Question: who or what can be held accountable for moral injustices?
Answer: I contend along with contemporary society that the perpetrators of a moral injustice are to be held accountable. I would also add that we can only hold another thing responsible if we know that thing can reflect on the sentience of other creatures. So essentially, we can only hold other normal humans responsible, that is to say humans free from mental defects that prevent them from thinking about the sentience of those that they commit injustices against. I am not suggesting that we do not take any action against said people with mental defects. If a person is unable to reflect on the sentience of another person and kills that person, I think we can justly prevent that person from killing someone else.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Avian Intelligence and Non-Sentient Defense Mechanisms
In response to Tyler's post here or the February 11th post.
Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. While it could be so that a fungi or plant may have communicative abilities that are unfathomable to us, we do in fact need to eat something. So it's best that we eat those things which have no central nervous system, and thus experience no pain, that we know of. If it turns out that they do experience pain, we may need to modify our view, but given that this conclusion seems, at the very least, a long time away, we should operate off of our best knowledge.
Also, it surprise you to find out that birds can be far more intelligent than most people believe. Members of the Corvidae family (crows, magpies, and ravens), Psittacidae family (parrots, macaws, and parakeets), and the Columbidae family (Pigeons, and doves) are incredibly intelligent, most of them are far more intelligent than cows, in fact. I would recommend seeing the link on David Johnson's blog (http://critojazz.blogspot.com/2011/09/pm-bird-brains.html). Additionally, I would probably ask you to reconsider your view here. I agree that sentience isn't the only important thing. I think that the capacity to experience pain is very important. And chickens and turkeys, in that sense, aren't any worse off, or better off than cows. They go through incredible pain, and usually go mad before they are killed. They have their beaks seared off so that they won't be able to kill each other after long confinement periods.
Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. While it could be so that a fungi or plant may have communicative abilities that are unfathomable to us, we do in fact need to eat something. So it's best that we eat those things which have no central nervous system, and thus experience no pain, that we know of. If it turns out that they do experience pain, we may need to modify our view, but given that this conclusion seems, at the very least, a long time away, we should operate off of our best knowledge.
Also, it surprise you to find out that birds can be far more intelligent than most people believe. Members of the Corvidae family (crows, magpies, and ravens), Psittacidae family (parrots, macaws, and parakeets), and the Columbidae family (Pigeons, and doves) are incredibly intelligent, most of them are far more intelligent than cows, in fact. I would recommend seeing the link on David Johnson's blog (http://critojazz.blogspot.com/2011/09/pm-bird-brains.html). Additionally, I would probably ask you to reconsider your view here. I agree that sentience isn't the only important thing. I think that the capacity to experience pain is very important. And chickens and turkeys, in that sense, aren't any worse off, or better off than cows. They go through incredible pain, and usually go mad before they are killed. They have their beaks seared off so that they won't be able to kill each other after long confinement periods.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Practice What You Preach
In response to Brian - Full post here
Question: Is it morally permissable for a autocrat to hold his position as king but try to spread democracy?
I would say, firstly, that it's a bit unfair to assume that democracy is a good thing, because I don't really think it is. The whole 51% trumps all policy is rather lousy. But apart from that, I would say that it is a moral thing to do, if the king knows it will have the largest effect. It may not, however, be the most fair, or the least hypocritical thing to do. I feel that it would be less hypocritical and probably more effective if he lead by example. I am guessing that most people would call him out for his hypocrisy and then refuse to change themselves, because of that.
I think that becoming a democracy and attempting to spread it could cause a country to become like America and vote to force democracy on other nations or cause it to vote not to spread it at all - not that I think the latter is a bad thing.
Question: Is it morally permissable for a autocrat to hold his position as king but try to spread democracy?
I would say, firstly, that it's a bit unfair to assume that democracy is a good thing, because I don't really think it is. The whole 51% trumps all policy is rather lousy. But apart from that, I would say that it is a moral thing to do, if the king knows it will have the largest effect. It may not, however, be the most fair, or the least hypocritical thing to do. I feel that it would be less hypocritical and probably more effective if he lead by example. I am guessing that most people would call him out for his hypocrisy and then refuse to change themselves, because of that.
I think that becoming a democracy and attempting to spread it could cause a country to become like America and vote to force democracy on other nations or cause it to vote not to spread it at all - not that I think the latter is a bad thing.
Worth of Hermit v. Infant
Once again, like my last post - in response to Tyler - Full post here or the Feb 5th 2012 post
1.) The true injustice of murder does not lie in the pain of those left behind, instead it is simply the fact that someone has unjustly ended someone else's life. One consequence of murder which always results from murder is that another person has died. There is no other consequence that always follows from a murder. Given the pain in those left behind doesn't always follow, I would say it's not the worst part of murder. Additionally, their grief is completely dependent on that person's death, making it a unfortunate part of murder, not immoral in itself, and certainly not the foundation of it's immorality.
2.) I suppose I used child in place of infant. An infant is largely dependent on other people and does not have the mobility to do what it wants, and it won't be able to remember, generally what it did during that time frame (given that infants forget things almost immediately). Even if it could, it still has far less memories based on it having lived less. I do still think it's immoral to kill an infant, though.
3.) I don't necessarily pity the hermit, I simply wanted to show that a hermit can certainly have a life that is, overall, 'worth' more even if they don't have people that care about them. A hermit could very well choose to become such on their own but still partake in those activities above - I think it would be a worse shame if the hermit's life was lost. I do agree that if neither has a person that likes them, the murder of the hermit would be worse.
1.) The true injustice of murder does not lie in the pain of those left behind, instead it is simply the fact that someone has unjustly ended someone else's life. One consequence of murder which always results from murder is that another person has died. There is no other consequence that always follows from a murder. Given the pain in those left behind doesn't always follow, I would say it's not the worst part of murder. Additionally, their grief is completely dependent on that person's death, making it a unfortunate part of murder, not immoral in itself, and certainly not the foundation of it's immorality.
2.) I suppose I used child in place of infant. An infant is largely dependent on other people and does not have the mobility to do what it wants, and it won't be able to remember, generally what it did during that time frame (given that infants forget things almost immediately). Even if it could, it still has far less memories based on it having lived less. I do still think it's immoral to kill an infant, though.
3.) I don't necessarily pity the hermit, I simply wanted to show that a hermit can certainly have a life that is, overall, 'worth' more even if they don't have people that care about them. A hermit could very well choose to become such on their own but still partake in those activities above - I think it would be a worse shame if the hermit's life was lost. I do agree that if neither has a person that likes them, the murder of the hermit would be worse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)