Try to do the following exercise (normally I summarize these but this one quoting directly):
All you have to do is this: identify yourself.
I don’t mean stand up and say your name. I mean catch hold of that which is you, rather than just the thing that you do or experience. To do this, focus your attention on yourself. Try to locate in your own consciousness the “I” that is you, the person who is feeling hot or cold, thinking your thoughts, hearing the sounds around you and so on. I’m not asking you to locate your feelings, sensations, and thoughts, but the person, the self, who is having them.
It should be easy. After all, what is more certain in this world than you exist? Even if everything around you is a dream or an illusion, you must exist to have the dream, to do the hallucinating. So if you turn your mind inwards and try to become aware only of yourself, it should not take long to find it. Go on. Have a go.
Any luck?
Admit it. You failed. You tried to look for the one thing that you always thought was there and found nothing. Does this mean you don’t exist?
Let’s clear up what exactly it is you found. The moment you became aware of anything it would be something specific: a thought, a feeling, a sensation, a sound, a smell, etc. In no case would you have been aware of yourself as such. You can describe the experiences you had but no the “you” that had them.
You may protest that how could you not be aware that it was you that was having these experiences. For example, you are looking at the computer screen in front of you, and it is true that you are aware of the computer and not you. However, in another sense, you are aware that it is you seeing the computer. It is impossible to detach yourself from the experience. This is why there is no special awareness of the “I”, only awareness of what you are aware of.
Then the problem remains that this “I” is a nothing. It is like the point of view from which a landscape is painted. In one sense, the point of view cannot be removed from the painting for it is a painting from a particular perspective and without this perspective the painting would be what it is. However, this point of view is not revealed in the painting. For all we know, it could be a grassy knoll, a parked car, or even a concrete office block.
The “I” which has experiences can be seen in exactly the same way. It is true that when looking at something I am aware of the visual experience, and that it is an experience from a certain point of view. However, there is nothing about the nature of that point of view that is revealed by the experience. Thus, the “I” is still nothing – a contentless centre around which experiences flutter like butterflies.
So what is the self? The answer is that it is nothing more than the sum of all the experiences that are connected together by virtue of sharing this one point of view. The self is not a thing and is certainly not knowable to itself. We exist, but we lack a constant core of being, a single self that endures over time, which we so often assume, wrongly, makes us the individuals we are.
I'm calling bullshit . . . and I will not attempt to justify calling bullshit beyond the notion that this sort of "how many angels dance on the head of a pin" type of navel gazing has always been a load of crap.
Prepping for #TBT, I have a comment about the Jan/Feb Capitalism debate. At points both sides suggested that capitalism was the natural state of human interaction.
Silly men. The natural state is between a mother and unborn and/or breastfeeding child. The natural state is at best, near communism; at worst altruistic tolerance of parasitism to the unknowing and unwilling benefactors.
I was reading about moral luck and I was briefly talking to Kristy about charity and altruism the other day. Then I had a thought pop into my mind so I thought I’d attempt to explain it here (for my own personal fun!)
It crossed my mind that it may be rationally impossible to act morally. When we talk about moral actions, we have to consider the intent of the moral agent. Intention plays a huge role in morality obviously, especially when we consider the notions of blame and praise that accompany moral decisions.
For example, let’s say that my neighbor is being held captive in her home by a murderer. He has her tied up and is about to torture and kill her. I just happen to go over and knock on her door because I want to borrow a cup of sugar. (Does that even happen in real life? Seriously, who does that?) I am completely oblivious to the murderer’s presence in my neighbor’s house and her impending doom. However, the murderer hears me knocking and flees the house sparing my neighbor’s life.
Now consider another example. My neighbor is being held captive in her home by a murderer. He has her tied up and is about to torture and kill her. I am sitting outside in my backyard and I hear her scream from inside her house. Assuming that something is wrong and she may be in trouble, I go over and knock on her door. The murderer hears me knocking and flees the house sparing my neighbor’s life.
It would seem that these two situations are very similar, especially in their outcomes, but the moral implications are quite different. In the first scenario, people would most likely not see me as acting in a moral way even though the outcome is exactly the same as in the second scenario. I just happened to have scared the murderer aware and saved my neighbor’s life, but that was not my intention at all. I was just wanting some sugar. In the second scenario, it is my intention to go and make sure my neighbor is safe. Hence, when I scare the murderer away in that scenario, I am acting morally by intentionally choosing to help my neighbor and possibly even taking that chance of risking my own safety. So obviously we can see that intention plays a large role in morality.
Now consider a different situation. I just got my paycheck from work and with my recent promotion I am making a lot more money that I used to. In fact, I am very well off now compared to what I used to be. Therefore, I decide that I will stop off on the way home and donate some of my paycheck to the local food bank in my area. I feel that since I am so fortunate, I can give up some of my money to help those less fortunate. This decision to donate to charity makes me feel very proud of myself and I get a feeling of happiness in helping others.
In this situation, what are my intentions? Many would argue that my donating money to help those less fortunate is a positive moral decision. Many would also argue that the donating of money to charity is to specifically help those less fortunate and that that is the main reason that people donate to charity in general. Hence, if that is their intention, then it follows that donating to charity is a morally good decision. However, is this my true motive? What about my other motives for donating to charity?
What other motives, you ask? Well, what are my reasons for donating? Perhaps to help others less fortunate. However, why do I want to help the less fortunate? Am I choosing to help others simply just to help others and I have no emotional response one way or the other? No, because when I donate to help others I feel better about myself. I feel proud in doing something that I deem morally good. However, that then begs the question: am I donating to charity to solely help others or am I donating to charity because helping others makes me feel happy and better about myself?
I don’t think anyone can truly say that they donate to charity solely to help others and there is no underlying motivation to donate to charity because it makes them feel happy about themselves. In fact, if you didn’t feel happy with yourself from donating to charity, you would probably not do it. (Ironically, it seems to follow that the only way you can donate to charity with a truly morally good intention is to not want to donate but decide to donate anyway – practically a contradiction in terms). Hence, our ultimate goal in donating to charity is actually the completely selfish goal of making ourselves feel happy, and helping others just happens to be an added bonus to the action.
So I don’t know Kristy. Maybe true altruism isn’t possible? Maybe when we try to act morally or altruistically, we’re really just doing it to make ourselves feel better. Or maybe I’m just talking out of my ass.
My greatest exposure to philosophy is mixed Econ courses, so my view is tainted by the black and white presentation of incentives/disincentives.
For sheer joy, a hooker bj...or for the more delicate constitutions ...a smarter, prettier wife attracted, in part, by greater financial security...has gotta yield more joy than an anonymous, or semi-anonymous donation (where the non-profit knows you, and maybe gives you a sticker..but the beneficiaries do not). If you accept the premise of this gradient, you have to accept the existence of morality outright, no?
yeah i think i may have overstepped when i said all of morality. after thinking about it some more, it may relate to only charity donations and similar situations. for example, if you hear someone screaming, i'd imagine the first thought in your head is not "maybe someone is in trouble and i can be a hero if i save them!" however, with charity donation it is practically always "i'm donating to help people because it makes me feel good about myself".
My brain is officially involved in a "cup of sugar" tangent...I make most of my family's food from scratch...I bake our bread, make our pasta, and have a retired neighbour ...so I have actually done this.
I think there's a really interesting conversation to be had about what processed food, two wage-earner homes, and disconnect from our neighbours/community has cost us.
At any rate, back on point...
I think you're right that most "charity/altruism" is self-interested, and I'm not sure that morality could ever be described in the context, or under the confines, of being a pure substance.
Interesting thoughts about the charitable donation scenario. I used to be a blood donor. I say "used to be" because, after my diagnosis for Colitis, I am prohibited from donating blood. It always bugs me to hear or see the "blood drive" ads, because I WANT TO DONATE, but I am barred. So, in this instance, I would say that my "charity" was altruistic. I was doing it because it was the right thing to do, and any positive feeling was secondary. Same thing with the organ donor option on my licence. It is the right thing to do.
The rapid advances of science and technology have radically altered our circumstances over just a few centuries. The population has increased a thousand times since the agricultural revolution eight thousand years ago. Human societies consist of millions of people. Where our ancestors’ tools shaped the few acres on which they lived, the technologies we use today have effects across the world, and across time, with the hangovers of climate change and nuclear disaster stretching far into the future. The pace of scientific change is exponential. But has our moral psychology kept up?
Or the short version: Peter Singer–who has argued that cognitively devastated people should have been used instead of chimps in the creation of the hepatitis vaccine–urges a court to impose chimp personhood on society.
Maybe his focus could be here to help further the medical community.
Or the short version: Peter Singer–who has argued that cognitively devastated people should have been used instead of chimps in the creation of the hepatitis vaccine–urges a court to impose chimp personhood on society.
Maybe his focus could be here to help further the medical community.
i'm busy at work at the moment and i don't have time to get into a detailed answer but i'll try to write something up at some point today. i tend to have some major issues with peter singer in general.
Singer, and those who advocate for animals to be equated with human beings, are morons.
3 months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. And while I don't believe they are in anyway equal to humans or should have the of the rights of humans. There needs to be something down to protect the senseless abuse of animals.
I don't know what the answer is, I do know my views have changed after seeing a documentary called Black Fish.
Early this year, I took Cam's daughter to Big Cat World just east of Oshawa. Looking around at the animals, especially the Lions, how thin they were. I was there during feeding time. The male lion got 4 chickens and the females got 3. I asked if all they were fed was chickens and the answer was yes. Why? Cost. I think if we are going to cage these animals for our "entertainment, to learn about, for experimentation" we should at least feed appropriately.
3 months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. And while I don't believe they are in anyway equal to humans or should have the of the rights of humans. There needs to be something down to protect the senseless abuse of animals.
I don't know what the answer is, I do know my views have changed after seeing a documentary called Black Fish.
Early this year, I took Cam's daughter to Big Cat World just east of Oshawa. Looking around at the animals, especially the Lions, how thin they were. I was there during feeding time. The male lion got 4 chickens and the females got 3. I asked if all they were fed was chickens and the answer was yes. Why? Cost. I think if we are going to cage these animals for our "entertainment, to learn about, for experimentation" we should at least feed appropriately.
If you keep learning at this pace one day you will realize the truth about god:)
3 months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. And while I don't believe they are in anyway equal to humans or should have the of the rights of humans. There needs to be something down to protect the senseless abuse of animals.
We have laws in place that ostensibly protect animals from abuse, even those animals bound for our dinner tables. Enforce them or, if you wish, make them more rigorous. You will get no argument from me.
I don't know what the answer is, I do know my views have changed after seeing a documentary called Black Fish.
Saw that doc as well. Completely disgusting what took place, and what has taken place in our own Marineland, as well.
Early this year, I took Cam's daughter to Big Cat World just east of Oshawa. Looking around at the animals, especially the Lions, how thin they were. I was there during feeding time. The male lion got 4 chickens and the females got 3. I asked if all they were fed was chickens and the answer was yes. Why? Cost. I think if we are going to cage these animals for our "entertainment, to learn about, for experimentation" we should at least feed appropriately.
Big Cat World, and other locations like it, are somewhat different in my eyes. They are not in existence for the research purposes that zoos sometimes point to. These places, at least from what I have learned, exist to provide animals that are not suitable for zoos, a place to live out their existence, rather than simply putting them down when they get to big for the idiots who owned them to deal with properly. A friend has a relative who does this with wounded animals up north. I know they have a few wolves that they have rehabbed, but I am unsure of what else they are caring for at the moment.
By all mean, prosecute the people who would abuse animals. But that is a LONG WAY from equating their lives with the life of a human being.
In my opinion, Peter Singer is kind of full of it. For those who don’t know him, he’s a famous professor of ethics who argues from a utilitarian perspective. I have some major issues with utilitarianism in general because I find it to be a very flawed system of morality (I won’t get into it here, but if someone’s interested I can make a separate post).
In this specific regard, Singer is arguing that animals should have the full rights of a human being. I have briefly discussed animal rights in the past here, and I have stated that I think animals should have some rights. However, I strongly disagree that animals should have the exact same rights as humans. There are a variety of reasons for this. For example, where do we draw the line in giving animals the same rights as humans? If a lion kills someone, do we put it on trial and sentence it to jail? Do chimps get to vote now? Can horses marry humans? Is my dog allowed to buy stocks and invest? Can my goldfish start its own business?
Singer’s demand for human rights for animals is crossing the line for sure. However, I do strongly feel that animals deserve some rights. For example, animals should have the right to not be caged or imprisoned (especially for purely human entertainment). Also, animals should have the right to not be tortured or killed for no reason.
(not my best response in this thread, but i'm really busy at work right now, sorry.)
In my opinion, Peter Singer is kind of full of it.
Singer’s demand for human rights for animals is crossing the line for sure. However, I do strongly feel that animals deserve some rights. For example, animals should have the right to not be caged or imprisoned (especially for purely human entertainment). Also, animals should have the right to not be tortured or killed for no reason.(not my best response in this thread, but i'm really busy at work right now, sorry.)
I agree! I think he is an complete idiot. I have other things to discuss but will save them for next week.
However, I do strongly feel that animals deserve some rights. For example, animals should have the right to not be caged or imprisoned (especially for purely human entertainment). Also, animals should have the right to not be tortured or killed for no reason.
(not my best response in this thread, but i'm really busy at work right now, sorry.)
Those are things that can be addressed through legislation, rather than Rights.
For example, there are certain municipalities in North America that have passed by-laws prohibiting animal performances. This effectively bans circuses, or SeaWorld type businesses from setting up shop. All that is required is the political will to enact this on a Provincial or National level.
As for your last, you would have to define "no reason". But, again, once that aspect is dealt with, all that is needed is the political will to enact those protections in Law.
All of this is a far cry from imbuing our four legged friends with the Rights and protections we accord human beings. And, in my opinion, it should stay that way.
Consider the following scenario (from The Pig That Wants to be Eaten):
Lucia lived in a town full of zombies. This isn’t as scary as it sounds because these zombies weren’t the flesh eating kind. They looked and behaved the same as everyone else. They even had the same physiology as us. The only difference was they had no minds. If you pricked them they’d say “Ouch” but wouldn’t feel pain. If you upset them they’d cry or get angry but there’d be no inner turmoil. On the outside they were ordinary humans, but on the inside nothing was going on.
Visitors to the town would also fail to notice anything strange. When Lucia would tell them the secret, no one would believe her.
“How do you know they have no minds?” they would ask.
“How do you know that other people do?” Lucia would reply.
How do you know is a great question. We rarely, perhaps never, know beyond any doubt whatsoever. The best we can hope for are good reasons to believe. At least, better reasons for believing than those for believing the contrary. That’s why we don’t worry about living amongst zombies. Even if that is possible, as long as we have more reasons to believe we aren’t, we can avoid the other possibilities.
Believing other people aren’t zombies is based on reasons of economy, however. If they walk and talk like us, if they have brains and bodies like us, most likely they are like us in all significant respects, including how things feel to them from the inside - their consciousness.
This is the point where the zombie possibility becomes interesting. Why should we believe that physical similarities are indicative of mental ones? The problem of consciousness is that it seems inexplicable that purely physical entities should give rise to subjective experiences. Why should electrons firing in a brain feel like anything? What does the brain event have to do with the sensation of pain, for example?
It seems to follow that there is nothing logically contradictory in imagining brain events without any concomitant sensation. Therefore, zombies – people like us in every physical respect but who have no inner minds – is perfectly coherent, and hence is a real possibility.
To discount the possibility of their existence becomes very difficult because we have to show that a being with the same physiology must also have the same basic psychology as us. That means, showing why firing electrons in the brain must feel pain, rather than seeing the color blue or nothing at all. This challenge has never been satisfactorily met and therefore we cannot be sure that zombies do not walk the Earth.
Consider the following scenario (from The Pig That Wants to be Eaten):
Constance has always tried to observe the golden rule of morality: do as you would be done by. Or as Kant states, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
However, currently she is tempted to do something that would go against this principle. She is considering running away with you best friend’s husband, and taking their entire family fortune with them. Obviously, this is not doing as she would be done by.
However, things are more complicated than that. For example, when we lock up a criminal, we are not saying that we too should be locked up. We are saying that we should be locked up if we were in the dame circumstance as the criminal (i.e. we committed the same crime, for example).
Therefore, Constance is asking herself if she can will that it should become a universal law that people in her circumstance should run off with their best friend’s husband and fortune? In this regard, the answer seems to be yes. She’s not saying adultery and asset-stripping are normally good, only that they are in her specific circumstances. Therefore, it seems that it’s morally fine for her to run away with a clear conscience.
The golden rule of Confucius is used in various forms in practically all the major ethical systems. It seems to offer a simple moral rule of thumb to follow.
This problem that Constance’s situation highlights goes to the heart of what the principle actually means. There are two interpretations: the principle is either ridiculous or empty.
If it means that we should never do to anyone else what we would not have done to ourselves, no matter the circumstances, then we’d never do anything unpleasant such as punish or restrain. We wouldn’t want to be locked so we should not lock up murderers.
Hence, Constance is right to see that circumstances have to come into it. However, every circumstance is slightly different, and every case is in some sense unique. Therefore, anything we did could be justified on the grounds that we would agree to be treated in the same way in exactly the same circumstance. However, then the universal aspect of the golden rule vanishes and the rule becomes empty.
Therefore, perhaps we need to take the middle path and include some idea of relevant similarity. We should do as we would be done by in any situation which, though not exactly the same, is similar in the morally relevant ways. For example, even though all unlawful killings are different, they are all relevantly similar in respect to key moral issues.
Something like this approach is necessary for the golden rule to work, but now we have something that is far from simple. Identifying relevant similarities is not an easy task. Human affairs are extremely complex and if we fail to attend to the particulars of each case, we risk failing to do justice.
With respect to Constance, her justification looks self-serving. However, what if Constance’s best friend actually turned out to be a lying cheat who has already siphoned off thousands of dollars from her family’s bank account? What if she were making her husband’s life hell? Doesn’t this seem to redeem Constance’s decision and make it not selfish?
This situation reflects a challenge for anyone trying to observe moral principles: how to balance the need to follow general principles with the equally important need to be sensitive to the particulars of each situation.
I am helping my niece prepare for the Act test, she wants to go to school in the states. There is a writing portion that asks a question, provides three points of view. You are given 40 minutes to write an essay about the topic, interact with the arguments, and come to a conclusion.
The sample they provide is about machines. It is an interesting topic. Have you ever really thought about how much of your life is affective with automated machinery? Industrial, airplanes, telephone, banking, just watch how It’s Made to get a glimpse of it. We all have an opinion about it. Some good, some bad but believe it is inevitable and only going to become more common. What jobs will be left for humans to do? (That’s not the topic of today.)
Which brings me to the topic I want to discuss.
Is it time for Major League Baseball umpires to be replaced by machines? Specifically the home plate umpires need to be the one to call strikes and balls when machines can do a better job.
I was at a poker game this past summer, it was a pretty heated discussion. This computer wiz guy said, “all the technology is in place right now. We see flashes of it on the broadcast each night. But with batters height can be inputted, the plate dimensions down to the millimeter and Hawkeye technology like tennis, the balls dimensions, we can have a perfect strikes zone every night, at every ballpark.”
Is that good for the game? Is it good for society to mess with a game that has been played virtually the same way for over 100 years? Or is it time to take the game up a notch and demand perfection at all cost to get the call right?
other sports have started to use technology so why not baseball?
for example, tennis has lazer thingys on the lines that beep when the ball is out. still have line judges as well obviously. most sports have begun to use instant replay to check close calls also.
(completely off topic side note: has a baseball team ever hired a little person to play? i'd imagine they'd be an easy base walk every time and i can't see there being a rule against little people playing in the major leagues. no idea why i'm thinking about this.)
to get more general, i find myself teetering on the fence between technology and humanity a lot of the time. i strongly feel that we need more moral discussions surrounding technology as i feel that we are more of the mindset that if we can make something then we ought to. i do not think that technology is necessarily considered good or advancing. some technological advancements are down right terrible imho.
however, i do think that technology could be the future of humanity (i.e. cyborgs, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc.). yet, the line is so thin that technology could spell the end of humanity just as easily. i don't have an answer as i said i go back and forth on this issue.
other sports have started to use technology so why not baseball?
(completely off topic side note: has a baseball team ever hired a little person to play? i'd imagine they'd be an easy base walk every time and i can't see there being a rule against little people playing in the major leagues. no idea why i'm thinking about this.)
to get more general, i find myself teetering on the fence between technology and humanity a lot of the time. i strongly feel that we need more moral discussions surrounding technology as i feel that we are more of the mindset that if we can make something then we ought to. i do not think that technology is necessarily considered good or advancing. some technological advancements are down right terrible imho.
however, i do think that technology could be the future of humanity (i.e. cyborgs, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc.). yet, the line is so thin that technology could spell the end of humanity just as easily. i don't have an answer as i said i go back and forth on this issue.
Edward Carl Gaedel (June 8, 1925 – June 18, 1961) was an American with dwarfism who became famous for participating in a Major League Baseball game.
Gaedel (some sources say the family name may actually have been Gaedele[1]) gained recognition in the second game of a St. Louis Browns doubleheader on August 19, 1951. Weighing 65 pounds (29.5 kg), and standing 3 feet 7 inches tall (109 cm), Gaedel became the shortest player in the history of the Major Leagues. He made a single plate appearance and was walked with four consecutive balls before being replaced by a pinch-runner at first base. His jersey, bearing the uniform number "1⁄8", is displayed in the St. Louis Cardinals Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.
St. Louis Brown's owner Bill Veeck, in his 1962 autobiography Veeck – As in Wreck, said of Gaedel, "He was, by golly, the best darn midget who ever played big-league ball. He was also the only one."[2]
Comments
Try to do the following exercise (normally I summarize these but this one quoting directly):
Admit it. You failed. You tried to look for the one thing that you always thought was there and found nothing. Does this mean you don’t exist?
Let’s clear up what exactly it is you found. The moment you became aware of anything it would be something specific: a thought, a feeling, a sensation, a sound, a smell, etc. In no case would you have been aware of yourself as such. You can describe the experiences you had but no the “you” that had them.
You may protest that how could you not be aware that it was you that was having these experiences. For example, you are looking at the computer screen in front of you, and it is true that you are aware of the computer and not you. However, in another sense, you are aware that it is you seeing the computer. It is impossible to detach yourself from the experience. This is why there is no special awareness of the “I”, only awareness of what you are aware of.
Then the problem remains that this “I” is a nothing. It is like the point of view from which a landscape is painted. In one sense, the point of view cannot be removed from the painting for it is a painting from a particular perspective and without this perspective the painting would be what it is. However, this point of view is not revealed in the painting. For all we know, it could be a grassy knoll, a parked car, or even a concrete office block.
The “I” which has experiences can be seen in exactly the same way. It is true that when looking at something I am aware of the visual experience, and that it is an experience from a certain point of view. However, there is nothing about the nature of that point of view that is revealed by the experience. Thus, the “I” is still nothing – a contentless centre around which experiences flutter like butterflies.
So what is the self? The answer is that it is nothing more than the sum of all the experiences that are connected together by virtue of sharing this one point of view. The self is not a thing and is certainly not knowable to itself. We exist, but we lack a constant core of being, a single self that endures over time, which we so often assume, wrongly, makes us the individuals we are.
That is all . . .
Silly men. The natural state is between a mother and unborn and/or breastfeeding child. The natural state is at best, near communism; at worst altruistic tolerance of parasitism to the unknowing and unwilling benefactors.
So give 'til ya bleed.
It crossed my mind that it may be rationally impossible to act morally. When we talk about moral actions, we have to consider the intent of the moral agent. Intention plays a huge role in morality obviously, especially when we consider the notions of blame and praise that accompany moral decisions.
For example, let’s say that my neighbor is being held captive in her home by a murderer. He has her tied up and is about to torture and kill her. I just happen to go over and knock on her door because I want to borrow a cup of sugar. (Does that even happen in real life? Seriously, who does that?) I am completely oblivious to the murderer’s presence in my neighbor’s house and her impending doom. However, the murderer hears me knocking and flees the house sparing my neighbor’s life.
Now consider another example. My neighbor is being held captive in her home by a murderer. He has her tied up and is about to torture and kill her. I am sitting outside in my backyard and I hear her scream from inside her house. Assuming that something is wrong and she may be in trouble, I go over and knock on her door. The murderer hears me knocking and flees the house sparing my neighbor’s life.
It would seem that these two situations are very similar, especially in their outcomes, but the moral implications are quite different. In the first scenario, people would most likely not see me as acting in a moral way even though the outcome is exactly the same as in the second scenario. I just happened to have scared the murderer aware and saved my neighbor’s life, but that was not my intention at all. I was just wanting some sugar. In the second scenario, it is my intention to go and make sure my neighbor is safe. Hence, when I scare the murderer away in that scenario, I am acting morally by intentionally choosing to help my neighbor and possibly even taking that chance of risking my own safety. So obviously we can see that intention plays a large role in morality.
Now consider a different situation. I just got my paycheck from work and with my recent promotion I am making a lot more money that I used to. In fact, I am very well off now compared to what I used to be. Therefore, I decide that I will stop off on the way home and donate some of my paycheck to the local food bank in my area. I feel that since I am so fortunate, I can give up some of my money to help those less fortunate. This decision to donate to charity makes me feel very proud of myself and I get a feeling of happiness in helping others.
In this situation, what are my intentions? Many would argue that my donating money to help those less fortunate is a positive moral decision. Many would also argue that the donating of money to charity is to specifically help those less fortunate and that that is the main reason that people donate to charity in general. Hence, if that is their intention, then it follows that donating to charity is a morally good decision. However, is this my true motive? What about my other motives for donating to charity?
What other motives, you ask? Well, what are my reasons for donating? Perhaps to help others less fortunate. However, why do I want to help the less fortunate? Am I choosing to help others simply just to help others and I have no emotional response one way or the other? No, because when I donate to help others I feel better about myself. I feel proud in doing something that I deem morally good. However, that then begs the question: am I donating to charity to solely help others or am I donating to charity because helping others makes me feel happy and better about myself?
I don’t think anyone can truly say that they donate to charity solely to help others and there is no underlying motivation to donate to charity because it makes them feel happy about themselves. In fact, if you didn’t feel happy with yourself from donating to charity, you would probably not do it. (Ironically, it seems to follow that the only way you can donate to charity with a truly morally good intention is to not want to donate but decide to donate anyway – practically a contradiction in terms). Hence, our ultimate goal in donating to charity is actually the completely selfish goal of making ourselves feel happy, and helping others just happens to be an added bonus to the action.
So I don’t know Kristy. Maybe true altruism isn’t possible? Maybe when we try to act morally or altruistically, we’re really just doing it to make ourselves feel better. Or maybe I’m just talking out of my ass.
My greatest exposure to philosophy is mixed Econ courses, so my view is tainted by the black and white presentation of incentives/disincentives.
For sheer joy, a hooker bj...or for the more delicate constitutions ...a smarter, prettier wife attracted, in part, by greater financial security...has gotta yield more joy than an anonymous, or semi-anonymous donation (where the non-profit knows you, and maybe gives you a sticker..but the beneficiaries do not). If you accept the premise of this gradient, you have to accept the existence of morality outright, no?
I think there's a really interesting conversation to be had about what processed food, two wage-earner homes, and disconnect from our neighbours/community has cost us.
At any rate, back on point...
I think you're right that most "charity/altruism" is self-interested, and I'm not sure that morality could ever be described in the context, or under the confines, of being a pure substance.
interesting article about transhumanism and artificial intelligence.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement
Peter Singer to Court: Make Chimps Persons! | National Review Online
Are Chimps People? A New York Court Investigates
Or the short version: Peter Singer–who has argued that cognitively devastated people should have been used instead of chimps in the creation of the hepatitis vaccine–urges a court to impose chimp personhood on society.
Maybe his focus could be here to help further the medical community.
Brittany Maynard's death galvanizes public right-to-die debate - World - CBC News
Thoughts philosophical speaking.
i'm busy at work at the moment and i don't have time to get into a detailed answer but i'll try to write something up at some point today. i tend to have some major issues with peter singer in general.
3 months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. And while I don't believe they are in anyway equal to humans or should have the of the rights of humans. There needs to be something down to protect the senseless abuse of animals.
I don't know what the answer is, I do know my views have changed after seeing a documentary called Black Fish.
Early this year, I took Cam's daughter to Big Cat World just east of Oshawa. Looking around at the animals, especially the Lions, how thin they were. I was there during feeding time. The male lion got 4 chickens and the females got 3. I asked if all they were fed was chickens and the answer was yes. Why? Cost. I think if we are going to cage these animals for our "entertainment, to learn about, for experimentation" we should at least feed appropriately.
If you keep learning at this pace one day you will realize the truth about god:)
Big Cat World, and other locations like it, are somewhat different in my eyes. They are not in existence for the research purposes that zoos sometimes point to. These places, at least from what I have learned, exist to provide animals that are not suitable for zoos, a place to live out their existence, rather than simply putting them down when they get to big for the idiots who owned them to deal with properly. A friend has a relative who does this with wounded animals up north. I know they have a few wolves that they have rehabbed, but I am unsure of what else they are caring for at the moment.
By all mean, prosecute the people who would abuse animals. But that is a LONG WAY from equating their lives with the life of a human being.
In this specific regard, Singer is arguing that animals should have the full rights of a human being. I have briefly discussed animal rights in the past here, and I have stated that I think animals should have some rights. However, I strongly disagree that animals should have the exact same rights as humans. There are a variety of reasons for this. For example, where do we draw the line in giving animals the same rights as humans? If a lion kills someone, do we put it on trial and sentence it to jail? Do chimps get to vote now? Can horses marry humans? Is my dog allowed to buy stocks and invest? Can my goldfish start its own business?
Singer’s demand for human rights for animals is crossing the line for sure. However, I do strongly feel that animals deserve some rights. For example, animals should have the right to not be caged or imprisoned (especially for purely human entertainment). Also, animals should have the right to not be tortured or killed for no reason.
(not my best response in this thread, but i'm really busy at work right now, sorry.)
I agree! I think he is an complete idiot. I have other things to discuss but will save them for next week.
Thanks!
Those are things that can be addressed through legislation, rather than Rights.
For example, there are certain municipalities in North America that have passed by-laws prohibiting animal performances. This effectively bans circuses, or SeaWorld type businesses from setting up shop. All that is required is the political will to enact this on a Provincial or National level.
As for your last, you would have to define "no reason". But, again, once that aspect is dealt with, all that is needed is the political will to enact those protections in Law.
All of this is a far cry from imbuing our four legged friends with the Rights and protections we accord human beings. And, in my opinion, it should stay that way.
People > animals
fyp..
even darb.
How do you know is a great question. We rarely, perhaps never, know beyond any doubt whatsoever. The best we can hope for are good reasons to believe. At least, better reasons for believing than those for believing the contrary. That’s why we don’t worry about living amongst zombies. Even if that is possible, as long as we have more reasons to believe we aren’t, we can avoid the other possibilities.
Believing other people aren’t zombies is based on reasons of economy, however. If they walk and talk like us, if they have brains and bodies like us, most likely they are like us in all significant respects, including how things feel to them from the inside - their consciousness.
This is the point where the zombie possibility becomes interesting. Why should we believe that physical similarities are indicative of mental ones? The problem of consciousness is that it seems inexplicable that purely physical entities should give rise to subjective experiences. Why should electrons firing in a brain feel like anything? What does the brain event have to do with the sensation of pain, for example?
It seems to follow that there is nothing logically contradictory in imagining brain events without any concomitant sensation. Therefore, zombies – people like us in every physical respect but who have no inner minds – is perfectly coherent, and hence is a real possibility.
To discount the possibility of their existence becomes very difficult because we have to show that a being with the same physiology must also have the same basic psychology as us. That means, showing why firing electrons in the brain must feel pain, rather than seeing the color blue or nothing at all. This challenge has never been satisfactorily met and therefore we cannot be sure that zombies do not walk the Earth.
The golden rule of Confucius is used in various forms in practically all the major ethical systems. It seems to offer a simple moral rule of thumb to follow.
This problem that Constance’s situation highlights goes to the heart of what the principle actually means. There are two interpretations: the principle is either ridiculous or empty.
If it means that we should never do to anyone else what we would not have done to ourselves, no matter the circumstances, then we’d never do anything unpleasant such as punish or restrain. We wouldn’t want to be locked so we should not lock up murderers.
Hence, Constance is right to see that circumstances have to come into it. However, every circumstance is slightly different, and every case is in some sense unique. Therefore, anything we did could be justified on the grounds that we would agree to be treated in the same way in exactly the same circumstance. However, then the universal aspect of the golden rule vanishes and the rule becomes empty.
Therefore, perhaps we need to take the middle path and include some idea of relevant similarity. We should do as we would be done by in any situation which, though not exactly the same, is similar in the morally relevant ways. For example, even though all unlawful killings are different, they are all relevantly similar in respect to key moral issues.
Something like this approach is necessary for the golden rule to work, but now we have something that is far from simple. Identifying relevant similarities is not an easy task. Human affairs are extremely complex and if we fail to attend to the particulars of each case, we risk failing to do justice.
With respect to Constance, her justification looks self-serving. However, what if Constance’s best friend actually turned out to be a lying cheat who has already siphoned off thousands of dollars from her family’s bank account? What if she were making her husband’s life hell? Doesn’t this seem to redeem Constance’s decision and make it not selfish?
This situation reflects a challenge for anyone trying to observe moral principles: how to balance the need to follow general principles with the equally important need to be sensitive to the particulars of each situation.
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/its-our-party-we-can-do-what-we-want-until-we-die-so-lead-a-meaningful-life-okay
Do we choose what we believe? Spinoza vs. Descartes
The sample they provide is about machines. It is an interesting topic. Have you ever really thought about how much of your life is affective with automated machinery? Industrial, airplanes, telephone, banking, just watch how It’s Made to get a glimpse of it. We all have an opinion about it. Some good, some bad but believe it is inevitable and only going to become more common. What jobs will be left for humans to do? (That’s not the topic of today.)
Which brings me to the topic I want to discuss.
Is it time for Major League Baseball umpires to be replaced by machines? Specifically the home plate umpires need to be the one to call strikes and balls when machines can do a better job.
I was at a poker game this past summer, it was a pretty heated discussion. This computer wiz guy said, “all the technology is in place right now. We see flashes of it on the broadcast each night. But with batters height can be inputted, the plate dimensions down to the millimeter and Hawkeye technology like tennis, the balls dimensions, we can have a perfect strikes zone every night, at every ballpark.”
Is that good for the game? Is it good for society to mess with a game that has been played virtually the same way for over 100 years? Or is it time to take the game up a notch and demand perfection at all cost to get the call right?
Thoughts?
for example, tennis has lazer thingys on the lines that beep when the ball is out. still have line judges as well obviously. most sports have begun to use instant replay to check close calls also.
(completely off topic side note: has a baseball team ever hired a little person to play? i'd imagine they'd be an easy base walk every time and i can't see there being a rule against little people playing in the major leagues. no idea why i'm thinking about this.)
to get more general, i find myself teetering on the fence between technology and humanity a lot of the time. i strongly feel that we need more moral discussions surrounding technology as i feel that we are more of the mindset that if we can make something then we ought to. i do not think that technology is necessarily considered good or advancing. some technological advancements are down right terrible imho.
however, i do think that technology could be the future of humanity (i.e. cyborgs, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc.). yet, the line is so thin that technology could spell the end of humanity just as easily. i don't have an answer as i said i go back and forth on this issue.
Edward Carl Gaedel (June 8, 1925 – June 18, 1961) was an American with dwarfism who became famous for participating in a Major League Baseball game.
Gaedel (some sources say the family name may actually have been Gaedele[1]) gained recognition in the second game of a St. Louis Browns doubleheader on August 19, 1951. Weighing 65 pounds (29.5 kg), and standing 3 feet 7 inches tall (109 cm), Gaedel became the shortest player in the history of the Major Leagues. He made a single plate appearance and was walked with four consecutive balls before being replaced by a pinch-runner at first base. His jersey, bearing the uniform number "1⁄8", is displayed in the St. Louis Cardinals Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.
St. Louis Brown's owner Bill Veeck, in his 1962 autobiography Veeck – As in Wreck, said of Gaedel, "He was, by golly, the best darn midget who ever played big-league ball. He was also the only one."[2]
I think it is an intresting discussion as well