--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
Here we see the problems.First, you're whining again. You did not adequately quote anything before; all you did was say, "There's some random dude who thinks like I do." Had you adequately presented this guy's "logic" before, we'd have moved on by now.
Second, with the whole argument laid out, it's possible to dispense with it. There are two flaws, one with the argument itself, and one with the fact that you present it in this discusson. The problem with the argument itself is that it's essentially circular. He creates criteria that inevitably lead to his preferred conclusion. Nor does he argue why those criteria are essential. For example, he does not consider the case where X is a human being. . .yet, oddly enough, he presumes that any outcome that excludes any class of human beings is unacceptable and therefore not a good criterion. In effect, he starts with the conclusion that all humans are deserving of moral consideration, and then works backwards to find the least common denominator in order to apply that to other living things. . .while making it seem as if he is, in fact, reasoning from basic principles. Flawed, if not outright dishonest.
In terms of presenting this argument in this particular discussion, we have this gem:
The whole point of your diatribe to save the bananas is that we have a duty to make sure they don't go away. This doesn't argue that in the least and specifically says so.
So what we have is a poorly argued, backwardly reasoned assertion that all living things deserve some type of moral consideration in varying, unspecified degrees but which also specifically admits that they aren't as important as human beings nor should their interests trump ours.
Again I ask: where does this prove your point that we have a duty to ensure no species goes extinct, and even if it does, why should we dump the status quo in favor of it?
I have never put forth that we should hold all life as absolute sacred. I have merely questioned our absolute right to destroy any life. Destruction of life deserves a moral consideration, it is not automatically morally neutral or morally right. Knowingly taking actions that will lead to the destruction of an entire species should certainly be look at with moral consideration.
If we were to decide to persue the destruction of influenza we would probably make the moral decision that the moral signifigance of the virus did not merit perserving it when weighed against the suffering it could cause and we would decide to destroy it anyways despite its moral standing.
In contrast if we were to propose an action of destroying all the bermuda grass in the world, that would probably be viewed in a darker light. There is a disconnect here. We are saying that the weight of one outweighs the weight of the other. Neither have rights. Yet in both cases we weigh the moral signifigance of these things that don't have rights.
As moral agents it is our responsibility to make these types of decisions. Even things that do have rights have gradients or moral signifigance. A murderer is given less credance then an upstanding citizen, so much so in some cases that it becomes acceptable to exact revenge upon them. By arbitraily saying that this gradient ceases to exist at the end of rationality, or the end of humanity, or the end of sentience we are allowing ourselves to succumb to bigotry.
Where do rights stop? Is it rationality? If so then insane persons have no rights. Why do they lose all their rights simply because of a mental handicap? If it is humanity why does your beloved pet who exibits forms of intellegence every day cease to have any consideration simply because he dosn't walk on two legs and speak? If it is sentience where does that line stop? Does a spider have rights? A venus flytrap? How are we to judge an absolute line of mattering and not mattering when it is quite possibly one of the most important questions we can have when it comes to things other then ourselves?
Maybe destroying entire species of life is the correct and morally justifiable course of action to take in most cases. I still wonder as to why you take the position that it is absolute, that it is always the right course of action simply because they have no rights and thus no moral signifigance. Granting things the slimest margin of considerability does not garuntee them amnesty from all of mans actions, it just insures that man as the only moral agent on the face of the planet will take pause and ask if it is the right thing to do before he goes barreling on.
B-A-N-A-N-A-S Mr. John Q. Gainsborough Esq. III fucked around with this message on 05-19-2006 at 06:22 PM.
quote:
Mr. John Q. Gainsborough Esq. III had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Why is there a 5 page thread arguing about bananas?
And the rights thereof.
Bananas are people too!
quote:
Naimah startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
I have never put forth that we should hold all life as absolute sacred. I have merely questioned our absolute right to destroy any life. That's not exactly correct. You said we had no right to let species go extinct. We have that right because they have no right to exist. Destruction of life deserves a moral consideration, it is not automatically morally neutral or morally right. You have yet to prove this assertion. Even granting this doesn't advance your argument, though, so you're sort of logically screwed. Knowingly taking actions that will lead to the destruction of an entire species should certainly be look at with moral consideration. Do you even know the difference between a chain of reasoning and an unsupported assertion? You keep forgetting that critical, ". . .because X, Y, and Z."If we were to decide to persue the destruction of influenza we would probably make the moral decision that the moral signifigance of the virus did not merit perserving it when weighed against the suffering it could cause and we would decide to destroy it anyways despite its moral standing. No, we would weigh our interests and decide based upon those. It is not the same thing at all.
In contrast if we were to propose an action of destroying all the bermuda grass in the world, that would probably be viewed in a darker light. There is a disconnect here. We are saying that the weight of one outweighs the weight of the other. Neither have rights. Yet in both cases we weigh the moral signifigance of these things that don't have rights. No, the only thing we would weigh would be the impact on humanity. The only reason this would be viewed "in a darker light" is because of potential environmental impact which might do more harm than good to humanity.
As moral agents it is our responsibility to make these types of decisions. Only with respect to beings that have rights. Making the decision to cut the grass or cook a lobster live in boiling water is not a moral dilemma. Even things that do have rights have gradients or moral signifigance. Except you haven't shown this to be true. And even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that humanity's interests are the only ones that count when making ecological decisions. A murderer is given less credance then an upstanding citizen, so much so in some cases that it becomes acceptable to exact revenge upon them. Because, by his actions, he has forfeited certain rights. You will, I hope, note the inextricable tie between morality and rights. By arbitraily saying that this gradient ceases to exist at the end of rationality, or the end of humanity, or the end of sentience we are allowing ourselves to succumb to bigotry. That doesn't even make sense. Bigotry is a word that only has meaning in denying others' rights. It's not bigotry if I don't give a geranium the right to vote in the next election. WTF are you smoking? Humans have rights. Other species don't. It is those rights that constrain our behavior.
Where do rights stop? Where one ceases to be human. Is it rationality? If so then insane persons have no rights. Why do they lose all their rights simply because of a mental handicap? If it is humanity why does your beloved pet who exibits forms of intellegence every day cease to have any consideration simply because he dosn't walk on two legs and speak? You'll note that the US court system has upheld over and over again that pets are property and thus have no rights. Nor can owners be awarded based on the pain and suffering of property. You musn't confuse a warm fuzzy emotional tie with rights. If it is sentience where does that line stop? Does a spider have rights? A venus flytrap? How are we to judge an absolute line of mattering and not mattering when it is quite possibly one of the most important questions we can have when it comes to things other then ourselves? It's a fallacy to be swayed by unknown consequences or fear of being wrong when making a decision. You are essentially arguing that everyone should believe in God because if they do and are wrong, nothing is lost, but if they don't and are wrong, they spend eternity in Hell. It didn't work when that argument was first advanced, and it's no more logical now. People have rights. Things do not.
Maybe destroying entire species of life is the correct and morally justifiable course of action to take in most cases. I still wonder as to why you take the position that it is absolute, that it is always the right course of action simply because they have no rights and thus no moral signifigance. Perhaps you should point to anywhere I said that. I simply said things have no particular right to exist, and it is therefore our decision based upon our interests and the bugs and grass deserve no vote. I didn't say it's always the right decision to let a particual species become extinct. Granting things the slimest margin of considerability does not garuntee them amnesty from all of mans actions, it just insures that man as the only moral agent on the face of the planet will take pause and ask if it is the right thing to do before he goes barreling on. You're arguing against a straw man. No one ever said humanity shouldn't take it's own interests into account before deciding whether or not a certain species should be allowed to disappear. You, on the other hand, started out saying people had no right to let species become extinct. You've not once actually argued your case, but instead try to attack the status quo. . .which doesn't automatically confirm your position.
And here we see the dangers of arguing from emotion. Many counterintuitive things are quite true, however. So thinking that just because you have a warm fuzzy somewhere that tells you it can't possibly be moral to let a species become extinct that that must therefore be a universal truth is wrong.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
And here we see the dangers of arguing from emotion. Many counterintuitive things are quite true, however. So thinking that just because you have a warm fuzzy somewhere that tells you it can't possibly be moral to let a species become extinct that that must therefore be a universal truth is wrong.
So if someone dosn't own a particular animal I can kill it with no moral repercussion? I could hunt down and kill every animal in the Amazon leaving its carcass to rot simply because it brings a twinkle to my eye and none could proclaim me a monster? Release depth charges into schools of tuna? Poison pigeons in the park? All of this is morally right, or at least neutral? Is this really a correct interpretation of your views?
Again, it's like saying that God exists because that would lead to society being a better place if everyone believed. You can't say that rights exist merely because you don't like the way the world would be if they didn't.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Pvednes said:
This is why biodiversity is a good thing in and of itself, kids.
Flu virus. Flesh eating bacteria.
Two examples of where biodiversity is a pretty bad thing, in and of itself.
quote:
Palador ChibiDragon had this to say about (_|_):
May I be allowed to take a shot at a new approach to the argument?Flu virus. Flesh eating bacteria.
Two examples of where biodiversity is a pretty bad thing, in and of itself.
Biodiversity is simply variance within the living creatures in a habitat. The only alternative is a single, mono-genetic species, like the bananas which are going extinct. Your argument is akin to saying oxygen is a bad thing, because high concentrations of it can kill you, when, without it, life wouldn't even exist to start with.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Darkness was all like:
Biodiversity is simply variance within the living creatures in a habitat. The only alternative is a single, mono-genetic species, like the bananas which are going extinct. Your argument is akin to saying oxygen is a bad thing, because high concentrations of it can kill you, when, without it, life wouldn't even exist to start with.
No amount of the Flu virus or flesh-eating bacteria can be considered a good thing.
quote:
Ruvyen got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
No amount of the Flu virus or flesh-eating bacteria can be considered a good thing.
Perhaps, but having a high enough genetic variation in the human population that some of us would be immune to these diseases is. As well, through breeding, there is potential that all humans could have this trait, making the virus and bacteria no longer "bad things."
Also, I can't edit my old post, but upon thinking about it, the only alternative to biodiversity would be no living organisms at all, actually.
quote:
So quoth Darkness:
Perhaps, but having a high enough genetic variation in the human population that some of us would be immune to these diseases is. As well, through breeding, there is potential that all humans could have this trait, making the virus and bacteria no longer "bad things."
There is also the potential that a new variant of the flu virus or a new type of flesh eating bacteria will wipe out several species.
quote:
Bloodsage got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
You should study the appeal to consequences fallacy, methinks. The truth or falseness of the assertion that plants and animals have no rights has nothing whatever to do with the fact that you think confirming the truth might possibly make it okay to do things you don't like.Again, it's like saying that God exists because that would lead to society being a better place if everyone believed. You can't say that rights exist merely because you don't like the way the world would be if they didn't.
So the attribute that someone is of the species Homo Sapien is the only thing that is able to give it moral standing and actions against anything that dosn't fulful this singular attribute does not have rights. Is this correct?
And you're going about this backwards again. Attempting to pick apart my position is not the same as proving yours. My position is the status quo. Even if you prove--somehow--that the status quo is bad, it's still up to you to justify why your idea should replace it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Knight Rider:
Only people have rights, yes.And you're going about this backwards again. Attempting to pick apart my position is not the same as proving yours. My position is the status quo. Even if you prove--somehow--that the status quo is bad, it's still up to you to justify why your idea should replace it.
If I were able to construct a thought experiment where the system that I propose would be able to handle the situation in a better fashion then yours would, that be at the very least a start into showing that your method for judging moral actions was flawed?
It's important in debate to stay focused on the question at hand, and not be distracted or confused.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
A sleep deprived Bloodsage stammered:
The problem with that approach is it continues to evade your responsibility to provide positive arguments for your point of view. It's essentially a waste of time to try proving that the status quo is wrong, because that still leaves you with the task of proving that everyone should adopt your proposal afterward. . .which you could just do from the outset without all the drama.It's important in debate to stay focused on the question at hand, and not be distracted or confused.
If my proposal is able to handle all the previous issues in virtually the same manner and in addition is able to handle situations that the current status quo does not work for, wouldn't that be a compelling argument for the proposals adoption?
i.e.
Q handles situation X in manner A. Naimah fucked around with this message on 05-20-2006 at 06:32 PM.
Q handles situation Y in an unsatisfactory manner B.
P handles situation X in manner A' giving the same result.
P handles situation Y in a satisfactory manner C.
Thus P is better then Q.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Your problem will be how to convince others that your additional situations are genuinely in need of a new moral code to "handle" them. But, yes, that's one approach, albeit one of the tougher ways to argue this issue.
What would be the 'best' way to argue an issue that boils down to convincing someone to abandon their belief?
People have rights, yes? We're all agreed on that point. The concept has been enshrined in numerous places, some of which have been listed here. The flip side to having rights is that one also has certain responsibilities and obligations (abiding by the social contract, obeying society's laws, etc).
Plants and animals have no responsibilities or obligations, they couldn't understand them if you tried to give them to them, nor could they make an attempt to fulfill them.
Ergo, having neither the ability to fulfill or understand these obligations, there is no way possible for them to have rights.
Is that clear enough?
quote:
A sleep deprived Callalron stammered:
Let me see if can put this in a way that clears it up.People have rights, yes? We're all agreed on that point. The concept has been enshrined in numerous places, some of which have been listed here. The flip side to having rights is that one also has certain responsibilities and obligations (abiding by the social contract, obeying society's laws, etc).
Plants and animals have no responsibilities or obligations, they couldn't understand them if you tried to give them to them, nor could they make an attempt to fulfill them.
Ergo, having neither the ability to fulfill or understand these obligations, there is no way possible for them to have rights.
Is that clear enough?
I agree that things don't have rights and have stated that arguing that point would be stupid. But I don't think moral standing is rooted in having rights.
quote:
How.... Palador ChibiDragon.... uughhhhhh:
May I be allowed to take a shot at a new approach to the argument?Flu virus. Flesh eating bacteria.
Two examples of where biodiversity is a pretty bad thing, in and of itself.
Biodiversity is the variety of life. It isn't one particular ecosystem--it's all ecosystems, and the differences between them. It isn't one particular type of bug--it is the sum total of the variability in all species. It is not one particular allele--it is genetic variability.
Take the Spanish Flu for example--killed the young and healthy, but the sheer variation between everyone's MHC meant that most people infected survived. Same goes for a really, really deadly disease like ebola--a small proportion of people survive infection for exactly the same reason.
Furthermore, disease cannot wipe out species of high biodiversity. Only species of low biodiversity can be destroyed by disease--such as these Cavendish bananas, by the black sigatoka fungus. When we tried to control rabbits with biological agents, we didn't succeed, despite using both myxomatosis and rabbit calicivirus.
