Your Top 5 Policies

[Philboid Studge]

Victus wrote

And yet, at the same time, I don't think anyone believes, "I don't like it!" is a particularly stellar reason to enact laws.

Edit: Reworded.

Almost certainly true, but most people don't really think very deeply about ethical precepts. And some who do tend think of emotion as antithetical to "reason." (Incorrectly, in my view.) Nevertheless I believe it's attendant to every law that relates to a moral system.

[ubs]

I'm not sure I believe that "reason" actually exists. If a person is brain damaged in such a way that their emotions are no longer accessible, they endlessly perseverate over the tiniest options, unable to prioritize anything.

If a person with a fully functioning brain refrains from responding to their fight or flight and thoughtfully considers the event in a longer time frame, they are still making exercising emotional preference, albeit in a more calculated way.

[nkb]

I'm with Rhino on this, why is emotion and empathy outside of reason?

Aren't all laws based on empathy and emotion, to a certain degree?

If you take empathy out of it, why is murdering another human wrong? Because you don't want it to happen to you? What right do you have to live?

If you go the route of saying that society will fall apart if we don't make laws protecting people, who says we need society?

[Irreligious]

ubs wrote

I'm not sure I believe that "reason" actually exists.

Of course it does. But how we reason depends a lot on the premises with which we, individually, start out. We also can measure our moral values for consistency, more or less. That's what allows us to tag each other with the appellation "hypocrite" when someone else's moral values don't appear to be consistent.

However, there are no absolutes by which we can claim "this is right" or "this is wrong."

[ubs]

I guess it depends upon how you define "reason." If you mean a thought process devoid of emotion, then I stand by my earlier statement. If you mean strategic process for achieving your hearts desire, then I agree that it exists.

[dogpet]

The law is justified either by empathy for those affected, or trade off for mutual benefit.
Free range tastes better, & if fox cunters ate their victims it might be acceptable.

[Sternwallow]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Wow, who would have thought something like "I think being cruel to animals is bad" would cause such contention. Or that it would result in both myself and my girlfriend being insulted in such a condescending manner. I'm remembering why I stopped coming to this forum for two years.

I do not think that asking for a moral relevance of cruelty to animals constitutes a condescending insult.

No insult was intended.

Assuming that we all would wish to prevent all cruelty to animals, humans included, what is it about cruelty that is significant in any way but a case of personal emotion.

If someone, in private, kicks a puppy (if necessary, substitute flogging a horse or roasting a cat alive), what, if any, negative effect will there be on the society or the environment? How, if in any way, would morality itself be damaged or diminished by that act?

[Sternwallow]

Rhinoqulous wrote

What really gets me is the seemingly rejection of the position against animal cruelty because it is "irrational" and based on empathy (the condescending "ewwww" factor). Isn't empathy the basis of morality? Humans are far from rational animals. We are empathetic creatures, who use reason to justify positions we hold. So yes, opposition to cruelty has it's basis in empathy, but I take offense that this is deemed to be irrational. As humans are animals all I'm suggesting is some of the treatment we guarantee human animals (limitations of suffering) be extended to non-human animals. While this is empathetic of me, I don't really see it as me being irrational.

We accept prohibitions against murder because we can point to very specific negative consequences for society but we (rightly I think) do not have laws defining the hemline of skirts based on the way they make a group of fashion critics "feel" about them.

I make the distinction between irrational versus non-rational, the latter being associated with lack of knowledge. So I didn't mean to call you or yours irrational when I asked for rational support for this emotional position.

[Sternwallow]

Victus wrote

"Applicable", yes. But I'm not sure we can 'know' things about morality. I suspect that maybe the best we can do is agree on things and then argue out the relative plausibility of competing views using logic and evidence some form of ethical intuititionism. But I think there's just going to be a lot of variance in views, even among people starting from not totally dissimilar priors, and as such, having a system that allows for variance is probably going to reduce conflict.

If morals are only a set of conventions from the imagination of man, let's just call them that rather than elevate the term moral as special, somehow more binding than mere tradition.

[Victus]

Sternwallow wrote

If morals are only a set of conventions from the imagination of man, let's just call them that rather than elevate the term moral as special, somehow more binding than mere tradition.

That's usually how I treat them anyways.

[Sternwallow]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I don't think we can underestimate the way that our judeo-christian history has influenced the way we perceive the rights of our fellow creatures. (This includes philosophical and legal arguments) I'm talking about the belief that other lifeforms were wholly created for our benefit and that we are somehow superior and outside the animal world. Many cultures saw the dignity of other creatures as equal with humans and in some cases even above that of humans. As atheists perhaps we should try to jettison some of this baggage and redefine our views.

I also agree with Rhino that empathy is not an irrational argument, like torture certain kinds of cruelty offend my sensibilities as well as my personal dignity.

I'm saying that empathy (a result of human memory and imagination and avoidance of personal pain) is not part of an objective morality.

[Sternwallow]

lostsheep wrote

But to answer your main question, that is, why we should try to prevent cruelty to humans, preventing cruelty to people has been the hallmark of the progress of modern civilization. Your question is confusing.

I am not arguing against preventing cruelty to animals or to humans; I am asking for an objective reason. I want to be able to argue rationally if I confront someone who claims that there is nothing wrong with cooking live cats. Just shouting in his face that it is immoral to do so does not satisfy him or me.

[Sternwallow]

lostsheep wrote

Good point, and I also agree w/ Rhino.

There are many things that diminish my dignity and offend me personally which, being personal opinion, also have no business motivating laws or moral tenets (helmet laws for one example).

Certainly most right-thinking people have a negative visceral reaction to revelations of torment and neglect of cuddly, lovable critters, but guts are not reliable arbiters of social behavior.

When I seek advice from my guts on how to wisely treat my fellow man, they almost always lead me right to a BK for a Double Whopper.

What I have gotten for my question so far is that, not only are morals not absolute; they are not even relative; they are just emotionally driven individual personal opinions, even those which become embedded as laws.

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

When I seek advice from my guts on how to wisely treat my fellow man, they almost always lead me right to a BK for a Double Whopper.

It's a goddamn religious experience for sure!

[Sternwallow]

Victus wrote

I think you're over-estimating the variance in views. Were there any populations in history that consistently revered animals enough not to treat them like labor-saving devices and food?

Not that I can think of.

There are Indian reverence for cattle and Egyptian animal-gods. Jains won't kill a bug or even knowingly kill a bacterium. ("It's not easy being Jain")