What is your fundamental moral compass?

@aidan,

Quote:

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

aidan wrote:

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.

How do u define value?

David

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

How does humane treatment of animals diminish human rights?

If a family member is dying they are not allowed to end their misery. If I have a dog in pain not only can I kill it but I can be charged with an offence if I dont. I am not allowed to cut a dogs throat because of animal welfare laws. That is a quicker less-pain death then most of us could hope for. A dog has more right to a dignity to life than humans.

My son was bitten by a dog on his way to Uni. He had to prove that the dog lived at the address near where he was bitten and positively identify the dog. The council were not allowed to tell us of any dogs fitting that description in the area. If a human had of ran out and punched him the matter would be investigated by police who would not have to prove where the human lived but simply that they had the right human. A dog is criminally allowed to assault someone more than a human is....

Tour a dog food factory. Everyone wears hairnets and is dressed in white. Now tour a pie factory (if you can get in) and the difference is alarming.

Shelters exist for taking dogs off the streets and finding them good homes. What is being done for street kids ? Predators trade them food for sex.

I could go on but you get the idea.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

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

Because I know that I hope my neighbor or any human being who could influence my existence would view my life, regardless of my cognitive ability, productivity or potential for benefit to him, as more important than his dog's (if it were ever to come down to it), I feel it's only quid pro quo to value his or her life more than my dog's, if a choice were to be made.
If I expect to be valued more than a dog or cat - I should value others in the same way - ie - more than a dog or cat.

And it's reprehensible to me, probably because of my Christian upbringing, to view others as worthy based primarily on what they can do for me. In fact, I was taught the opposite - to look at others and think first what you can or should do for them- without expectation of return.

Again, I'm not saying it's human nature to actually DO that - but that is what I was TAUGHT I should think or do. And I find that what I was TAUGHT has fundamentally influenced my own moral code.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

How do u define value?

I define value as the assignment of 'innate worth'.

And I do value human life more than animal.

1 Reply

@aidan,

David wrote:

How do u define value?

aidan wrote:

I define value as the assignment of 'innate worth'.

And I do value human life more than animal.

I can easily think of humans and ex-humans who were of less innate worth than some animals.
Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, David Berkowitz

0 Replies

Animals don't have a lesser innate value, they have a lesser assigned value... by us.

Nature is indifferent. It displays no hierarchy of value amongst the living creatures on the planet. Just because we are culture each other to assign other animals a lesser value, doesn't make it "innate."

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Animals don't have a lesser innate value, they have a lesser assigned value... by us.

As far as survival goes, we have all made it this far from the first life so we are all equal. But equality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Lions do not think of prey as equal. Prey probably think of lions as dangerous and that amounts to superiority in animal speak. We prey on everything. We are the top of all food chains and in animal speak are superior.

0 Replies

@failures art,

I thought the question was about MY fundamental moral compass- and I do assign less innate value to animals. I didn't say nature did. I said that I do.

Obviously David looks at it differently - as do many other people. That's fine.
I'm simply answering the question for me. And as far as I'm concerned in my scheme of moral consciousness and assigning value - I assign more value to human beings than animals and I believe that assigning equal value to human beings in general (and I don't have time to get into serial killers and genocidists, etc., etc.) is a part of my fundamental moral compass- and that means MINE for me - no one else has to agree or feel the same as I do in my scheme of things.

That's another thing I believe - your beliefs are just as important in the scheme of things as mine- but just as mine don't supersede your's your's don't supersede mine (or anyone else's).

4 Replies

@aidan,

In criminal law it is the commonality of what is held to be immoral behaviour codified into law that will place you in court. You can be quite moral by your own compass.

0 Replies

@aidan,

I was challenging the choice of "innate" in the wording.

Anyone with a cat knows that it doesn't think it's inferior to us.
R
Tangent over. Sorry original topic.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I thought the question was about MY fundamental moral compass-

You're right -- it was.

aidan wrote:

and I do assign less innate value to animals. I didn't say nature did. I said that I do.

Although there's no deep problem here, you're using words inconsistently. On the one hand, it's perfectly fine to use the word "innate" in a phrase like "a cat's innate value is so-and-so". This usage implies that the cat's value is objectively "existing in, belonging too, or determined by factors present in the [cat] from birth" (Webster). Hence, if you were serious about the word "innate" in "innate value", you were expressing an opinion about an objective fact. This opinion could be either true or false. There's no my-opinion-is-as-good-as-your-opinion about it.

On the other hand, if you say that you're the one who does the valuing, you're only talking about the cat's value to you. That's fine too, but you've got to pick one. You either think of the value of a cat's value as objective property inate to the cat, or you think of it as your subjective valuation of a cat. You can't have it both ways.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Yeah and I think or it is my belief that the cat's ' value is objectively "existing in, belonging too, or determined by factors present in the [cat] from birth" (Webster), that make it less valuable than those characteristics existing in, belonging to or determined by factors present in the human from birth'

Quote:

Hence, if you were serious about the word "innate" in "innate value", you were expressing an opinion about an objective fact. This opinion could be either true or false

I objectively believe my opinion to be true. That's why I believe it and have adopted it as my opinion.
I was simply stating that I know there are other people who don't believe it to be true. That doesn't change the fact that I believe cats are inherently or innately less valuable than any form of human life.
I also believe ( or at least hope) you both believe my opinion to be true...hopefully...or your mom or future children might worry somewhat about what would happen to one of them if it ever came down between them and the cat.

If you do honestly think this is worth arguing about - why on god's green earth would you care that Americans have no idea how rich they are and how poor the rest of the world is?
Or are you seriously worried about poverty stricken cats ?

And believe it or not - I already knew what 'innate' meant before either of you told me.

(precision, precision, precision - must be an engineer thing).

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-3988416

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
"Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you."

Ok, how about an example (one with a sock and lug nuts if possible)?

I admit, my "do unto others" motto was in jest. The sock and lugnuts on the other hand -- that's all business.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Obviously David looks at it differently - as do many other people. That's fine.
I'm simply answering the question for me. And as far as I'm concerned in my scheme of moral consciousness and assigning value - I assign more value to human beings than animals and I believe that assigning equal value to human beings in general (and I don't have time to get into serial killers and genocidists, etc., etc.)

OK, I have more time, inasmuch as I am retired from professional practice.

Let us compare one the pets of whom there has been discussion
on this forum, not to a serial killer (not Tony the Tiger),
but to a convicted murderer (an actually guilty one) of only one victim.

I argue that whereas the pet (e.g., your Pearl) has value,
the human murderer has anti-value;
i.e., negative value, - 1.

What say u?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

You can't have it both ways.

Ladies not only can have it both ways but they very often do.

According to the Materialist Theory of Mind human beings have no values never mind cats. Even the thought that they do have values is a conditioned reflex. A mode of meeowing. And Thomas is a materialist I have reason to think.

In a debate it is the proper etiquette that an argument offered is either accepted or disputed. As my previous argument about the Biblical teaching that man has dominion over the animals has not been disputed it is reasonable to assume that it has been accepted or that proper debating etiquette has been set aside.

As the latter is a signifier of unfittedness for polite company I assume the argument to have been accepted. In which case the debate has since proceeded along lines which can be said, at the least, to be incomprehensible in intelligent company.

There is probably more practical scientific truth in the Biblical teaching I referred to than in the whole of evolution theory for the reasons I gave. Which then opens up the possibility that a failure to understand one particular aspect of Biblical science might well imply a similar failure with the rest of it.

From which it follows that the education of 50 million kids is being argued over using one or all of the following--Argumentum ad Verecundiam, ex Absurdo, Fistulatorium, Baculinum, ad Crumenam and Argumentum Tripodium. ( Modesty, Absurdity, Blowhardism, Force, Cash and the "Third Leg".)

Which, in view of the education budget, would be a national disgrace of monumental proportions.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I objectively believe my opinion to be true. That's why I believe it and have adopted it as my opinion.

aidan - I'm not sure you meant "objective" here. This is the kind of statement that is rhetorical blood in the water.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

What is the core values in your moral compass? And how does that work in practice for you?

If you don't have one yet, try to codify one. Ideally they are generic (not too specific) as they should be core values that can apply to ANY situation to produce a theoretical ideal.

Late to the party, but mine boils down to "try not to hurt other people". In practice, sometimes it means I hurt myself instead, and sometimes I hurt other people even though I try not to. As applied to politics, and because "other people" in my mind is not qualified in any way (meaning it doesn't matter if they are people who look like me or live in my country), I find it easy to reject actions we take in the name of "preserving the American way of Life". A way of life is not something worth hurting other people for.

Of course, like with us all, the devil's in the details. Off to finish reading the thread.

3 Replies

@spendius,

It is worth adding that few people subscribed to the Biblical teaching that man has dominion over the animals more than Sir Charles Darwin did. It might be reasonable to say that without him doing so as emphatically as he did he would never have produced his theories.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Before you read the thread FD make sure you keep in mind the thread title and particularly the word "fundamental". If you manage that it will enable you to identify the personal affectations.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

If you do honestly think this is worth arguing about - why on god's green earth would you care that Americans have no idea how rich they are and how poor the rest of the world is?

Suffering is suffering, no matter who feels it. But the worst suffeing in this world is mostly felt by poor people outside of America.

aidan wrote:

Or are you seriously worried about poverty stricken cats ?

Not poverty-stricken cats. I don't care about poverty, except to the extent that it causes suffering. But yes, I do care about suffering cats -- just as you do, if I understand you correctly. Moreover, I care about almost all humans' suffering more than I care about all cats' suffering. That's because foresight and imagination greatly amplify the pleasures and pains humans can experience. This amplification isn't present in cats.

aidan wrote:

(precision, precision, precision - must be an engineer thing).

Not so much an engineer thing as an internet-veteran thing. I have seen hundreds of people arguing and arguing for days and days -- only to find out that one side uses a crucial word one way while its opponents use it in another way. By clarifying word usages early on, we can cut short such pseudo-disagreements to concentrate on the real ones, which are usually more interesting. It isn't meant as a personal put-down of you or your views.

1 Reply

What is your fundamental moral compass?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know