26
   

Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials

 
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 02:17 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

failures art wrote:
Your question is to the point of what I'm asking here under the metaphor.

Yeah, I kinda' figured that. But then that doesn't answer my question. Philosophers may defend human actions with regard to animals that they would not justify with regard to other humans, but they typically don't say "well, humans are just superior to animals, so it's OK."

I'll let you argue that with ebrownp.

In a larger sense, there is a large or at least loud voice that says animals are for our use. These people ARE justifying their acts specifically from a position of superiority.

A
R
T
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 02:35 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
I'll let you argue that with ebrownp.

Arguing morality with ebrownp is fruitless (as you've no doubt discovered), primarily because ebrownp doesn't believe in morality.

failures art wrote:
In a larger sense, there is a large or at least loud voice that says animals are for our use. These people ARE justifying their acts specifically from a position of superiority.

Probably not. An elephant, for instance, is superior to humans in terms of size. A cheetah is superior to humans in terms of speed. There are plenty of animals that are superior to humans in one way or another. If some claim that humans are entitled to experiment on animals because humans are superior to animals, there has to be some specific aspect of that superiority that is morally significant. It's not just superiority in general, because we're not superior to animals in general.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 02:59 pm
@joefromchicago,
Humans can be morally superior to animals if we choose Embarrassed
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 03:16 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

Arguing morality with ebrownp is fruitless (as you've no doubt discovered), primarily because ebrownp doesn't believe in morality.


Come on Joe! This is a gross misstatement of my position.

Morality is a human trait that is based on our culture and beliefs. I don't believe that there is any Universal Truth on which any system of morality can be based. This belief is strengthened by the fact that neither you, nor anyone else, has provided for an objective way to determine any Universal moral truth that applies outside of human experience.

I am a moral person in that I base my life on deeply held moral principles. It is a myth that you need to accept any Universal Truth to live a moral life.



joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 03:58 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Come on Joe! This is a gross misstatement of my position.

No, it's pretty accurate.

ebrown p wrote:
Morality is a human trait that is based on our culture and beliefs. I don't believe that there is any Universal Truth on which any system of morality can be based. This belief is strengthened by the fact that neither you, nor anyone else, has provided for an objective way to determine any Universal moral truth that applies outside of human experience.

Or, to put it simply, you believe in moral relativism. That's not morality.

ebrown p wrote:
I am a moral person in that I base my life on deeply held moral principles. It is a myth that you need to accept any Universal Truth to live a moral life.

I never said that you weren't a moral person. For all I know you are a very moral person. Because you're a moral relativist, however, your morality is, at most, nothing more than an ingrained habit. You may live a moral life, but that may be nothing more than the result of a coincidence. Indeed, it's likely that, if you're acting morally, you're doing so unintentionally, in the same way that Monsieur Jourdain could be speaking prose for forty years without knowing it.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 04:00 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Humans can be morally superior to animals if we choose Embarrassed

Actually, that's correct.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 04:30 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

I never said that you weren't a moral person. For all I know you are a very moral person. Because you're a moral relativist, however, your morality is, at most, nothing more than an ingrained habit. You may live a moral life, but that may be nothing more than the result of a coincidence. Indeed, it's likely that, if you're acting morally, you're doing so unintentionally, in the same way that Monsieur Jourdain could be speaking prose for forty years without knowing it.


You are full of crap Joe! I would be offended that you feel superior, if it weren't so ludicrous. You don't even know me, how the hell do you think tell can you tell me what I intend to do or not?

Ridiculous.




joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 05:33 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
You don't even know me, how the hell do you think tell can you tell me what I intend to do or not?

I think you intended to ask: "how the hell do you think you can tell me what I intend to do or not?"
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 10:27 pm
@Eorl,
Must be a big basket.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 06:49 pm
@Eorl,
Quote:
I assume ten years ago you would have put the existence of extrasolar planets in the same basket.
Your assumption is wrong.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 06:50 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
That's gotta be one hell of a basket!
But it does lend itself to the expression "a basket case".
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 07:02 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
I don't believe that there is any Universal Truth on which any system of morality can be based.
Depends how universal things are like :
Might is Right
Winners write History
Survival of the Fittest

All morality is subjective and I am surprised they are arguing with you on that. Just look at moral behaviour through history and different cultures and see if there is any commonly held beliefs. Only one thing is constant, if it works for one it is a moral principle for one.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 09:58 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Let's say that one day and alien race was to discover our planet and begin taking humans and doing testing on us. They are doing testing on us so that the they could cure their diseases, know their detergents are safe, and that they can test erectile dysfunction pills. Many humans die and more are permanently injured.

Would the Aliens be ethically justified in their actions because they are a superior species?

Aliens
R
T


would the Human race survive in the end ?
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 10:51 pm
@failures art,
Excellent question. I suppose you mean would it be ethically justified for humans, unless we are talking about a trans-planetary ethical code which our alien "friends" might scoff at.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 08:30 am
Let's flip the question over: would humans enjoy dining on ETs?
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 09:00 am
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Let's flip the question over: would humans enjoy dining on ETs?
ET, Alien or Predator ? Because Alien looks like it would taste terrible. ET looks all fat and bone. Perdator would probably be tough and chewy.

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe serves a good steak.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 09:01 am
@Ionus,
And their food is mostly harmless..
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 09:03 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Let's flip the question over: would humans enjoy dining on ETs?

Depends on the recipe of course. Perhaps we should ask the A2K cooks?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 10:53 am
@Ionus,
When I wrote ET, I did not mean the movie icon but extra-terrestrials in general. Let's say they were bear like but sentient.

Alien does look . . . if you ever figured out what it actually was . . . like it would taste terrible. I saw the film with my ex-husband, a science fiction enthusiast. We credited the director, the then unknown to me Ridley Scott, with the look of the monster which included images of the T-rex and spiders. I remember saying to my ex, "He (that is, the director) really understands fear." I have since learned that the look of the monster was a collaboration.

Anyway, my question was loosely based on having made it 2/3rds of the way through the Helliconia trilogy by Brian Aldiss. The first two books were terrific but the third might as well have been a pulp romance. I never finished it.

Aldiss wrote a great ecological novel in the first two Helliconia books. In it, he posited a planet with dual suns in which there are two sentient races, one humanoid and one somewhat bovine. The bovine race gains ascendency when the cold sun is dominant while the humans are more powerful during the warm phase. I could be wrong: the books are quite old and I read them long ago.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 10:54 am
@plainoldme,
So, would we eat a more animal appearing alien race, sentient or not?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 02:56:46