Justified action or being an asshole? Which is it?

[Purple]

To add an edit since I missed the edit mark: I hate the thing.

Add this to the bottom of part 2, just above the 3rd quote:

Conclusion to my explanation:

After all, when viewed from a purely amoral context the act of proclaiming something "evil" is actually us collectively agreeing to sacrifice our freedom to do something in exchange for the benefit of no one doing it. In my example we sacrifice our freedom to do evil to one another for the benefit of social stability that comes from doing so. Hence, a coherent amoral argument for your stance would be if you could show the benefit to the individual or society from us agreeing to respect all life by virtue of it being alive and giving up our freedom to torture and do general evil to non human life.

[InnerBrat]

Well the purpose of this is to give it a try. So yea, let's assume that in order for something to be right you have to demonstrate a good reason why it is right that goes beyond that gut feeling we all get. If nothing else at least show where said gut feeling comes from in a way similar to what's been done in the other threads here (for example this one: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=155892) Althou what I would really want to see is a coherent argument as to WHY said stance should be held instead of it's opposite but WITHOUT touching on morality. In other words, a purely amoral argument.

To provide an example of what I mean. You could quite easily construct an amoral argument about why said stance should apply in human to human interactions. If anyone could go and kill/torture/do evil anyone else, society would fall apart. Society falling apart is bad for the survival of human kind. Ergo we have evolved to see murdering/torturing/being evil to other people as bad and also have a vested conscious interest in keeping it bad.

--edit--
After all, when viewed from a purely amoral context the act of proclaiming something "evil" is actually us collectively agreeing to sacrifice our freedom to do something in exchange for the benefit of no one doing it. In my example we sacrifice our freedom to do evil to one another for the benefit of social stability that comes from doing so. Hence, a coherent amoral argument for your stance would be if you could show the benefit to the individual or society from respecting all life by virtue of it being alive.

That thread is about the evolutionary benefits of sadness. So you want a conversation about the evolutionary benefits of compassion towards living things? Because if something has an explanation in evolutionary psychology you'll accept it as moral? I'm just trying to work out what you mean by an amoral argument about morality. Are you after a conversation about social dynamics and the psychological benefits of empathy?

Not that I don't think there's a benefit to this, but - you've seriously never had a conversation about why compassion towards other species is beneficial? You could start by looking for links between animal cruelty and violence against humans - assuming you're willing to accept that lack of empathy towards humans is a bad thing?

To clarify my original question - I wasn't talking about objective discussions about morality, but about direct engagement with people who are showing a lack of empathy. It's my experience that when people are exhibiting this, there's already a block that means they're unwilling to look at the possibility that vermin deserve humane treatment, no matter how the argument is phrased.

Sorry, do you drag people into discussion to throw them off balance and entertain yourself, or to have a rational discussion about ethics? Because these are not mutually supportive aims in any one conversation.

It's complicated. But let's just say that I do what I did here.

I asked you about your motivations in asking the question, not "what" you do, but "why" you do it and what your intentions are. This is not clear.

[Purple]

That thread is about the evolutionary benefits of sadness. So you want a conversation about the evolutionary benefits of compassion towards living things? Because if something has an explanation in evolutionary psychology you'll accept it as moral? I'm just trying to work out what you mean by an amoral argument about morality. Are you after a conversation about social dynamics and the psychological benefits of empathy?

An amoral argument about morality is exactly the right definition. Morality is basically just a set of rules we accept to be axiomatic. We do this either because we have a "gut feeling" telling us to or because there are rational and easily demonstrable reason for doing so. The former comes more often than not from evolved behavior. So demonstrating that empathy toward animals is an evolved trait similar to empathy toward humans would be partially sufficient. Althou as far as fun goes that would be the boring way out. And so I would rather we not do that unless there is no other way.

The fun way would be to look at your target audience. These are people who lack that "gut feeling" that respecting animals is wrong. Ergo, you need to provide an argument for them that works without invoking it. In other words, a rational emotionless argument for a emotion based moral rule. Or to put it in another way just discard all morality and work on this as if you were trying to convince someone to say invest into stocks or buy one model of automobile instead of another or something similarly morally irrelevant.

Not that I don't think there's a benefit to this, but - you've seriously never had a conversation about why compassion towards other species is beneficial? You could start by looking for links between animal cruelty and violence against humans - assuming you're willing to accept that lack of empathy towards humans is a bad thing?

You can and indeed need to observe empathy toward animals as something completely separate from empathy toward humans for the very simple reason that we humans create an instinctive separation between the two. To give an example. How often did you step on a bug or eat cow meat without thinking about it. Would you do the same to a human? So you either have to abandon this tangent or alternatively provide a second backing argument to prove we are the same as the animals to the target audience (good luck with that) or that there is a significant correlation between the two (more on this later on in the post).

To clarify my original question - I wasn't talking about objective discussions about morality, but about direct engagement with people who are showing a lack of empathy. It's my experience that when people are exhibiting this, there's already a block that means they're unwilling to look at the possibility that vermin deserve humane treatment, no matter how the argument is phrased.

Exactly what I am trying to do. The only way to convince anyone who experiences a lack of instinctive gut feeling for this is to provide him with a rational cost-benefit argument. The cost being human kind giving up our right to torture and be generally evil to animals with all the inconvenience that comes with it and the benefit being [insert your argument here]. Your argument would therefore have to consist of two parts. First you would demonstrate said benefit and than you would demonstrate how said benefit outweighs the costs.

Also, for the afore mentioned reasons you have to completely forgo any connection between this and human-human interactions unless you are willing to provide proof that there is a significant correlation between the lack of empathy of the extreme points in the two scales (stepping on a bug, poisoning a rat etc. and murdering someone). Since anyone you would be presenting said argument to would more likely than not point this out.

I asked you about your motivations in asking the question, not "what" you do, but "why" you do it and what your intentions are. This is not clear.

My intentions are irrelevant to this discussion. You could say fun if you want to. Maybe I am bored and stuff? Who is to tell? Let's just say that I want to see if we can construct a nice argument. And I will occasionally slip into devils advocate territory to point out the "flaws" in it as we go along. That is if you and/or anyone else is up for it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

My intentions are irrelevant to this discussion. You could say fun if you want to. Maybe I am bored and stuff? Who is to tell? Let's just say that I want to see if we can construct a nice argument. And I will occasionally slip into devils advocate territory to point out the "flaws" in it as we go along. That is if you and/or anyone else is up for it.

I myself am just a little confused as to what argument you are actually trying to make. I realize you are playing devil's advocate, and mostly bringing this all up as a means of creating a discussion, I just want some clarity.

Are you asking for a moral justification of "don't cause suffering" as opposed to axiomatically stating it to be desirable? Or are you asking for a scientific justification for altruism?

[Purple]

My intentions are irrelevant to this discussion. You could say fun if you want to. Maybe I am bored and stuff? Who is to tell? Let's just say that I want to see if we can construct a nice argument. And I will occasionally slip into devils advocate territory to point out the "flaws" in it as we go along. That is if you and/or anyone else is up for it.

I myself am just a little confused as to what argument you are actually trying to make. I realize you are playing devil's advocate, and mostly bringing this all up as a means of creating a discussion, I just want some clarity.

Are you asking for a moral justification of "don't cause suffering" as opposed to axiomatically stating it to be desirable? Or are you asking for a scientific justification for altruism?

It's difficult to boil it down like that. And the fact that the argument in question needs to be presented to someone whose basic frame of mind and emotion is different than we are (or else he would not need convincing) is not exactly helping. That's why I use so many words to try and explain it. The best try I can make at explaining it in one sentence would be: Take the moral principal of "animals deserve the same rights and respect as humans" and give me an argument supporting it that a Vulcan/Emotionless computer would accept as valid. Except that this is not exactly true it self. Since the target audience actually has emotions, but only toward members of it's own kind. I guess you could say: "give me an argument that someone with the mindset of a Dalek would agree with". It's difficult as I said. Hence the many words.

[Broomstick]

Here's a thought: there is a correlation between treating animals in a manner society currently defines as "cruel" and treating humans in a cruel manner. It's not 100%, but many criminals that are severely disruptive to society, such as serial killers, start off with mistreatment of animals. Thus, two reasons for society to mandate kindness to animals for human benefit, regardless of whether or not animals can gain any benefit:

1) Encouraging and/or condoning mistreatment of animals may lead to people of borderline behavior to further edge into a callousness that leads to them mistreating humans, and

2) By adhering to societal rules about animals you are signalling to society that you will play by the rules. Playing by the rules tends to strengthen the social bonds that keep things controlled and peaceful, which is a state most people prefer.

[Purple]

Finally some action.

Here's a thought: there is a correlation between treating animals in a manner society currently defines as "cruel" and treating humans in a cruel manner. It's not 100%, but many criminals that are severely disruptive to society, such as serial killers, start off with mistreatment of animals. Thus, two reasons for society to mandate kindness to animals for human benefit, regardless of whether or not animals can gain any benefit:

1) Encouraging and/or condoning mistreatment of animals may lead to people of borderline behavior to further edge into a callousness that leads to them mistreating humans, and

Is the correlation significant enough thou? How many people are known to be cruel to animals (starting from the little things like using glue traps for mice and kicking away stray cats that bother them)? And how many of those actually go on to become severely disruptive individuals? Is there any evidence to support that claim you made that torturing animals causes people to edge closer to being disruptive? Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Or how ever that is spelled. It might just be that people who are already likely to torture stuff start off with animals for the sole reason that they are easier to get a hold of and can't fight back as much.

2) By adhering to societal rules about animals you are signalling to society that you will play by the rules. Playing by the rules tends to strengthen the social bonds that keep things controlled and peaceful, which is a state most people prefer.

This bit is way too general. As in you could apply it to anything. So it devolves into "rules are good because they are rules".

[InnerBrat]

Ye-ah, I'm not the person for the conversation you wish to have, Purple, because:

a) I do not derive my morality from an extensive review of the peer review literature. I don't know anyone who does, and I'd be surprised if any sociologists intended their work to be taken as a basis for morality. I fundamentally disagree with your starting point that a cost/benefit analysis is all that's needed to prevent animal cruelty.

b) This bit:

You can and indeed need to observe empathy toward animals as something completely separate from empathy toward humans for the very simple reason that we humans create an instinctive separation between the two. To give an example. How often did you step on a bug or eat cow meat without thinking about it.

Never. I don't willingly eat meat (including cochineal, shellfish or those crickets-in-candy lollipops) and I don't kill insects without thinking about it and making the decision to do so. So I'm not coming from the position you seem to require I come from.

The distinction between humans and animals is not instinctive: look at the care and love people give to pets, and the distinct anthropomorphic tendencies people show towards animals in life and art; many millions of people treat animals like they are human. On the other hand, you just need to take a look at human history (Or y'know, human behavior right now) to see people treating other humans like animals.

So good luck! I hope you succeed in either constructing the argument you're looking for, or in throwing people off balance for fun - whichever gives you most pleasure.

[Broomstick]

Finally some action.

Here's a thought: there is a correlation between treating animals in a manner society currently defines as "cruel" and treating humans in a cruel manner. It's not 100%, but many criminals that are severely disruptive to society, such as serial killers, start off with mistreatment of animals. Thus, two reasons for society to mandate kindness to animals for human benefit, regardless of whether or not animals can gain any benefit:

1) Encouraging and/or condoning mistreatment of animals may lead to people of borderline behavior to further edge into a callousness that leads to them mistreating humans, and

Is the correlation significant enough thou? How many people are known to be cruel to animals (starting from the little things like using glue traps for mice and kicking away stray cats that bother them)? And how many of those actually go on to become severely disruptive individuals? Is there any evidence to support that claim you made that torturing animals causes people to edge closer to being disruptive? Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Or how ever that is spelled. It might just be that people who are already likely to torture stuff start off with animals for the sole reason that they are easier to get a hold of and can't fight back as much.

There are no definitive answers to any of the above, although they are all good questions. Absent a definitive answer, though, I would argue it's best to err on the side of caution, that is, to assume a link between them such that one may lead to the other.

Of course, some will disagree with that stance. I threw it out as a possible justification, not as a proven one.

2) By adhering to societal rules about animals you are signalling to society that you will play by the rules. Playing by the rules tends to strengthen the social bonds that keep things controlled and peaceful, which is a state most people prefer.

This bit is way too general. As in you could apply it to anything. So it devolves into "rules are good because they are rules".

Again, threw it out there for thought.

In this case, though, I don't care to spend my time arguing with you. You started out saying you were playing Devil's Advocate. Why not try to argue both sides for the mental exercise?

[Purple]

Ye-ah, I'm not the person for the conversation you wish to have

Oh well.

So good luck! I hope you succeed in either constructing the argument you're looking for, or in throwing people off balance for fun - whichever gives you most pleasure.

Will try. But it seems that the former is unlikely here and the later well...

In this case, though, I don't care to spend my time arguing with you. You started out saying you were playing Devil's Advocate. Why not try to argue both sides for the mental exercise?

Because arguing two sides at once makes one dizzy. And I did leave the easy side to you guys.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The best try I can make at explaining it in one sentence would be: Take the moral principal of "animals deserve the same rights and respect as humans" and give me an argument supporting it that a Vulcan/Emotionless computer would accept as valid.

Okay, I see what you are getting at, then. I initially misunderstood your meaning.

[Straha]

The best try I can make at explaining it in one sentence would be: Take the moral principal of "animals deserve the same rights and respect as humans" and give me an argument supporting it that a Vulcan/Emotionless computer would accept as valid. Except that this is not exactly true it self.

(Ironically, the vulcans are portrayed as Vegetarian. )

Alright, I'll bite. The problem is, in large part, you're looking at the question backwards. It's not a question of 'Do animals deserve the same rights as humans?' but rather 'Who deserves rights?' Your question presupposes an anthropocentric bias that inherently denigrates other species. By starting from the basic question of who deserves to be included in the moral community we can start to see that the lines that end up being drawn are always arbitrary and self-serving. The end result of any line drawing like this is that The line can always be moved simply by declaring a target group animalian. The only way to stop this is to have no line at all.

Cary Wolfe, Matthew Calarco, and Gary Francione all discuss this issue at length from different viewpoints. Steven Best does a lot of excellent work discussing how systems of oppression in the
Modern world are upheld by speciesism. Carol Adams is, of course, the best source on the question of Feminism and the domination of animals. David Nibert discusses this with keen capitalism at length. There are more, but that's it in a nutshell.

[Purple]

The best try I can make at explaining it in one sentence would be: Take the moral principal of "animals deserve the same rights and respect as humans" and give me an argument supporting it that a Vulcan/Emotionless computer would accept as valid. Except that this is not exactly true it self.

(Ironically, the vulcans are portrayed as Vegetarian. )

Alright, I'll bite. The problem is, in large part, you're looking at the question backwards. It's not a question of 'Do animals deserve the same rights as humans?' but rather 'Who deserves rights?' Your question presupposes an anthropocentric bias that inherently denigrates other species. By starting from the basic question of who deserves to be included in the moral community we can start to see that the lines that end up being drawn are always arbitrary and self-serving. The end result of any line drawing like this is that The line can always be moved simply by declaring a target group animalian. The only way to stop this is to have no line at all.

Cary Wolfe, Matthew Calarco, and Gary Francione all discuss this issue at length from different viewpoints. Steven Best does a lot of excellent work discussing how systems of oppression in the
Modern world are upheld by speciesism. Carol Adams is, of course, the best source on the question of Feminism and the domination of animals. David Nibert discusses this with keen capitalism at length. There are more, but that's it in a nutshell.

Here is the thing. You recognized your self that the lines being drawn are always always arbitrary and self-serving. However, to slip into DA for a moment, that's not a bad thing. Why should they NOT be always arbitrary and self-serving. After all, it is us who set up our moral codes and thus it is us who should set them up in such a way that benefits us the most. Anything else would be willingly handicapping our self as a species. And that can't well be smart or a logical thing to do. After all, from an amoral standpoint antropocentrism is the logical stance to tale.

And we are back to the cost-benefit angle. Remember, this is not about making a morally or philosophically correct or even consistent system. When faced with an emotionless subject morality is just a set of separate rules. And if a rule does not bring in a net benefit than it is useless.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The line can always be moved simply by declaring a target group animalian.

As an aside, is this necessarily a deficiency with the moral system itself? I mean, if you have a moral system that says "murder is wrong" but someone then declares that a specific type of killing somebody isn't murder, does that mean the moral system itself needs to be scrapped?

[Straha]

Here is the thing. You recognized your self that the lines being drawn are always always arbitrary and self-serving. However, to slip into DA for a moment, that's not a bad thing. Why should they NOT be always arbitrary and self-serving. After all, it is us who set up our moral codes and thus it is us who should set them up in such a way that benefits us the most. Anything else would be willingly handicapping our self as a species. And that can't well be smart or a logical thing to do. After all, from an amoral standpoint antropocentrism is the logical stance to tale.

If this is the approach you want you're not necessarily being anthropocentric, you're just being solipsistic. Logically, from a certain set of premises, that's an understandable position to take "I am the only being who I can understand, and whose existence I think I can confirm, ergo I am the only person that counts." The result isn't morality, or even ethics. It's simply trying to figure out what serves you best at any given time. In this world, for instance, you'd kill someone if you knew you'd get away with it, their death wouldn't hurt you, and that killing them (say, by running them over in the street while you're late to an important appointment) would benefit you in a minor way. If what you want is a justification for giving other people moral consideration in a world that's amoral you're asking an inherently contradictory question, and one where you can't possibly get a satisfying answer.

As an aside, is this necessarily a deficiency with the moral system itself? I mean, if you have a moral system that says "murder is wrong" but someone then declares that a specific type of killing somebody isn't murder, does that mean the moral system itself needs to be scrapped?

Yes. If the moral system is loose enough that it can be used to arbitrarily justify, and even compel, the slaughter, rape, mutiliation, and torture of target classes simply based on personal perception and societal pressure then the moral system is probably flawed and needs to be scrapped to be replaced with a better one.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes. If the moral system is loose enough that it can be used to arbitrarily justify, and even compel, the slaughter, rape, mutiliation, and torture of target classes simply based on personal perception and societal pressure then the moral system is probably flawed and needs to be scrapped to be replaced with a better one.

But anything can be arbitrarily justified by shifting the semantic goal-posts. How do you propose to design a better moral system that absolutely prevents people from doing this? Someone can always claim a different possible meaning for any given dictum or law. It won't make them right, but neither is it an indictment of the dictum/law itself.

By your logic, if I say, "Stealing is wrong," and somebody says, "Oh, well, I didn't steal. I just took it without paying," then my morality is wrong, as opposed to the somebody just being a pedantic jackass.

(Just as an aside, I actually do agree with your argument, this is just playing DA)

[Straha]

Yes. If the moral system is loose enough that it can be used to arbitrarily justify, and even compel, the slaughter, rape, mutiliation, and torture of target classes simply based on personal perception and societal pressure then the moral system is probably flawed and needs to be scrapped to be replaced with a better one.

But anything can be arbitrarily justified by shifting the semantic goal-posts. How do you propose to design a better moral system that absolutely prevents people from doing this? Someone can always claim a different possible meaning for any given dictum or law. It won't make them right, but neither is it an indictment of the dictum/law itself.

By setting up a system that doesn't rely on semantics and is based on a premise of infringing the least on others, no matter who the other is. Once you accept that premise, things like theft, murder, genocide, etc. fall by the wayside.

[Purple]

If this is the approach you want you're not necessarily being anthropocentric, you're just being solipsistic. Logically, from a certain set of premises, that's an understandable position to take "I am the only being who I can understand, and whose existence I think I can confirm, ergo I am the only person that counts." The result isn't morality, or even ethics. It's simply trying to figure out what serves you best at any given time. In this world, for instance, you'd kill someone if you knew you'd get away with it, their death wouldn't hurt you, and that killing them (say, by running them over in the street while you're late to an important appointment) would benefit you in a minor way. If what you want is a justification for giving other people moral consideration in a world that's amoral you're asking an inherently contradictory question, and one where you can't possibly get a satisfying answer.

Not quite. The approach here is to create a system whose exclusive purpose is to benefit the broadest possible group that can be expected to fallow it. Since non humans are not expected to understand or fallow human morality such a system would not care about them. Althou it would care for say sentient aliens.

It newer goes down to the individual. It just does not care for anyone who is outside it's intended population. Sort of like rules of a particular sport. You have rules for teams, for players and even for the fans participating. But there will newer be a sports rule regarding random people on the other side of town that have no idea a game is going on.

Yes. If the moral system is loose enough that it can be used to arbitrarily justify, and even compel, the slaughter, rape, mutiliation, and torture of target classes simply based on personal perception and societal pressure then the moral system is probably flawed and needs to be scrapped to be replaced with a better one.

But anything can be arbitrarily justified by shifting the semantic goal-posts. How do you propose to design a better moral system that absolutely prevents people from doing this? Someone can always claim a different possible meaning for any given dictum or law. It won't make them right, but neither is it an indictment of the dictum/law itself.

By setting up a system that doesn't rely on semantics and is based on a premise of infringing the least on others, no matter who the other is. Once you accept that premise, things like theft, murder, genocide, etc. fall by the wayside.

What about euthanasia? After all that is killing too.

[Straha]

Not quite. The approach here is to create a system whose exclusive purpose is to benefit the broadest possible group that can be expected to fallow it. Since non humans are not expected to understand or fallow human morality such a system would not care about them. Althou it would care for say sentient aliens.

It newer goes down to the individual. It just does not care for anyone who is outside it's intended population. Sort of like rules of a particular sport. You have rules for teams, for players and even for the fans participating. But there will newer be a sports rule regarding random people on the other side of town that have no idea a game is going on.

Now you're moving goalposts away from "what does us best through cost-benefit analysis" towards a contract based system of ethics that has been largely discredited for the past hundred years (if not more).

Long story short, you destroy your own system of ethics in the first sentence. What it means to be "expected to follow" these ethical codes is fluid and always subject to societal pressure, and the second someone falls outside this expectation they lose protection. Case in point, does a mentally handicapped person have protection under this? An infant? The elderly and infirm? How about someone who has received poor schooling their entire life in a rural area and doesn't understand higher concepts of morality (or reading, for that matter)? How about someone from the Sentinel Islands off of India who has avoided all contact with people off the island? How about a sociopath? How about someone who understands this contractual view of rights but thinks it's wrong and should be opposed? Who determines sentience when it comes to aliens or animals (something which depends on intelligibility, not capability)?

Your view of rights is slipshod, there are a litany of excuses to exclude any group from moral protection and to subject them to the ultimate injustices and oppression for mere societal perception. See: The Holocaust, Oppression of Women, the Pogroms, Slavery in the United States and Caribean, etc.


Put another way, here's Cary Wolfe on the subject:

The effective power of the discourse of species when applied to social others of whatever sort relies, then, on a prior taking for granted of the institution of speciesism—that is, of the ethical acceptability of the systematic “noncriminal putting to death” of animals based solely on their species. And because the discourse of speciesism, once anchored in this material, institutional base, can be used to mark any social other, we need to understand that the ethical and philosophical urgency of confronting the institution of speciesism and crafting a posthumanist theory of the subject has nothing to do with whether you like animals. We all, human and nonhuman alike, have a stake in the discourse and institution of speciesism; it is by no means limited to its overwhelmingly direct and disproportionate effects on animals. Indeed, as Gayatri Spivak puts it, “The great doctrines of identity of the ethical universal, in terms of which liberalism thought out its ethical programmes, played history false, because the identity was disengaged in terms of who was and who was not human. That’s why all of these projects, the justification of slavery, as well as the justification of Christianization, seemed to be alright; because, after all, these people had not graduated into humanhood, as it were.”13
A similar point, in terms that will be even more familiar to students of American culture, is made in Toni Morrison’s eloquent meditation Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. She argues that the hallmarks of the individualist imagination in the founding of United States culture—“autonomy, authority, newness and difference, absolute power”—are all “made possible by, and shaped by, activated by a complex awareness and employment of a constituted Africanism, which in turn has as its material condition of possibility the white man’s “absolute power over the lives of others” in the fact of slavery.14 My point here, however (and it is one I will press in my discussion of her reading of Hemingway’s The Garden of Eden), is to take Morrison very seriously at her word—and then some. For what does it mean when the aspiration of human freedom, extended to all, regardless of race or class or gender, has as its material condition of possibility absolute control over the lives of nonhuman others? If our work is characterized in no small part by its duty to be socially responsive to the “new social movements” (civil rights, feminism, gay and lesbian rights, and so on), then how must our work itself change when the other to which it tries to do justice is no longer human?
It is understandable, of course, that traditionally marginalized peoples would be skeptical about calls by academic intellectuals to surrender the humanist model of subjectivity, with all its privileges, at just the historical moment when they are poised to “graduate” into it. But the larger point I stress here is that as long as this humanist and speciesist structure of subjectivization remains intact, and as long as it is institutionally taken for granted that it is all right to systematically exploit and kill nonhuman animals simply because of their species, then the humanist discourse of species will always be available for use by some humans against other humans as well, to countenance violence against the social other of whatever species—or gender, or race, or class, or sexual difference. That point has been made graphically in texts like Carol Adams’s The Sexual Politics of Meat, which, despite its problems, demonstrates that the humanist discourse of species not only makes possible the systematic killing of many billions of animals a year for food, product testing, and research but also provides a ready-made symbolic economy that overdetermines the representation of women, by transcoding the edible bodies of animals and the sexualized bodies of women within an overarching “logic of domination”—all compressed in what Derrida’s recent work calls “carnophallogocentrism.”

What about euthanasia? After all that is killing too.

If you don't see the fundamental difference between someone opting to end their life and killing someone for your own pleasure there's a problem afoot.

[Simon_Jester]

The Wolfe passage, frankly, reads to me like gibberish.

It looks to be based on the idea that all power relationships are identical. And that therefore, to get rid of the abuses of power relationship X, we must identify power relationship (X+1) and destroy it.

Sex discrimination can't be the product of millenia of physically larger, more aggressive men pushing women around and hogging social approval by glorifying 'manly' activities like warfare, at the expense of 'unmanly' activities like childrearing. No, Wolfe says. it's being driven by the logic of domination that is meat-eating!


It reminds me of claims that violent video games cause murders. Or that all illness is caused by symbolic magic practiced by witches, so that for every person who gets sick and dies, we have to go find the witch who did it and punish them. When you start assuming that symbolism can create a causal relationship between X and Y, you can make up any causation you want, especially if you are a practiced manipulator of symbolism.

[Straha]

The Wolfe passage, frankly, reads to me like gibberish.

It looks to be based on the idea that all power relationships are identical. And that therefore, to get rid of the abuses of power relationship X, we must identify power relationship (X+1) and destroy it.

Sex discrimination can't be the product of millenia of physically larger, more aggressive men pushing women around and hogging social approval by glorifying 'manly' activities like warfare, at the expense of 'unmanly' activities like childrearing. No, Wolfe says. it's being driven by the logic of domination that is meat-eating!

You're oversimplifying and conflating the argument that Wolfe is making.

His first point is that oppression is intersectional. That is to say the systems of thought that support sexism also support racism, nationalism, etc. Carol Adams' Sexual Politics of Meat is an excellent book on this point. His second point is that speciesism undergirds all these other oppressions and is ubiquitous and easilly applied culturally. Thus, he argues, to oppose sexism without trying to tackle speciesism as well can only lead to a phantom victory at best. Meat-eating isn't the cause of sexism, but the two are linked.

[Purple]

Now you're moving goalposts away from "what does us best through cost-benefit analysis" towards a contract based system of ethics that has been largely discredited for the past hundred years (if not more).

Actually I am trying to somehow explain to you what I mean by using your words and methods since you completely misunderstand what I want and drive this thread off on a tangent. So I tried to steer you back and failed.

But since we are already here, I might as well go crazy with it. Since I seem to have created a monster.

Long story short, you destroy your own system of ethics in the first sentence. What it means to be "expected to follow" these ethical codes is fluid and always subject to societal pressure, and the second someone falls outside this expectation they lose protection. Case in point, does a mentally handicapped person have protection under this? An infant? The elderly and infirm? How about someone who has received poor schooling their entire life in a rural area and doesn't understand higher concepts of morality (or reading, for that matter)? How about someone from the Sentinel Islands off of India who has avoided all contact with people off the island? How about a sociopath? How about someone who understands this contractual view of rights but thinks it's wrong and should be opposed?

And here is your problem. You assume that the system should care about the particular condition of a particular individual. And that is because you keep wanting to push this down, miniaturize it, focus it on the individual. The system only needs to care about the broadest possible group that can be expected to fallow it based on the broadest possible set of criteria. It's the same like how the rules of football apply even to players with only one leg. When looking at a group, we should look at it not as a collection of differently able individuals but as a collection of identical drones of average ability. Those physically or mentally unfit, too old or too young are all just statistical out layers whose existence should have no bearing on our decision making process when forming a theory.

Who determines sentience when it comes to aliens or animals (something which depends on intelligibility, not capability)?

It's not about sentience but as you said about capability. The question to ask is the fallowing:
Assuming that through a magical force of Q we somehow gain the ability to communicate with said target group in such a way that our ability matches that of the average member of said group. Would in that case members of said group be able to comprehend said system of morality.

Your view of rights is slipshod, there are a litany of excuses to exclude any group from moral protection and to subject them to the ultimate injustices and oppression for mere societal perception. See: The Holocaust, Oppression of Women, the Pogroms, Slavery in the United States and Caribean, etc.

Slippery slope much? And yes, I have read the whole passage and that is the best I can come up with to describe it. Furthermore, if nothing else not all forms of -isms need exterminating. After all meat eating is hardly bad. And nether is say murdering bacteria or pests. And yet if as you claim these are related to sexism and racism and we can't beat the later without extinguishing the former...

[Ziggy Stardust]

By setting up a system that doesn't rely on semantics and is based on a premise of infringing the least on others, no matter who the other is. Once you accept that premise, things like theft, murder, genocide, etc. fall by the wayside.

But it is impossible to separate the system from the semantics, since that is the only way we, as humans, are able to communicate these systems in the first place.

How do you set up a system that doesn't rely on semantics?

To go back to the original issue, there is a hypothetical moral system where humans have "rights" (whatever that entails), and animals do not (I do not agree that this system is right, btw). You say this system is broken, and I agree with you. However, you say the reason it is broken is because it allows for some "other" to reclassify some group as animals to avoid giving them "rights" or what have you. So, Belgians are animals, or people with crutches, or whatever arbitrary line you wish to draw for the purpose of this discussion.

But this "other" that is classifying things this way is WRONG. Because Belgians and people with crutches are demonstrably not animals, by all reasonable and accurate standards. Why would this necessarily reflect on the moral system itself, regardless of how broken said system is for other reasons? How can you frame a moral system in such a way that it is impossible for some dumb asshat to semantically misuse it?

This is starting to approach the issue of how you deal with somebody so insane that they can't understand the morality. Because that is what this Belgian and crutch hating other is. His understanding of reality (Belgians =/= human) is out of whack with what actually IS true. What about this guy that shot up the theater in Aurora? Are you going to say that our moral system that holds murder as being wrong is broken because here is a case of a guy thinking murder is the right thing to do?

[InnerBrat]

This is starting to approach the issue of how you deal with somebody so insane that they can't understand the morality. Because that is what this Belgian and crutch hating other is. His understanding of reality (Belgians =/= human) is out of whack with what actually IS true. What about this guy that shot up the theater in Aurora? Are you going to say that our moral system that holds murder as being wrong is broken because here is a case of a guy thinking murder is the right thing to do?

What you appear to be saying here is that white Europeans, for the majority of human history, have been insane? Is that your intent?

[Ziggy Stardust]

What you appear to be saying here is that white Europeans, for the majority of human history, have been insane? Is that your intent?

You are completely missing the point. Did you read the rest of my post?

White Europeans, for example, practiced slavery. One of the major justifications for slavery was that Africans/Indians/whoever were somehow "subhuman," or at least "less civilized." According to Straha's logic, this is an indictment of any moral system in which slavery is considered wrong, as opposed to an indictment of the Europeans themselves.

What I am saying is that you can't judge the value of a moral system by the way it is subverted. Certainly, it is important to take that into consideration, but you can't throw out an anti-slavery ethical code because the Europeans decided that slavery is fine if it is Africans. They arbitrarily redefined boundaries so as to make their actions seem less deplorable. However, they were still demonstrably WRONG, because Africans AREN'T subhuman, and their slavery was NOT justified. Why is Straha's response, then, that the ethical code itself is in the wrong, because the Europeans subverted it?

It's like saying that all traffic laws are wrong because somebody decided that they don't need to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.



EDIT: For the record, I actually agree with Straha; I just think it's an interesting point of discussion, and prefer it when people explain their stance instead of just stating it to be so.