How Far is "Too Far?"

[Cwckifan]

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm, everything else just flows logically from there
. Really, have differing opinions if you want, but the beauty of fundamentals is that their strength isn't reliant upon them

Actually... no, ethics is very different from just not causing harm. It's alm ost entirely equivalent to a system of moral values.

Well you can make the argument that it covers helping people and punishment, too, but It's mostly about treating others well

And even assuming ethics is not causing harm, imprisonment causes harm. The
way you justify imprisonment is that, while it causes harm, it's still necessary for the greater good. The greater good is extremely debatable.

No, my 'justification' for prison is that It's a fitting place to hold people who can't live without hurting others, because once you cause harm to another, you lose your right to have your will respected. I don't buy that 'greater good' crap, and care more for individual liberty and rights

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm

Uh, are you kidding? That's pure opinion right there. And you are assuming we all agree with your opinion.

First of all, there are plenty of worldviews and cultures that say structured suffering and pain are positive things, because they are integral to a person developing strength and fortitude. If a teacher chastises a student for doing poorly on their work and the student cries, is the teacher wrong for "harming" the student's feelings? What about a boxing or martial arts trainer who doesn't pull his punches because it's an effective way to teach his student to take dodging/defending himself seriously? Is that wrong? People can be "harmed" through all manner of circumstances in life, but sometimes you need a good kick in the ass to get yourself moving. I don't claim that to be objectively true, it's my opinion - but go ahead, prove my opinion is less valid than yours.

Secondly, how exactly do you define harm? Assuming all people agree with you on being opposed to "harming others" is bad enough, but you haven't even defined what you're talking about.

Thirdly, "ethics" is not purely about treating others the "right" way. Ethics are a code of rules that you choose to live by. What those rules are about - that doesn't matter. Maybe the only rule you have in life is to eat as many sausages as possible, and you will swindle, steal, and even kill to fulfill your desire to obtain as much sausage as possible - but that is still your ethical code. I think a porcinocentric ethical code is a pretty shitty one, but I can't deny that it is an ethical code.

Fourthly, even if you could argue ethics are about treating others right, who exactly would you define as being deserving of such "right" treatment? Unless you were raised as a strict vegan, I bet you've eaten plenty of animals in your time. Are animals deserving of right treatment, or no? Is it only sapients like people? And if animals are deserving of right treatment and you've eaten some in your past, to what end do ethics require you to go to make restitution for your previous wrong acts? If you kill a person we send you to prison. Does a man who commits porcinocide in his obsessive pursuit of sausage deserve prison? What of the man who kills a pig only to fill his starving belly in an emergency?

 

[Cwckifan]

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm

Uh, are you kidding? That's pure opinion right there. And you are assuming we all agree with your opinion.

Admittedly, that might've been a little premature. So, let's go on...

First of all, there are plenty of worldviews and cultures that say structured suffering and pain are positive things, because they are integral to a person developing strength and fortitude. If a teacher chastises a student for doing poorly on their work and the student cries, is the teacher wrong for "harming" the student's feelings? What about a boxing or martial arts trainer who doesn't pull his punches because it's an effective way to teach his student to take dodging/defending himself seriously? Is that wrong? People can be "harmed" through all manner of circumstances in life, but sometimes you need a good kick in the ass to get yourself moving. I don't claim that to be objectively true, it's my opinion - but go ahead, prove my opinion is less valid than yours.

Honestly, I can't see how your opinion (from what I understand it to be) of 'it's sometimes okay to hurt innocent beings' is better than mine of 'it's never okay to hurt innocent beings'. I'm not here to here to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, however, so let's call them equal in their status as opinions.
Basically, even in your examples of where pain and suffering are seen as positive things, there is still an agreement that the treatment is 'good' because it has the effect of causing the individual to suffer less harm later, because they are suffering more now. Admittedly, I see this type of treatment as highly unethical, but an intention to ultimately reduce suffering is still there. I mean really, are there any philosophies (practiced on a mass scale) which advocate to fully eliminate the ability of an individual (or group)to cope with life's difficulties, with absolutely no benefit to themselves, or others? Genocide is one, but no sane person would consider that ethical (provided the race in question wasn't actively attacking, of course). Also, regarding the teacher and martial arts instructor, the primary issue there is consent, which basically renders the notion of any harm moot. The students both know what they're getting into, and thus have agreed to take some form of damage in exchange for training. Of course, if neither individuals consented to their treatment, then yes, both teachers would be deeply in the wrong.

Secondly, how exactly do you define harm? Assuming all people agree with you on being opposed to "harming others" is bad enough, but you haven't even defined what you're talking about.

Harm (as I perhaps should have made more clear in my long-ass ethical code), is basically any (non-consensual) action done by something to something, which has the effect of suppressing its ability to avoid death and cope with personal expense in a way that it would like to, (obviously I'm talking about all things which have a will). Basically, it means indirectly or directly acting on (a) non-consenting being(s) in a way that causes any loss of, or damage to, one's property, money, employment, reputation, physical health, mental health, emotional health, or any other resource a being needs to avoid death, and/or cope with personal expense in a way that they find desirable.It should be noted that 'personal expense' basically relates to any resource needed to cope with the difficulties in one's life, and not necessarily monetary obligations

Thirdly, "ethics" is not purely about treating others the "right" way. Ethics are a code of rules that you choose to live by. What those rules are about - that doesn't matter. Maybe the only rule you have in life is to eat as many sausages as possible, and you will swindle, steal, and even kill to fulfill your desire to obtain as much sausage as possible - but that is still your ethical code. I think a porcinocentric ethical code is a pretty shitty one, but I can't deny that it is an ethical code.

Fair enough. I'm going off of what I was told by a philosophy professor, so I'm open to that definition

Fourthly, even if you could argue ethics are about treating others right, who exactly would you define as being deserving of such "right" treatment? Unless you were raised as a strict vegan, I bet you've eaten plenty of animals in your time. Are animals deserving of right treatment, or no? Is it only sapients like people? And if animals are deserving of right treatment and you've eaten some in your past, to what end do ethics require you to go to make restitution for your previous wrong acts? If you kill a person we send you to prison. Does a man who commits porcinocide in his obsessive pursuit of sausage deserve prison? What of the man who kills a pig only to fill his starving belly in an emergency?

As I also mentioned in my long-ass ethics post, everything which has a will is deserving of being treated 'right', since we are all equal in our need to survive and cope with expense, and our desire to do so in a way that we find pleasing. To this effect, there is no ethical grounds by which you can suppress the ability of a being with a will to do that. Accordingly, basically everything which has an ability to want things is entitled to be left to pursue these wants in a way that they enjoy, provided it is not harming anyone else and is minding its own business. To this end, I do consider hunting and fishing to be unethical (except in cases of survival of course, but even then... :? ), and no, I don't do either. I see no problem with eating meat, however, since I am not responsible for the deaths of those beings, and there's nothing I could've done to prevent them. I consider it no more unethical than eating roadkill, and perceive the statement 'is it ethical to eat meat?' to be the same as 'is it ethical to chew one's nails?'. If I'm not responsible for the animals death, I have no qualms about consuming its remains.
Regarding the porcinocide thing, though I see slaughter as unethical, I do accept that it is a 'necessary evil'. However, if that pig was someone's pet, then that person absolutely deserves punishment.

 

[Holdek]

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm, everything else just flows logically from there
. Really, have differing opinions if you want, but the beauty of fundamentals is that their strength isn't reliant upon them

I don't intend for this to be insulting, but how old are you/what level of school have you completed? This can be a hairy subject to get into and I want to make sure it's worth my while, and you have claimed to achieved a feat that no one, going back to and including Aristotle, has managed to do so far.

 

[Cwckifan]

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm, everything else just flows logically from there
. Really, have differing opinions if you want, but the beauty of fundamentals is that their strength isn't reliant upon them

I don't intend for this to be insulting, but how old are you/what level of school have you completed? This can be a hairy subject to get into and I want to make sure it's worth my while, and you have claimed to achieved a feat that no one, going back to and including Aristotle, has managed to do so far.

For what It's worth, what difference does it make? I'm a grown-up, Holodek, and if you want to critique my philosophy, I'm not going to throw myself on the floor and tantrum. Hell, since this is the code I often follow, any improvements would only be met with open arms. After all, anything to make everything better for everyone, right?

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Honestly, I can't see how your opinion (from what I understand it to be) of 'it's sometimes okay to hurt innocent beings' is better than mine of 'it's never okay to hurt innocent beings'.

Once again, you assume. When did I ever say the word "innocent"? And how would you define "innocent"?

Accordingly, basically everything which has an ability to want things is entitled to be left to pursue these wants in a way that they enjoy, provided it is not harming anyone else and is minding its own business.

You can't just leave everything that has a will free to pursue it's heart's content uninhibited without running into problems, though. Sometimes two beings want the same thing, and they can't both have it. Is denying a being the thing it wants better than denying it the chance to pursue it? And where would the line be drawn?

I see no problem with eating meat, however, since I am not responsible for the deaths of those beings, and there's nothing I could've done to prevent them. I consider it no more unethical than eating roadkill, and perceive the statement 'is it ethical to eat meat?' to be the same as 'is it ethical to chew one's nails?'. If I'm not responsible for the animals death, I have no qualms about consuming its remains.

You can't really divorce yourself from the parts of a concept you don't like, though. If you eat a burger or whatever, you are generating demand for that kind of meat. You may be just one person, but that's no excuse to throw your hands up and declare "not my problem". The meat industry didn't kill and package a cow just because they were bored, they did it because they knew you would buy their product. They did it for you. You eat meat, you are a part of every facet of the system that produced that meat.

Regarding the porcinocide thing, though I see slaughter as unethical, I do accept that it is a 'necessary evil'. However, if that pig was someone's pet, then that person absolutely deserves punishment.

So you make a value judgment then: that humans deserve right treatment, but animals on their own do not. There are many who would call your ethics flawed.

 

[DangDirtyTrolls]

For what It's worth, what difference does it make? I'm a grown-up, Holodek, and if you want to critique my philosophy, I'm not going to throw myself on the floor and tantrum. Hell, since this is the code I often follow, any improvements would only be met with open arms. After all, anything to make everything better for everyone, right?

I'm sure no offence is meant but it is very unusual to find someone who has given serious thought to the matter and concluded that there is an objectively correct system of ethics.

 

[Cwckifan]

Honestly, I can't see how your opinion (from what I understand it to be) of 'it's sometimes okay to hurt innocent beings' is better than mine of 'it's never okay to hurt innocent beings'.

Once again, you assume. When did I ever say the word "innocent"? And how would you define "innocent"?

Alec, didn't you say "People can be "harmed" through all manner of circumstances in life, but sometimes you need a good kick in the ass to get yourself moving."? That certainly sounds like you think it's okay to potentially harm others if you think it'll benefit them, especially considering that you never addressed the issue of consent. If someone is minding their own business and not acting on anyone, then they're 'innocent', and are thus entitled to have their will of not being acted upon respected. Really, if someone doesn't want a 'kick in the ass', and they're leaving others alone, then regardless of what benefit you think it might have, it's only ethical to oblige their request

Accordingly, basically everything which has an ability to want things is entitled to be left to pursue these wants in a way that they enjoy, provided it is not harming anyone else and is minding its own business.

You can't just leave everything that has a will free to pursue it's heart's content uninhibited without running into problems, though. Sometimes two beings want the same thing, and they can't both have it

If two beings want the same thing and it absolutely cannot be shared, then--assuming it doesn't belong to either of them or anyone else--they're free to pursue it however they want (so far as they're not directly or indirectly suppressing the ability of the other to do so, of course), and whoever gets it first is entitled to have it.

Is denying a being the thing it wants better than denying it the chance to pursue it? And where would the line be drawn?

If it has the effect of suppressing one's desire to live and cope as they please, then assuming it's not a consequence of a conditional exchange (a job, being on a team, or any other service one has willingly and knowingly offered to provide (and set of rules one has willingly and knowingly offered to follow) in exchange for (a) resource(s), then it is unethical. The same goes for denying a chance, provided the being in question knew of the chance, and wanted to pursue it

I see no problem with eating meat, however, since I am not responsible for the deaths of those beings, and there's nothing I could've done to prevent them. I consider it no more unethical than eating roadkill, and perceive the statement 'is it ethical to eat meat?' to be the same as 'is it ethical to chew one's nails?'. If I'm not responsible for the animals death, I have no qualms about consuming its remains.

You can't really divorce yourself from the parts of a concept you don't like, though. If you eat a burger or whatever, you are generating demand for that kind of meat. You may be just one person, but that's no excuse to throw your MANOS up and declare "not my problem".

Sure it is! Specifically because even if I stopped eating meat tomorrow, that wouldn't stop the demand of billions of other people worldwide who would still want it. I have absolutely no control over their actions, and (unless those millions of pounds of meat are being produced specifically for me), no meaningful effect on the supply and demand of mass markets, so it really isn't my problem. Hell, that's precisely why I don't buy meat directly from small-scale local farmers (only eggs and dairy), where my input really does matter

Regarding the porcinocide thing, though I see slaughter as unethical, I do accept that it is a 'necessary evil'. However, if that pig was someone's pet, then that person absolutely deserves punishment.

So you make a value judgment then: that humans deserve right treatment, but animals on their own do not. There are many who would call your ethics flawed.

Huh? Where did you get that from? If you look at my above philosophy, I do believe that everything which has a will is entitled to have it respected. I accept that we kill others for food, in that I'm not going to agonize over it, much like how you don't agonize over every daily murder, rape, and robbery. Nevertheless, I do not condone it, and do not engage in it myself. Really, I think that killing for food is a 'necessary evil', in the same way that stealing someone's wallet because you desperately need gas money for your car is a 'necessary evil'; neither is ethical or 'right', yet I've accepted that it's a bad thing that happens because until lab-grown meat is perfected and made widely available , we all have to get our animal protein from somewhere. That doesn't make it right, however, and it doesn't mean that we 'deserve' life more than anything else that wants to live

For what It's worth, what difference does it make? I'm a grown-up, Holodek, and if you want to critique my philosophy, I'm not going to throw myself on the floor and tantrum. Hell, since this is the code I often follow, any improvements would only be met with open arms. After all, anything to make everything better for everyone, right?

I'm sure no offence is meant but it is very unusual to find someone who has given serious thought to the matter and concluded that there is an objectively correct system of ethics.

To overthink is Human and non-Human, I say

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

You can't really divorce yourself from the parts of a concept you don't like, though. If you eat a burger or whatever, you are generating demand for that kind of meat. You may be just one person, but that's no excuse to throw your MANOS up and declare "not my problem".

Sure it is! Specifically because even if I stopped eating meat tomorrow, that wouldn't stop the demand of billions of other people worldwide who would still want it. I have absolutely no control over their actions, and (unless those millions of pounds of meat are being produced specifically for me), no meaningful effect on the supply and demand of mass markets, so it really isn't my problem.

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

 

[Cwckifan]

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

How so? I would be concerned that doing so would deprive the family of property, or slow a formal investigation. No such consequences for dead meat that'd be thrown away if it wasn't eaten

 

[teheviltwin]

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

How so? I would be concerned that doing so would deprive the family of property, or slow a formal investigation. No such consequences for dead meat that'd be thrown away if it wasn't eaten

Do you take into account how the animals are treated whilst alive? Or how humane the slaughter is? Do you feel the same way about dairy?

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

How so? I would be concerned that doing so would deprive the family of property, or slow a formal investigation. No such consequences for dead meat that'd be thrown away if it wasn't eaten

What I mean is, you're assuming that you are not obligated to take any further steps to stop something even if you think it's wrong. You choose to just walk away from the ugly parts of the meat industry. Other people would say you're not doing enough. There are plenty of people who actively campaign to change the meat industry's behavior, or even get rid of meat altogether if they feel that all meat-eating is bad.

But ultimately, my point has already been made by the simple fact that I presented so many disagreements to you - that ethics are not universal, and you can't assume we "all agree" to some things no matter how normal you think they should be.

 

[Cwckifan]

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

How so? I would be concerned that doing so would deprive the family of property, or slow a formal investigation. No such consequences for dead meat that'd be thrown away if it wasn't eaten

Do you take into account how the animals are treated whilst alive? Or how humane the slaughter is? Do you feel the same way about dairy?

Of course! I am absolutely against any kind of CAFO-like raising, and believe that if livestock slaughter absolutely must be done (which I don't think it should), it should be done humanely (pastured and fed its natural diet) with as little harm to the livestock as possible (the same holds true for dairy farming). For this reason, I do support my local farmers, although I have no qualms about eating CAFO-raised livestock

 

[teheviltwin]

Of course! I am absolutely against any kind of CAFO-like raising, and believe that if livestock slaughter absolutely must be done (which I don't think it should), it should be done humanely (pastured and fed its natural diet) with as little harm to the livestock as possible (the same holds true for dairy farming). For this reason, I do support my local farmers, although I have no qualms about eating CAFO-raised livestock

It just seems a bit odd. I mean in the dairy industry you get so many male calves killed and carcasses thrown away because veal isn't popular. I have vegan and vegetarian family and I don't get the ethics in this. I am an omnivore, I eat meat and I would have no problem killing my own meat as long as I was shown how to do it quickly and effectively. I object to animals being mistreated and killed in an inhumane fashion so I don't eat that meat (including halal etc.)


But then I believe that there are far too many humans around these days and we do harm just by existing. On the upside, the more overcrowding there is the faster viruses mutate and the next serious flu pandemic should even things out some.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

But then I believe that there are far too many humans around these days and we do harm just by existing.

That's exactly right. Like I said, you can't just up and declare "not my problem" and magically make it true. You impact the world just by existing. You can't say "well, someone made the burger already, guess I'll eat it" as if you aren't imparting some effect on the world around you with your choice.

 

[Cwckifan]

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

How so? I would be concerned that doing so would deprive the family of property, or slow a formal investigation. No such consequences for dead meat that'd be thrown away if it wasn't eaten

What I mean is, you're assuming that you are not obligated to take any further steps to stop something even if you think it's wrong. You choose to just walk away from the ugly parts of the meat industry. Other people would say you're not doing enough. There are plenty of people who actively campaign to change the meat industry's behavior, or even get rid of meat altogether if they feel that all meat-eating is bad.

But ultimately, my point has already been made by the simple fact that I presented so many disagreements to you - that ethics are not universal, and you can't assume we "all agree" to some things no matter how normal you think they should be.

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

How so? I would be concerned that doing so would deprive the family of property, or slow a formal investigation. No such consequences for dead meat that'd be thrown away if it wasn't eaten

What I mean is, you're assuming that you are not obligated to take any further steps to stop something even if you think it's wrong. You choose to just walk away from the ugly parts of the meat industry. Other people would say you're not doing enough. There are plenty of people who actively campaign to change the meat industry's behavior, or even get rid of meat altogether if they feel that all meat-eating is bad.
[/quote]
Because ultimately, I'm not. Hell, nobody is, really. As I already mentioned in my long ethics post, since we all have our own problems to worry about, and a preferred way we'd like to solve them, we are under no obligation to use our resources to solve problems that aren't our own. I agree that doing so is venerable and highly laudable, and believe that everyone should help whenever they can. That doesn't change the fact that forcing people to give their resources to problems they had no hand in creating (especially considering they are minding their business,and have their own problems to worry about) is the very definition of unethical. Really, it's the very essence of violent crime, and a slippery slope to tyranny.

But ultimately, my point has already been made by the simple fact that I presented so many disagreements to you - that ethics are not universal, and you can't assume we "all agree" to some things no matter how normal you think they should be.

My point wasn't really to prove that everyone agrees with what I'm saying, because nobody agrees with everything.It was to show that that my code--which is entirely based on objective realities, and absolutely no judgements or opinions of any kind--can easily produce a solid basis for why it is never okay to act on innocents in a way that causes them harm, why we are justified in causing appropriate amounts of harm to beings that do, and why we must treat others the they want to be treated, (although we have no obligation to act on others), that everyone can agree with.
As such, what part of my philosophy do you disagree with, specifically?

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

My point wasn't really to prove that everyone agrees with what I'm saying, because nobody agrees with everything.It was to show that that my code--which is entirely based on objective realities, and absolutely no judgements or opinions of any kind

Kid, everything you have been saying is an opinion or arbitrary line-drawing. Every single part of it. You claim you have no hand in creating the problems of the meat industry, but you ignore that every individual consumer has a part to play. You constantly make assumptions about "well of course we can all agree on X and Y and Z". You act like the food you eat and the money you spend and the car you drive and the house you live in are magically disconnected from the greater world they impact simply because you want them to be and don't want to be held responsible for thinking about the really tough questions.

Honestly, can we just abandon this topic or lock the thread or something? I recognize that cwckifan is being pretty polite about his beliefs so I don't mean to call him immature, but I'm getting tired of arguing with someone who sounds like he just passed his Philosophy 101 course and now thinks he found the answer that Aristotle never could.

 

[Judge Holden]

The CWCki forums: where poking fun at an incontinent manchild intersects with the philosophical debate on ethics

 

[BT 075]

You can't really divorce yourself from the parts of a concept you don't like, though. If you eat a burger or whatever, you are generating demand for that kind of meat. You may be just one person, but that's no excuse to throw your MANOS up and declare "not my problem".

Sure it is! Specifically because even if I stopped eating meat tomorrow, that wouldn't stop the demand of billions of other people worldwide who would still want it. I have absolutely no control over their actions, and (unless those millions of pounds of meat are being produced specifically for me), no meaningful effect on the supply and demand of mass markets, so it really isn't my problem.

That's like saying if you find a murdered body in an alley, it's okay to take his wallet. You didn't kill him after all, it's not your problem.

When I find a wallet I take out only the cash but leave all cards inside. I am cool like that.
And meat is simply delicious. The pain makes it... tender and sweet.

 

[Cwckifan]

But then I believe that there are far too many humans around these days and we do harm just by existing.

That's exactly right. Like I said, you can't just up and declare "not my problem" and magically make it true. You impact the world just by existing. You can't say "well, someone made the burger already, guess I'll eat it" as if you aren't imparting some effect on the world around you with your choice.

Well since we obviously can't get permission from everyone to do everything, it makes sense that we should only be concerned about how we effect others when we act on them, and how to appropriately react when others act on us. Seriously, suppose someone was offended by your having a game console, because they can't afford one; does this mean you have to apologize for it, or throw it away? Suppose someone is offended by whatever you're wearing, or that you drive a car, or that you go to a certain coffee store; are you obligated to change your clothes, sell your car, or shop for coffee elsewhere? Really, if you're not acting on anybody, then your life and habits really aren't their concern, and vice-versa. As such, if I had nothing to do with the death of slaughtered animals, and couldn't prevent it, then what's the problem? Is it unethical to eat road kill? How are they different?