• What is Being?
    ↪Xtrix
    All existents are entities. So yeah, objects are entities. But beings are reserved for those with subjective perception.
  • What is Being?
    Objects are beings, like everything else. — Xtrix

    Objects are entities.
  • Is technological ascendancy an impossibility for human kind?
    philosophy is very much so alive. — _db
  • Is technological ascendancy an impossibility for human kind?
    Stephen Hawking said that "philosophy is dead". He believed that philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge" — SpaceDweller

    Sorry, I respectfully disagree with Hawking. Guess who the pundits turn to for moral support and consolations during economic collapse, public upheaval, violence, war, misery, angst, and overall unhappiness of the general public ?
    The Jordans, the Žižeks, the Singers, the McDowells, etc.

    Do you think these issues are solvable, and is technological ascendancy possible? or are we doomed to suffer and ultimately die out? — SpaceDweller
    We have already reached technological ascendancy. Many times over. We have everything we need to reach utopia, if that's your goal. The real enemy is greed, which you have alluded to in premise 1. There's no cure for greed, no technology advanced enough to suppress greed. And by greed, I include power-hungry groups and individuals.
  • Life Advice
    Here's one I copied:

    When you are content to be simply yourself and don't compare or compete, everyone will respect you.
    ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
  • Life Advice
    Rant about something. It's good for your blood.

    [edit] I meant to say, it's good for your soul. :sad:
  • Life Advice
    So I'm trying to remember what I said there.

    Know your weaknesses and blind spots and always be on guard of
    them. They have the potential to ruin or greatly hold back your effectiveness.     — Yohan
    Yes. Good advice.
  • Life Advice
    Maybe you could request a reason why it was deleted. — Yohan
    Apologies. I've forgotten I've contributed to that thread (?)

    But this should be good. I didn't see this until now. :sad:
  • The only poem I ever enjoyed
    I've lost interest in poems. But prose has always been attractive. Most especially when a mathematician decides to write an essay. The musings of a mathematician have that precision with a humorous touch.
  • Expansion of the universe
    From our perspective we can't see any edge of the universe. — Vince
    We could see it hyperbolically. But only if we think hyperbolic, not the classical shape.
  • Messiness
    Yeah, I see that too. And then there are some discussions that are so dysfunctional, you have people yelling at each other with constant accusation of misrepresentation and misunderstanding and dishonesty. It makes me wonder how are these people are communicating at all. Amazing. — Wheatley
    Then you must not have studied the classics. Was it Plato who complained about the incompetence of his fellow students? The budding philosophers at the Academy were at each other's throat at times, so I was told.
  • Animals are innocent
    ↪Wayfarer

    Good read. I like Peter Singer.
  • Animals are innocent
    This might sound strange, but how is a person to overtly state that animals are innocent bystanders of our desires for the goods produced from their cultivation? — Shawn
    Kant's end-in-itself is reserved for rational beings, meaning humans. So, we can't cite Kant here. To overtly state that animals are innocent bystanders of our desires for the goods produced from their cultivation, just say so. No one can dispute it -- we just don't accept it that it is the way it is. We use the notion of rational human beings to justify our actions.

    Humans would need to sacrifice some (or much) of their comforts. Material ones, such as space and natural resources. And psychological ones, such as the feeling of human superiority over animals. — baker
    No contest.

    It's a philosophy forum, I'm exploring the philosophical question of the nature of rights. The fact that this is so dimly apprehended says something in my view. — Wayfarer

    And so if we can't confer rights to animals meaningfully, what's left?

    Conviction. That's what's left. Those who advocate for the protection of animals would be the divergent group. We will now be the man who stole a loaf of bread. And so we would be under the scrutiny of Pluralism as a moral system.
  • Animals are innocent
    but if the uniqueness of h. sapiens is not obvious, then I don't know what argument could be used to establish it. — Wayfarer
    Let's start here.

    What would it take to have some form of humane treatment for the animals.
  • Animals are innocent
    And evict humans? — baker
    Another facetious remark.

    *Sigh*
  • Animals are innocent
    And I feel like you're continuing to miss the point, which is about rights. You seem to be saying that animal rights can be justified on the basis that they have a will to live. Whereas, I'm arguing that rights pertain to humans, because they are rational agents, and not to animals, because they are not. Can you recognise that distinction? — Wayfarer
    Right, rights.

    Since some of you have been pushing for animal rights, my response is, yes let's give them rights, but that isn't strong enough. I already said before, rights is not the cure-all regarding animal treatment. For example, here you are already saying that rights pertain to humans. So I say, let's go beyond that. Let's examine the will of the animals. Let's give them the natural proclivity to live in their natural habitat.
  • Animals are innocent
    How do you figure that animals are not rational agents? By your human fiat? — baker
    That's why I went back to the basics -- the will, where everyone has equal shot at getting acknowledgement. Animals can't win when we start talking about rationality.
  • Animals are innocent
    ↪Caldwell
    Well, as I said, there's a thread on vaccination ethics. Suffice to say, if a deadly disease began to appear in the canine population which could be spread to humans, it would be meaningless to consult with the dogs as to whether they agree to be vaccinated or not, so the question of whether they have a right not to be vaccinated is an empty one.     — Wayfarer
    But this is a facetious comment.

    I never said that they have rationality, an element of moral system. Does it even occur to us what should be our role as far as the animals are concerned even if we couldn't eat them? As custodians? Guardians?

    I feel like I'm teaching the alphabet here.
  • Animals are innocent
    This is too simplistic. The fact is that sometimes, people get vaccinated and get sick from the vaccine, or get covid despite being vaccinated. — baker
    Obviously, this is not exhaustive of all the issues we could talk about vaccination. We are just touching the surface, giving cursory treatment of the subject.
  • Animals are innocent
    I certainly believe that those who refuse vaccination on purportedly conscientious grounds might have their civil freedoms curtailed, i.e. not be allowed into venues or airplanes, but there's already a thread for that debate. — Wayfarer
    "admitting such decision" -- should we accept an individual subjective decision - not get vaccinated -- into our system? Maybe not well chosen words by me.

    I agree. Like I said, we need to examine our moral system -- the elements of fidelity, of what is rational, and the punishment for divergent behavior. I guess when philosophers speak of pluralism, it means examining a divergent action and see which one of the elements in our moral system is affected. Lying certainly affects trustworthiness, refusing to follow health protocol certainly affects the health of others, and so on.

    So, what should be the treatment of such divergent behavior? Banning them from airplanes, venues, etc. And yes, if they're taking up limited resources -- hospital emergency rooms do not exist in infinite amount of units -- then that is the risk they have to take.
  • Animals are innocent
    My chain saw keeps quitting on me. — James Riley
    :)

    A person is offered a free vaccine. He doesn't take it. He get's sick and starts dying. He runs to the hospital and begs for help. We can sit around with our couldashouldawoulda all day long. That doesn't influence his actions. — James Riley
    So this is another individual subjective principle of our moral system. An individual decides not to get vaccinated, and when afflicted with virus, runs to the hospital and begs for help. With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it?

    Often we can accommodate such modalities given a small number of occurrence. Often the stability of a system is tied to the size of modalities -- or divergent actions. I believe we have in place a device that could measure it, and once a number of unacceptable divergence is reached, we are also equipped to deal with it. But should we really wait until it rocks the boat?
  • Animals are innocent
    ↪James Riley

    In that case, no isn't against our moral system to treat animals as innocent, and with respect. All moral agents are presumed to have the ability to think about their actions, including the bread thief. Changing our behavior towards the animals does not make our moral system unstable. We could have a more detailed analysis if you'd like. But acknowledging that animals have a will to live, just like us, doesn't go against our moral system.
  • Animals are innocent
    ↪James Riley

    Maybe we should start a new thread on this as we are hijacking Shawn's animal thread. What do you think? I will respond at the new thread.
  • Animals are innocent
    When a man steels a loaf of bread to feed his starving child, the concept of morality is a luxury for those with leisure. — James Riley
    No, it isn't a luxury for those with leisure. (It is morally hazardous to take examples like this and attribute it to false dilemma) Rather, in this situation, the subjective action of an individual -- stealing a loaf of bread -- needs to be examined if it fits in the moral codes of the community of moral agents. This is not anymore different than the action of lying. To moral philosophers, this is called the perturbation of the moral order. It's a modal test -- Can our moral system admit such variations of individual actions and still maintain a stable system?

    What do you think? I mean you as a moral agent.

    Revisit your moral belief and think which moral system -- universal moral code or pluralism -- works best. And please do not confuse this examination with relativism. Moral relativism is not on par with the above principles. Moral relativism is actually unstable.

    Now for the link you provided regarding murder-suicide pact -- we have to start prior to the moral agency. We have think in terms of whether the individuals acted with their moral agency intact at the time or were they under the delusional state of mind, which is not fitting for the definition of moral agency. The analysis you would have to take is the prevention of such actions.
  • Animals are innocent
    :100: They taught me what "will to live" means. While I have been depressed at times, I won't pretend to understand deep clinical depression. However, I can't help but think if a suicidal person could witness some of the animal demonstrations of a will to live that I have seen, they would turn away from killing themselves. — James Riley
    Talk to me then, like you mean it.
  • Animals are innocent
    No disputing that. But it is not material to the question of whether animals have rights. — Wayfarer
    On the contrary, will is material to conferring rights to an entity. I said several posts earlier that while I am for animal rights, it is really our commitment to these rights that give them the power to stick. That's not cut it for me. Animals, with or without humans conferring them rights, should be allowed to live and let live.
  • Animals are innocent
    Animal behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that humans are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference. — Wayfarer
    They have a will to live.
  • Animals are innocent
    That's because you completely ignored me when I said: — James Riley
    hahaha! :sweat: That's how I ruined something in my life. Good God, James! How the fuck! Sorry for the f-word.
  • Animals are innocent
    But not symbolic communication and it’s a difference that makes a difference. — Wayfarer
    No, not symbolic as humans have. But communication nonetheless, like wolves have. C'mon Wayfarer.
  • Animals are innocent
    They are farming and breeding each other into what they are. They just have better techniques, producing a better end product. Not some fat, bawling, shit-smeared, lazy piece of meat that is easy to kill and provides no incentive to work for it. — James Riley
    It's a nice metaphor. Sorry but not I would call serious talk here.
  • Animals are innocent
    No, it's definitively not. — Wayfarer
    But it is communication.
  • Animals are innocent
    Some folks say plants and fungi are farming us, giving us oxygen until we eventually expire and turn into mulch which they can consume. I've also heard of some insects doing something similar to other insects. — James Riley
    Except that they've been doing that before humans came into existence. Though I should have qualified my statement of will as that of animals, vertebrate, some invertebrate are also considered here. But let's stay close to vertebrate.
  • Animals are innocent
    We are different to animals due to language and self-awareness. — Wayfarer
    And animal vocalization is not language? Okay. Maybe so. But it is communication, though not articulation.
  • Animals are innocent
    How are you so sure? — Shawn

    Through observation. And if you're not sure of people's observations, including yours, then consult the animal behaviorists. Animals do not act out of random. There's a point to what they do.
  • Animals are innocent
    I think you just described hunting. — James Riley
    Not really.
  • Animals are innocent
    Yeah, most that. — James Riley

    Do animals farm and breed animals?
  • Animals are innocent
    What's your plan? — baker
    Reduce consumption overall. It's not an overnight thing. But conscious deliberate mindfulness.
  • Animals are innocent
    It is not the case that humans would only disregard will when it comes to animals; no, the disregard is far more universal. — baker
    And so we cannot change?
  • Animals are innocent
    Yes. We are animals. Omnivores, so I'm told. — James Riley
    So do we hunt like animals? Or farm and breed animals?
  • Animals are innocent
    ↪Caldwell
    And eat what? Plants, because "they don't have any feelings" so it's okay to eat them?     — baker
    Why do you argue in false dilemma all the time? Is this the only way you can think?

    You're still not getting my point. Human will is the same as animal will. But the way we treat animals disregards this point.
Home » Caldwell