thing. And then I can look for differences.
The words in your examples do mean the same thing. You yourself said earlier that words do not have absolute value. This means that you can substitute any words for any others in your examples. Yes, even the white rose. "The white rose is different form the ivory-colored rose because there can be a non-ivory-colored white rose." I've substituting two of the same thing in your example. I can do this because I have two words that are synonyms. But this does not mean that two different words mean two different things.

It's perfectly simple:
Observation: 'take something into control' is synonymous for 'take something in possession'
Hypothesis: 'control' equals 'possession'
Evidence: The observation mentioned above
Opposing fact: A pilot may control a plane that is possessed by someone else.

Hypothesis falsified.
Nonsensical. In the pilot example, you have used two synonymous words differently but have not shown a difference.


There is no need to do so.
If you don't want to come up with nonsense, there is indeed a need to do so. You can plug any two synonyms and come up with the same "proof."

Yes. And it was perfectly valid. Because there are examples that support your statement that they are different.
No. All it shows is that the words are spelled differently.

But you know that this is gibberish, don't you?
Why should someone try to show the difference between two white roses by looking at their ability to reflect light?
If I have two roses that have the same color, the difference may lie somewhere else. Perhaps one of them has more leaves.
It's not gibberish, but it's nonsensical. I have taken two synonyms and "proved" that there is a difference by the same method you have used.


I don't have any. Actually I am quite convinced that there is no control without active influence.
Then that's settled.

Of course it will. If you call an elephant a chicken, this elephant is a chicken. Of course this does not mean that he grows feathers and ends up in a box of Chicken Mc Nuggets. But if he is called a chicken, he is one.
But you'd have to think of another name for chickens, then. To aviod confusion.
Elephant is just a name that was given to that animal. Chicken would fit as well. And if you use the word 'chicken' for elephants this becomes their proper name.
I, for example, call chicken 'gĂĽggeli'. This does not change the appearance of this animal. Just its name.
All wordplay. We can call an elephant a chicken but what a chicken refers to is the bird, not the elephant. Words have no assigned value, but they are representative of things which do.

Thus a dead man will remain a man until his movement ceases? You know that hair will gros for months after a man is dead? This is movement of his body. I don't know how feathers of chicken behave after death, but I think you should take another criterion for being a chicken.
Especially because chicken can run around for a while when they are chopped off their head.
When a chicken is dead is an arbitrary distinction. Does it refer to when the chicken's brain ceases to function, or to when all its cells die? When a chicken is animate and when it is inanimate is not arbitrary.

The wlf does not have to care. But you as an observer might care.
Near-to-absurd example: If a wolf bites a chicken once and lets it go. And you shoot the wolf, so it is dead. A week afterwards the chicken dies because of the blood-loss on this day. Would you as an observer say: 'This wolf, that has been dead for a week, controls the life of this chicken' ?
That would be absurd. Because the wolf is an inanimate object, by this time.
First off, it's irrelevant whether the wolf is inanimate at the time because when he caused the chicken's death he was active. Second, why is the wolf not the cause of the death? He is the one that directly took the life of the chicken isn't he? Why does the duration of time it takes matter?
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
OK. Now one mor question: How do I recognize an inherent right? How do I tell the difference between an inherent and a subjective right, when I come across a right.
The right for the freedom of the press, for example. Is it inherent or subjective?
I see no evidence as to why a person innately possess the right to bang out whatever he wants on a typewriter. The difference between subjective rights and inherent rights is that subjective rights are assigned; they are not innate.

Exactly! That's my point. According to this definition of wrong (which I have) all wrongs are subjective.
According to one that believes that God told us what is right and wrong by the way of the Bible, all wrongs would be objective, because they come from God and are the absolute truth.
And by your definition, which links right and wrong to justice (...action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.) it depends on the perception of justice and is therefore subjective, too. Because justice cahnges with time. If you think that revenge is just, then it is right to beat someone up as a revenge. But if you have the opinion, that taking revenge is unjust, it is wrong.
I don't see why I should use your defintion. It's arbitrary. I have justification for my defintion of some wrongs as inherent. It is inherently wrong (harmful) to take that control because that control is inherent. It's inherently and not subjectively unjust because the control itself is inherent. It doeesn't matter what you're perception of justice is; there is still inherent justice because there are inherent rights. It's not inherently wrong to violate a law made by society because this law was made by society; it does not violate inherent control because in this case there is no inherent control.

The reality of the wrong is equal to the reality of the thing taken or violated.

No. But it makes it un-objective. And thus it is subjective.
No. It makes it's acceptance or denial a subjective decision.

I can not do this. First off, I don't believe in inherent morality. Secondly, even if there were something as an inherent morality, I don't know how this must look like. So I can't make statements about inherent morality. And neither can you.
I'm getting quite tired of this "and neither can you" drivel. If you're so intent that I'm wrong, give me proof. Just because you don't believe in inherent morality doesn't mean that you can't provide proof. If you keep insisting that I am being atrociously arrogant and the like, I'm leaving. I don't want that kind of abuse. We can either have a debate or not. But we can't both have a debate and you have throwing that kind of stuff at me without justifcation.

Perhaps it is inherently right to kill a thief. We can not know. Perhaps it is inherently wrong to look at a woman that is married. We can impossibly know.
Even if there is such a thing as an inherent morality, this would not help us. Because there is no book in which all inherent rights and wrongs are listed.
There is. It's called the book of reality. And we can read it through reason.

All you have done is pointing out that, according to your understanding it is wrong to kill an animal. And you have come to this conclusion by rational thinking, outgoing from premisses you have made. Like the premise that it is wrong to wrest away control from something.
That's a conlusion and not a premise. And it's not merely according to my understanding. I've proved why it exists in reality and has absolute value. All you've done is rant and rave about how I have'nt provided absolute proof. If something is absolute, it dwells in reality, and does not exist solely in the mind. Prove the invalidity of my inherent morality. If you can't, I'll have to conclude that it is indeed inherent.

But scientifically spoken, it is not possible to prove anything. All we can do, is making hypotheses. And they remain true until they are falsified. This is the scientific way. There are other ways. And one of them was treaden by you. You have created a dogmatic construction which leads to the conclusion that killing an animal is wrong.
Not a dogmatic contruction. A rational proof.

I don't claim the sicentific way to be the absolute truth. It's just another way to describe our world. We may never find out what the absolute truth is. To be frank, I don't even think that there is something like an absolute truth.
But we can try to descirbe our world. By science, by belief, by dogmatic constructions. And we can live as good as we may in our own systems. Believing that our way is correct and thus keeping our consciousness clean.
There are absolute truths (principle of non contradiction, identity, excluded middle, sufficient reason, ect.). But this is irrelevant. Prove why my rational proof is invalid. You're beating around the bush.

I know that it may be inherently wrong to kill animals. It may be inherently wrong to wear white shoes after labour day. It may be wrong to speak out loud the name of God. But I will never know what exactly is inherently right or wrong. Thus I will continue to do what I hold for right and true and keep myself from doing what I percieve as wrong.
You may not know. But until you can provide a rational counter-argument I'll continue to consider my morality inherent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread suggestions

Top