Are animals really not equal?

[drug_mentor]

Because those within your species are the only ones who could truly ever relate to you. I don't get what part of that makes you stumble. It's species relative due to the fact that your species shares your gene pool, your future, and your identity.

[FALSE, ITS NOT THE ONLY ONES WE CAN RELATE TO, THAT WOULD BE EMPATHY, IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SHARES EXACT TRAITS]

See the quote above this one. This is what you said. Post #129, it is on this very page. You mentioned what we can relate to as well as traits. You ought to express yourself more clearly.

Not really though... its to establish a baseline. Intrinsic value of human life,

It doesn't matter why you are doing it, the point is that it does not meet the definition of objective. I refer you back to post #130.

PERSONHOOD FAILS TO MEET A UNIVERSAL INDICATOR AND IS SUBJECTIVE. OUT THE WINDOW IT GOES

You are simply stating this without argument. This is not a counter point to anything, it establishes nothing. I don't think you grasp how this is supposed to work.

False, they would need to share the same human value as other humans. And NO FUCKING SHIT THEY KILL THE FOETUS YOU STUPID FUCK, Holy shit. You need to up your reading comprehension.

Intrinsic means belonging naturally to something. Human life is the sufficient condition on your theory to get moral value, that is all. It is right there in the name - Intrinsic Value of Human Life. Explain how a foetus, which satisfies the sufficient condition of species membership, somehow has less value? It doesn't make any sense, and unless you can explain this your IVHL theory entails that abortion is inherently immoral.

Are you serious? So hooking them up wasnt an act of commission? REGARDLESS, The fucking point is that the whole act was never based in morality so what you do after you do an act of empathy is not lodged in logic or morality. I will repeat. Putting them on a regulator/ life system was not based on morality. No it was not. Hence why taking them off of it is not an act of morality. ok?

I never said anything about the act of hooking them up not being an act of commission, that act doesn't cancel out the act of unplugging them though, which is also an act of commission. I don't really see the point of this if you aren't actually going to address the things I said.

The fact that you don't think issues surrounding life support are in the realm of morality betrays a very naive conception of ethics on your part.

Because you are incapable using mental capabilties to look past that pigeonhold you have. Its not as simple as JUST BEING A PERSON. You actually have to be a person and you have to hold the intrinsic value of being a person lol. If a foetus at week 2 is taken out it is not considered a Homo sapien in its fullest. Its a fucking pile of flesh. IF WE WANT TO USE YOUR LOGIC THEN EVERY FUCKING TIME I JERK OFF I AM LITERALLY DEFYING MORALITY BECAUSE I AM KILLING ENOUGH DNA ( HOMO SAPIEN DNA) THAT IS POSSIBLE TO, WITH ENOUGH GENETIC ENGINEERING, BECOME A HUMAN BEING

I don't think you are grasping the concept of species membership. A foetus literally is a human life in the sense that it belongs to the species homo sapiens. This is not something which is true of sperm. What you are saying here is fallacious. It is also contradictory to the notion that there is intrinsic value in human life to claim that foetuses, which are humans, lack this value.

Moreover, it seems as though you are now going for a pluralistic account where both species membership and a certain level of mental function are necessary conditions of moral value. This also contradicts the idea that there is inherent value in human life, because it indicates that there can be human life without that value.

Great there we have it, more subjective bullshit. OH SOCIOPATHS DONT FOLLOW THIS STRICT SET OF ARBITRARY RULES I HAVE SET UP SO THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. Get over yourself. Your living in a existentialist world with that attitude. Take in the good with the bad and learn to formulate a proper outlook, holy fuck

Again, what you are saying here does not coherently address anything I actually said. I never took a hard stance on whether sociopaths would be classified as persons or not, and whether they would be excluded or not has nothing to do with whether sociopaths follow arbitrary rules. You know, you have attacked my reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, but I really think you ought to have more concern for your own.

Lol what the fuck are you smoking? how does it confer moral responsibilty on to animals that do not have it? It judges the morality of an act of another animal but it doesnt ever say that the animal itself is self aware of what is and isnt moral. HEY! THROW IN SOME MORE BUZZWORDS THERE, IM SURE ITLL GET YOUR POINT ACROSS EXCELLENTLY LMFAO, hinting towards racisism. Yawn, intellectually boring and dishonest as fuck LOL

To say an act is immoral implies that the being which performs the act is responsible. If you acknowledge the animal can't be responsible then its action can't be immoral. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

I never hinted at racism. I said a moral theory which confers moral superiority on to a being because of a biological criterion is analogous logic to the logic of racism, which it is. The point is that since we generally think the logic of racism is wrong, a sound ethical theory is not likely to be underpinned by analogous logic.

Reitirate pls *another dog to kill his dog* how does a dog determine it's ownership? I don't understand.

The intended antecedent for the pronoun "his" was the dog owner who I previously referenced as being able to kill his dog morally.

You literally make zero sense here, no idea where you are even attempting to go with this shit

An antecedent is an expression which gives its meaning to a pro-form, in this case a pro-noun. This is basic grammar, I don't know what you find hard to understand about the sentence you are referring to here. There is a difference between you not understanding plain English and me not making sense. This is a case of the former.

I wasn't attempting to "go" anywhere with that sentence. I was clarifying something at your request.

thats a great set of statements you've made. I made a counter point. Did I now TEAR YOUR ARGUMENT TO SHREDS? lmfao gtfo.

No, you didn't. I would say you did little more than babble a set of witless and incoherent claims.

what an incredibly boring and non progressive argument.

Drug mentor isn't someone I particularly enjoy talking to. He warps arguments to fit his own ideals instead of taking the argument at its face value and seeing how it could be best expressed. Instead he adheres to intellectual dishonesty and tries to convolute the argument so its nonsensical. Its boring, unfitting of an intellectual, and does nothing for understanding. He has a complete inability to view it from the point of the host. Unlike what I do with his theories.

The irony here is palpable.

To an extent, both of you are "playing the man". It never really works though. Its better to try and address the content of a post rather then the poster in question.

Where have I been doing this? I really take exception to this claim, please provide examples. My arguments have been directed towards this posters claims and arguments, not the posters character.

My comment about intellectual dishonesty was in an entirely different thread and was only incidental to this debate.

Because this poster has immaturely decided to repeatedly attack my intellect, I am not necessarily choosing to phrase myself in the friendliest possible manner, however the force of my argument has never once been directed anywhere but this posters arguments. Also, this is a development which is confined to this post, so it couldn't possibly be what you were referring to in the quoted passage.

 

[Ninae]

^I'm not following you.

I actually think there is something immoral about having a pet, and I am a person who always has one. I have a little cat, and had a dog for 7 years. I love having pets, but I feel like there is something brutally callous about giving life to something simply to own it.

Maybe for some of them, like horses. But our small pets who are well cared for have some of the best lives on the planet. Being a cat who can go in and out as it pleases and get food, shelter and company when it wants to, you couldn't really have it any easier in this world.

I don't interfere much in my cats life and mostly let him do his own thing, as that is what cats are all about, and he always seems to be in some kind of bliss.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Writing inside of quotes is smart. ME SMART

See the quote above this one. This is what you said. Post #129, it is on this very page. You mentioned what we can relate to as well as traits. You ought to express yourself more clearly.

---- Sure I'll be sure to watch how I express minor pros more clearily. Forgot that you would fine comb it instead of taking the honest route of understanding what I meant lol. Especially since traits doesnt really fit into the matter of IVHL

It doesn't matter why you are doing it, the point is that it does not meet the definition of objective. I refer you back to post #130.

---- notinfluencedbypersonalfeelings,interpretations,orprejudice;basedonfacts;unbiased:

////////////............////Pretty sure that statement of IVHL, which you know, is prevalent in all humans, is a basedon fact. but whatever you say.



You are simply stating this without argument. This is not a counter point to anything, it establishes nothing. I don't think you grasp how this is supposed to work.

-----++++++--------------- Really now? First of all express which personhood theory you are following because I have already torn this argument in the asshole and I'm over it but for the sake of reiteration:

Personhood does not express a collective objective set of rules. It also excludes groups of people and puts in place non-human animals as part of personhood. The willy nillyness of this idea is fucking bullshit. It does do well in legality and in law because currently it strives towards a POSITIVE outlook of less harm. But to take it as a strict moral code is fucking retarded. As stated earlier it excludes persons of Sadomasochism, sociopaths, psycopaths, or other kink minded individuals. It labels their habits and usages as ''bad'' because it needs to to uphold this fucking retarded logic (once again only in a strict moral code)

Pain is bad correct? In a personhood theory the almost basic idea is suffering. Pain is a direct cause of suffering. For someone who enjoys pain they are still suffering within the realms of the act and yet they also experience something joyful. The main portion here becomes that the suffering still exists. So if we all of a sudden label this act of pain as okay. Then you will enter a realm of complete subjectivism. If this part is up for subjectivity why aren't other parts?

Okay so instead we establish that this persons want and need for personal pain is greater than the badness of pain and suffering. Well, for me to even feel existent I need to kill people. My need for this killing will bring me existentialistic value and make me feel worth something. Nothing else can. So does that mean that my personal need, which is no deemed to be 100% needed, greater than another persons right to live? BUT HMHTW YOU CANT JUST SET UP A SCENARIO LIKE THAT. OBVIOUSLY THE PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE. Okay, fine then the other person has no right to fullfil what he subjectively deems to be his only passage to worth? Oh no, thats right. You need like... something that's universal right? something that ALL human beings have. Like you know. some odd weird intrinsic worth.... you know.............................................................................................................. lmao.



Intrinsic means belonging naturally to something. Human life is the sufficient condition on your theory to get moral value, that is all. It is right there in the name - Intrinsic Value of Human Life. Explain how a foetus, which satisfies the sufficient condition of species membership, somehow has less value? It doesn't make any sense, and unless you can explain this your IVHL theory entails that abortion is inherently immoral.

----------+++++-----------It doesn't. It does not have a mind of its own nor a body which you could call human. Its the beginning of a human life not an actual human being. Within the realm of abortion. At some point it becomes a human life. Until that point when it's merely a butthole, or when it has gills and no mental capacity it is not a member of the human species. There comes a point, a very rough point to grasp but it exists. Where it gets its membership approved (insert STAMP OF APPROVAL :D)


I never said anything about the act of hooking them up not being an act of commission, that act doesn't cancel out the act of unplugging them though, which is also an act of commission. I don't really see the point of this if you aren't actually going to address the things I said.

----------++++------------ Saving a human life is always worth it because it has value. However, if that person will never return to conciousness it is no longer a basic human being. Its a biocomputer without a host. Darkness. Gone. It has value, by itself yes, but to take it off support and watch if it lives. YOU didn't cause this to happen. YOU did not cause the vegetable to be. So therefore you taking them off the life support which YOU put them on does not revel a point of morality upon YOU. The fact of the matter comes back to the individual who caused the vegetable to exist.

Picture this, to add to your scenario, what if it was attempted suicide and you are saving him. You are now not only going against the wishes of the party but you are acting the part of a greater than moral agent. You are in fact using your own beliefs to subject this person to a life of a veggie. It becomes a matter of law and empathy at this point. Not necessarily a fact of strict morality. Stop inserting empathy into morality. It's annoying.

The fact that you don't think issues surrounding life support are in the realm of morality betrays a very naive conception of ethics on your part.

-------++++++++-------- It does revel within the realm of ethics, I expressed my self incorrectly but it doesnt revel within the issue of IVHL. Thats what I've been trying to say this entire fucking time. You start with IVHL. to establish a baseline worth for all humans, everywhere. Then the second point comes to establishing the Relative worth to EACH INDIVIDUAL SCENARIO THAT IS EXPRESSED. It also has to do with Value of Virtue... which is a different field than Value of Logic which I am so humbly trying to get through your skull.



I don't think you are grasping the concept of species membership. A foetus literally is a human life in the sense that it belongs to the species homo sapiens. This is not something which is true of sperm. What you are saying here is fallacious. It is also contradictory to the notion that there is intrinsic value in human life to claim that foetuses, which are humans, lack this value.
-------------++++------- Yawn, well everytime I jerk off I just seem to happen to jerk off into a bag of stem cells that seem to be suited for in vitro birthing. WHOOPS.
Once again, a foetus is not part of the human life category until a certain point.


Moreover, it seems as though you are now going for a pluralistic account where both species membership and a certain level of mental function are necessary conditions of moral value. This also contradicts the idea that there is inherent value in human life, because it indicates that there can be human life without that value.

-----^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ read post above



Again, what you are saying here does not coherently address anything I actually said. I never took a hard stance on whether sociopaths would be classified as persons or not, and whether they would be excluded or not has nothing to do with whether sociopaths follow arbitrary rules. You know, you have attacked my reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, but I really think you ought to have more concern for your own.


-----------+++++----------- Sorry didnt realize that

//////I wouldn't necessarily make an argument that psychopaths shouldn't count as persons, I can't say it is of great concern to me that they might not be.///////


didnt even minorily hint towards my inference. Whatever bro lol.

You should run for office lmao.



To say an act is immoral implies that the being which performs the act is responsible. If you acknowledge the animal can't be responsible then its action can't be immoral. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

----------++++-------- Ty sherlock, but from a self aware point of view. We could still see if its immoral IF the animal was capable of understanding logic. You realize logic does not need human nor anyone elses reflection to remain logical. Two plus Two is always four regardless of if we are there to observe it. Just like a logic of ethics. It remains regardless of wether or you can understand it.

I never hinted at racism. I said a moral theory which confers moral superiority on to a being because of a biological criterion is analogous logic to the logic of racism, which it is. The point is that since we generally think the logic of racism is wrong, a sound ethical theory is not likely to be underpinned by analogous logic.


------------++++--------- Ok, you never made the leap to link my theory and the idea of moral theory to the logic of racism. Don't bring this sentence up then. Completely irrelevent. Right? Use your big boy words to make a better analogy if you weren't hinting towards... iuno, trigger words like racism. Lmfao





An antecedent is an expression which gives its meaning to a pro-form, in this case a pro-noun. This is basic grammar, I don't know what you find hard to understand about the sentence you are referring to here. There is a difference between you not understanding plain English and me not making sense. This is a case of the former.

I wasn't attempting to "go" anywhere with that sentence. I was clarifying something at your request


Yep, and it did nothing for the argument. Literally nothing. I never said that a dog could claim ownership. The scenario you built was random and pointless.

Nneeedddd three worrds I guess

 

[drug_mentor]

You are ignoring my repeated mention of the fact there are a number of personhood theories. In any case, sado-masochists feel emotion. The only people who don't feel emotions that I am aware of are psychopaths, and while I wouldn't necessarily make an argument that psychopaths shouldn't count as persons, I can't say it is of great concern to me that they might not be.

Great there we have it, more subjective bullshit. OH SOCIOPATHS DONT FOLLOW THIS STRICT SET OF ARBITRARY RULES I HAVE SET UP SO THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. Get over yourself. Your living in a existentialist world with that attitude. Take in the good with the bad and learn to formulate a proper outlook, holy fuck.

You might want to get clear on the difference between "might not" and "don't". I clearly never committed to a view one way or the other on the issue.

Tell me how my reading comprehension skills need work again.

Yep, and it did nothing for the argument. Literally nothing. I never said that a dog could claim ownership. The scenario you built was random and pointless

I never said you said "that a dog could claim ownership". Seriously, this is getting embarrassing. The dog owner was the man. The point was that according to your theory it is immoral for a dog, which is not a moral agent, to kill another dog, but perfectly moral for a man, who is a moral agent, to kill his dog for nothing. This is an absurd moral outlook. I was addressing a comment which you made in post #124, and I articulated the point I was making most clearly in post #126.

Writing inside of quotes is smart. ME SMART

Again, you may want to get clear on the difference between "might not" and "don't" before you go on about how smart you are.

Also, writing inside of quotes is not smart, it is annoying. It might save you time, but it makes things less clear for people trying to read it, especially those who are not involved in the debate. It also creates more work for me to respond, because I have to copy and paste every single comment manually, they don't come up in the text window when I click the quote button.

It doesn't. It does not have a mind of its own nor a body which you could call human. Its the beginning of a human life not an actual human being. Within the realm of abortion. At some point it becomes a human life. Until that point when it's merely a butthole, or when it has gills and no mental capacity it is not a member of the human species. There comes a point, a very rough point to grasp but it exists. Where it gets its membership approved

Being human does not mean that you have a specific mind or a specific body, being human means you belong to the species homo sapiens. Foetuses belong to the species homo sapiens, they are human. This is a biological fact. Since your theory identifies species membership as the morally relevant criterion you cannot deny that foetuses have this intrinsic value.

Before you bring it up again, sperm does not belong to the species homo sapiens. It is worth pointing out to you before you argue this point, if sperm did belong to the species homo sapiens, this would be a further problem with your theory, not a counterpoint to my objections.

Saving a human life is always worth it because it has value. However, if that person will never return to conciousness it is no longer a basic human being. Its a biocomputer without a host. Darkness. Gone. It has value, by itself yes, but to take it off support and watch if it lives. YOU didn't cause this to happen. YOU did not cause the vegetable to be. So therefore you taking them off the life support which YOU put them on does not revel a point of morality upon YOU. The fact of the matter comes back to the individual who caused the vegetable to exist.

If a human is alive that is human life. If you identify species membership as the only relevant moral criteria, as the Intrinsic Value of Human Life theory of yours does, then any living human has this value. Since people on life support have the intrinsic value, you would be acting immorally to perform an act which caused or facilitated the end of that valuable life. You are contradicting yourself, again.

It is especially puzzling to me that one of your criticisms of a theory of personhood is that it denies moral status to certain humans because they do not have certain traits, but you are (unsuccessfully) attempting to do the exact same thing here with foetuses and people on life-support.

Ty sherlock, but from a self aware point of view. We could still see if its immoral IF the animal was capable of understanding logic. You realize logic does not need human nor anyone elses reflection to remain logical. Two plus Two is always four regardless of if we are there to observe it. Just like a logic of ethics. It remains regardless of wether or you can understand it.

Immoral implies that the being which commits the act is responsible. We don't generally refer to accidents as immoral or impose criminal penalties for them, except in cases where negligence is involved. To call something immoral is to make a value judgment about the responsibility of the agent. It makes no sense to call a non-person animals actions immoral, because it is not responsible for them.

You could say it would be immoral if it was performed by a moral agent, but that only makes my point for me. Non-persons can't commit an immoral act.

Personhood does not express a collective objective set of rules. It also excludes groups of people and puts in place non-human animals as part of personhood. The willy nillyness of this idea is fucking bullshit. It does do well in legality and in law because currently it strives towards a POSITIVE outlook of less harm. But to take it as a strict moral code is fucking retarded.

Saying there is moral value in personhood status does not express a collective objective set of rules to any greater, or to any lesser extent, than saying there is moral value in human life. Both of these claims simply establish what kind of beings are moral agents, with all the rights that this status entails. What the collective set of rules are is a separate conversation. This is no more of an objection to my theory than it is to yours.

As a matter of fact, you actually conceded this point without realizing it when you said:

You start with IVHL. to establish a baseline worth for all humans, everywhere. Then the second point comes to establishing the Relative worth to EACH INDIVIDUAL SCENARIO THAT IS EXPRESSED.

Pain is bad correct? In a personhood theory the almost basic idea is suffering. Pain is a direct cause of suffering. For someone who enjoys pain they are still suffering within the realms of the act and yet they also experience something joyful. The main portion here becomes that the suffering still exists. So if we all of a sudden label this act of pain as okay. Then you will enter a realm of complete subjectivism. If this part is up for subjectivity why aren't other parts?

I don't really understand what you are getting at here. This is beyond a theory of personhood and getting in to a discussion about positive and negative values. In another part of your post you asserted that a theory of personhood didn't establish any collective set of rules (which is more or less correct), but here you seem to be contradicting that, since you have presupposed that personhood entails a specific account of negative value.

From my own perspective, of course pain is bad, but personally I am dubious of any attempt to identify a single metric of good and bad. I think a pluralistic account is most likely the way to go. If I was forced to pick a binary account of value I am more sympathetic to theories which focus on preference satisfaction and frustration than I am to hedonistic accounts of pain and pleasure.

The reason your IVHL theory is relativist is because what establishes the moral worth of a being is it's relation to other beings, its species membership. For moral value to be hinged on a relationship with other beings is by definition a relativist account. Here is a quote from one of your earlier posts which I think highlights this point well:

Because those within your species are the only ones who could truly ever relate to you. I don't get what part of that makes you stumble. It's species relative due to the fact that your species shares your gene pool, your future, and your identity. It's as a species you need to progress. It's as a species you need to transcend and get ahead. It's the one thing that you can 100% relate as. Human to Human. Dog to Dog. I can't ever pretend to know what a dog feels because I AM NOT A DOG.

Personhood is a universal theory because it establishes a non relative standard. Persons are not important because of their relation to other persons, they are important because they meet specific criteria which have been identified as having universal moral significance. The moral significance of a person is derived from a universally applied set of standards.

You talk a lot about logic, but in practice you seem to struggle applying it.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Yawn. You are making a lotta hooplah over not understanding. Not only that your repeatedly reaching for arguments and the slightest syntax errors to establish a point. You are also repeatedly using the same arguments. Ivhl does need to be established once it is a human life. Not flesh.

get over it lol. You would do better to argue at what point that is.

an act can be non moral without them realizing it. The dog just cant understand it therefore he cannot be held to morality. doesnt mean its not immoral. You're just slow to understand because you want to cling onto this moral agent theory so hard.


And your so warped in your own ideas that you fail to realize the arbitraryness of personhood theory. That which is immoral today could be moral tomorrow. Species membership is your established concept. While it does do well to fit along IVHL it isnt the real point here. Its used as an indicator of worth relative within a species. All are equal until not. You just cant deal with the fact that a dog killing another dog can still be an act of immorality regardless of the dogs ability to understand. If not then mentally retarded people could go around killing and they wouldnt be immoral because they are incapable of understanding the act.

simply being human doesnt make you a 'moral agent'. There needs to be an establishment of logic. One that is not ruled by relativism. The only semi incomplete thought my understanding of IVHL has is at what point a foetus is considered human. And if you cling onto the fact that species membership is the only indicator. Then I'll just flip the argument and render that the pile of flesh was never established long enough to have or make an impact onto itself, or life. Therefore its relative worth to the mother was rendered insufficent to actually care for. Or something. I mean at this point i hardly care lol. Flesh is just flesh. Otherwise i would have to start caring about slightly corroding and dead bodies too. Lmao.

 

[drug_mentor]

Yawn. You are making a lotta hooplah over not understanding.

You twice failed to appreciate that "might not" means something different than "don't", and you have been making contradictions left and right (I keep pointing them out, you keep failing to address them), but I am the one who is not understanding things. 8)

Not only that your repeatedly reaching for arguments and the slightest syntax errors to establish a point. You are also repeatedly using the same arguments. Ivhl does need to be established once it is a human life. Not flesh.

I am not using the same arguments any more than you are. You keep repeating the same fallacy that a foetus is not a human life. You are contradicting a biological fact with such a claim, it just makes you look foolish.

If you have to deny science for your theory to be coherent then you have a pretty solid indication that your theory is garbage.

Species membership is your established concept. While it does do well to fit along IVHL it isnt the real point here. Its used as an indicator of worth relative within a species. All are equal until not.

The claim in bold (my emphasis) is a complete 180 on your part, and a blatantly false claim. My established concept is personhood, which is not based on species membership. The primacy of species membership is literally in the name of your theory. Your line of argument throughout this entire thread has placed a strong emphasis on species membership (your first paragraph in post #129 is a great example of this).

an act can be non moral without them realizing it. The dog just cant understand it therefore he cannot be held to morality. doesnt mean its not immoral. You're just slow to understand because you want to cling onto this moral agent theory so hard.

You just cant deal with the fact that a dog killing another dog can still be an act of immorality regardless of the dogs ability to understand. If not then mentally retarded people could go around killing and they wouldnt be immoral because they are incapable of understanding the act.

Do you not understand what an insanity defense is? We as a point of fact do say that an act is not immoral if the agent is not capable of understanding what they did was wrong. You are correct that if someone who was mentally incapable of understanding that killing was wrong (i.e. not a moral agent) would not be acting immorally if they went around killing people, that doesn't mean that society doesn't have a right to put a stop to it though.

simply being human doesnt make you a 'moral agent'. There needs to be an establishment of logic.

I agree with you 100% on this point, that is exactly why I rely on a theory of personhood as the sufficient condition to establish moral agency.

It would pay for you to notice that your Intrinsic Value of Human Life theory does not have the resources to address this concern.

One that is not ruled by relativism. The only semi incomplete thought my understanding of IVHL has is at what point a foetus is considered human. And if you cling onto the fact that species membership is the only indicator. Then I'll just flip the argument and render that the pile of flesh was never established long enough to have or make an impact onto itself, or life. Therefore its relative worth to the mother was rendered insufficent to actually care for. Or something. I mean at this point i hardly care lol. Flesh is just flesh. Otherwise i would have to start caring about slightly corroding and dead bodies too. Lmao.

You could make that argument. But, it would be weak, illogical, and by your own admission, ad hoc.

Your comment about corroding flesh and dead bodies is vacuous because neither of those things are human life.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Yeah, you really do have a comprehension problem. Once again making an argument out of nothing. A mere inability to read. Did I say the words species membership or did you? So if you did.. then it was your established concept of my idea. Jesus christ, it's like talking to a robot who doesn't have the ability to critically think and make the necessary connections.

Do you see humans living as just a butthole? There comes a time when it is actually a coherent human being. It's at that point termination is no longer allowed. Until that point..... Lol. Are you really having trouble with that concept? I don't get it.

And I take it back actually. Fine! If it develops into a fetus then no it is not allowed to be aborted anymore. That should happen around the 12 week point. So I guess we were really on the same point. I just didn't think so. Until it becomes a fetus it is up for abortion since you know. It's not the actual resemblance of human life.


here comes the beauty again. You have the inability to, due to your claim to personhood, SEPARATE LAWS OF LOGIC AND UNIVERSAL INDICATORS OF HUMAN LIFE WITH THE LAW WE HAVE IN ACTION. WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE LAWS WE HAVE WRITTEN ARE NOT BASED ON LOGIC AND MORALITY ONLY. THEY ADHERE TO LOGIC, STRIVE TOWARDS POSITIVE BEHAVIOR, AND ADHERE TO THE STUPID. Hence why you and I are always on different pages. I am speaking of logic in its truest form. One that is harsh and does indeed not always seem to be just in the eyes of both parties. You are speaking from a lawyers point of view. One who lives in this world and thinks logic can be unjust.


The fault in your matter is that yes. Even if they are unable to be aware of the crime they are committing is morally wrong. It still is morally wrong. By your logic, slavery was never wrong. Because those involved were completely incapable of realizing the immorality of it. Using logic, a source not dictated by FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS BUT A FUCKING OBJECTIVE IDEA OUTSIDE OF THE GRASP OF THE LIVING... we can see that slavery is wrong because it devalues the value of human life. Your ideas are subjective hence why you repeatedly cling to this personhood theory.


You are the one clinging to moral agency. You are the one applying it to MY theory and expecting it to stick. It doesn't work because that's not what it is based on. So get off your high horse and join the rest of us. IVHL is the universal indicator. 2 plus 2 equals 4. Don't worry though. Since you are human, regardless of being a ,sociopath, transexual or a murderer, you are still based on this same concept.

If you want to adhere to meta-philosophy and greater than good ideas by all means do so. As by doing so you may actually change the world to be more positive and forgiving and loving. But don't state it as truth, state it as your own wishful ideals. That's all. I'm over this. No more beating into your skull is gonna make you understand. So reject it and be bliss and continue on.

 

[drug_mentor]

Yeah, you really do have a comprehension problem. Once again making an argument out of nothing. A mere inability to read. Did I say the words species membership or did you? So if you did.. then it was your established concept of my idea. Jesus christ, it's like talking to a robot who doesn't have the ability to critically think and make the necessary connections.

You are so intellectually dishonest that it is obscene.

Human life has innate value because you and I are humans. If we are both humans then in every shape and form we are both equal and thus from a homo sapien point of view we are nonderivatively intrinsically good. An animal, who has value yet is lower than ours due to not being the same species, can still have intrinsic derivative good or a final value. Yet it will never be comparable to a human life because it's not human. To other dogs, if using this example, your dog is not worth more than any other dog.

Simply by existing as a homo sapien will you have absolute value. The rest is all relative TO THAT VALUE OF HUMAN LifE.

Yeah human life is the universal indicator to other humans because upholding human life takes priority over all. How much a life take priority is relative morality, from objective stand point human life > all. Just as if we were dogs, dogs > all.

Once again, yes it is exactly that. If an alien species came onto earth they could morally make us their bitch.

Because those within your species are the only ones who could truly ever relate to you. I don't get what part of that makes you stumble. It's species relative due to the fact that your species shares your gene pool, your future, and your identity. It's as a species you need to progress. It's as a species you need to transcend and get ahead. It's the one thing that you can 100% relate as. Human to Human. Dog to Dog. I can't ever pretend to know what a dog feels because I AM NOT A DOG. It's species relative because of laws of nature. A lion eats a gazelle. Is that immoral? No. A lion kills another lion cub to only have his own offspring succeed? Morally wrong? Yes. But the lion doesn't understand that. Oh Imma wife this bitch and then kill her offspring because they carry someone elses genes. No. That's wrong. Because killing your own species is wrong.

Yep, you totally never said anything about species membership whatsoever. 8)

You are obviously just pulling this stuff out of your ass because you are now attempting to deny the core principle which was underpinning your ridiculous theory.

You have taken numerous jabs at my reading comprehension, but I have just demonstrated that you are having extreme difficulty comprehending your own argument.

I am not going to address any of your other points because they are garbage and you have zero credibility at this point. There is absolutely no point in debating you if you are going to be so dishonest about what you have previously said.

 

[swilow]

Yes, let's move on. I enjoyed a bit of this debate but I'm not sure how fruitful it is now.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Did I say the words species membership or did you? So if you did.. then it was your established concept of my idea. Jesus christ, it's like talking to a robot who doesn't have the ability to critically think and make the necessary connections.

weird it's like you're once again trying to find fault in the structure of the argument and not the argument itself. boring.

I'm really dodging here right? wtf lmao.

 

[drug_mentor]

I am not going to continue responding to you, at this point it really is a waste of time.

I don't think anyone could read the quotes from my previous post and not see that species membership was inherent in your theory. It is not my conception of your idea, it plainly is your idea. It has nothing to do with structure, it has to do with the points you made. Again, here is just one example:

Because those within your species are the only ones who could truly ever relate to you. I don't get what part of that makes you stumble. It's species relative due to the fact that your species shares your gene pool, your future, and your identity. It's as a species you need to progress. It's as a species you need to transcend and get ahead. It's the one thing that you can 100% relate as. Human to Human. Dog to Dog. I can't ever pretend to know what a dog feels because I AM NOT A DOG. It's species relative because of laws of nature. A lion eats a gazelle. Is that immoral? No. A lion kills another lion cub to only have his own offspring succeed? Morally wrong? Yes. But the lion doesn't understand that. Oh Imma wife this bitch and then kill her offspring because they carry someone elses genes. No. That's wrong. Because killing your own species is wrong.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Once again. Finding faults in the syntax of the argument. Bringing up irrelevant points to the discussion and an all around general butthurtness. Wonderful.

I like winning arguments like this. Always makes you realize that the individual you are speaking to is incapable of actually attacking the argument.

 

[drug_mentor]

When I attacked your argument, you back flipped and claimed it wasn't your argument. When I provide evidence that it was in fact your argument, I am finding irrelevant faults in the syntax of your argument. It is unbelievable. As I previously stated, you are extremely intellectually dishonest.

I doubt that you are foolish enough to honestly believe that you won this "debate". I am satisfied that it will be readily apparent to anyone who reads the thread that you essentially spewed out some barely intelligible ideas and then proceeded to deny that they were yours once the glaringly obvious faults in them were pointed out to you.

As per the mods request I am absolutely finished. Enjoy the feeling of unwarranted smugness.

 

[GodandLove]

Can we please get a moderator in here to clean this thread up?

The last two pages of this thread is literally just drug.mentor and helpmehelptheworld squabbling over trivial banter and attacking each others "intelligence". They're basically just having a public view dick sizing competition.

To helpmehelptheworld, your efforts are futile, trust me, been there done that. The guy/gal is stubborn and thick headed and refuses to see things any other way but his/hers. (Whichever pro noun fits). On the other hand, drug.mentor does kind of have a point. The entire premise of your argument revolves around that idea that being apart of the human species or a specific species membership, somehow entitles us to special privileges which somehow translates to us having more/greater "intrinsic value" over other life forms. This is something that I find completely preposterous given that there are countless species on this planet that are much more equipped at not only surviving but maintaining harmonious equilibrium with all other co-inhabitants. Furthermore these same species will have a much greater survival rate if for example there is a catastrophic event, like a climate change related natural disaster or a nuclear holocaust. Which to me, is more than enough objective proof that if any species on earth is going to be declared as a moral archetype, all else will most undoubtedly be modeled after them.

 

[Lady Codone]

The idea of equality is a human construct. Nature does not honor our ideas of equality or fairness. Animals can feel pain and love, so they deserve to not be deliberately harmed. They obviously lack the IQ and brain power of (most) humans, so they're not "equal" in that regard. But as inhabitants of the planet they have a right to exist in peace like we do.

(I say this as I grub on a bacon sandwich, which just goes to show the idealism in my statements. No human can exist without harming another living thing at SOME point...even if it's just stepping on an ant or something. We all have an impact directly or indirectly on the state of this planet, which is why we should consider not breeding like rabbits. Having a small family or no kids at all is the most environmentally friendly decision you can ever make).

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

Can we please get a moderator in here to clean this thread up?

The last two pages of this thread is literally just drug.mentor and helpmehelptheworld squabbling over trivial banter and attacking each others "intelligence". They're basically just having a public view dick sizing competition.

To helpmehelptheworld, your efforts are futile, trust me, been there done that. The guy/gal is stubborn and thick headed and refuses to see things any other way but his/hers. (Whichever pro noun fits). On the other hand, drug.mentor does kind of have a point. The entire premise of your argument revolves around that idea that being apart of the human species or a specific species membership, somehow entitles us to special privileges which somehow translates to us having more/greater "intrinsic value" over other life forms. This is something that I find completely preposterous given that there are countless species on this planet that are much more equipped at not only surviving but maintaining harmonious equilibrium with all other co-inhabitants. Furthermore these same species will have a much greater survival rate if for example there is a catastrophic event, like a climate change related natural disaster or a nuclear holocaust. Which to me, is more than enough objective proof that if any species on earth is going to be declared as a moral archetype, all else will most undoubtedly be modeled after them.

He refuses to acknowledge the fact that it's not species membership of humans that give us the power to outwardly judge others as lesser. It's more that due to the fact that we, humans, just happen to be humans. Just as elephants happen to be elephants. And if elephants were able to critically think they would come to the same conclusion that one can only judge the world and people around them from a personal and intrinsic worth. Dogs are not humans - hence why we can not equally and fairly equate ourselves to dogs as humans. But! As humans we still have self awareness. And with that comes an ability to rationalize. From a primal point of view - a logical one - one could only fairly and justly equate worth to others from what is intrinsically there. Humans, self functioning, at the core, are the same race and species as other humans. So, then the idea breaks into two points
Human relativity to each other

And

Humans relativity to other animals.

1) humans intrinsic worth - scales of justice. An eye for an eye type shit.

A) human (Me) has no right to be devalued by outside forces. Thus, if you assault someone you are devaluing their worth.

B) A man which is alone on an island without anyone knowing who he is... Still has the same worth as anyone else. (Intrinsic worth)

C) Killing oneself is taking a life and then having your own taken.

I'll stop there for now


Humans worth to other species and back.

If you were to look at all species as they are... If oneof them would kill a human... Would it be wrong? From a nature standpoint.

From a hard logic stand point - no. If a lion killed a man it's not that the act was immoral. The lion simply reacted. If we were still butt ass nake, half retarded we would be doing the same as the lion. Killing shit to eat. Or just killing it because it invaded our territory or we felt danger from the creature.

From a logical stand point you have to look at the act and the act alone. Killing other species, from a moral standpoint isn't wrong because it wouldn't be wrong if we did not grow compassion and intelligence. Thus to JUDGE others one needs to look at the very core and the nitty gritty. Morally there is nothing wrong with killing a dog, or a cow, or etc.

But humans developed something that is different than cold hard logic and into compassion and empathy and self awareness etc. To decide what to do here from a... For lack of a better term... Super ego is different than basic morality. It's ideology at that point and it's a belief system etc. To be greater than good.

Either that or find a single point that could be quantitatively be judged over all species.

The point is that human to human morality is the keystone. Then you have two paths the relativity of human to human and of human to other species.

Maybe that'll clear it up a little?

The whole need for this is a universal law which all can be judged from. You need to be able to quantify it in someway to reliably use it as a point of stance. Personhood does not allow for that. It is not a term of morality but of super morality. Ideology. It equates the ethics of virtue within humans and tries to adhere to a point of truth. But since it only bases it on ideas which can be exclusive - And thus become subjective - it is a fine path to follow but it doesn't hold a definitive line. Sociopaths and psychopaths which adhere to the greater morality and understanding could never be included as they can not feel. That's basic discrimination out the gate and falls to fallacy of being moral.

It cannot be innate as in being born that way. You would have to actually act poorly to violate a truth. People are all born good, or rather, everyone is born with a clean slate and are all equal till their actions prove them not to be.


- Prolly will clean it up. Tired as sheiiit.

 

[Xorkoth]

There is clear evidence for a variety of other animals having self-awareness as well... notably dolphins pass the mirror test (recognizing yourself in the mirror). Also elephants (one of your examples) appear to have a significant level of intelligence. I mean, it seems unlikely that it's on par with our own, but where do you draw the line?

Also this "we, humans, just happen to be humans. Just as elephants happen to be elephants"... that's just a description of species membership. Of course it's what just happened to be, rather than a choice, but it doesn't mean it's not still the concept of species membership you're describing.

 

[Helpmehelptheworld]

But he's looking at it as species membership exclusive to humans when in reality it's something all life shares. Just because an human is aware of this fact does not make him above it. Nor does it make an animal who cannot understand the logic, below it.

To keep a universal indicator within the logical realm you need the quantifiable idea. If you use intelligence then all those who are not intelligent or self aware are automatically discluded.

Not aure if you are agreeing with me, stating another point, or disagreeing with me.

 

[Xorkoth]

I'm not even sure anymore. You're saying animals are not equal because we are more intelligent than them, is that right? If so, then I'd say whether I agree depends on the circumstances. I think keeping animals in captivity is as wrong as keeping people in captivity, and likewise with cruelty to animals. However, if I had to make the choice whether to save a random human life or a random animal life, I'd generally go with the human. I care more about the rights of humans than I do about animals, though I care deeply about both. But that's just because I'm a human and it's in a species' best interest to aid in the success of its own. I think that ultimately the reason I feel that way is evolutionary/instinctual, despite the fact that we as humans are able to dress up our instincts/urges to mean anything we decide they mean because we develop a cognitive/conceptual framework around everything.

But I think all life deserves equal consideration for allowing that life to be lived as it needs to. Sometimes something impedes on your own life and you have to make a decision (for example, killing an animal that was trying to hurt you, or wiping out millions of bacteria because you don't want to get sick).

 

[drug_mentor]

He refuses to acknowledge the fact that it's not species membership of humans that give us the power to outwardly judge others as lesser.

You keep framing me as the problem here. Aside from myself 3 posters have responded to your theory. From my perspective it seems like they have largely interpreted your theory in the same manner I have. With this in mind, you ought to consider that if this interpretation of your theory is incorrect, the problem probably lies in the clarity of your exposition.

You have repeatedly alluded that the IVHL is a mainstream theory in ethics, and you have mentioned Plato's association with it. I couldn't find anything on IVHL when I searched previously, can you point me in the right direction of some literature on this theory? Which text(s) did Plato write about these ideas in?

The whole need for this is a universal law which all can be judged from. You need to be able to quantify it in someway to reliably use it as a point of stance. Personhood does not allow for that. It is not a term of morality but of super morality. Ideology. It equates the ethics of virtue within humans and tries to adhere to a point of truth. But since it only bases it on ideas which can be exclusive - And thus become subjective - it is a fine path to follow but it doesn't hold a definitive line. Sociopaths and psychopaths which adhere to the greater morality and understanding could never be included as they can not feel. That's basic discrimination out the gate and falls to fallacy of being moral.

This is a really vague objection. I don't buy your claim that personhood is subjective, it is certainly less subjective than the IVHL. From an earlier post (#147):

Personhood is a universal theory because it establishes a non relative standard. Persons are not important because of their relation to other persons, they are important because they meet specific criteria which have been identified as having universal moral significance. The moral significance of a person is derived from a universally applied set of standards.

The reason your IVHL theory is relativist is because what establishes the moral worth of a being is it's relation to other beings, its species membership. For moral value to be hinged on a relationship with other beings is by definition a relativist account. Here is a quote from one of your earlier posts which I think highlights this point well:

Because those within your species are the only ones who could truly ever relate to you. I don't get what part of that makes you stumble. It's species relative due to the fact that your species shares your gene pool, your future, and your identity. It's as a species you need to progress. It's as a species you need to transcend and get ahead. It's the one thing that you can 100% relate as. Human to Human. Dog to Dog. I can't ever pretend to know what a dog feels because I AM NOT A DOG.

You never addressed these points, and until you do I don't think your claim that personhood is subjective holds much weight.

I would also point out that you have not adequately explained how abortion could be morally permissible under an IVHL theory. So far your primary tactic has been to deny that foetuses are humans, but since this is biologically false you are going to have to do better than that.