P.S. You mentioned slavery and apartheid. Case in point, in both cases ending them caused what effectively ammounts to civil wars, chaos, destruction and death. (actual civil war in the case of slavery, just lots of chaos and anarchy over in africa).
Undocumented aliens take away very few jobs. They work jobs that most Americans would never touch and get paid chicken feed for it. Prices would go way up if we had to pay Americans $20.00 per hour for the same work.
You just want to make three posts in a row to beat my two posts in a row, admit it :wink:
See, to me, everyone has their own point of view. You might like violence, you might not. Everyone bases their actions on their own point of view. That's going to happen like it or not.
Also society is made up out of each of us. It's all of us working together to make it what it is. The government can make whatever laws it wants, but without the police enforcing them, the courts trying them, the jails locking them up, construction workers building the jails, etc. Without all of those nothing is going to happen. Society depends on a lot of people all acting upon their own point of view.
Again, this is how the world is. You can like it or not, but that's how it works.
So, here's what I think we should do about it. If society depends on all these people acting on their moral code and we issue a law that everyone will agree on, then it will work well. If we issue a law that half the population doesn't agree with it will be chaos. Half the police will enforce it, half of them won't. Half the courts will be harsh on it, half of them won't. You see this with marijuana. Why do you think manditory sentencing exists.
So if there's something which the population is widely disagreed on then trying to restrict people based on it won't work (well) and will cause chaos. So we should focus on those things which are universal points of morality (or almost so) because those laws will work and keep society running smoothly.
This isn't a moral point of view, it's what I believe would be most efficient.
See what I mean?
P.S. You mentioned slavery and apartheid. Case in point, in both cases ending them caused what effectively amounts to civil wars, chaos, destruction and death. (actual civil war in the case of slavery, just lots of chaos and anarchy over in africa).
So I think this is a moral point of view. I badger you on this because, having had (and continuing in another thread) a discussion of a moral position I am swayed by, I'd like to look at a moral position that doesn't lead to ethics applying to non-human animals, and look closely at the assumptions that underpin that position and the repercussions of them. If you're game, I'd be interested in looking at your moral position (though you deny having one...), to see what holes might be picked in it!
First of all, you say 'here's what I think we should do about it...", which, I would think, makes the following statement a moral one.
The end of slavery didn't cause civil war in Britain...
nevertheless, for the moment I'll concede the general point that legislating against popular things doesn't tend to work. But that answers the question: "Why shouldn't we legislated against the meat industry", not "should ethics apply to other conscious animals".
I'm still firmly in the 'it's the method of treatment and use of animals, not the fact that we eat them' camp. I have no problem eating animals, just problems with the way they are often raised.
Individual codes of ethics bind the actions of individuals. As a group however we are best served by minding our own code of ethics and working together whenever it is in our own best interests to do so.
You're trying to point at me and say "You're morals aren't being logical", to which I can only respond, "Yes, I know. Neither are yours but at least I realise it."
Watchmakers guidedog, I think you do yourself a disservice! I think your system of morals seems fairly consistent and logical. However...
Anyway (to jump to a conclusion about you...)
your position seems to me to be pretty logical after all. It says, I think: I should behave as is best for me. Sometimes, because of annoying evolutionary adaptations such as guilt, this means acting in a way that appears to be benevolent, but in reality, I am acting in my own interest, in this case, my interest being to avoid guilt.
It is based, however, on one dangerous assumption: that the 'me' whose benefit you are acting in is the same 'me' who will benefit from the act. When you sacrifice a moment's pleasure to avoid future pain/guilt/whatever, are you sure that it will be the same 'you' who benefits?
Another assumption you might make is that other things you see are also experiencing. As you see them (ignoring the finite speed of light...) their experience is separated from you by space. Remembering them, their experience is separated from you by time and space.
Of course, I have no more evidence that they are all really me than you have that the you who started reading this post is the you reading this now. We have both just made a benefit of the doubt decision. So I, like you, am acting in my own interest. When I read that: "one person being vegetarian means that 250 less animals spend their 20 week life in a factory farm", I think: "me being vegetarian will mean I will spend about 100 years less time in a factory farm", which seems like a good tradeoff to me.
I'd say that the way I deal with morals may be consistent and/or logical however that doesn't mean that the morals themselves are logical.
Quote:It is based, however, on one dangerous assumption: that the 'me' whose benefit you are acting in is the same 'me' who will benefit from the act. When you sacrifice a moment's pleasure to avoid future pain/guilt/whatever, are you sure that it will be the same 'you' who benefits?
Actually it's not... believe it or not I've already considered that possibility and think that it's the most likely explanation for consciousness. However by the time my heart beats once I must have experienced googols of shifts of "me", making it impossible to act inside a single one (for the theory to make any sense whatsoever it would require a switch of consciousness ever quantum instant).
Given that it is impossible to act meaningfully upon the belief of instantaneous consciousness I decide that while I intellectually accept the possibility, for the sake of sanity I will accept the illusions and act in the interests of that future "me". Much like I have to act on morals for the most benefit to me, (whatever my intellectual feelings), acting as though future mes are the same person is a part of the basic programming of my body.
I've considered the possibility that I am the only thing that perceives, however this would require a vastly different metaphysical cosmology than we accept as standard. Without any evidence for that possibility I just act as though the universe is as it appears on the surface.
Quote:Of course, I have no more evidence that they are all really me than you have that the you who started reading this post is the you reading this now. We have both just made a benefit of the doubt decision. So I, like you, am acting in my own interest. When I read that: "one person being vegetarian means that 250 less animals spend their 20 week life in a factory farm", I think: "me being vegetarian will mean I will spend about 100 years less time in a factory farm", which seems like a good tradeoff to me.
A logical assumption if you believe that you are a permanent existence of consciousness which switches between bodies. Based upon that belief your actions are very logical. I however personally suspect that I am a consciousness coming into existence for a quantum instant and at the end of that instant being obliterated.
I however personally suspect that I am a consciousness coming into existance for a quantum instant and at the end of that instant being obliterated.
I believe animals and fish were made available to us for this reason, albeit responsibly and humanely.
Yes, one can become a vegetarian for what some believe are "moral" or, more importantly, health reasons. I don't believe everybody is physically capable of being a vegetarian though. It depends on their system.
You say 'actually it's not' (based on that assumption), but clearly it is, by your own admission. It's just that you are aware that you are working on that assumption, and have considered not doing so.
I suspect you may be right.
Perhaps they always existed, but only the moment of time we say they exist in.
Perhaps we are drifting off thread here, but this seems to me to be fairly important, both generally and specifically.
And it's not. Merely because the end result is the same either way does not mean that the process is identical.
I get the analogy. However it's unfortunately reminiscent of pascal's wager.
The infintesimal chance of instantaneous reincarnation existing is not worth the effort of becoming vegetarian.
Consider the infrastructure required for organising such a massive and continual movement of these "consciousnesses". On Earth alone it would require a googol number of consciousnesses to be moved every quantum instant.
Consciousness disturbs me, it presents far too many strange and bizarre questions.