What is your fundamental moral compass?

@spendius,

I don't think it's imaginative. I think it's practical.

I'm not a very romantic sort.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

My personal moral code boils down to the ideal of least amount of suffering.

I'm on the flip side of this - a bit.

Best possible outcome for the most possible people.

Now, I hope this works out to least amount of suffering for fewest number of people, or decreased suffering, but I aim for "best outcome".

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

going by your greatest happening reasoning, wouldn't it be better to save the chickens? likely more people will be made happy/healthy by future omelettes/souffles/frittatas and future chicken soup than will be saddened by the death of one old lady

Going by my greatest happiness reasoning, it would -- unless I have a principled reason for valuing the old lady's interest higher than the chickens' interest. I believe that rationality and self-awareness are good reasons for doing so. Old ladies are capable of experiencing anxiety over the prospect of being run over by me and my train. Chicken aren't. But then again, neither are newborns. Of course, this distinction is a long-recognized issue in utilitarian philosophy, and Jeremy Bentham might well have sided with the chicken:

In his 'Principles of Morals and Legislation', Jeremy Bentham wrote:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Source

Intellectually, I find this hard to rebut. Instinctively though, I'm not really prepared to go there. Which side of me is right? They're both still arguing it out.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

likely more people will be made happy/healthy by future omelettes/souffles/frittatas and future chicken soup than will be saddened by the death of one old lady

Actually, economists have conducted empirical research into this kind of tradeoffs. (Steve Landsburg has written a laymen-friendly overview for Slate.) They find that we behave as if we value our own lives at about $5 million. I don't think any realistic number of chicken would lay enough eggs to make up for that.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Obviously, I missed Beth's point in my first response to her. Please ignore.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Intellectually, I find this hard to rebut.

Surely there's nothing to rebut. It's a series of questions. Bentham's questions, a sort of posh dithering, are based on the rejection of the Bible. All he has to do is accept the Biblical teaching that man has dominion over the animals and then a newborn, or even unborn, infant has priority over any animal no matter how reasoning he asserts it to be. The teaching is designed to avoid the dithering as I explained earlier. The negative aspects of the dithering having been perceived with the Sophists weaving of the winds. The faithful, accepting the argument from authority, can get on with moral benefits of progress.

I doubt he could prove that a horse or a dog is more rational than any other animal. A bee say.

I get the impression that too many bridges have been burned and it has become hard to accept what to me seems obvious. Allowing the world's most famous book to have credibilty cannot be countenanced due to all that has previously been said about it. A loss of face is involved.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old.

I cant see any animal advancing humanity, but the raw potential is there for any baby to do so. This is a well decided issue and we went with the humanity first principle.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I cant see any animal advancing humanity, but the raw potential is there for any baby to do so.

Any baby? Including those with severe brain damage? Suppose a baby has a brain damage that limits its cognitive development to the level we find, say, in an average cat. Would that make you comfortable killing it?

Ionus wrote:

This is a well decided issue and we went with the humanity first principle.

Your argument -- "this is a well-decided issue" -- is tricky. If we were having this discussion in the 18th century, you could have used it, with just as much power, to defend slavery against any stray abolitionist that might write into this thread. Back then, after all, slavery had been "a well decided issue" for as long as we had a record of human history.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Suppose a baby has a brain damage that limits its cognitive development to the level we find, say, in an average cat. Would that make you comfortable killing it?

I have killed and it is no big deal. I like cats and babies, and I find the difference to be one of drawing the line somewhere. If we allow human rights to animals we lessen those rights. We have to be very careful about when to take human life as what is understood as human is changing and so is our understanding of what is life. Society and culture fluctuate too much to allow fashion to dictate when to take human life.

Quote:

Your argument -- "this is a well-decided issue" -- is tricky. If we were having this discussion in the 18th century, you could have used it, with just as much power, to defend slavery against any stray abolitionist that might write into this thread. Back then, after all, slavery had been "a well decided issue" for as long as we had a record of human history.

I remember being shocked as a child to find out that during her lifetime my grandmother had been given the right to vote. I lived with aboriginees as a child and I dont think I ever would have argued for slavery. As for "slavery had been "a well decided issue" for as long as we had a record of human history", slavery should be thought of as degrees of grey rather than a black and white issue (no pun intended) so it is apt to include it because of its quality of life aspects. The humanity first principle is a well decided issue now, and this may change, but there are enough historical precedents to say it will come back even if it does fade a bit. Individual rights is based on how we want society to treat us, and that doesnt change a great deal at all.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I have killed and it is no big deal. I like cats and babies, and I find the difference to be one of drawing the line somewhere. If we allow human rights to animals we lessen those rights.

How so? How does humane treatment of animals diminish human rights?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Attributing differing levels of value to human life based on what that person may or may not be able to contribute to my welfare (individually or as a member of society) is morally repugnant to me.

That is something that on a very basic, fundamental and visceral level offends my own particular moral compass.

And it is not that the humane treatment of animals in and of itself that diminishes human rights- it is the thought that an animal might possibly be held in equal esteem as any human being that diminishes the respect and innate value that should (in my opinion) be accorded all humans - regardless of their age or cognitive ability- or in other words, what they might be able to contribute to me or society.

The fact that they are human infuses their existence with more 'sacred' worth than that of any animal.

Anyway, that's what my moral compass tells me. It's offensive to my moral compass to compare a baby or mentally handicapped person to a cat.
Is your life worth more than mine because you might be smarter than me?
Is my life worth more than someone else's because I might be smarter than them?
Do people really measure the worth of other people based on what those people might do for them (again, as individuals or as members of society)?
That's a pretty scary thought.

My fundamental moral compass compels me to view all human life as equally sacred, and as such, deserving of the same rights, respect and treatment I would expect for myself.

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Attributing differing levels of value to human life based on what that person may or may not be able to contribute to my welfare (individually or as a member of society) is morally repugnant to me.

But that's not what I'm doing. Once again, you're criticizing people without reading what you're criticizing. It is ehBeth who suggested that I value a human lives based on their utility to other people -- and I'm not even sure how serious she was about it.

I value human lives as much or as little as the people living those lives are valuing them themselves. And I think that in general, the way to measure that is by observing their willingness to pay for safety. The empirical result from this kind of observation is that people value their own lives at something like $5 million. Accordingly, so do I.

aidan wrote:

The fact that they are human infuses their existence with more 'sacred' worth than that of any animal.

Why? What's so sacred about belonging to the species homo sapiens as opposed to, say, the species pan troglodytes?

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Anyway, that's what my moral compass tells me. It's offensive to my moral compass to compare a baby or mentally handicapped person to a cat.

I suggest that's because you're not questioning an assumption we humans take for granted -- that animal lives have no value, and that animal suffering doesn't count.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Once again, I'm just responding to the idea. The thought of that sparked that thought in me.
I'm not in any way saying that's what you believe. I have no idea what you believe. I don't know you.
I'm just communicating the thought that was sparked in me by the discussion of the value of cats vs. babies.
I find that the belief in the moral tenet that all human life be accorded equal value is MY fundamental moral code when it comes to ground zero.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Give me a break Thomas. I love my dog as much as any human could love a dog. I treat all animals humanely. I don't even eat meat.

The fact that I hold humans in higher esteem does not mean I don't value animals.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I find that the belief in the moral tenet that all human life be accorded equal value is MY fundamental moral code when it comes to ground zero.

All human life? From the moment of conception?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Why? What's so sacred about belonging to the species homo sapiens as opposed to, say, the species pan troglodytes?

I have no idea, except to say that I have no experience of the species 'pan troglodytes'.
I do, however have experience of homo sapiens. And I believe them to be of superior value than canines, felines, bovines, etc.

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Give me a break Thomas. I love my dog as much as any human could love a dog. I treat all animals humanely. I don't even eat meat.

Good for you, and for the animals you're not eating. More power to you!

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I do, however have experience of homo sapiens. And I believe them to be of superior value than canines, felines, bovines, etc.

Superior in what morally relevant way? If intelligence doesn't count, what is it that gives human interests precedence over animal interests?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

All human life? From the moment of conception?

That's my personal belief, yes.
But I also allow others the right to their personal beliefs on that front as well as all others - because - as I said - I view all humans and their thoughts and worth as equal in value to me and mine.

I try to pay that personal moral truth and credo more than just lip service.

0 Replies

What is your fundamental moral compass?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know