Pandaemoni:
If you have something useful to add to the wiki, you are very welcome.
If you think I am in error regarding, say, [enc]Hobbesian contractarianism[/enc], then please let me know.
I do not think that.
Which is why I am attempting to influence people in this very thread!
Where do you think these rules come from? Are they just there? Or are they emotional? Or instinctual? Or contractual? Or what?
Do you really think the rules are arbitrarily chosen?
If my labelling you as a Hobbesian contractarian is incorrect, then please tell me which theory of moral philosophy is closest to your actual views.
From all you have said, I think I've made an accurate assessment of your opinions. You have even agreed that many of the points I made in analysing your position are a fair representation of what you think.
If in some respects I have mistaken your position, then tell me what your actual position is, and how it fits into a coherent and self-consistent system of morals.
Well, it goes without saying that my position must be a subjective one, just as yours is. And you're not telling me anything new by saying you find my position unconvincing. I find yours unconvincing. So.
Exactly as I said. The value of another being to you lies in its value for you. All beings are means to ends, and not ends in themselves, for you.
Am I wrong?
That's fine. I don't disagree with you, as far as you go.
Where you and I differ is that I value other beings for themselves, rather than for what they can do for me.
I know this probably makes no sense to you. It is a whole different way of thinking that you probably find unfamiliar. Perhaps if you have children at some point you might start to get an inkling (but not necessarily).
Hmmm... I can't think of any examples. What did you have in mind?
If it comes down to a choice between eating a plant or dying, then I'd eat the plant. Hell, if came to a choice between eating an animal and dying, then I'd most likely eat the animal. But my daily choice about eating meat is not such a life-or-death choice.
Moreover, I have articulated clearly as to why I do not regard plants as having equal moral status with animals such as cows and pigs.
I apologise for the impertinence of daring to question your morality, your Highness.
Still, I seem to have hit some kind of nerve. Strangely, I find this often happens with meat eaters. It's as if, somewhere, deep down inside...
I'm under no illusions that I'll change your mind in this thread. It is possible that at some future time you'll recall our discussion and gradually change your view, but right now you're doing the usual internet thing of digging in your heels and pouting.
But it's not all about you, you know. As I mentioned before, other people may read my posts and your posts, and start thinking.
You put yourself out there by expressing your views. Did you want kid gloves?
Please tell me more about what I believe. Perhaps you can write another long opinion piece on the SciForum wiki and then refer me to your "article."
If you have something useful to add to the wiki, you are very welcome.
If you think I am in error regarding, say, [enc]Hobbesian contractarianism[/enc], then please let me know.
If you think that you created your own morality from scratch without the influence of the society in which you were raised, then I have to regard you as, almost, "deeply" non-introspective.
I do not think that.
People can change their ideas about moral norms, but no one has ever done so wholesale and influence free.
Which is why I am attempting to influence people in this very thread!
And it has to be that way. IMO, morality is neither the dictate of God nor derived from pure Reason, it is a system of rules that allow us to function in society, and allow that society to behave in an orderly manner.
Where do you think these rules come from? Are they just there? Or are they emotional? Or instinctual? Or contractual? Or what?
Deviations from such a set of rules in small ways tend not to cause major problems, but if the majority of people were rejecting the consensus rules with great regularity, the underlying reason we evolved this moral sense in the first place—group cohesiveness—would be lost. Moreover, were we not programmed to absorb and mimic those around us, one imagines that we *would* reject the rules quite often, because the rules are by and large arbitrarily chosen from amongst those sets of rules that allow for such stability.
Do you really think the rules are arbitrarily chosen?
Please though, tell me why I am wrong. Give me more about why I really believe what you tell me I believe, even the stuff I disagree with. How arrogant do you have to be to believe that you know my positions better than I do, even in the face of my correcting you?
If my labelling you as a Hobbesian contractarian is incorrect, then please tell me which theory of moral philosophy is closest to your actual views.
From all you have said, I think I've made an accurate assessment of your opinions. You have even agreed that many of the points I made in analysing your position are a fair representation of what you think.
If in some respects I have mistaken your position, then tell me what your actual position is, and how it fits into a coherent and self-consistent system of morals.
Meanwhile, your own position sits out there as a still unconvincing, and now undefended, steaming pile of subjective opinion.
Well, it goes without saying that my position must be a subjective one, just as yours is. And you're not telling me anything new by saying you find my position unconvincing. I find yours unconvincing. So.
First, I do ascribe value to humans and animals, I merely recognize that the value is extrinsic, not intrinsic.
Exactly as I said. The value of another being to you lies in its value for you. All beings are means to ends, and not ends in themselves, for you.
Am I wrong?
That's your error...In your life you have met people and animals and found them valuable, as we all do, but as a result of being unable to impartially analyze your own feelings and biases you failed to grasp that that value was extrinsic to the thing being valued. The value found is not an objective feature of the creature itself (something that the very universe would need to recognize as is the case with all things objective), but merely a conception that exists in your mind. The human mind is conditioned by evolution to find such value in a variety of contexts. It just so happens that you find such value in a far broader range of contexts than most.
That's fine. I don't disagree with you, as far as you go.
Where you and I differ is that I value other beings for themselves, rather than for what they can do for me.
I know this probably makes no sense to you. It is a whole different way of thinking that you probably find unfamiliar. Perhaps if you have children at some point you might start to get an inkling (but not necessarily).
Even you, though, see no intrinsic value in many animals or in plants.
Hmmm... I can't think of any examples. What did you have in mind?
Some day, when artificial vegetable matter has been created for people to feed on rather than real vegetable matter, your descendants will look back on you and wonder if you knew what a barbarian you were, with all your justifications of plant murder.
If it comes down to a choice between eating a plant or dying, then I'd eat the plant. Hell, if came to a choice between eating an animal and dying, then I'd most likely eat the animal. But my daily choice about eating meat is not such a life-or-death choice.
Moreover, I have articulated clearly as to why I do not regard plants as having equal moral status with animals such as cows and pigs.
What it should suggest to you instead, is that I find it to be the height of impertinence that someone on an internet forum who has failed to grasp my ideas and whose own ideas are at best half-analyzed, chooses to in effect call me a terrible human being. Imagine a peasant referring to an emperor a blackguard. The emperor need not be "threatened" to take offense at the rudeness.
I apologise for the impertinence of daring to question your morality, your Highness.
Still, I seem to have hit some kind of nerve. Strangely, I find this often happens with meat eaters. It's as if, somewhere, deep down inside...
I hope it is constructive. I'd hate to waste my time.
Then I have some bad news...I come away from this shaking my head (at you), but hopeful that someday you will see the light and change. You've only reinforced my conviction in my own positions.
I'm under no illusions that I'll change your mind in this thread. It is possible that at some future time you'll recall our discussion and gradually change your view, but right now you're doing the usual internet thing of digging in your heels and pouting.
But it's not all about you, you know. As I mentioned before, other people may read my posts and your posts, and start thinking.
So you hope that, by spewing what amounts to an ad hominem attack on who I am as a human being, to sway others reading this forum?
You put yourself out there by expressing your views. Did you want kid gloves?