why is Hitler being used here? — Caldwell

Hitler is the bogeyman. If anything about you is, in any way, Hitlerish, you're f**ked!

you're f**ked! — TheMadFool

:grin: Ouch!

Ouch! — Caldwell

Are you Hitlerish?

No. Just the way you said it. Funny.

No. Just the way you said it. Funny. — Caldwell

Roos Tarpals: Ouch time!



:grin:

This thread encompasses a vast majority of topics. It should not only be about the literal action of killing bugs but also the implications of the action and my stance regarding the physical pain of those bugs encompassed a variety of points that were addressed.

This thread encompasses a vast majority of topics. It should not only be about the literal action of killing bugs but also the implications of the action and my stance regarding the physical pain of those bugs encompassed a variety of points that were addressed. — TheSoundConspirator

Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly (a bug) or whether I am now a butterfly (a bug), dreaming I am a man. — Zhuangzi

As flies (bugs) to wanton boys are we to th' gods,

They kill us for their sport. — Gloucester

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus (a bug). Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure. — Agent Smith (The Matrix)

Bugs bugging bugs!

Roos Tarpals: Ouch time! — TheMadFool

:grin:

This thread encompasses a vast majority of topics. It should not only be about the literal action of killing bugs but also the implications of the action and my stance regarding the physical pain of those bugs encompassed a variety of points that were addressed. — TheSoundConspirator

Okay, got it.

Is it justifiable to kill and cruelly torture other species to gain momentary pleasure and enhance our "educational standards"? Frankly speaking, I'd go as far as to conclude that Mussolini and Hitler's agendas were purer than yours. — TheSoundConspirator

Hitler's agenda was cold, systematic murder on a mass scale though. My motivation for demolishing an anthill on my driveway isn't malicious. I don't hate the ants, nor do I wish for them to be completely gone.

Ants form complex social colonies and show spectacular signs of intelligence. They feel pain as well, physical irritation as they are being squished. — TheSoundConspirator

Why are such intelligent beings so oblivious to danger then? There have been occasions where I'll stand over an antmound and hover my foot a few inches above it threateningly, and they don't appear to react or evade it.

If memory serves, a mosquito hawk was the target in this case:

If I'd known it was harmless, I'd have killed it myself.

If I'd known it was harmless, I'd have killed it myself. — Srap Tasmaner

:smile: Guys, was there a disclaimer in the OP that said only serious posts?

It is serious, but you have to know the context a little. It's an expression of PKD's disillusionment with square culture in the late sixties, his perception of its shallowness and hypocrisy. A bit like "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here --- this is the war room." In book after book, he asks the reader to question, what counts as a person? It's not a denunciation of pest control, no, but of a callous attitude toward life. The book it occurs in is his memorial to the friends he lost to drugs and craziness, people whose harmless lives mainstream society was prepared to write off. He includes himself in the list.

what counts as a person? — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, typical PKD.

I once called someone I know personally an android. He was puzzled. I didn't elaborate. But I said it cause during the pandemic, I didn't believe he could get the virus if he tried -- he didn't smell like human. He doesn't have a smell in him. Like he's fresh out of a box no matter what time of day. He doesn't get sick. He doesn't crack at all. So, I wasn't worried when I touched whatever he touched.

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results :point: Agent Kay Squishing Bugs In MIB — TheMadFool

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying.

However, that would also apply to the situation you describe in which giant lifeforms arrived on Earth. As I mentioned, if I were in a situation in which I encountered a civilization of intelligent, flea-sized people, I would want to be as cruel as possible and terrorize the hell out of them. I'd very much want to take advantage of the size difference and establish dominance. I think that's a pretty understandable and reasonable wish for any guy though. Plus, the opportunity to be worshipped as a god would be almost irresistible, and the possibilities would be endless. Why let them have self-determination, if through sheer force, I could force them to engineer their society in my own image? I'd flatten any structure that didn't at least in some small way idolize me.

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying.

However, that would also apply to the situation you describe in which giant lifeforms arrived on Earth. As I mentioned, if I were in a situation in which I encountered a civilization of intelligent, flea-sized people, I'd very much want to take advantage of the size difference and establish dominance. I think that's a pretty understandable and reasonable wish for any guy though. The opportunity to be worshipped as a god would be almost irresistible, and the possibilities would be endless. Why let them have self-determination, if through sheer force, I could force them to engineer their society in my own image? I'd flatten any structure that didn't at least in some small way idolize me. — IanBlain

It looks like we don't have a choice - this is the elimination stage of the game of life (@schopenhauer1). Kill or be killed.

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying. — IanBlain

It might, however, be a sign of something that will cause you problems. You may or may not notice those problems. Even if, let's assume for argument, empathy for insects is misplaced, you might have a more general empathy deficit which will after your other relationships.

And of course people disliking your stepping on bugs, probably will not get bitten either.

However, in the hypothetical scenario mentioned I wouldn't see it in terms of killing or be killed... although I'm sure the tiny people would. Intelligent oppressed people look to find a way to defeat their oppressor, and that is a role I'd be very eager to fill. However, I wouldn't want to wipe them out. But I would certainly want to terrorize them much like a temperamental Greek deity. Even just from a curiosity-standpoint, it would be endlessly fascinating to watch them labor in multitudes and to test just how much oppression they will tolerate before they retaliate with force. I'm not sure that it's an empathy issue as opposed to other desires just superseding it, at least in certain situations where certain conditions are met.

I'm careful not to.

I don't want to hurt something or end something's life abrubtly.

I'll blow/shuffle a spider away, but also help one out the bath in finicky approach.

I made an ant farm once but they reproduce too quickly.

Insects are not the same as animals, they are a different type of beast. I think they don't experience sadness and instead have deeper sense of wrath; no adrenaline but a majestic chemical calm, instead.

You sometimes step on a snail or slug by accident. Ought you feel guilty? ;)

It might, however, be a sign of something that will cause you problems. You may or may not notice those problems. Even if, let's assume for argument, empathy for insects is misplaced, you might have a more general empathy deficit which will after your other relationships. — Bylaw

That theory has been put forth but I question whether one's treatment of bugs is indicative of an empathy deficit when it comes to relationships in everyday life, especially with peers; I make friends easily and can get in their heads and feelings about their problems. I don't know anyone who would not say I'm not a great guy. My appreciation of others just doesn't extend down to bugs and especially ants whose maximum entertainment value for me are as squish victims. I'm a sizeist, but not a sociopath.

A bug's eye view: Would I like to be stepped on with an adidas rip-off housing a malodorous foot?

From a bug's eye view: Would I like to be stepped on with an adidas rip-off housing a malodorous foot? — TheMadFool

When you use that specific imagery...no, I guess you wouldn't. Nor would I...

You're trying to see if I acknowledge that my treatment of ants may be cruel by applying how I treat bugs (stepping on them because I can) from a perspective where you are still intelligent but bug-sized, and you're using specific imagery to critique the unceremonious regard for how I kill them : being crushed under some dismissive asshole's foot vs .giving them the freedom to be left alone from my kind attention. There appears to be a subtle commentary on the evils of materialism too... the victim being indifferently squashed under a giant sneaker of all things. It's clever symbolism.

Also, my feet aren't that "malodorous".... except on days I play tennis or frisbee :grin:

When you use that specific imagery...no, I guess you wouldn't. Nor would I...

You're trying to see if I acknowledge that my treatment of ants may be cruel by applying how I treat bugs (stepping on them because I can) from a perspective where you are still intelligent but bug-sized, and you're using specific imagery to critique the unceremonious regard for how I kill them : being crushed under some dismissive asshole's foot vs .giving them the freedom to be left alone from my kind attention. There appears to be a subtle commentary on materialism too... Dying from a running shoe of all things. It's clever. Also, my feet aren't that "malodorous".... except on days I play tennis or frisbee :grin: — IanBlain

We too are slightly buggish in our own way. Aren't we the offspring of Adam and Eve who were banished from the garden of Eden because they did what they were not supposed to do - they were bugs (in the divine program). :smile:

Precisely, Hitler's agenda sprouted out of malice, whereas yours appears to sprout out of sadism. If I have to weigh them on the "evil" scale, sadism would far outweigh hatred.
Now, my point regarding ants was to suggest that they do in fact, feel irritation as you squish them for your entertainment.
I am not suggesting that they are as intelligent as to have reflexes that make them sense potential danger, but that certainly doesn't justify squishing them to your heart's desire.

Precisely, Hitler's agenda sprouted out of malice, whereas yours appears to sprout out of sadism. If I have to weigh them on the "evil" scale, sadism would far outweigh hatred.
Now, my point regarding ants was to suggest that they do in fact, feel irritation as you squish them for your entertainment. — TheSoundConspirator

I appreciate your interpretation, but what leads you to believe my agenda sprouts out of sadism?

Let's apply what you say: I know that you believe that ants feel physical irritation, but if I'm oblivious to that irritation when I go to step on them, can the motivation of sadism be accurately assigned to my purpose, regardless of whether or not they do suffer? Sadism refers to purposely inflicting suffering.

Is it justifiable to kill and cruelly torture other species to gain momentary pleasure and enhance our "educational standards"? Frankly speaking, I'd go as far as to conclude that Mussolini and Hitler's agendas were purer than yours. — TheSoundConspirator

When I'm messing with an anthill in my driveway, my sneaker covering their home is just a weird, giant white thing to them, some object for them to try and avoid. Their perception of why it is there and what exactly I'm doing to them doesn't extend farther, so what makes this cruel?

Two reasons to avoid squashing bugs on purpose, unless they're harming you:

1. The more research you do into bugs, the more complex you'll find they are. Spiders have self-awareness and the ability to plan into the future, for example. Also you'll learn that while this one single bug may not be important in the grand scheme of things, bugs as a whole are much more important than humans as a whole for life on the planet to continue.

2. As Aristotle and Kant already pointed out, you should do acts that overall strengthen your character and don't create bad moral habits. They said you shouldn't kick a dog, for example, not because they cared much about dogs, but because then you'll slowly, incrementally become more inclined to kick a human.

[ Artemis ! Welcome back :sparkle: ]

[Thank you :blush: Not sure how long I'll stick around, but it's a rainy day and we're stuck inside :joke: ]

Think about this: To bugs, DDT was a WMD that was used to commit genocide on helpless insect-folk.

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing. — TheMadFool

I agree it seems relevant in the present context.

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say application of the golden rule requires the agent to believe that others are capable of reciprocating. It may be sufficient for the agent to be capable of imagining themself in the other's place, even if the other can't perform the same feat.

For instance, it may be enough for the agent to consider questions like, how would I want to be treated if I were a bug; or, what would it be like for me to be treated thus if I were a bug? To extend the reasoning I offered above: If you happen to suppose bugs aren't sentient, then you might conclude it wouldn't "be like" anything for you to be treated any way whatsoever if you were a bug; or if you suppose bugs are only "marginally sentient", there may be room for you to infer or expect that if you were a bug you wouldn't be capable of having a significant objection to having the life swiftly crushed out of you.

It seems to me this is only a special case of the way we must contextualize the golden rule each time we apply it, by imagining ourselves in another's circumstances. I suppose the claim that the golden rule might be applied in different ways to different sorts of animal amounts to a claim that our moral community might be structured along such lines, with different moral status corresponding to different sorts of organism. Of course one must be cautious in drawing out such lines. I take it this sort of view would be compatible with at least some forms of sentientism.

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.
— TheMadFool
I agree it seems relevant in the present context. — Cabbage Farmer

:ok:

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results
— TheMadFool
I wouldn't say application of the golden rule requires the agent to believe that others are capable of reciprocating. It may be sufficient for the agent to be capable of imagining themself in the other's place, even if the other can't perform the same feat.

For instance, it may be enough for the agent to consider questions like, how would I want to be treated if I were a bug; or, what would it be like for me to be treated thus if I were a bug? To extend the reasoning I offered above: If you happen to suppose bugs aren't sentient, then you might conclude it wouldn't "be like" anything for you to be treated any way whatsoever if you were a bug; or if you suppose bugs are only "marginally sentient", there may be room for you to infer or expect that if you were a bug you wouldn't be capable of having a significant objection to having the life swiftly crushed out of you. — Cabbage Farmer

You're referring to empathy aren't you? Notice however, that when you put yourself in the other person's shoes, you're simulating tit for tat? How would I feel if the other person treated me the same way I'm treating him (the golden rule) is just another way of saying what if the other person could pay me back in the same coin?