:up:

Agree with this? — tim wood

Sure, but why can’t that be considered a trait?

My argument is that most animals don’t have the ability to understand/create these rules. I don’t think they can alter or change their behavior “at will” so to speak. Essentially they behave as they’re programmed to behave.

I make a distinction between this and human morality, where we have the ability to contemplate our behavior, and adjust accordingly, and to modify our “rules” as needed.

I'm taking that to its logical conclusion: If I know for a fact that a person X lacks morals then, by the reasoning above, I should be allowed to kill X. — TheMadFool

Only that’s not quite what I mean. If a species is without morality, then it’s ok to kill them. When applied to humans, it’s imperative that all humans lack morality. So for the above to be true, you would also have to lack morality, since you’re of the same species (human).

2. Can we kill humans if they lack morals? — TheMadFool

My answer is yes, if all humans lack morality it’s ok for them to kill each other.

For brevity, all I'll do here is point out that the name the trait argument works if we take traits singly — TheMadFool

That is a good point. Why is it that all the justification hinges on only one trait [rhetorical]?

What I described my cat doing was a behavior, not a trait. — tim wood

Yeah, I never said the behavior was a trait.

Nor, I think, is morality any kind of trait at all. — tim wood

Ok, then what is it?

Too much Sugar is bad for you — Amity

It matters for the simple reason that the difference between animals and humans (moral sense is your example) can be found as a difference betweeen one human and another (saints & sinners). Ergo, if you kill animals because they lack moral sense, you can kill sinners as well. — TheMadFool

But I’m not applying it like that. It has to apply to all members of the species. So, for example, if it is demonstrated that one cow actually possesses morality, then it wouldn’t be permissible to kill/eat any cows. I think that’s just erring on the side of caution. If one cow has morality, maybe others do as well, so we shouldn’t kill any of them just in case.

So with humans it’s the same thing. The only way it would be permissible to kill/eat them would be if no humans had morality, which includes human doing the killing in the hypothetical example. So if no humans possessed morality, then no humans would object to killing/eating other humans.

If you retreat to the notion of human morality, then you have said nothing and are saying nothing. — tim wood

I would conclude that there is no “human morality” as compared to “non-human morality.” Morality is a trait just like any other that a species either has or doesn’t. And this isn’t saying nothing, it’s pointing out a difference (perhaps a significant difference) between humans and other animals.

For my part, I infer from observed behavior. — tim wood

Sure, we all do, but scientific evidence should also be part of the equation.

1. The difference between animals and humans (interspecies). [The Name A Trait Argument] — TheMadFool

This is what my post was addressing. Humans possess morality, whereas animals do not.

2. The difference between one person and another (intraspecies). — TheMadFool

I’m not sure what this matters. Are you looking for justification for why we don’t endorse cannibalism? This justification, whatever it may be, doesn’t have to be related to the justification for eating non-human animals. I think we’re just biased towards our own species. We naturally react negatively to harming others (with some exceptions).

Why do we not or, at the very least, are reluctant to kill each other? — TheMadFool

I would say because we’re members of the same species.

But do you imagine, as I believe some people did, and that perhaps some people still do, that non-human animals are just "wet" machines, biological analogues if you will of an automobile? — tim wood

I wouldn’t go that far. Some animals have demonstrated a sense of self, so it isn’t like they’re cognitively dead. It’s more of a continuum.

And why would you suppose that, even if non-human animals don't have - not being human - certain human qualities that they cannot have non-human animal analogous behaviors. — tim wood

I’m open to this being the case. I just can’t understand what something analogous to morality would be. That’s why I’ve been asking you to clarify. Do you mean an innate sense that motivates their behavior? Instinct? Emotional systems like guilt or regret that cause them to act in certain ways?

Every other! You've been undone by your lack of precision both in thinking and language. — tim wood

I’m asking you to be more precise. As it stands now, morality is a term that describes aspects of human thinking and behavior. You’re positing that non-human morality exists, but haven’t explained what that is. You point to behavior, is that all the criteria needed to qualify as morality?

Mama bear, mama cat, mama duck, all have very definite ideas as to what is right and wrong for their cubs, kittens, ducklings. — tim wood

Simply because animals act in this way doesn’t mean they possess ideas. That requires a higher order of cognition than has been shown they possess (at least for the majority). Their behavior can be instinctive, and I’m arguing usually is. How can you confidently say that mother bears know what they’re doing and why, just by observing their behavior?

That, I'm afraid, is not going to do the job. By your logic, we should be killing immoral people but that just doesn't seem the right thing to do. — TheMadFool

You’re misunderstanding. Firstly, you’re applying it to individuals rather than species. I’m not saying any individual without morality is ok to kill. Secondly, being immoral isn’t the same thing as lacking the capacity to understand moral concepts, which is what I’m concerned with. Thirdly, were you to apply this to the entire species, it wouldn’t feel wrong to you. How could it?

I discern an error in your reasoning that supposes that because non-human animals do not possess human moral reasoning (and how or why would they?) they possess nothing alike, similar, or comparable. — tim wood

No, not really. But at the same time that doesn’t mean your friends cat understands right from wrong or good from bad.

I discern an error in your reasoning that supposes that because non-human animals do not possess human moral reasoning (and how or why would they?) they possess nothing alike, similar, or comparable. — tim wood

What other type of morality is there other than human? At the very least I would think any morality must include conceptual understanding of right/wrong, good/bad.

But to conclude that because they do not posses human morality they possess none whatever - that reminds to be demonstrated. — tim wood

If you care to explain what it is you’re suggesting they possess I may agree with you.

And yet some animals at least do behave in ways that imply a kind of moral sense. — tim wood

Maybe. I think it could be argued though that since animals lack self-reflection (as far as we can tell) that their behavior relies more on instinct or socially learned behavior through modeling than any sort of cognitive decision making. As such, whatever patterns we may observe in their behavior is not the result of any type of rule following, or moral reasoning. Therefore, it isn’t actually morality they possess.

@Cartesian trigger-puppets

What's a trait animals lack that if humans too lack it, killing humans for whatever would be permissible? — TheMadFool

Morality. Animals take no issue with killing other animals for food. If Humans did not possess any moral compass whatsoever all would be permissible.

Just my take in things…

I wish to argue that belief and the idea of suggesting that 'I believe' is about ownership of ideas, rather than bringing these in a vague way' as aspects of development of argument for any philosophy position. — Jack Cummins

“Ownership of ideas” seems odd to me. What do you mean by ownership? I would just characterize belief as agreement that a statement is true. “I believe X” is more or less equal to “X is true.” I guess there are some circumstances where we may know something is true (i.e. my father is dead), but do not believe it, due to shock and the denial that can come with it. Not really sure how that situation would figure into things.

What is'belief, or system of beliefs and the scope of its validity'? — Jack Cummins

You mean what makes our beliefs valid?

How does one justify belief — Jack Cummins

Well, people use all sorts of methods to justify their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean others accept their justification. Practically speaking we’re not always rational, and often choose to believe something because it appeals to our emotions. It feels good, or is too painful to not believe it. This type of justification isn’t accepted in philosophy, but occurs nonetheless.

In philosophy, debates about justification tend to depend on whether you think empirical observation and experience is more or less reliable than logic and reason when determining what is true. The former has issues because we are susceptible to illusions, hallucinations, etc. that warrant some distrust in our senses. Also, Kantians will talk about how we’re never able to observe the thing-in-itself, so are never truly able to know it’s essence. The latter has issues because paradoxes exist, and there is an infinite regress issue with justifying a belief with another belief (which itself has to be justified). Also, things in nature need not necessarily be logical or rational (i.e. human behavior).

Here’s one that’s, let’s say, “close to home.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=ayRWUTp22_4&feature=emb_logo

I told you before stay away from my door
Don't give me that brother, brother, brother, brother
The freaks on the phone won't leave me alone
So don't give me that brother, brother, brother, brother, oh

I, I found out
I, I found out

Now that I showed you what I been through
Don't take nobody's word what you can do
There ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky
Now that I found out I know I can cry

I, I found out
I, I found out

Some of you sitting there with your cock in your hand
Don't get you nowhere, don't make you a man
I heard something 'bout my ma and my pa
They didn't want me so they made me a star

I, I found out
I, I found out

Old Hare Krishna got nothing on you
Just keep you crazy with nothing to do
Keep you occupied with pie in the sky
There ain't no Guru who can see through your eyes

I, I found out
I, I found out

I seen through junkies, I been through it all
I've seen religion from Jesus to Paul
Don't let them fool you with dope and cocaine
No one harm you feel your own pain

I, I found out
I, I found this out
I, I found out
Ah
Ah
Ah
Ah
Ah
Ah
Ah

Wasn’t familiar with his work until now. I recognized the one with the apple in front of the guys face. It was a cover to a Searle book I read.

Anyway, I liked some of the images I found. I think you can find double meanings in some of his works; like “the false mirror” or “clairvoyance” or “the double secret.” Some of it seems absurdist, and just playing with reality, but I think that counts as philosophical. I also posted a couple Slavec Gruca paintings in the beautiful things thread. I see some resemblance between the two artists. Gruca is just on deviant art as far as I can tell, if you’re interested.

I think following would be a better description than chasing. Curiosity leads me wherever it wishes..somehow I’ve found myself here. :chin:

So if you participate in a discussion about the point of religion (present tense), you need to look at what religious people espouse/believe, not what you do. — Ennui Elucidator

I’m fine playing by your rules. But, I’d like to know what exactly your position is. Do you think religions were intended to be non-literal? Why or why not?

BTW, my personal religious views are irrelevant, as are yours. I’ve no concern in converting others, or what have you. I’m open to the idea that religions are meant to be metaphorical, but I just haven’t seen any good evidence of that. They do make empirical claims that I think most people would be hard pressed to interpret any way other than literal, but that’s just me.

Everything for you is an argument. Who is justifying what to whom? Actual members of the religious community don’t have to justify to you. And internally, they may not justify to one another - they simply receive what has come before. — Ennui Elucidator

Dude, this is a philosophy forum. Do you not expect to be asked to justify your assertions? You’re asserting that the correct interpretation of religious texts is non-literal. I’m asking you why. I’m asking because to me the more logical assumption to make is that they mean what they say. So when they say the universe was created in 7 days, it’s literally what they mean, unless there’s reason to doubt this. I find no reason to do so other than to rectify its contradiction with science.

The question is not WHY they believe what they do, but whether religious people accept that their sacred myths are allegorical and not historical. — Ennui Elucidator

I’m not talking about beliefs of religious people at all. I’m talking about religious founders intentions. The question is why do you think these religious founders did not intend for their teachings, sayings, etc. to be taken literally?

You made the claim that no religious group admits that their stories are not making factual claims. When shown evidence to the contrary, you want to argue about why they admit it and whether their admission qualifies according to your as-of-yet undisclosed standard. — Ennui Elucidator

What evidence? We both agreed, or so I thought, that there was no evidence of what the religious founders intentions were. That means we’re both assuming what their intentions were. I’m asking why you’re making the assumption you are. But, regarding evidence, if the Pope admitted Christianity was fictional, that would fit the bill. But, my guess is that you could ask just about any Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. if their religion is fictional, and they would say no. Almost nobody believes that, because there’s no reason to believe that. That is never suggested by the people who started the religions, or by those who commented on religion in the beginning. My theory is that interpreting the Bible (and therefore Christianity), for example, in a non-literal way only began when the Bible’s empirical claims began to clash with newly discovered scientific facts.

The bottom line is that if religions are truly meant to be interpreted non-literally, then the people who created those religions would more than likely have made that intention known. There’s no evidence that they suggested that was their intentions. Therefore, it’s more likely that that was not their intent.

What evidence do you have about the “founders” intentions from 3,500 years ago? — Ennui Elucidator

Well, there’s plenty of testimonial evidence. The Bibles I’ve seen have Christ’s words printed in red ink. What is the proper assumption here? That those quotes are inaccurate or correct?

So far as I know, there is no “evidence” either way and the most we have is some writings from about 1,000 years later. — Ennui Elucidator

Ok, I’m fine with agreeing with that. So then the question is one of the accuracy of the writings of disciples. To me, if there was ever any indication that Abraham, for example, didn’t literally believe Yahweh created the world in 7 days it would have been mentioned. IOW’s, I take whatever religious text you want to use at face value. Trying to twist or interpret scriptural empirical claims as metaphor seems like a post-hoc attempt at justifying believing the claims when they stand in contradiction to agreed upon scientific facts. Maybe it isn’t, but that’s how it appears.

Is the argument that he is lying? Or that Jews don’t know who he is? That they disavowed him? That somehow every Jewish intellect that followed after him and acknowledge the non-literal nature of the Bible was just making it up? — Ennui Elucidator

No, the argument is that a handful of people interpreting a text a certain way doesn’t mean their interpretation is correct. This also obviously applies to literalist interpretations as well. So, the question is which interpretation is better justified? So, what actually is the justification for a non-literal interpretation? That it doesn’t jive with established scientific facts?

This just doesn’t feel like a good faith question. Are you asking to be educated, being rhetorical, or being dismissive? The statement was — Ennui Elucidator

Just asking for clarification.

Perhaps we’re misunderstanding one another. You seem to be claiming that religions, at least some religions, admit that they are simply retelling a fictional tale filled with truths about life and how to live. And I’m using the term “truths” here very loosely. I’m just asking for evidence, because to the best of my knowledge, no religions make such claims. The founders of the Abrahamic religions made no such claim that I’m aware of, nor did the Eastern religious founders. Also, the vast majority of the followers of these religions make no such claim.

So why are you seemingly convinced that they were never intended to make factual claims? And by “factual claims” I mean claims about the origin of the universe, life, claims of the existence of supernatural deities, etc. In short, empirical claims. Do any of these religions explicitly say, or even imply, that these claims are meant to be metaphorical, allegorical, or fictional? I understand it’s possible to interpret these texts/claims metaphorically, but that isn’t evidence that that was the founders intentions.

Religions do admit it. Some religions don't. If you want to argue about what Christians believe, argue about Christianity, not about "religion." — Ennui Elucidator

I didn’t bring up Christianity specifically. Which religions admit to being fiction? Pastafarianism?

That misses the point. The OP seems to be questioning whether or not religions are intended to be factual. My response is that if they were not, then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because they wouldn’t try making factual claims. Also, it’s debatable whether or not secular humanism is a religion. Are you arguing that all religions should become like secular humanism? I’m fine with that if you are, but they are quite far away from that at this time, as should be obvious.

But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger

Then religions should admit it instead of clinging to the irrationality of their beliefs by making a virtue of faith.

Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest, so it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes. — stoicHoneyBadger

Ok, but then why not make it plainly known that it’s fiction? It isn’t like knowing that X book is fictional makes it impossible for it to provide meaningful moral lessons.

:up:

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that I don't think it belongs in this thread. — T Clark

No worries. I didn’t take your comment like that.

In case anyone isn’t familiar with Whitkin’s work, he is a photographer and often uses corpses and/or body parts for his photographs. In order to do this he made arrangements with local morgues who would essentially give him any bodies that went unclaimed/unidentified. So, he never really knew what he would be getting. With this particular image, so the story goes, he was lifting this head out of the box it came in, and dropped it. He didn’t realize that it had been dissected vertically, and when it landed it came apart and landed pretty much how he ended up photographing it. I mention this to show that I don’t think there was much intent involved on the part of the artist to create something with a specific meaning.

To me, I associate the image with Narcissus, or vanity. He is literally kissing himself. Couple that with the fact that this is a dismembered head and it brings about the contrast between “loving life” and “death.” Were this picture taken of two living people, it would appear very tender and loving. So, to me it kind of captures both tenderness/love on the one hand, and disgust/death on the other. There’s something I find fascinating about the ability to transform something that’s typically, or stereotypically, beautiful and lovey-dovey, like a kiss, into something darker. And just the ability to capture these different juxtapositions in one image is kind of awe inspiring for me. But it could be read into as a sort of warning about the perils of vanity, like Narcissus. Or you could interpret it as showing that most likely this person loved his life before he died, which again brings tenderness into an otherwise morbid image. But anyway, that’s my long winded explanation.

Umm… it kinda depends. I mean, if I saw that in real life I’d probably puke, but I find beauty in it more so in how I interpret its meaning than just its aesthetics. I guess it’s similar to how people find stories beautiful. It has nothing to do with the way the words look. It’s about their meaning.

Joel-Peter Whitkin- “The Kiss”

You sound like me. Always liked Radiohead, but never loved them. But yeah, this new album seems interesting.

I’m in my mid-thirties and have asthma, low cholesterol, toenail fungus, obesity (maybe), astigmatism, and a heart murmur. Probably some mild undiagnosed mental illness(es) as well. Had rheumatic fever as a child also. No broken bones or surgeries except for a biopsy on an enlarged lymph node when I was little.

[Verse 1]
(Slave screams)
He thinks he knows what he wants
(Slave screams)
Thinks he has something to say
(Slave screams)
He hears but doesn't want to listen
(Slave screams)
He's being beat into submission

[Chorus 1]
Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see
The devils of truth steal the souls of the free
Don't open your eyes, take it from me
I have found you can find happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery

[Verse 2]
(Slave screams)
He spends his life learning conformity
(Slave screams)
He claims he has his own identity
(Slave screams)
He's going to cause the system to fall
(Slave screams)
But he's glad to be chained to that wall

[Chorus 2]
Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see
The blind have been blessed with security
Don't open your eyes, take it from me
I have found you can find happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery
Happiness...

[Bridge]
I don't know what I am, I don't know where I've been;
Human junk, just words and so much skin
Stick my hands through the cage of this endless routine
Just some flesh caught in this big broken machine

[Outro]
Happiness in slavery (x18)
Happiness
Happiness
It controls you
Happiness
It controls you

Cool list. I at least recognize everyone’s name, but can’t say I’ve listened to many of the albums in full. Cool to see Little Richard in there, I think he’s under appreciated. AC/DC seems surprising somewhat considering the rest of the list. Do you have a similar list for 1980-now?

@TiredThinker@tim wood

Mouse-human hybrids? — Bitter Crank

Perhaps he’s referring to this:

https://futurism.com/scientists-successfully-grow-living-human-ear-rat

Good question. X wants ass-kissing and Y wants no ass-kissing. So, what happens when the two of them meet? X would think, I can't let Y kiss my ass. Y would think, I have to kiss X's ass. This'll happen: Y will try and kiss X's ass but X won't let Y kiss ass. Both are happy! — TheMadFool

:lol:

But seriously, the narcissist can’t both want Y to kiss his ass, and not want Y to do so. You’re assuming X wants to treat Y as Y wants to be treated, but that isn’t the case. It results in an imbalance. Y gets what Y wants (respect), but X doesn’t.

Maybe in cases like these, where how one wants to be treated conflicts with how someone else wants to be treated, the Golden Rule should be used as a Plan B? X doesn’t want to be forced to kiss someone’s ass, so shouldn’t force Y to do so. Problem solved!