Texas v abortion

[Silvanus]

You're off the walls, mate. Following, say, the categorical imperative gets us that murder is wrong. Can't do the same for animals.

I think you're either wildly misunderstanding what a categorical imperative is, or wildly misapplying it.

Firstly, the categorical imperative is just one 18th century moral framework, and one that very few people actually follow nowadays. It's deeply flawed and inapplicable in a lot of areas. If that's your personal moral framework, that's all well and good, but you seem to be putting it forward as if assuming that I share your respect for it. I don't. I think it's bunk.

Secondly, Kant himself specified that you must not adopt maxims that infringe the rights of others, and he also explicitly included a prohibition against cruelty to animals. It's your moral that goes against the groundwork of this philosophy, not mine, and I don't even believe in it!

Anyway, I'll try to address the cognitive dissonance supposedly in speciesism. I'll take a rule that works for the whole species. I don't look at a human individual at a point in time, or I'll take a glance just to say that they are where they should be: on top of the pyramid. For something like 1 week old babies that hierarchy is similarly true, but to recognize them as human we need other people's confirmation. For a fetus the relationship between it and the pregnant woman is so different that the protections are based on emotional work -- and other things based on where she's currently living (Texas, Lapland, somewhere in between).

If you've decided that certain criteria are enough to negate the "protections", then you've implicitly recognised that "humanity" in itself is not enough.

Not to mention the fact that you're failing to apply the universality that's absolutely essential for "categorical imperatives" to work.

These are all post-hoc rationalisations, inconsistently applied.

Any gulf is great enough and no amount of convenience is too little. Sure there is an utilitarian threshold somewhere, but these feelings can't be measured in a meaningful way. Do you think there can be people who genuinely care about their livestock or their co-performing circus animals? Equestrian events, dolphinariums... If aliens did the same to us I wouldn't complain, because I wouldn't know how to.

They can't be measured in an objective way. That doesn't mean they can't be measured in a meaningful way. Researchers have developed countless methods of evaluating cognitive function, the capacity for pain, the complexity of social structures and emotional responses. And infringement on these characteristics is cruelty, as Kant-- the progenitor of the "categorical imperative" you claim to adhere to-- himself recognised.

You claimed, before, to value cognitive functions; it would seem you actually only value cognitive functions over a specific (entirely arbitrary, unmeasurable, emotion-based) threshold.

And yes, I absolutely believe that there are people who genuinely care about animals. Just because you cannot conceive of it doesn't mean that callousness is universally shared. There are some who would claim it's impossible to genuinely care for your fellow human being, too, but we rightly recognise that as a severe moral failing.

And I don't give a damn about potential. The Sun rising tomorrow as it did today is not potential. See the difference? The emergent properties in the human species are as set as celestial bodies, figuratively speaking.

This is absolute nonsense. The sun rising tomorrow as it did today is a near-definite. That is the only reason the term "potential" seems inappropriate. But take a celestial body we know a little less about, such as a distant star: perhaps we don't know when it will collapse in on itself. The term "potential" is entirely applicable.

If you choose to confer moral protections on creatures which may develop superior cognitive functions later, but haven't yet, then yes, you're conferring protections on potential-- and being inconsistent in failing to confer the same to sperm and eggs.

If the animal industry is a threat to that, then it must be dealt with but logistically instead of forcing subjective moral standards onto everybody. However, I approve of guilt tripping. Do what you must if it's important to you just like I occasionally ""convert"" other omnivores into thinking my way. Only occasionally because it's not that important.

All moral standards are subjective, including all those you've outlined.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I think it's rather revealing that the people who want to force more humans into this world are also the same people who harbour a deeply seeded contempt and distrust of others too.

 

[McElroy]

If you've decided that certain criteria are enough to negate the "protections", then you've implicitly recognised that "humanity" in itself is not enough.

I don't separate these confirmation or emotional work criteria from humanity. These form a closed loop around Homo sapiens' position at the top. What that means is the person responsible for the emotional work for a fetus and confirmation of a baby's humanity must be able to assert their own individuality. Doesn't answer which came first "the chicken or the egg", but that's again not important.

They can't be measured in an objective way. That doesn't mean they can't be measured in a meaningful way. Researchers have developed countless methods of evaluating cognitive function, the capacity for pain, the complexity of social structures and emotional responses. And infringement on these characteristics is cruelty, as Kant-- the progenitor of the "categorical imperative" you claim to adhere to-- himself recognised.

You claimed, before, to value cognitive functions; it would seem you actually only value cognitive functions over a specific (entirely arbitrary, unmeasurable, emotion-based) threshold.

And yes, I absolutely believe that there are people who genuinely care about animals. Just because you cannot conceive of it doesn't mean that callousness is universally shared. There are some who would claim it's impossible to genuinely care for your fellow human being, too, but we rightly recognise that as a severe moral failing.

Alright, I think I get it. Animal products are fine if the caretaker does their best to ensure and enable the animal's characteristic behavior in captivity, correct? Like, the animals aren't seen as a means to an end but rather as beings that happen to produce milk or whatever and provide meat at the end of their life. Well, I don't see a moral difference between enabling a natural or an unnatural life. Animals, humans, whatever. Maybe that settles it. Factory farm or open range; boarding school or raised by wolves, all are morally equal.

If you choose to confer moral protections on creatures which may develop superior cognitive functions later, but haven't yet, then yes, you're conferring protections on potential-- and being inconsistent in failing to confer the same to sperm and eggs.

I don't know how any man of science could end up taking a gamete for a person. It's not my choice when the fetus is inside a womb. There is no magic at any given arbitrary moment that makes the fetus from not-human to human. The pregnant woman decides which way the potential gets to go and if she is braindead then it's other people. Maybe they flip a coin, maybe we'd let the dad decide. I'm at wit's end here* , but telling me over and over again that it's inconsistent won't do anything if my line of thinking covers every angle a 100 IQ warrior like myself can come up with.

All moral standards are subjective, including all those you've outlined.

Sure. I mean yours over mine.

And about the categorical imperative. It seems to be an easy and quick way to "test" if something is right or wrong, but I don't extend it to animals.

*according to Wiktionary that means I'm about to go nuts... huh. I thought it means one has run out of useful things to say.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Shouldn't the fetus possess rights too?

They possess the right to grow and be born should the one incubating them will it.

 

[tstorm823]

I think it's rather revealing that the people who want to force more humans into this world are also the same people who harbour a deeply seeded contempt and distrust of others too.

You say this with a deeply seeded contempt and distrust of the people you're talking about.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You say this with a deeply seeded contempt and distrust of the people you're talking about.

Through the content of their words and actions, not just them existing.

 

[tstorm823]

Through the content of their words and actions, not just them existing.

I disagree with your assessment. I think most of the people you hate are kind, loving, trustworthy people, and you're so lost in the team sports of politics that you've forgotten they're even people.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't separate these confirmation or emotional work criteria from humanity. These form a closed loop around Homo sapiens' position at the top. What that means is the person responsible for the emotional work for a fetus and confirmation of a baby's humanity must be able to assert their own individuality. Doesn't answer which came first "the chicken or the egg", but that's again not important.

In short: you've invented certain criteria, which appear to me to be entirely based on your own feelings. You've not provided a rational basis for setting one specific animal species (homo sapiens) so dramatically apart from all others.

Alright, I think I get it. Animal products are fine if the caretaker does their best to ensure and enable the animal's characteristic behavior in captivity, correct? Like, the animals aren't seen as a means to an end but rather as beings that happen to produce milk or whatever and provide meat at the end of their life. Well, I don't see a moral difference between enabling a natural or an unnatural life. Animals, humans, whatever. Maybe that settles it. Factory farm or open range; boarding school or raised by wolves, all are morally equal.

A "natural life" is part of it, though certainly not the entirety of the point I was making. The primary point is the avoidance of suffering, and the ability to live a relatively comfortable or pain-free life. For most animals, living in great restriction such as factory-farming is going to lead to suffering.

You can tell me you see no moral difference between a "natural" or "unnatural" life; I find it difficult to believe you see no moral difference between suffering and not suffering. That would place you squarely against almost every moral philosophy on the planet, including Kant's categorical imperatives. It would make your moral philosophy an extreme outlier.

I don't know how any man of science could end up taking a gamete for a person. It's not my choice when the fetus is inside a womb. There is no magic at any given arbitrary moment that makes the fetus from not-human to human. The pregnant woman decides which way the potential gets to go and if she is braindead then it's other people. Maybe they flip a coin, maybe we'd let the dad decide. I'm at wit's end here* , but telling me over and over again that it's inconsistent won't do anything if my line of thinking covers every angle a 100 IQ warrior like myself can come up with.

Indeed, there is no magic point at which the gamete (or bundle of organic matter) becomes a "person". That would seem squarely to support what I've been saying: that you must come up with a more solid and less arbitrary basis for conferring protections than "personhood".

Sure. I mean yours over mine.

Absolutely not. You've decided that belonging to a certain species is an absolute criterion for considering whether something is moral or immoral, but haven't provided a convincing reason at all for why that should be the case. It's entirely your subjective valuation of being a member of that species.

 

[Trunkage]

I disagree with your assessment. I think most of the people you hate are kind, loving, trustworthy people, and you're so lost in the team sports of politics that you've forgotten they're even people.

We're talking about Christians, right?

Yeah, I've had enough of their 'kindness' and 'love' in my life. They've shown me what they think those words mean and I'm steering clear

 

[tstorm823]

We're talking about Christians, right?

Yeah, I've had enough of their 'kindness' and 'love' in my life. They've shown me what they think those words mean and I'm steering clear

No, no you're not. You're not remotely capable of that, there are just too many of us to avoid.

 

[Buyetyen]

No, no you're not. You're not remotely capable of that, there are just too many of us to avoid.

I can't help but notice that you didn't dispute the negative assessment of the Christian idea of "kindness" and "love."

 

[Gordon_4]

No, no you're not. You're not remotely capable of that, there are just too many of us to avoid.

Given the very distinct differences in the way religion is practised and outwardly 'advertised' for a lack of a better word in Australia, its much easier than you'd imagine.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

You say this with a deeply seeded contempt and distrust of the people you're talking about.

Oh honeybun, how disappointing. Would've hoped you'd have a better knee-jerk reaction than the tired old playground "I know you are you'd said are" chant. Just like "those who point out racism are the real racists" ...it's long past time to put it back in the deck: this relentless projection only fools yourselves. And even then...

 

[McElroy]

A "natural life" is part of it, though certainly not the entirety of the point I was making. The primary point is the avoidance of suffering, and the ability to live a relatively comfortable or pain-free life. For most animals, living in great restriction such as factory-farming is going to lead to suffering.

You can tell me you see no moral difference between a "natural" or "unnatural" life; I find it difficult to believe you see no moral difference between suffering and not suffering. That would place you squarely against almost every moral philosophy on the planet, including Kant's categorical imperatives. It would make your moral philosophy an extreme outlier.

Yeah, I'm not convinced by an appeal to nature. Otherwise I agree to disagree here. So much of suffering and enjoyment is subjective that it is feelings-based to draw a line where suffering is too much to pay for enjoyment. And this is me taking coming half a step your way -- I don't think that matters at all. Because I only truly understand my own experiences. Therefore I cannot say with certainty that the most fucked up sadist doesn't actually get so much from hurting animals that it isn't "worth it", but people in general feel it's fucked up and probably letting that sort of sadism happen would go against Kant's idea of the duty to strengthen compassion.

Now I'll be more careful with philosophical terminology, because I haven't read beyond browsing Wikipedia articles. Kant said we shouldn't treat animals brutally, and I agree that modern animal industry is not brutal for the part that I consume. The fact that people are sheltered and then shocked at slaughterhouses and the like can "deaden the feeling of compassion" among people, sure, because they get disillusioned. People ought to know more from a younger age, and if that drives a change in practices then it does.

Indeed, there is no magic point at which the gamete (or bundle of organic matter) becomes a "person". That would seem squarely to support what I've been saying: that you must come up with a more solid and less arbitrary basis for conferring protections than "personhood".

Hmm. Do you agree that at some point a human being can affirm their own individuality? Or is this something that you'd like neuroscientists to determine, because then zoologists (or whoever) can find proof that "hey, this other species can reach the same threshold". I'm not a philosopher and don't know jack shit about their schools of thought and whatever, so I don't seek the same conclusions and answers either. It's really annoying that you just say "nu-uh" and complain that I don't answer things that I don't care about at all. Convenience, logistics, and yeah personal feelings too are all more important than universality. Arbitrary lines drawn everywhere. Just look at my first reply to you: it was about awareness not being an effective argument, because people slaughter animals that are more aware.

But let's try it anyways. Humans and animals are all rather similar and have similar nervous systems, can exhibit a lot of common traits. Some emergent cognitive abilities allow humans to have concepts of right and wrong. Looking out for yourself leads to looking out for others as well, but from then on it seems pretty arbitrary how someone thinks about maximizing their experience vs how it is actually done. With all of this uncertainty any universality falls apart, and what's left is a subjective evaluation.

Should this topic ever come up again I'll read some egoistical philosophy that agrees with me. If I feel like it.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

No, no you're not. You're not remotely capable of that, there are just too many of us to avoid.

That's really what you're depending on, isn't it? That there's enough of "you" to overpower "us". To Hell with having a good message to spread or living like Jesus actually said to; you've got the majority, and you'll make the rest of us live how you see fit.

 

[SilentPony]

That's really what you're depending on, isn't it? That there's enough of "you" to overpower "us". To Hell with having a good message to spread or living like Jesus actually said to; you've got the majority, and you'll make the rest of us live how you see fit.

To be fair Christians hate each other and Jesus almost as much as they hate other religions. Christians are the leading cause of death for Christians throughout history, and I for one have faith they will keep killing each other over minor translation differences, and the totally not fabricated words of a totally not fabricated Saint for 1500 years ago.

 

[tstorm823]

Given the very distinct differences in the way religion is practised and outwardly 'advertised' for a lack of a better word in Australia, its much easier than you'd imagine.

Well, you're the closest to finding the actual point, so I'll reply to you. Trunkage isn't steering clear of Christians. Trunkage probably knows and admires many Christiaisn. Trunkage is steering clear of the imaginary stereotype of an American bigot that the internet has convinced all of you is a Christian.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Trunkage probably knows and admires many Christiaisn. Trunkage is steering clear of the imaginary stereotype of an American bigot that the internet has convinced all of you is a Christian.

You've got your head buried pretty deep in the sand if you aren't aware that many of those bigoted Americans you call an imaginary stereotype are Christians

 

[tstorm823]

You've got your head buried pretty deep in the sand if you aren't aware that many of those bigoted Americans you call an imaginary stereotype are Christians

You're not saying that I'm wrong.

 

[Kwak]

You're not saying that I'm wrong.

SYNONYMS FOR bury one's head in sand


Compare Synonyms

• avoid
• discount
• fail
• forget
• neglect
• overlook
• reject
• scorn
• blink
• cold-shoulder
• disdain
• evade
• omit
• pooh-pooh
• slight
• wink
• be oblivious to
• brush off
• let it go
• look the other way
• overpass
• pass over
• pay no attention to
• pay no mind
• shut eyes to
• take no notice
• tune out
• turn back on
• turn blind eye
• turn deaf ear