Animal Testing

[ParanoiA]

Morality though? That's a man made concept so that we can live in cooperative groups and advance our quality of life by not acting on our natural instincts to murder and rape each other.

 

Here's this paragraph again since you missed it the first time. Now you can see why your point number 1 was silly.

 

I know it's tough for you to take. But nature does not give a rat's ass about what you think is bad. Death, birth, rape, murder, social structures...

 

We're not the only one's that contradict ourselves for self interest. Wolves commit disgusting acts of violence on other wolves and non-wolves - but don't commit these same acts within the pack. This is similar to how we commit disgusting acts of violence on others, humans and animals, but not within our own packs.

 

I love pointing out the obvious and watching people argue around it. You can mix my words around all you want, but it doesn't change the state of affairs.

 

 

He's obviously saying that morality is determined by what is natural. All the above are natural, therefore, they are all good. Ignoring that this falls into the naturalistic fallacy, let's move on to his second argument in the following paragraph.

 

I don't believe in the naturalistic fallacy so you'll have to argue it yourself, rather than point to a pre-packaged argument.

 

1. Morality is a tool created by man

2. The tool is to avoid rape' date=' killing, and violence (murder).

3. Therefore, morality is to counteract many natural impluses. [/quote']

 

The tool is not to avoid rape, killing and violence - it is to avoid rape, killing and violence within the group. Careful how you mix my words around...

 

Many predators contradict themselves - using contrived human logic anyway. Particularly pack animals like us. They suspend their instincts to get along with each other, and liberate them on others.

 

See, you just can't seem to fathom applying morality within the human species, and seeing the absurdity in applying it to other species. I do. I think it's absolute nonsense to carry out our silly human-like ideas of behavior and treatment onto the rest of the animal kingdom. If all of the living things on this planet exhibited "morality", as you and others advocate, the whole ecosystem would fall apart. Natural selection wouldn't be possible. Nothing would eat anything. We wouldn't even be here.

 

So, why then should humans do it? I trust evolution and the demonstrated laws of nature far more than contrived human logic.

 

After all...wasn't all of this around millions of years before we came along? That is why what is natural is good...

[Technocrat]

Here's this paragraph again since you missed it the first time. Now you can see why your point number 1 was silly.

 

 

 

No. I perfectly understood it. Apparently, you really don't comprehend the implications of your own statements. My point 1 was far from silly; it was dead accurate.

 

I know it's tough for you to take. But nature does not give a rat's ass about what you think is bad. Death, birth, rape, murder, social structures...

 

That's entirely irrelevant to what is and is not ethical. "nature" doesn't give a rats ass because nature is mindless. It's not a volitional think. Then again, many volitional beings don't care either. Your point is effectively pointless other than to reiterate the already invalid "nature = moral."

 

We're not the only one's that contradict ourselves for self interest. Wolves commit disgusting acts of violence on other wolves and non-wolves - but don't commit these same acts within the pack. This is similar to how we commit disgusting acts of violence on others, humans and animals, but not within our own packs.

 

Again, nature cannot simultaneously be the criterion for what's moral and morality be a tool to control natural impusles. That doesn't make sense.

 

It's also incorrect to say they don't commit those activities in the pack; they, and many other animals certainly do. Again, refer to the chimps. They rape, kill, and murder within their own groups quite often. It's natural, therefore moral, according to you.

 

 

You haven't addressed your inherent logical contradiction in your argument. If you don't want to keep a logically consistent argument, then fine. You really can't discuss this issue though, until you do. You said X and then said Y. Y contradicted X. Therefore, that argument is invalid. One of your premises is wrong if you form a contradiction. Check those premises!

 

I love pointing out the obvious and watching people argue around it. You can mix my words around all you want, but it doesn't change the state of affairs.

 

You haven't pointed anything out that's obvious. You have pointed out something that contradicts itself; that is, your own argument. You are right. Nothing I say will change the fact that you hold doublethink and are fallaciously arguing that nature=moral. Do you understand what a fallacy is?

 

 

 

I don't believe in the naturalistic fallacy so you'll have to argue it yourself, rather than point to a pre-packaged argument.

 

Whether you believe in it is immaterial. Logic is logic, and your argument is fallacious. Any moron can claim "I don't believe in X fallacy," as a means of slipping out of it. ****, christian fundamentalists don't believe in logic at all.

 

Sorry, but your approval of logic isn't required any more than it's required that someone believe in the Strawman or the Red Herring.

 

You cannot logically go from an IS to an Ought. Just because something IS the case in nature doesn't mean it ought to be. You cannot go from the fact to the normative. It's fallacious reasoning, period.

 

 

 

The tool is not to avoid rape, killing and violence - it is to avoid rape, killing and violence within the group. Careful how you mix my words around..

 

Semantics. It's an arbitrary distinction. You cannot justify within group violence any more than you can justify extra-group violence using nature as the measuring stick of morality for a variety of reasons, some already mentioned.

 

1. In-group violence is natural

2. Extra-group violence is natural.

 

They are both therefore moral according to nature=moral. That's an illogical self-contradiction in terms.

 

3. In-group morality that excludes all others simply because they are not part of the group vague and unjustified. Using that logic, anything can be used to justify doign anything to some other group that you arbitrariy define simply because they aren't part of the group.

 

Murder is only wrong between catholics. It's entirely ok to murder outsiders. Of course, you can arbitrarily claim "this only applies to humans," but you cannot justify it using the nature premise, nor is it universally valid. There is zero objective criterion for discrimination. You have to universalize in ethics; you cannot discriminate simply because of insider-outsider relations.

 

Many predators contradict themselves - using contrived human logic anyway. Particularly pack animals like us. They suspend their instincts to get along with each other, and liberate on them on others.

 

Irrelevant whether or not they contradict themselves. Contrived human logic? Do you deny logic as well as fallacies?

 

And no, they don't "suspend them" on members of the group. Why the **** do you think humans have been murdering each other for years personally and on a social basis?

 

Your argument has no basis in fact.

 

Sorry it's made you so upset, but that's how it goes dude...

 

I am far from upset; I am more amused that you think logic and fallacies are defeated by your belief in them and that it's perfectly valid to have an argument riddled with self-contradictions.

 

"I don't believe in fallacies" and "contradictions occure in nature" do not consitute rebuttals.

[ParanoiA]

Technocrat

 

Let's try it like this...

 

1) Morality is cool for human packs to get along with each other. They make up this concept and call it "morality" since nobody is going to cooperate in the group if person A rapes and murders person B. This is natural in-group out-group psychology. It is part of the building blocks of pack animals. We are pack animals. Got it? Cool...now go to number two...

 

2) In the animal kingdom, some animals eat other animals. It is quite natural too. It might look scary and mean, but that's life and death on this crazy rock. The ecosystem depends on this behavior actually. Stuff like natural selection, mutations, best mate...those kinds of things are necessary to perpetuate and maintain the existence of a given species.

 

Now, it would not be good to apply the logic of 1 onto 2 because nature needs things to eat each other and all kinds of other stuff in order for 2 to work. It's also not good to apply the logic of 2 onto 1 because then the groups won't cooperate and humans would be solo predators - or in that case, prey. We wouldn't last long.

 

And there you have it.

 

 

Now, you're a grown up right? You know that there are no absolutes in this world? Humans still kill and rape other humans, violating the implied cooperative agreement. And some animals defy their predatory impulses as well - like the Leopard that protected a baby Baboon after killing its mother.

 

But neither side carries the full potential of that violation. So don't use ignorant arguments like that in the future ok?

 

I just have no need for bullshit like morality. If a human preys upon another human, I see that as a perfectly natural act. They're doing what they're programmed to do. But that's not going to be acceptable if they are going to live among our group, and benefit - so punishment is necessary. See...we really are just talking monkeys after all.

[Technocrat]

1) Morality is cool for human packs to get along with each other. They make up this concept and call it "morality" since nobody is going to cooperate in the group if person A rapes and murders person B. This is natural in-group out-group psychology. It is part of the building blocks of pack animals. We are pack animals. Got it? Cool...now go to number two...

 

Just summarizing:

 

1. Ok. Morality is good and cool tool for humans to get along with one another.

2. Without the morality tool, and a way to enforce it, society won't function, since people wouldn't cooperate or be able to thrive

3. We are pack animals. It is part of group in and out-based psychology.

 

Analysis:

 

1. You are making a normative statement, which is an ought statement (an ethical one). You are tacitly assuming that cooperation and having the functional building-blocks of a pack is a good thing and that they create morality as a tool to make sure it happens in the group. This ought statement is partly based on nature. You imply that we ought to cooperate and have rules because we are pack animals, and pack animals need to cooperate to function. This happens naturally as per human nature, therefore it's moral.

 

However, an inconsistency arises. More importantly, we ought to have rules that enforce only certain TYPES of natural behaviours and discourage others. Interesting. The problem is that this is cherry-picking naturalism. You earlier claimed that X is moral because it's natural. However, humans are both violent and selfish as well as altrustic and cooperative depending on the circumstances, both in in-group and out-group situations. Both are natural, so both should be entirely moral. However, your scenario only advocates and enforces one.

 

Ethical behaviour 1 is murderous, violent, raping. This is moral.

Ethical behaviour 2 is altruistic, cooperative, helpful. This is moral.

They are both moral because they are natural.

Each equally moral behaviour contradicts the other. So you have two totally different virtues or recomendations of what one ought to do that are mutually exclusive being both moral at the same time.

 

There is no contextuality or situational ethics that can be derrived from the premises of your argument from nature. That which is moral isn't depending on the consequences of given situations, but whether or not something is merely natural. If it's natural, it fits the bill of being moral, regardless of what it is.

 

Is that which is unnatural, immoral, if that which is natural is always moral? Your argument makes no mention of what is wrong, only what you think is right (which basically allows anything to be right, so long as it's natural. Even self contradictory behaviours!).

 

If it is the argument that what is moral = what is natural, then there's no logical reason to claim that the in-group cooperation model is any more moral or immoral than the selfish kill them all to rise to the top model. Indeed, both are found frequently in nature, and even in early homosapien states of nature. Either is just as good and you cannot distinguish between them. Your argument logically implies that it is just as good to murder and kill whenever you want to, simply because you can and want to (since that's a natural human behaviour. Indeed abnormal, but natural notwithstanding). Whether ir violates "pack cooperation needs" is irrelevant.

 

You validate this claim by your later statement in the last two paragraphs. It's perfectly natural to rape, kill, and hurt for no reason (since it often happens in a state of nature).

 

I don't think you "got it," son. I get it fine. That's the problem.

 

 

In the animal kingdom, some animals eat other animals. It is quite natural too.

 

Really? Animals eat other animals? It's natural? Geewiz, you must have been at the head of your ecology class at Cluck'U.

 

Of course it's natural. No one said it's not. Natural doesn't automatically mean ethical. Again, such reasoning that it is moral is fallacious. Whether something is natural or unnatural is irrelevant intrinsically. Two-ply toilet paper is unnatural. That does not mean it is wrong to exist. Rabbits ****ing dogs is not natural. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

Tree's sometimes fall on people in nature. That doesn't mean it's natural. According to Retard Ethics 101, however, since trees falling on this is natural, it must logically also be ethical.

 

It might look scary and mean, but that's life and death on this crazy rock.

 

This means nothing as to what ought to be. You cannot derrive an ought from a straightforeward is. Life might be hard, and life might be unfair, but that doesn't constitute an ethical argument.

 

Don't be a moron. Going "life's unfair!" is not a moral argument. The more you talk, the less you seem capable of employing actual reasoning skills. Do try to keep the sophistry to a minium, boy.

 

 

The ecosystem depends on this behavior actually. Stuff like natural selection, mutations, best mate...those kinds of things are necessary to perpetuate and maintain the existence of a given species.

 

1. Perpetuation of the species and DNA at all costs isn't an inherently "ethical" criterion. You assume need and necessity are "good" and "moral," yet later arguments contradict this (as usual).

 

2. Nature itself cannot be ethical. That natural selection and mutations happen has no bearing on whether or not it is moral. Some people are born with horrible deformities. Occording to your retard logic, that's obviously moral and good.

 

 

Now, it would not be good to apply the logic of 1 onto 2 because nature needs things to eat each other and all kinds of other stuff in order for 2 to work. It's also not good to apply the logic of 2 onto 1 because then the groups won't cooperate and humans would be solo predators - or in that case, prey. We wouldn't last long.

 

And there you have it.

 

It's not good to apply any logic to your arguments, since they virtually make no sense. They aren't even internally consistent.

 

Your premises don't lead to the conclusion, and you arrive at a non sequitor.

 

Observe:

 

Animals eat other animals in nature

This is reality.

Therefore, humans ought to eat other animals.

 

This argument fails on premise two as a normative argument because it treats an Is statement as an Ought statement.

 

The first premise is true, but doesn't lead to the conclusion, thus presenting the non sequitor. This non sequitor exists because of the Naturalistic Fallacy. That which is natural is not necessarily moral any more than that which is unnatural is necessarily immoral. For instance, two-ply toilet paper is unnatural. That means nothing about morality. Eating animals naturally has no bearing on whether or not you ought to. That chimpanzee's beat the shit out of fellow Chimps has no bearing on wheather they ought to do so.

 

Natural Selection is not an ethical mechanism. The only conclusion you can derrive is that it is indeed how nature works, not how it ought to work. It could entirely be preferable if all species cooperated, worked together, and shared. If they could, and it was against their nature, it wouldn't be immoral simply because it would be "unnatural."

 

A. The argument based on "natural = gOoD LOLzers!" is invalid as it rests upon a non sequitor. That which is natural doesn't necessarily imply good. That Chimpanzee's rape and kill the babies of competing tribe members so they can dominate and spread their DNA does not imply ought. That is merely a statement of what is. The only valid conclusion from nature is descriptive, not normative.

 

B. That which IS doesn't necessarlly imply ought. This is the Is/Ought fallacy. That X is done doesn't mean that X ought to be done. In the absense of any compelling reason why it ought to be done other than "it's natural and is the case" your argument may be dismissed as the broken-record sophistry it is.

 

C. Your argument fails because you contradict yourself and really don't care that you do it, since "logic" is a human contrivance. This problem with your post is self-evident.

 

D. Your argument fails because your facts are simply wrong half the time.

 

E. You contradict yourself every other paragraph. X is moral because it's natural. Yet, morality defined BY YOU really means to hold back natural tendencies. The only justification you give is "this ought to be because I say so." You artificially create a dichotomy between what is right for an insider and an outsider with no argument other than "some animals do it in nature, therefore we ought to as welll." Not very compelling.

 

E. You have demonstrated you have no concept of ethics and are ethically bankrupt, since you really see nothing wrong with rape, murder, and mindless violence, but then contradict yourself again by shifting goalposts.

 

 

For the audience, here's a perfect example of his sophistic doublethink.

Prior, he said that which is natural is moral. Now he says this:

 

I just have no need for bullshit like morality

 

1. He admits he has no need for morality, because it's bullshit. This makes no sense, his all his preveious argumentation has indeed been moral in nature. All his arguments, although invalidly based on an is----> ought reasoning, are based on moral reasoning of some form. This is evidenced by his claim that what is moral for him is what is natural and that what is seriously ought to be. Logically, this makes no sense. He's calling his own concept of morality bullshit.

 

Now that's all bullshit, he's self invalidated his own claims according to the logic of his new argument. You can obviously see that he doesn't have the mental capacity to at least make his arguments internally consistent.

 

If a human preys upon another human, I see that as a perfectly natural act. They're doing what they're programmed to do. But that's not going to be acceptable if they are going to live among our group, and benefit - so punishment is necessary. See...we really are just talking monkeys after all.

 

Let's see if the audience here can follow his warped illogic. Here you see he contradicts his above statement yet again. I reinterate what he said for your convenience.

 

1.

I just have no need for bullshit like morality

 

Not but a paragraph earlier, he claimed that he doesn't need bullshit like morality. If morality is bullshit, and morality is a code or tool of humanity to regulate conduct, then his statement that X would be "unacceptable" in Y is a normative statement, which is a moral statement, which is bullshit. He obviously doesn't take his own arguments seriously, so neither should you (in addition to the fact that he makes no sense).

 

2. Add this obvious self-invalidation to the notion that his actual arguments in favour of morality (which he now contradicts yet again) were based on natural = moral. Now we realize that's not what he actually believes, because he really means that:

 

A. Something is moral if it's natural and only if it's something that contributes to in-group cooperation.

 

B. But then he changes even the above criterion by really claiming there's nothing wrong with murder, rape, incest, and other things, becaues it's all natural!

 

C. Then he contradicts that statement again. Even though it's natural--perfectly natural---thus moral, it is still unacceptable, but only in an in-group setting. Then it becomes unacceptable. Again, he's making a new normative claim.

 

He's got so many contradictions I doubt he's even serious. It's obvious that he's trolling at this point. He's merely saying anything to rile people up here. Either that or he's been classified as retarded and is in special ed.

[ParanoiA]

Technorat

 

Wow, I've never met someone so thick. You are a perfect example of text book smarts with no common sense. I'm sorry you don't see the obvious partition between applying your silly "morals" to humans and applying them to the rest of the ecosystem. By all means, continue on with your circular logical patterns you worship so much. Ignore the obvious contradictions in nature and pretend you're above it all with your human wisdom.

 

You're completely obsessed with morality. You spend a thousand words to say something so simple. You complicate the uncomplicated. Typical of humans with too much time on their hands.

 

You also feel the need to insult to get your point across. I guess if your opinions don't have much weight that's probably all you have left. My opinions have been restated here time and again. The only troll in this room is the new guy with 9 posts but quite comfortably all settled in...hmmm. I suspect you're a banned poster that started a new account. And you're obviously picking up right where you left off, condemning yourself to exclusion once again.

 

I have nothing left to add on the subject. I prefer to debate with adults that can handle discussion without pissing all over themselves...silly talking monkey.

[ParanoiA]

Everybody else –

 

I just thought I’d go through some of these quotes so as not to appear disingenuous to the debate.

 

However, humans are both violent and selfish as well as altrustic and cooperative depending on the circumstances, both in in-group and out-group situations. Both are natural, so both should be entirely moral. However, your scenario only advocates and enforces one.

Notice how he actually typed out the difference while not noticing it. Whether or not it is moral DEPENDS on the circumstance. So, therefore, you cannot conclude that:

 

Each equally moral behaviour contradicts the other. So you have two totally different virtues or recomendations of what one ought to do that are mutually exclusive being both moral at the same time.

Of course they contradict. He’s removed the partition. What is acceptable out-group is NOT acceptable in-group. This is very fundamental psychology here. Notice his continued obsession with morality. Every statement equals or does not equal moral behavior. Weird.

 

There is no contextuality or situational ethics that can be derrived from the premises of your argument from nature. That which is moral isn't depending on the consequences of given situations, but whether or not something is merely natural. If it's natural, it fits the bill of being moral, regardless of what it is.

Notice how he concluded that I believe natural = moral, even though I never said it. I said what is natural = good. I’ve been consistent that morality is man made concept to cooperate in groups – I never said it was consistent or didn’t contradict itself. Of course it does, we are contradictory creatures. Nature contradicts itself too. Next he’s going to lecture mother nature on how illogical the ecosystem is.

 

 

Another problem is he’s fallen into is the Scholastic Fallacy trap. For those of you unfamiliar with this fallacy, it’s when you infer ignorant deductions from statements and build asinine logical conclusions from it – usually a result of too much scholastic worship. Here’s an example:

 

Rabbits ****ing dogs is not natural. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

1) Rabbits having sex with dogs is not wrong, therefore

2) interspecies sexuality is good

3) Technocrat is not wrong

 

So, basically Technocrat wants to have sex with rabbits and dogs.

 

Notice how he never said that, but I was able to build a little logical ladder to make it so. Actually it’s a bad example, but I didn’t have much to work with because Technocrat doesn’t offer many opinions of his own. Probably because he knows how easy it is to create a logical absurdity out of just about any statement made by just about anybody.

 

 

It's not good to apply any logic to your arguments, since they virtually make no sense. They aren't even internally consistent.

And yet he writes a short novel of a counter-post in honor of them. Gee…I haven’t threatened his intellect have I?

 

This argument fails on premise two as a normative argument because it treats an Is statement as an Ought statement.

Here’s the Scholastic Fallacy again. Only this time he proudly displays his ignorance by suggesting perhaps we ought not do what we’ve done for 5 million or so years. He thinks his professor would be proud of his inferred “Ought” from an “Is”, when in this case, an Ought inference would be correct. Yes, I believe we “Ought” to do what we’ve been doing for millions of years.

 

A. The argument based on "natural = gOoD LOLzers!" is invalid as it rests upon a non sequitor. That which is natural doesn't necessarily imply good. That Chimpanzee's rape and kill the babies of competing tribe members so they can dominate and spread their DNA does not imply ought. That is merely a statement of what is. The only valid conclusion from nature is descriptive, not normative.

Dominating and spreading their DNA “Ought” to be done. This is part of natural selection.

 

B. That which IS doesn't necessarlly imply ought. This is the Is/Ought fallacy. That X is done doesn't mean that X ought to be done. In the absense of any compelling reason why it ought to be done other than "it's natural and is the case" your argument may be dismissed as the broken-record sophistry it is.

 

He almost makes a point worth noting here, except the Is/Ought’s I put forth, actually Ought to be done.

 

C. Your argument fails because you contradict yourself and really don't care that you do it, since "logic" is a human contrivance. This problem with your post is self-evident.

Logic is also over-rated. Cherry picking is useful. I don’t want to have sex with every female on the planet. I just want to have sex with nice looking ones. That’s not logical. Sex with an ugly one might be better – and both results in reproduction. I’d rather not find out. I’ll let Technocrat have them since he’s so obsessed with being logically consistent.

 

D. Your argument fails because your facts are simply wrong half the time.

 

Facts? What facts did I present? I suppose I presented a couple throughout my opinion presentation. But he doesn’t list any, so I guess he just wanted to throw in another bullet.

 

E. You contradict yourself every other paragraph. X is moral because it's natural. Yet, morality defined BY YOU really means to hold back natural tendencies. The only justification you give is "this ought to be because I say so." You artificially create a dichotomy between what is right for an insider and an outsider with no argument other than "some animals do it in nature, therefore we ought to as welll." Not very compelling.

Again he’s a dog chasing his tail because he made an assumption based on the Scholastic Fallacy. It’s almost as fun watching him do it here as watching my dog in the back yard.

 

E. You have demonstrated you have no concept of ethics and are ethically bankrupt, since you really see nothing wrong with rape, murder, and mindless violence, but then contradict yourself again by shifting goalposts.

I never mentioned anything about right or wrong. Yet another mindless conclusion brought on by the Scholastic Fallacy. In case anyone is wondering, I like the cooperative in-group rules we have developed. I prefer my wife and children not be raped and killed. I also like my stuff and would prefer it not be stolen. I think those kinds of things are wrong. They are also natural. And natural = good. Not good for me, mind you, but good for the system. A system that arguably is responsible for our very existence. How stupid I would be to doubt it, or assume I'm more enlightened.

 

 

I would love to go on, but I have to get to work eventually.

[Skye]

Clearly naturalist ethics depart from logical ethics at some points. You can view this as either unnatural or illogical, depending on whether you think naturalism trumps logic or vice versa.

[Dr. Dalek]

Clearly naturalist ethics depart from logical ethics at some points. You can view this as either unnatural or illogical, depending on whether you think naturalism trumps logic or vice versa.

 

What if you apply Naturalistic Logic?

Then wouldn't the Logical morality seem illogical.

[In My Memory]

Paranoia,

However' date=' humans are both violent and selfish as well as altrustic and cooperative depending on the circumstances, both in in-group and out-group situations. Both are natural, so both should be entirely moral. However, your scenario only advocates and enforces one.[/quote']

Notice how he actually typed out the difference while not noticing it. Whether or not it is moral DEPENDS on the circumstance.

Paranoia, I see your reply to Technocrat as a kind of "I'm disagreeing with him just for the sake of disagreeing with him!"... I know that because in the last few posts, you've flipped between stating "good = natural" and "good = depends on circumstances". Technocrats analysis were a reply directly to your claim that good = natural, but you backtracked and said that you really meant good = depends on circumstances...

later in the same post, you're going to go back to good = natural because its the principle that just happens to disagree with Technocrat at the moment.

 

You probably dont realize that "good = natural" and "good = depends on circumstances" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but not necessarily mutually inclusive either. Some natural things have bad consequences, some unnatural things have beneficial consequences. For instance, wearing contact lenses is unnatural* but its also very benecial, but being out in the sun so long that you get a severe sunburn (or skin cancer over a long period of time) is a perfectly natural thing to happen but its not desirable.

 

* "Unnatural" really hasnt been defined yet. Neither has "natural". I havent heard anyone provide a definition, and I'm afraid no definition can actually provide a clear boundary for a moral decisions. So far, the only definitions I can think of for "natural" are:

 

- Consistent with the laws of physics. But then again, when you make objections to something, such as homosexuality or vegetarianism, you're not necessarily denying that homosexuality and vegetarianism are inconsistent with the laws of physics. (I'm just using homosexuality as a convenient example, because a lot of people like to say "oh nooos! homosexuality is wrong because it isnt natural!")

 

- Not manmade; existing in wildlife; opposite of artificial. But when people have objections to homosexuality and vegetarianism, they arent necessarily denying that those behaviors exist in the wild... so they cant be talking about that definition... but there are plenty of artificial things that are good, for instance plastic and (more abstractly) commerce are artificial and manmade, but they have their uses; and non-artificial things like hurricanes and fires are worth avoiding, they have negative value.

 

- Pertaining the intrinsic nature of a thing. This is really abstract, and I dont think the definition really applies to humans, because there are very few (or any) intrinsic characteristics that humans have. And by "intrinsic characteristic", I mean a characteristic for which a negation of that contradiction leads to an internal contradiction (i.e. the characteristic of being "shaped" is an intrinsic property of cubes, and denying that cubes are shaped is contradictory). However, eating meat or practicing heterosexuality are not a part of the intrinsic nature of human beings, because people can do that without any logical contradiction whatsoever.

 

- Consonant with the character of a thing. A little less abstract, you might say that its natural for people to do whats in their character, for instance its very natural for very jealous people to envy others possessions, and its very natural for heterosexuals to find other heterosexual partners. But, if its not obvious, talking about whats natural in this way in terms of the human species really doesnt make sense, because there are very few behavioral characteristics that describe humans as a whole. You cant say "its natural for people to eat meat", because it really isnt natural for every person (i.e. me and 600 million other vegetarians and vegans on the globe). Natural in this sense is intensely personal, so that it can be natural for one person to eat meat or be a heterosexual, and be natural for another person to be a vegan or a homosexual, and both peoples behavior would be consistent with the statement that its natural. Really, saying something "is natural" in this sense implies "is natural for him / her / it". Of course, if you try to use this definition as a moral principle, that peoples particular character and preferences determines the way that they should behave, then you run into problem like "its natural for anti-semites to despise Jews, so they ought to kill them", and you really dont have a basis for any moral claim at all.

 

 

Of course, let me explain something: if you say a behavior is wrong based on its circumstances, then you're talking about the circumstances. Stating that a behavior is natural or not doesnt automatically tell you whether the consequences are desirable, so the fact something is natural is just a red herring. Sure, you can debate all day about whats natural, but it would only be a distraction from the real debate over what the consequences for particular behaviors are.

 

So' date=' therefore, you cannot conclude that:

Each equally moral behaviour contradicts the other. So you have two totally different virtues or recomendations of what one ought to do that are mutually exclusive being both moral at the same time.

Of course they contradict. He’s removed the partition. What is acceptable out-group is NOT acceptable in-group. This is very fundamental psychology here.

I kinda wonder how you define "in-group" and "out-group". You belong to a lot of different groups: a race group, nationality group, species group, occupant in this quadrant of the galaxy group, member of a club, person who makes between X and Y dollars a year, a member of a specific language group, height above X but below Y group, occupant in your own body group, and infinitely many others.

 

It seems like for whatever moral rules people should follow, they can essentially justify any action so long as they say "they arent a member of my group". <---- yes, that is a part of human psychology, and you see it all the time in politics (i.e. a lot of conservatives in the US think its ok to kill Iraqi civilians, but thinks its intolerable for Iraqis to kill Americans in the same way, and racists justify their racism on the basis that they dont need to give moral consideration to non-members of their race group), but so far I havent seen you bridge the gap between psychology and what people ought to do. After all, every act of violence one person commits on another person is perfectly consistent with psychology and psychological expectations; for example, if Bob is a violent homophobe, then his psychological disposition will lead him to torture or murder homosexuals, probably because those homosexuals are "icky" and arent members of his sexuality group. I get the feeling that you're trying to say "the rules of psychology define the rules of morality", but then you paint yourself into a wall where you cant actually object to anything, because every persons behaviors (whether natural or not, violent or not) is perfectly consistent with their psychological dispositions.

 

To resolve that problem, you need to explain what you mean by a "in-group" and "out-group", and explain how we can identify whatever group we belong to in a non-arbitrary way. So far, in-group = human species has no more moral precendent than in-group = member of my race, they are arbitrarily selected groups.

 

Notice how he concluded that I believe natural = moral, even though I never said it. I said what is natural = good.

What? Maybe its because I tend to use moral and good interchangeably, but I dont see what the distinction is. Would you mind explaining it?

 

Of course it does, we are contradictory creatures. Nature contradicts itself too.

Not that this point was really worth singling out for comment, but most of your posts seem to involve a lot of odd redefinitions of common words. I could imagine inventing new words to describe concepts, but you're taking everyday words with an everyday meaning and trying to subtly redefine them into some kind of moral scheme. But then, when people misread you for having substituted a new definition in for a common word (like distinguishing between whats "moral" and whats "good"), you become frustrated that people cant reply to what you really intended rather than what they read at face value. For instance, I agree that people are contradictory, they have principles but are willing to break to them whenever they want... but I dont think that understanding of "contradictory" carries over to nature. I dont have the faintest clue what it means to say "nature contradicts itself too", and I cant really think a single example.

 

I can think of examples where nature behaves in ways which dont match our intuitional expectations, such as the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, or the way that a marshmellow and an anvil fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance), but I dont think thats what you mean. Its not very obvious what you mean when you say "nature contradicts itself".

 

Here’s the Scholastic Fallacy again. Only this time he proudly displays his ignorance by suggesting perhaps we ought not do what we’ve done for 5 million or so years (1). He thinks his professor would be proud of his inferred “Ought” from an “Is”, when in this case, an Ought inference would be correct (2). Yes, I believe we “Ought” to do what we’ve been doing for millions of years (3).

I've never heard of the scholastic fallacy, but in any case your comments are roughly categorical assertions without any justification behind them. Thats why Technocrat gets brownie points and you dont, because Technocrat writes short novels for posts that actually logically link his arguments together to form a coherent conclusion (although he could never match the length that my posts tend to reach ); on the other hand, you criticized Technocrat like this (I've numbered off your individual premises, and I'm laying them out in sequence):

(1) Technocrat says we ought not do something we've been doing for 5 million years.

(2) On the contrary, the ought is correct.

(3) Thats why I believe we ought to do something that we've done for 5 million years.

 

Thats an example of what we call circular logic: we ought to do what we've been doing for 5 million years because we ought to do it.... of course, I could forgive you for this really elementary fallacy, one that everyone has already heard of, and just presume that you didnt actually intend to present a structured and logically consistent counter-argument, but merely skipping to the chase and stating your final deductions... usually, thats acceptable, but only if you've already provided an argument, and you havent.

 

In fact, not only have not provided an actual argument that we should do what we've been doing for 5 million years, but you dont even seem to be aware of the actual lengthy philosophical tradition behind Technocrats comments that "an 'is' does not imply an 'ought'". Its something very basic called the is-ought problem which is discussed by Hume and (my favorite) G E Moore, and people who try to state that we ought to do by appeal to certain facts (i.e. that something is more evolved, or that people are selfish) commit whats called the naturalistic fallacy. I've personally seen a lot of discussions on this topic, but I still think Hume has the best explanation for why the distinction between and "is" and "ought" is really problematic in the first place:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions,

is

, and

is not

, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an

ought

, or an

ought not

. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. (Treatise of Human Nature: Book III, part I)

Basically, the "is" is just a descriptive statement about the universe, but by what process does it it transform into a prescriptive "ought"? And more importantly, how can you say one fact about nature is really something that we ought to do, rather than what we ought not do? For example, if someone tortures you for months on end, theres no doubt that you will be in a state of horrific suffering; so lets turn it into a moral question. The "is", or the fact in nature, is that you will suffer when someone tortures you, and the "ought" or "ought not" is the act of torture and bringing you in a state of suffering; how do justify attaching an "ought not" to that fact, rather than an "ought"? Or in another words, how do you say that fact you will suffer for being tortured implies that people shouldnt torture you, as opposed to that fact implying that they should torture you?

 

Its little questions like that which make the is-ought problem an actual problem. Theres no explanation for how a fact about nature transforms into a moral prescription, and theres no explanation for how we can say a fact about nature is what we should do rather than what we shouldnt (and vice versa).

 

But now theres other issues worth considering: you havent exactly explained why something being practiced for 5 million years takes moral precedence over something that only been practiced for 50 years. As far as I'm concerned, you're just committing another elemetary fallacy, an appeal to tradition, basically stating that something is morally obligatory as long as its been in place for a long time. Of course, I dont really see the argument that we should preserve the status quo. For instance you might say that we shouldnt genetically modify plants to make them produce a larger yield on the basis that we've never done that in the thousands of years we've been cultivating plants, but then how is that a counter-argument to the statement that we should genetically modify plants on the basis that its something we've never done before? For every appeal to tradition, theres an appeal to novelty, and without further enumeration of moral principles, theres no way to resolve the dispute between doing things the old way or doing them in novel ways. And so you cant justify anything at all by the principles you've stated.

 

Dominating and spreading their DNA “Ought” to be done. This is part of natural selection.

*sigh* Evolution isnt a moral theory. Its a purely descriptive theory that explains diversity in the world. Its just like everything other descriptive theory like Relativity, Plate Techtonics, and Germ Theory. Natural selection says nothing about what people "ought" to do...

... unless you're just redefining the word "ought":

 

- If by "ought", you mean "a proposition that must obtain to achieve another proposition", then you're basically right, natural selection does state that beings must dominate and spread their DNA before the laws of natural selection can carry out. In this way, the word "ought" really means "something that enables something else to happen". But then, this is just a trivial, and probably even weasley definition of "ought", and the statement that beings must spread their DNA to be affected by the laws of natural selection is trivially true. Its also trivially true that, for you to be in a state of suffering, that some someone must kidnap you and torture you (i.e. the proposition that you are suffering doesnt obtain unless someone kidnaps and tortures you, so they "ought" to kidnap and torture you to make you suffer). Its also trivially true that you dont usually become poisoned without drinking something poisonous, so you ought to drink something poisonous in order to poison yourself. Its also trivially true that the 3 sides of a triangle need to meet at certain angles and be of certain lengths to be called a "right triangle". Its also trivially true that

 

That kind of "ought" is just descriptive and only makes descriptive utterances about the universe.

 

- If by "ought", you mean something that corresponds to an obligation or duty, in the sense moral right and wrong, then natural selection says nothing of the sort. Its not alive, its not corporeal, its not even a set of rules inscribed in the fabric of the universe, and it doesnt care whether we propagate our genes or not. Of course, you havent actually explained by propagating our genes is a good thing in the first place, and you havent explained why letting your species go extinct is a bad thing; Why ought we propagate our genes, as opposed to the competing propositin that we ought not? On what basis can you prefer the statement "progation is good and extinction is bad" over the competing statement "extinction is good and propagation is bad"? You havent stated that its even possible in principle, you only stated it categorically with no further justification.

 

Logic is also over-rated. Cherry picking is useful. I don’t want to have sex with every female on the planet. I just want to have sex with nice looking ones. That’s not logical. Sex with an ugly one might be better – and both results in reproduction. I’d rather not find out. I’ll let Technocrat have them since he’s so obsessed with being logically consistent.

This has got to be one of the top 10 most bizarre comments I've ever read in my life...

 

ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU RAILED ON TECHNOCRAT JUST TWO SECONDS AGO FOR DERIVING NONSENSE CONCLUSIONS..

 

Dont you remember the scholastic fallacy? Dont you remember "1) Rabbits having sex with dogs is not wrong, therefore 2) interspecies sexuality is good 3) Technocrat is not wrong"? What was the point of even making that comment in the first place if logic is overrated? What is the point of stating that Technocrat's conclusions "proudly display his ignorance" if logic is overrated?

 

On the one hand, you railed against Technocrats nonsense arguments and nonsense conclusions, because they were logically fallacious --- that is, they didnt conform to the rules of valid logical deductio and induction... on the other hand, you think logic is overrated...

 

... I'm sure you could see the glaring contradiction between your two different attitudes, but it probably doesnt matter because you've practically admitted that you are unlike Technocrat and others who are so obsessed with logical consistency.

 

 

 

Alright Paranoia, I generally like your posts, but you have to admit, theres so much lingual gymnastics, so many vague and undefined terms, and so much internal inconsistency that it would make any normal person shake in a fit of cognitive dissonance. In the end, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree with my analysis, you havent really thought of morality at all or know a great deal about the topic. Probably, you just dont concern yourself with those kinds of thoughts because, "hey, I like where I'm at", you just arent affected when someone else is tortured and killed. Things are justified because you like them, but mind you if you ever met a person who would very much like to torture and kill you for their own pleasure, you would consider such a person a vile monster. But then again, that kind of thinking is too close to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but you can safely ignore it as long as you dont need to worry about being morally consistent.

 

Of course, I'd really wonder why you'd object to anything at all; sure, someone could agree with you that natural = good, but they could also agree with you that they dont need to be morally consistent and they could destroy natural things to their hearts content. And you wouldnt be able to level and objection to that kind of behavior.

 

So far, I've liked Technocrats posts, his analysis are spot on and (enviably) much more succinct than mine. Please dont take this as a personal insult, but your objections have been infantile.

[In My Memory]

Completely off topic:

 

Number of posts I've contributed to this thread: 15

Average number of characters per post: 9605

Total number of characters (without spaces): 144079

 

Total number of printed pages (1" margins, Times New Roman, 12pt): 62

 

*** IMM scampers off to find a life... ***

[GutZ]

IMM You should write a book on animal rights, you have enough material from this forum alone, maybe even in that last post...Kinda scary.

 

I am just going to flip a coin it see if I agree with you or not...heads I agree, Tails I disagree.......tails.

 

Crap fine...I have a questions then.

 

What characterisitics of a nervous system give legitimate superiority over other entities in our existence? If we are talking consistency here. I'd just like to know why the consistency stops at "feelers".

 

Also if we didn't hold ourselves as more valuable (Assume damn it!) then "X" yet we still continued our "killing/torturing" (/opera voice - consistency!) would that be ok? If we tested on humans and animals. Then it becomes more a question of if these actions are wrong, even though they have benefits. Like if we use one rabbit to save thousands of rabbits, and we use one human to save thousands of humans, wouldn't that be ok? Individuality would get in the way I guess...

[ParanoiA]

IMM-

 

First of all, you're abusing the red herring. I'm calling ALF on you...

 

I don't have the drive to match your post, you have defeated me. That said, I will close with a last ditch recap.

 

I think it's important to understand that the explanation of human behavior lies in nature, yet people throw up their hands in disgust at each other without any capacity of forgiveness, apparently not realizing that the deck is actually stacked against us. Any "decent" and "desirable" behavior out of us, had to overcome a long list of despicable impulses that we were BORN with. I don't think we give each other any credit for that.

 

Whether or not a consequence is desirable depends on the structure of the group. A particular action can be good for nature, bad for the group. Like death. It sucks for members of the group to die - for the group. But it's great for nature, necessary to continue it's cycle. That's all I have really said. And yet paragraphs of asinine analysis by both of you have clouded this quite basic summary of reality. It doesn't really matter if you agree or not, that's simply the way it is.

 

The main point I was making about the groups was that they are a natural product of pack behavior and therefore fit in my naturalist point of view. It doesn't really matter what group you're referring to at any point in time, your cooperation within them is a natural thing, therefore suspending despicable behavior within it, while commiting these same acts outside of them fits my unpopular point of view.

 

But it's not perfect, there are still contradictions with my perspective, I admit that. But it still makes far more sense to me than a rigid logical flowchart where every action I take or don't take has to be thought to it's most logical ends creating a bland, sterile - quite unnatural - existence. I can't accept that.

 

Some quick notes:

 

We ought to do what we've done for 5 million years because apparently it worked or we wouldn't be here referring to stuff we did 5 million years ago. I didn't make that clear the first time, apparently.

 

There's no such thing as the Scholastic Fallacy, I made it up. I was demonstrating his absurdity by being absurd. Rhino and I got a kick out of it.

 

I know about the Is-Ought, and I disagree with it's application. I think you can infer an Ought from an Is in the right application. Just like I disagree with the Naturalistic Fallacy. Those that use these terms seem to have been "taught" these concepts. I challenge these concepts at their base. If you didn't accept these supposed fallacies soley because professor so-and-so told you so, then you should be able to argue their merit successfully.

 

I haven't redefined any words. The words in question are subjective and you just don't agree with it.

 

Morality: Purely subjective. I said morality is a man-made construct. We invented morality via in-group, out-group pack behavior. It promotes a certain kind of behavior by deeming things right and wrong. I haven't redefined it's meaning whatsoever. I said what it does, not what it means.

 

Good: Purely subjective. I can define good however I want. You've read the naturallistic fallacy so you should already know this. I think natural = good. I haven't redefined it's meaning whatsoever. This is the biggest misunderstanding I've seen in this post. Maybe I should have said, natural behavior = good. Whatever, seems quite simple to me. I make this conclusion from the perspective of the universe, not myself. And partly because it seems conceited, and naive to think my silly human logic is somehow better than the very processes that created it.

 

I think you've boxed yourself in with logic. I never said logic was useless, I said it was overrated. I believe very strongly in logic. After all, I'm a logic minded person. Center brained, strong in math, patterns, analysis. Typical dull hippie type. I've found there's a limit to logic. Not everything is logical. I tried to explain that and it just flew past you. Not everything we do is logical and not everything we do needs to be logical. That seems to be hard for you to accept. Balance. It would be worth your while to think on that. Maybe you wouldn't hate the human race so much.

 

Other than that, I'm done with this thread. These concepts will come up again, I'm sure so we'll be able to go at it again.

[gcol]

[quote=In My Memory;

 

IMM scampers off to find a life...

 

Bye bye, have a nice long journey.....