Your favorite meta-ethic (taken from SB)

[K. A. Pital]

I part ways with humanism, because according to humanism, if you had a finite amount of resources, like we do, and not enough to look after all humans, ethically, it should all be spent on looking after humans.

That's the only moral way. But transcending to that may require unprecended change of mentality. I vote for humanism, even if people are just not ready for that type of mentality. When they will be, it will rule supreme. I like humanism because it promotes the value of humanity's survival irrelative of the inefficiency of some human group, but relative to it's value for enduring human life. That is probably as moral as it can get for me.

[Rye]

That's the only moral way.

Is it fuck. I fail to see the inherent value in saving the life of some idiot african AIDS-spreading paedophile at the cost of the life of an entire species of tiger or something. He is not worth more than them in my moral system.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

That's why I think Utilitarianism is roughly a better bet than Humanism. Often, it can have the same results as Humanism, but it does allow for the measurement of relative worth. Something isn't valuable or more valuable simply becaues it is human.

[K. A. Pital]

I fail to see the inherent value in saving the life of some idiot african AIDS-spreading paedophile at the cost of the life of an entire species of tiger or something.

Except there's no such dilemma in reality. And paedophiles, AIDS-spreading too, should be killed or isolated per humanism (at least how I understand it), because they have a destructive effect on humanity's survival.

[Rye]

You think humanism would advise killing diseased humans?

No, it would save him at the cost of an entire non-human species. Whether he is isolated or not is not relevant to the point. The point was that entire species of other animals, even closely related evolutionary ones are considered less valuable than one useless and unpleasant human.

[K. A. Pital]

The point was that entire species of other animals, even closely related evolutionary ones are considered less valuable than one useless and unpleasant human.

Not like that. Humanism concentrates on humanity. I denounce individualist humanism (i.e. no matter what the individual is, his life should be valued above all else). So if the destruction of a certain species would have drastic effects on humanity, his life's net value would be less than the value of humanity's life. Like, murdering all cows for 1 human on the planet would obviously indirectly cause pauperisation for a lot of humans and some of them may die. Therefore, cows can't be killed for the life of one human.

Besides that, the dilemma is purely theoretical and nonexistent - there's no such situation where to save one human life one would have to eradicate a whole non-human species.

[Darth Yoshi]

Utilitarianism, mostly. Humanism creeps in there too, but I'm all about enjoying yourself.

[His Divine Shadow]

A tad of Humanism, some Utilitarianism and a teensy weensy bit of Relativism.

[His Divine Shadow]

P.S. I am also another that is not listed, I am an Individualist.

[Rye]

Not like that. Humanism concentrates on humanity. I denounce individualist humanism (i.e. no matter what the individual is, his life should be valued above all else). So if the destruction of a certain species would have drastic effects on humanity, his life's net value would be less than the value of humanity's life. Like, murdering all cows for 1 human on the planet would obviously indirectly cause pauperisation for a lot of humans and some of them may die. Therefore, cows can't be killed for the life of one human.

That wasn't the point of the situation. The point of the situation was killing off a species which has no practical use, like pandas or siberian tigers, that some people just like aesthetically, we have to spend money on preventing poachers making a "legitimate living" out of them. Under humanism, aside from just increasing the stock so we can kill more of them over time, I don't see any justification for that.

I don't see any justification at all under humanism for spending any money on animal cruelty laws and enforcement when there are still starving humans in the world. Do you?

Besides that, the dilemma is purely theoretical and nonexistent - there's no such situation where to save one human life one would have to eradicate a whole non-human species.

There doesn't need to be in order to show something to be arguably less moral than another system.

[K. A. Pital]

The point of the situation was killing off a species which has no practical use, like pandas or siberian tigers

If killing them would benefit humanity, or it's survival would depend on the killing of those, kill. But if not - there's no dilemma, and therefore...

I don't see any justification at all under humanism for spending any money on animal cruelty laws and enforcement when there are still starving humans in the world. Do you?

Neither do I. But deliberately exterminating species, if the survival of humanity does NOT depend on it, is not valid under humanism either.

There doesn't need to be in order to show something to be arguably less moral than another system.

Um... I disagree. Anyway, animal cruelty fuss is something I do not understand. People die while money is spent on saving animals. I understand saving species from dying out, since this harms the biosphere and thus humanity indirectly in long term. I also understand improving conditions for productive species (cows, pigs, etc). However, all this fuss with "pay money to save puppies" while people are dying elsewhere in the world is simply unacceptable for me.

But then, I am a godless, humanist commie. Shame on me, I don't care for the puppies.

[Rye]

If killing them would benefit humanity, or it's survival would depend on the killing of those, kill. But if not - there's no dilemma, and therefore...

They're worth a lot of money, people kill them for their fur, under humanism, what is wrong with at?

Neither do I. But deliberately exterminating species, if the survival of humanity does NOT depend on it, is not valid under humanism either.

Thanks for proving my point that humanism is not concerned with the welfare of animals beyond "are there enough to sustainably eat," or is sufficiently lax in it's concern so long as any human anywhere is suffering.

Um... I disagree. Anyway, animal cruelty fuss is something I do not understand. People die while money is spent on saving animals. I understand saving species from dying out, since this harms the biosphere and thus humanity indirectly in long term. I also understand improving conditions for productive species (cows, pigs, etc). However, all this fuss with "pay money to save puppies" while people are dying elsewhere in the world is simply unacceptable for me.

But then, I am a godless, humanist commie. Shame on me, I don't care for the puppies.

Humans are animals, any suffering we go through, other animals can go through to some extent. and they are at a significant disadvantage in that their lower intelligence makes them more "honest" for a lack of a better word, and less assholish than your average human being. They don't have the capacity to be responsible like we do, so when humans flagrantly ignore their responsibilities to build better irrigation, to not fuck newborn children, to not hack each other up with machetes in war torn africa, or blow one another up because their invisible friend told them to, I stop giving a shit about them.

[K. A. Pital]

They're worth a lot of money, people kill them for their fur, under humanism, what is wrong with at?

Money is worth nothing in humanism, human life is.

humanism is not concerned with the welfare of animals beyond "are there enough to sustainably eat," or is sufficiently lax in it's concern so long as any human anywhere is suffering

That's obvious - we need the survival of OUR species foremost, and then - all the rest.

Humans are animals

Exactly. Making other species survival, if our species can be helped, is a betrayal of the species.

They don't have the capacity to be responsible like we do, so when humans flagrantly ignore their responsibilities to build better irrigation, to not fuck newborn children, to not hack each other up with machetes in war torn africa, or blow one another up because their invisible friend told them to, I stop giving a shit about them.

So? What's the point? Stop giving a shit about humans and give a shit about other species? Fundies, criminals and others are destructive for humanity, and thus should be killed or isolated.

But for that, you NEED resources.

Imagine people instantly stopping all police activities, all education and just try to improve animal life. It's as absurd as your example with the "one man - death of species", but it shows clearly that resources should be directed on solving the problem of our species first, and only then for other species.

Of course, if you deny humanism completely, and think dolphins deserve a chance, just push for a global termonuclear war - the perfect act of antihumanism.

[Rye]

They're worth a lot of money, people kill them for their fur, under humanism, what is wrong with at?

Money is worth nothing in humanism, human life is.

What...? What the fuck has that got to do with anything? You do know that by having money, you can buy a better life, right?

That's obvious - we need the survival of OUR species foremost, and then - all the rest.

Our species is not in any danger of going extinct, so I fail to see what this is meant to prove. I have certainly spent more money in my life on feeding my pets than starving african children, you want to try and show that's immoral?

Exactly. Making other species survival, if our species can be helped, is a betrayal of the species.

L-O-L!

So? What's the point? Stop giving a shit about humans and give a shit about other species? Fundies, criminals and others are destructive for humanity, and thus should be killed or isolated.

But for that, you NEED resources.

Well...thanks[?] for telling me I need resources to imprison or kill naughty humans.

Imagine people instantly stopping all police activities, all education and just try to improve animal life.

Why?

It's as absurd as your example with the "one man - death of species",

The point of that example was to show the insane idea that one man's life is obviously not equal to the continued existence of an endangered species. It was a thought experiment to show the inadequacies of humanism, which wou've already conceded, since you ignore humanism whenever you change the value requirements from being a live human being to being a law abiding citizen.

but it shows clearly that resources should be directed on solving the problem of our species first, and only then for other species.

Why should it? We're not going to go extinct any time soon, we could comfortably lose two thirds of our population and keep on truckin'.

Of course, if you deny humanism completely, and think dolphins deserve a chance, just push for a global termonuclear war - the perfect act of antihumanism.

I deny I should give a shit about someone just because they're human. I give a shit about people because they're important to me or they're decent people. If I had to make the choice between the angel of death killing all the people in Westboro Baptist Church or my cat, I would sign the Phelps away in an instant. And they don't kill anyone, they don't rape children, they're just really unpleasant. Far less pleasant than my cat, and give less to the world.

[K. A. Pital]

You do know that by having money, you can buy a better life, right?

This has to do with humanism what? Okay, I use my money and buy a better life while millions of people die. "Money" is not related to humanism this way or other.

you want to try and show that's immoral?

I don't. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live. Frankly, I consider myself not to be "moral" enough, as I'm still not in Africa, helping people out. Think me idealist, I don't give a shit.

you ignore humanism whenever you change the value requirements from being a live human being to being a law abiding citizen

What? Value requirement: help humanity's survival and well-being. Those who don't do it can't fall under humanism protection. Or I guess I'm not humanist, then. Because obviously a life of a destructive shithead like a paedophile is not worth anything in humanism, as it harms humanity and therefore he should be isolated or killed.

We're not going to go extinct any time soon, we could comfortably lose two thirds of our population and keep on truckin'.

Nice democide there. Humanity should improve it's well-being, not murder itself.

Far less pleasant than my cat, and give less to the world.

Whatever. From an objective POV the cat is giving 0 to the "world" - it's a human pet. It can give something to a select human, but it's net value for both humanity and world are close to 0. Yes, you're right, humanists are dicks who don't care about animals but want to solve humanity's problems first. I admit to that immoral philosophy.