quote:

---

Quoth Naimah:
The entire point is plants are things and thus have no rights, but there are still Moral Considerations that must be made. Just because you have not heard of an expert who was published, republished multiple times, and is cited as an authority for this particular train of thought does not make it the source meaningless.

Moral obligations do not spring soley from rights. If you want to use the principle that moral obligations do spring soley from rights then prove it.

---

You can't just say, as you have, "Some dude agrees with me, so neener, and here's a random page number." If you want to cite the guy, you have to provide not only his argument, but his particular qualifications. Something along the lines of, "Dr. Largebrain, noted moral philosopher, argues that we have a moral duty to protect all living things which stems from [here's where you insert the argument you've been dodging]."

Further, you are the one making the positive assertion that it's immoral to allow plants or animals to become extinct. You, therefore, have the burden of proving the argument. The status quo is my argument, and needs no particular defense until and unless you provide an actual reason why you think it should change.

Finally, you've yet to defend the counter to your car analogy. If you hadn't noticed, the analogy supports my point more than yours--it's only the presence of another's right that circumscribes our freedom of action or confers a moral duty.

Argument over I win.

wtf

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about John Romero:
You can't just say, as you have, "Some dude agrees with me, so neener, and here's a random page number." If you want to cite the guy, you have to provide not only his argument, but his particular qualifications. Something along the lines of, "Dr. Largebrain, noted moral philosopher, argues that we have a moral duty to protect all living things which stems from [here's where you insert the argument you've been dodging]."

Further, you are the one making the positive assertion that it's immoral to allow plants or animals to become extinct. You, therefore, have the burden of proving the argument. The status quo is my argument, and needs no particular defense until and unless you provide an actual reason why you think it should change.

Finally, you've yet to defend the counter to your car analogy. If you hadn't noticed, the analogy supports my point more than yours--it's only the presence of another's right that circumscribes our freedom of action or confers a moral duty.

---

The point of the car analogy that the right of a thing to exist is not necessary for it to be wrong to cause it to no longer exist. The fact that a right of an individual is involved is merely there to include it in the moral framework that you acknlowledge. The fact that it is possible for it to be wrong destroy a thing without that thing having a right to exist nullifies your question of the things right to exist has it has no relevancy.

I have stated that moral considerations were supported in the cited article. Moral considerations are a construct that create moral obligations without rights. Providing another method to remove your question of why do things have the right to exist. The things right to exist very well may not exist, but it is irrelevant to the argument.

I have addressed the question that you claimed was begged. Now answer my question, Why do humans have the right to destroy a species?

quote:

---

Melpominee had this to say about Tron:
A human infant, specifically, has no particular intrinsic value outside of emotional attachment, which is not under discussion here. A banana has nutritive and monetary value. Objectively speaking, the banana has greater value than the infant.

---

I feel that I must point out that human children DO have nutritive and monetary value. Quite alot of it, in fact.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Naimah squealed:
The point of the car analogy that the right of a thing to exist is not necessary for it to be wrong to cause it to no longer exist. The fact that a right of an individual is involved is merely there to include it in the moral framework that you acknlowledge. The fact that it is possible for it to be wrong destroy a thing without that thing having a right to exist nullifies your question of the things right to exist has it has no relevancy.

I have stated that moral considerations were supported in the cited article. Moral considerations are a construct that create moral obligations without rights. Providing another method to remove your question of why do things have the right to exist. The things right to exist very well may not exist, but it is irrelevant to the argument.

I have addressed the question that you claimed was begged. Now answer my question, Why do humans have the right to destroy a species?

---

This is going to sound really, really, mean, but you need to do a bit of reading on logic before spouting off like this. The only thing you've done, repeatedly, is assert your conclusion. Even granting the notion--which I don't--that it can be wrong to destroy something that has no particular right to exist, you still have to provide the basis for saying that it is wrong. "There's an article that supports my position, but which I'm not going to quote," is not an argument and answers no questions.

You'll note, of course, that I provided you with an acceptable template for quoting your source if you're inclined to do so.

Back to the subject at hand, the very definition of freedom includes the ability to act as one wants as long as one doesn't violate another's rights (or the laws, but that's not really part of this discussion). You, as the person claiming it's our duty to protect species, have to answer the very simple question, "Why?"

quote:

---

We were all impressed when Zaile Ghostmaker wrote:
I feel that I must point out that human children DO have nutritive and monetary value. Quite alot of it, in fact.

---

You can't eat them or sell them without getting arrested or killed most places. Bananas can be sold, eaten, or used as sex toys freely wherever you go. I'll get back to the argument once I shower and reread all that has passed this morning.

quote:

---

Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
You're getting fairly annoying lately. Is it just your period, or have you reverted back to emo?

---

I'm sorry I think you're insane, forgive me baby.

quote:

---

Melpominee had this to say about Cuba:
You can't eat them or sell them without getting arrested or killed most places.

---

Only if you get caught.

Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 05-16-2006 at 06:29 PM.

quote:

---

Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
This is going to sound really, really, mean, but you need to do a bit of reading on logic before spouting off like this. The only thing you've done, repeatedly, is assert your conclusion. Even granting the notion--which I don't--that it can be wrong to destroy something that has no particular right to exist, you still have to provide the basis for saying that it is wrong. "There's an article that supports my position, but which I'm not going to quote," is not an argument and answers no questions.

You'll note, of course, that I provided you with an acceptable template for quoting your source if you're inclined to do so.

Back to the subject at hand, the very definition of freedom includes the ability to act as one wants as long as one doesn't violate another's rights (or the laws, but that's not really part of this discussion). You, as the person claiming it's our duty to protect species, have to answer the very simple question, "Why?"

---

It'd help if you'd quote a bit of material yourself; you claim western philosophy has established the right of humans to exist for ages as though it were obvious, much as Naimah throws around his claims about articles supporting his position. I fail to understand how one may justify the right of humans to exist but cannot justify the right of other things. After a bit of thought, I feel a bit underinformed and I really don't know how to pursue my point here.

Nae fucked around with this message on 05-16-2006 at 10:32 PM.

quote:

---

Quoth Melpominee:
It'd help if you'd quote a bit of material yourself; you claim western philosophy has established the right of humans to exist for ages as though it were obvious, much as Naimah throws around his claims about articles supporting his position. I fail to understand how one may justify the right of humans to exist but cannot justify the right of other things. After a bit of thought, I feel a bit underinformed and I really don't know how to pursue my point here.

---

I did cite various places where the rights of people to exist are codified. Are you honestly trying to say you're not familiar with the section of the US Constitution that guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If so, you have no place in this discussion.

On the other hand, one can't just say, "But some random guy agrees with me!" without providing more information. One can reasonably assume folks are familiar with the guarantees of human rights in the US Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of Western democracies. One can't reasonably assume anyone's heard of some random guy who wrote an article claiming rocks have rights or whatever, unless it received lots of press. See the difference?

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Punky Brewster:
I did cite various places where the rights of people to exist are codified. Are you honestly trying to say you're not familiar with the section of the US Constitution that guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If so, you have no place in this discussion.

On the other hand, one can't just say, "But some random guy agrees with me!" without providing more information. One can reasonably assume folks are familiar with the guarantees of human rights in the US Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of Western democracies. One can't reasonably assume anyone's heard of some random guy who wrote an article claiming rocks have rights or whatever, unless it received lots of press. See the difference?

---

Er, that kind of doesn't really support the idea that humans objectively have any more right to be here than anything else. It says that this country will allow people living in it certain rights so long as they live there. It has no bearing at all on the objective "right" to exist, only on the way the government will behave toward its people.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Melpominee stammered:
Er, that kind of doesn't really support the idea that humans objectively have any more right to be here than anything else.

---

We can heal the sick, take care of the old, avoid natural predators and our society isn't destroyed with every natural disaster.

That's why we have more right.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Melpominee absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Er, that kind of doesn't really support the idea that humans objectively have any more right to be here than anything else. It says that this country will allow people living in it certain rights so long as they live there. It has no bearing at all on the objective "right" to exist, only on the way the government will behave toward its people.

---

Did you fail History?

At any rate, I did make a minor error: it was the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution:

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

---

If you can't immediately bring that phrase to mind when someone says the basic human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of Western democracy, why are you having this conversation? As I said, it's not unreasonable to expect that everyone is familiar with such a famous assertion.

When trying to have an intelligent discussion, it's fairly important to have some idea what you're talking about before asserting odd things like you have.

You were probably thinking of the 5th amendment, which protects the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence (mostly)

quote:

---

nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

---

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
If you can't immediately bring that phrase to mind when someone says the basic human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of Western democracy, why are you having this conversation? As I said, it's not unreasonable to expect that everyone is familiar with such a famous assertion.

When trying to have an intelligent discussion, it's fairly important to have some idea what you're talking about before asserting odd things like you have.

---

That somebody says in a legal document that man is endowed by his Creator with certain rights hasn't got much bearing on this subject. Unless you'd like to bring religion into this, since that statement is blatantly based on it? In that case, your argument fails because that would give every creature the same rights as they come from the same Creator.

This still doesn't establish any objective "right" to exist, only that our founding fathers and the legal system they created believe humans should have such "rights."

quote:

---

So quoth Melpominee:
That somebody says in a legal document that man is endowed by his Creator with certain rights hasn't got much bearing on this subject. Unless you'd like to bring religion into this, since that statement is blatantly based on it? In that case, your argument fails because that would give every creature the same rights as they come from the same Creator.

This still doesn't establish any objective "right" to exist, only that our founding fathers and the legal system they created believe humans should have such "rights."

---

Do they not have civics classes where you come from? Last I checked, the Declaration of Independence is still regarded as central to the literature of political philosophy.

Nice attempt with that red herring of yours, though.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Vorbis:
Do they not have civics classes where you come from? Last I checked, the Declaration of Independence is still regarded as central to the literature of political philosophy.

Nice attempt with that red herring of yours, though.

---

Something is not objective just because it is an accepted document within our political philosophy. All it means is that it is accepted within our political philosophy, it doesn't mean that it is an objective truth.

quote:

---

Everyone wondered WTF when Kinanik wrote:
Something is not objective just because it is an accepted document within our political philosophy. All it means is that it is accepted within our political philosophy, it doesn't mean that it is an objective truth.

---

You would have a point if we were talking about objectivity. Unfortunately, philosophy--especially political philosophy--is particularly famous for its subjectivity. If you understood the ad populum fallacy, you'd be aware that mores are established by common consensus.

Alidane fucked around with this message on 05-17-2006 at 06:13 AM.

quote:

---

Kinanik had this to say about John Romero:
Ah, indeed. It seems that Melpominee is arguing objectively, while everyone else is interpreting it subjectively... I was confused.

---

Bloodsage has repeatedly called for objective evidence as to why non-human things should have a right to exist. The evidence he provides is subjective but the position he demands support for is objective.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Melpominee absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Bloodsage has repeatedly called for objective evidence as to why non-human things should have a right to exist. The evidence he provides is subjective but the position he demands support for is objective.

---

No, I've repeatedly called for any argument whatsoever other than, "Because it gives me a warm fuzzy," or, "Because some guy no one has ever heard of agrees with me."

You, on the other hand, are committing the fallacy or the tactic--I honestly don't think you're sophisticated enough to use it as a conscious tactic, but could be wrong--of simply challenging every basic principle as a way to avoid dealing with the actual question at hand, because you have no basis to argue your point otherwise. Hate to break it to you, but there is no objective basis for moral philosophy. So it's sort of stupid to keep demanding, "Why?" like an inquisitive 2-year-old.

Human beings have rights in our civilization. I've done my part and given the references that support and confirm that assertion. It is not required that these rights exist, but they do nonetheless and any other assertion is automatically a hypothetical example. Which, of course, can have nothing to do with the conversation as is.

Now it's your turn. If you want to argue that plants and animals have rights, you must furnish a basis for that point of view. "How are they any different than people?" doesn't work, because I don't have to make the case that they are different--you have to show that there's no qualitative difference between the lowliest blade of grass or creepy-crawly and a human being in moral terms.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 05-17-2006 at 12:00 PM.

quote:

---

Quoth Kinanik:
Ah, indeed. It seems that Melpominee is arguing objectively, while everyone else is interpreting it subjectively... I was confused.

---

Morality can't be argued objectively.

quote:

---

How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
No, I've repeatedly called for any argument whatsoever other than, "Because it gives me a warm fuzzy," or, "Because some guy no one has ever heard of agrees with me."

You, on the other hand, are committing the fallacy or the tactic--I honestly don't think you're sophisticated enough to use it as a conscious tactic, but could be wrong--of simply challenging every basic principle as a way to avoid dealing with the actual question at hand, because you have no basis to argue your point otherwise. Hate to break it to you, but there is no objective basis for moral philosophy. So it's sort of stupid to keep demanding, "Why?" like an inquisitive 2-year-old.

Human beings have rights in our civilization. I've done my part and given the references that support and confirm that assertion. It is not required that these rights exist, but they do nonetheless and any other assertion is automatically a hypothetical example. Which, of course, can have nothing to do with the conversation as is.

Now it's your turn. If you want to argue that plants and animals have rights, you must furnish a basis for that point of view. "How are they any different than people?" doesn't work, because I don't have to make the case that they are different--you have to show that there's no qualitative difference between the lowliest blade of grass or creepy-crawly and a human being in moral terms.

---

If you want subjectivity, it's easy enough to look at the documents you quote and say "Our founding fathers claim all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; by their beliefs, all things come from that same Creator and therefore should have similar rights." One could also argue that the Bible, the basis for the above statements, grants man dominion over the Earth and all things on it, thus giving humanity the right to dispose of it as we wish. You've said before that morality or moral philosophy cannot avoid being attached to religion, so here you go. I just figured there must be some better basis to argue from.

You'll note, of course, that human rights are enshrined in the secular philosophy of Western civilization. Plant and animal rights are not.

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that one cannot simply enter a discussion with a proposition and then challenge an opponent to disprove it, while simultaneously denying the basic principles on which the status quo rests. First, you run into the problem that, logically, you must argue your proposition rather than challenge others to deny it. One can't prove a negative, you'll note. Second, continually challenging basic principles leaves no basis for discussion, again denying the entire point. By committing both errors repeatedly, you demonstrate a wanton inability to engage in intelligent conversation.

On the other hand, instead of throwing your hands up and whining that if you can't simply assert things and have them be true, why not learn a bit about logic and start applying reason to the problem? It's not possible to prove that animals and plants don't have rights, but it is possible to show that people do and that none of the bases for giving people rights apply to animals or plants. Thus, if you think there is basis for giving them rights, you need to provide positive arguments to that effect rather than simply denying the status quo.

It's not hard.

quote:

---

There was much rejoicing when Bloodsage said this:
Don't be stupid, and maybe try to learn something.

You'll note, of course, that human rights are enshrined in the secular philosophy of Western civilization. Plant and animal rights are not.

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that one cannot simply enter a discussion with a proposition and then challenge an opponent to disprove it, while simultaneously denying the basic principles on which the status quo rests. First, you run into the problem that, logically, you must argue your proposition rather than challenge others to deny it. One can't prove a negative, you'll note. Second, continually challenging basic principles leaves no basis for discussion, again denying the entire point. By committing both errors repeatedly, you demonstrate a wanton inability to engage in intelligent conversation.

On the other hand, instead of throwing your hands up and whining that if you can't simply assert things and have them be true, why not learn a bit about logic and start applying reason to the problem? It's not possible to prove that animals and plants don't have rights, but it is possible to show that people do and that none of the bases for giving people rights apply to animals or plants. Thus, if you think there is basis for giving them rights, you need to provide positive arguments to that effect rather than simply denying the status quo.

It's not hard.

---

Umm, you wanted subjective, I gave you subjective. I also implied that said subjective argument really wasn't meaningful. This would carry the further appeal to the common knowledge that subjective arguments over universal rights are pretty much pointless.

In past threads, you've claimed that morality cannot exist outside of some religious basis, so I played on your field and stayed away from that. You asked, in this thread, for an explanation of the existence of a universal "right to exist" for plants and animals. How can that be established subjectively using the philosophy of one culture? It can't without fallacy because there are too many differing philosophies. This leaves only an objective explanation, which I cannot define.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want a subjective explanation of some form, which may well be provided by religious means (particularly those religions of western origin as they influence western thought) or you want an objective definition of universal rights, which cannot be established via the means you suggest.

I might add that I gave you a subjective example based on your own evidence. The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence believed in God and His Word, as evidenced by how that particular statement was phrased. History says that the first immigrants to what became the United States came to flee religious oppression. It's not at all unreasonable to subjectively establish a right to exist based on that. That subjectivity has no value is beside the point.

Subjective doesn't mean that logic no longer applies. Subjective means only that there is no one mathematically verifiable Truth to be found which excludes all other answers. It doesn't give you permission to be an idiot and claim it's all good.

As for morality equals religion, touché. On the other hand, the general definition of morality is nothing more than a code of right behavior. As a matter of personal taste, however, I prefer to distinguish between ethics and morality, where the former is a code of behavior derived as the logical consequence of a particular philosophy and the latter is decreed through religion.

Unfortunately, however, whether or not the topic is subjective or moral in nature doesn't obviate the need for you to reason logically or to prove your case. Hell, all you're doing here is another version of whining about basic principles because I called you on the other one.

Logic dictates that you either provide real justification for your assertion, or accept that it's not true. You have to advance a positive argument for your position, and trying to shoot holes in the status quo is not the same thing as advancing a positive argument. A positive argument has the form, "This is true because X, Y and Z," not, "This is true because I don't accept what you say." Time to put up or shut up.

At this point, if Bloodsage is relying on a political stance steeped heavily in religion (Which confirms Man's rights but does not actually deny the rights of bananas) as the basis of his argument, then wouldn't pointing out alternative political stances that do not deny Man's rights, and confirms the rights of bananas (as a living creature) put him on the defense? Say, Ancient Sri Lankan, based on Buddhism?

In any case, to raise the original argument from the dead and counter "It may be a bad thing if bananas go away, but that doesn't mean that biodiversity is necessarily good or desireable on the whole.", simply point out a case in which over-specialization is linked to the extinction of a species. If 'Sage's own evidence that humans have the right to life is true, then the survival of man is a good thing. For man to survive, man must not over-specialize. Reliance on any single form of nutrition is, by definition, an example of overspecialization, thus the survival of mankind is reliant upon multiple sources of nutrition. Unless we're getting into Soylent Green territory, multiple sources of nutrition would require multiple (edible) species, the very essense of biodiversity. Conclusively, if man's survival is a good thing, then at least some level of biodiversity is a good thing.

(Hey, look, an article which shows evidence of bananas going extinct due to genetic overspecialization.)

Darkness fucked around with this message on 05-17-2006 at 11:28 PM.

quote:

---

Darkness has the right stuff
(Forgive the lurker intrusion, just couldn't resist)

---

Welcome! All points of view, except Fae's, are protected in a politics thread, so post without fear.

quote:

---

Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
Further, claiming aesthetic value as a reason means that you essentially accept my argument: biodiversity is nice, but not required.

---

Okay, if the intrinsic aesthetic, ecological, economic, and scientific value of life on earth in all its various shapes and sizes is not enough to convince you of the importance of conservation, what is?

Pvednes fucked around with this message on 05-18-2006 at 08:24 AM.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Pvednes squealed:
Okay, if the intrinsic aesthetic, ecological, economic, and scientific value of life on earth in all its various shapes and sizes is not enough to convince you of the importance of conservation, what is?

---

Jeebus. Fallacy: loaded question.

All life doesn't have intrinsic aesthetic, ecologic, economic, or scientific value, and those those that do possess one or more of the above qualities do not possess them in the same degree. You can't argue that because apples are an important cash crop, we must preserve the ebola virus from extinction.

As I've said, the blanket statement that biodiversity is good in and of itself is false.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Darkness gently hums:
(Forgive the lurker intrusion, just couldn't resist)

At this point, if Bloodsage is relying on a political stance steeped heavily in religion (Which confirms Man's rights but does not actually deny the rights of bananas) as the basis of his argument, then wouldn't pointing out alternative political stances that do not deny Man's rights, and confirms the rights of bananas (as a living creature) put him on the defense? Say, Ancient Sri Lankan, based on Buddhism?

In any case, to raise the original argument from the dead and counter "It may be a bad thing if bananas go away, but that doesn't mean that biodiversity is necessarily good or desireable on the whole.", simply point out a case in which over-specialization is linked to the extinction of a species. If 'Sage's own evidence that humans have the right to life is true, then the survival of man is a good thing. For man to survive, man must not over-specialize. Reliance on any single form of nutrition is, by definition, an example of overspecialization, thus the survival of mankind is reliant upon multiple sources of nutrition. Unless we're getting into Soylent Green territory, multiple sources of nutrition would require multiple (edible) species, the very essense of biodiversity. Conclusively, if man's survival is a good thing, then at least some level of biodiversity is a good thing.

(Hey, look, an article which shows evidence of bananas going extinct due to genetic overspecialization.)

---

It's good to see someone actually responding intelligently!

Point 1 -- you now need to show why the West should dump it's traditions in favor of Asian ones simply in order to save the bananas. The question isn't whether there's any philosophy in the world that reveres all life, but whether there's any basis within the one we have to give plants and animals the same right to exist as humans do. Or, failing that, one must make a case for abandoning what we have in favor of a philosophy that does grant them those rights. Good luck.

Point 2 -- You've missed the question. The question is whether biodiversity is good in and of itself, not whether the resources on which humanity depends should be managed carefully. If bananas go extinct, it'll sting a bit; if wheat or rice or corn goes extinct, it'd be a disaster unless we had forewarning. But who cares if a particular frog, for example, that inhabits a single county in California, goes extinct? No one has made a case that biodiversity in and of itself is important--the closest anyone has come is vague warnings that, "Otherwise, we don't know what might happen."

On the other hand, at least you're thinking intelligently about the subject, and arguing logically.

quote:

---

Bloodsage said:
It's good to see someone actually responding intelligently!

---

This is EC.