Philosophy: books and discussion

[troymc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Your ethical common sense is, I fear, rather like the cartoon dog who, having overshot the lip of the cliff, keeps running. Post-Christian ethics, in so far as it sidesteps the objections of Sade and Dostoevsky, is running on empty. Thus it is that many of the 'new atheist' theorists are unable to see quite how difficult their position is: AC Grayling is a case in point. They seem to believe that they can have the Christian ethic without the Christianity. I'm not convinced that you can.

Maybe I'm being misled by your continual use of "Christianity", and you are using that term in a more general sense.

I would argue, and I doubt anyone would deny, that ethics existed long before Christianity. I would also argue, and I also believe that few would deny, that the Christian moral framework is largely based on pre-Christian ideals.

Would you argue either of those propositions?

If not, how would you argue that ethics could exist pre-Christian, but not post-Christian?


Troy

[troymc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

What's niggling me is that we haven't pinned down what ethics/morality actually is - it seems to have been shape shifting throughout this thread. Or, more likely, I just haven't understood what's been going on.

Originally Posted by TGS

That's a very good point and I think part of the "dispute" of the thread relates to just that.
...
It seems to me that there has been a fair amount of talking at cross-purposes simply because different people have implicitly adopted one or other of these positions and someone else responded from a different position, and neither have been explicit about the position they are coming from.

I agree. I've noticed some conflation of the idea of a moral concept with the moral value associated with it. A item may or may not have a specific quality of color, and that quality may have a specific value - red/blue/green. In the same vein, an action may or may not have a moral quality, and the value of that moral quality may vary - good/bad.

1) I walk over and pick an apple from a tree.
2) I walk over and pick up your money from your desk.

Both actions are physically identical - but the 2nd one has a moral quality to it. The moral value [good/bad] associated with it differs depending upon a culture's underlying value system. eg. Native American cultures did not even have a concept of "personal property", while most modern cultures do and would consider it "theft" therefore "bad".


Troy

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TGS

That's a very good point and I think part of the "dispute" of the thread relates to just that.

Here's a quote from SEP:

It seems to me that there has been a fair amount of talking at cross-purposes simply because different people have implicitly adopted one or other of these positions and someone else responded from a different position, and neither have been explicit about the position they are coming from.

Very good point. In addition there are people who believe that ethics is a subset of aesthetics; those who believe that truth is beauty, if I may be allowed an over-simplification for sake of brevity.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by troymc

... eg. Native American cultures did not even have a concept of "personal property", while most modern cultures do and would consider it "theft" therefore "bad".


Troy

Yeah like book pirates.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yeah like book pirates.

Don't you start!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Don't you start!

Hee-Hee......

[TGS]

So, here are some proposition and some questions about them which are intended to flush out some of the issues embedded in the previous conversation:

1) Humans have moral responsibilities towards non-human animals,

2) non-human animals have moral responsibilities towards humans.

3) non-human animals have moral responsibilities to other non-human animals but not to humans

If 1) is true, in virtue of what do those responsibilities arise, and what are they?
If 1) is not true, why not?
If 2) is true, in virtue of what do those responsibilities arise, and what are they?
If 2) is not true, why not?
If 3) is true how is the scope of non-human animal's moral responsibility determined?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

So, here are some proposition and some questions about them which are intended to flush out some of the issues embedded in the previous conversation:

1) Humans have moral responsibilities towards non-human animals,

2) non-human animals have moral responsibilities towards humans.

3) non-human animals have moral responsibilities to other non-human animals but not to humans

Are 'moral responsibilities' the obligation to consider the effects of our actions on the well-being of others?

If so, then I think all creatures should accept their moral responsibility to others to the best of their abilities (something I fall short of doing myself ).

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Are 'moral responsibilities' the obligation to consider the effects of our actions on the well-being of others?

I don't know - are they?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

I don't know - are they?

Yes they are.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yes they are.

Is that all they are?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TGS

So, here are some proposition and some questions about them which are intended to flush out some of the issues embedded in the previous conversation:

1) Humans have moral responsibilities towards non-human animals,

2) non-human animals have moral responsibilities towards humans.

3) non-human animals have moral responsibilities to other non-human animals but not to humans

If 1) is true, in virtue of what do those responsibilities arise, and what are they?
If 1) is not true, why not?
If 2) is true, in virtue of what do those responsibilities arise, and what are they?
If 2) is not true, why not?
If 3) is true how is the scope of non-human animal's moral responsibility determined?

I think all animals are responsible to obey act in ways consistent with the development of their moral sense. As our ability to empathize grows, our responsibility increases. A child playing outside may not be responsible for wantonly stepping on ants until he or she becomes aware that ants suffer pain. After becoming aware, say, after an adult makes them think about their actions by saying, "How would you like it if someone stepped on you?", their moral sense expands, and thus their responsibility expands. An animal acting upon instinct alone has no such responsibilities until it learns them.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

Is that all they are?

Yes, I think I can assume so. I can't think of anything else of importance they could be - and this should be sufficient to stop wanton puppy chucking, so it's enough to be going on with.

[TGS]

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but in a way I'm trying to address Sparrow's concern that the discussion hasn't bottomed out what it's talking about - so I'll persist for a bit.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I think all animals are responsible to obey act in ways consistent with the development of their moral sense. As our ability to empathize grows, our responsibility increases. A child playing outside may not be responsible for wantonly stepping on ants until he or she becomes aware that ants suffer pain. After becoming aware, say, after an adult makes them think about their actions by saying, "How would you like it if someone stepped on you?", their moral sense expands, and thus their responsibility expands. An animal acting upon instinct alone has no such responsibilities until it learns them.

If I understand this right you are saying that there is a link between "moral responsibility" and an animal's (we'll leave other non-animate beings out of it for the moment eh?), capacity to understand the impact of its action on another being - if an animal has no understanding of that impact then they cannot be held morally responsible?

Let's use your example - once the kid "knows" that stepping on ants causes them, the ants, to feel pain the kid has a moral responsibility to...
not deliberately step on ants?
take care not to accidentally step on ants?
make adjustments to their life so as to virtually guarantee that they will not step on ants?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yes, I think I can assume so. I can't think of anything else of importance they could be - and this should be sufficient to stop wanton puppy chucking, so it's enough to be going on with.

But if that's all they are how will that stop puppy chucking? So long as I've considered the impact of my action on the puppy (presumably it's not the Hell's Angels we're talking about here), then I seem to have met my obligation, and discharged my moral responsibility. Is whether or not I go on to chuck the puppy not important?