Objection: some civilizations are known to treat some animals like cats and cows as gods, thus showing that the GCB hierarchy is not innate in all.
Counter-objection: This premise is true, but they did this because they believed these animals to be gods, inasmuch as christians treat Jesus as God because they believe him to be one, not just a human being. As such, these civilizations still had innate knowledge of the GCB hierarchy — Samuel Lacrampe
What are angels? — fishfry
Now, can we demonstrate this GCB hierarchy to be true? — Samuel Lacrampe
but doesn't it piss off feminists that there are no divine female beings?. — Bitter Crank
While thought experiments that contain little evil hitlers and dogs are fun, they're superfluous. The fact that there people who care for pets or strays, while there are countless humans without access to food, meds or shelter, demonstrably shows that in practice the cases where we value non-humans over humans are extremely common. — Πετροκότσυφας
As for heralds, guardians, harlots (really?), and Satan, where did this come from? — Bitter Crank
As such, we ought to treat gods as gods and objects as objects, and ought not to treat gods as objects nor objects as gods. It also follows that, should there be a situation where the choice is to benefit a being and harm another or vice versa, we ought to pick the choice that benefits the being with the greatest value, so as to obtain a net gain. We also deduce the Golden Rule: Do unto others (humans) as you would have them do unto you (also human). Now, can we demonstrate this GCB hierarchy to be true? In an attempt to show that we all have an innate knowledge of it (much like the laws of logic and math) please do the following thought experiment with me, and let me know your answer.
A house is on fire. You are a rescuer whose goal is to save the beings stuck inside. There is one human, one animal (say a dog), one plant, and one object (with no monetary value but destroyable). All else is equal. You can only rescue one at a time. Who would/should you rescue first, second, third, and fourth? — Samuel Lacrampe
Hitler and his dogs (he had many!) would not save you over his little kittens. Especially, if you're a jew. — Πετροκότσυφας
Well, the argument was that we have an innate knowledge which shows when we pick the human over the non-human. — Πετροκότσυφας
Actually I agree with you that, in this case, I too would not save Hitler. But that is because we know Hitler to be evil because he killed many humans, and is likely to kill more humans if saved; and this choice would not result in the largest net gain. So the GCB hierarchy is still followed.The adult Hitler is inside and he's fully evil already.
Your system says you should save Hitler because he's human. I say, save your cat who loves you.
In this case an animal may be placed above a human in ontological value. — fishfry
Here is my understanding. In essence, angels are rational immaterial beings with free will, in contrast to humans who are rational material beings with free will. Good angels are just called angels, and evil angels are called demons. If the definition of gender is related to sex, then angels have no gender because of no sexual organs. If the definition is about emission and reception of things, then they may be male if they emit, and female if they receive. God is represented as male because he always emits (love, info, existence) to all other beings, who are all female in relation because they receive all of this. That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the 'husband' and Israel as the 'bride'.What are angels? — fishfry
Do I detect irony? I am fairly sure that in some countries, as a rescuer you would get sued for failing of duty.I might prioritize my couch. I like my couch. It's been good to me. The dog likes the couch too. — Bitter Crank
There are indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not 'what is'. Would you not say that such people are either crazy, uninformed, or else unethical? And I don't mean just subjective opinion, but objective fact, much like it is an objective fact that Hitler is unethical.The fact that there are people who care for pets or strays, while there are countless humans without access to food, meds or shelter, demonstrably shows that in practice the cases where we value non-humans over humans are extremely common. — Πετροκότσυφας
This is true. But it is also true that Hitler is seen as unethical by a large majority, thereby confirming the ethics based on the GCB.Hitler and his dogs (he had many!) would not save you over his little kittens. Especially, if you're a jew. — Πετροκότσυφας
Not in every case indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not about 'what is'; and the thought experiment is about you, not about other cases in history. You and I are on the same page that some people would indeed not abide to the GCB ethics, but then this entails an unethical behaviour, not an error in the ethics itself.My point is that while some may claim that people would in every case save humans over non-humans, that's factually wrong. — Πετροκότσυφας
Would you choose a pic over a human? Would you not call this rescuer insane?It may be a picture of someone that you love that you value over a human, animal, or plant. — yatagarasu
The thought experiment states that the object has no monetary value. Even then, the cure would be to benefit humans, either directly or indirectly. It it does not, then it has no worth. If it does, then this act would abide to the GCB ethics.It could be a valuable plant that you think may be the cure to a terrible illness. Same thing with the human or animal. — yatagarasu
It would follow that slavery was morally good at the time it existed, and that Nazism would be morally good if Hitler had won. But this is absurd.When enough people agree on common definitions and common values we call those ideas morals. — yatagarasu
Part of the GCB ethics is to pick the choice that results in the greatest net gain. It may not be unethical to kill someone for the sake of survival, say as self-defence, because it is one human life vs another. Nobody considers an abortion to be unethical it is the only way to save the mother's life.In real terms: much like many of us anthropomorphizes our own pets, there are people who objectify or animalize other humans. This is not a disease; it is on one hand an aberration, and on the other hand, it can serve as a survival tool, when survival is aided or is only possible by murdering another person. — szardosszemagad
Not so much how 'we would' but how 'we should, or feel we should'; and also how you would. Innate knowledge can only be tested as a personal thing. Sure the fact may be that some other people may behave differently, but it is hard for me to interpret their thought based on the act because I am not them.Which means that, based on how we would behave in this specific situation, he wants to show that we all have an innate knowledge of the GCB. — Πετροκότσυφας
I haven't made any of this up — szardosszemagad
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.