Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

[henry quirk]

if I see someone behaving in a way that is causing unnecessary stress or pain to others, animals or even the environment, I will do what I can to stop them. Fuck whether it is 'objectively right or wrong'.

So: you're a buttinsky, a vegetarian, and a green.

Okay.

[henry quirk]

Henry says it's a fact that only humans are persons

No, that's not what I said.

[henry quirk]

flowery poetry

you didn't like it?

I think it's cool.


There's no scope to define what success is in this task if you don't have a definition of what personhood actually is

As I say...

eating meat?

If morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another man (person), then this is a non-brainer. Don't eat people. Is a chicken a person? Is a horse a person? If yes, it's wrong to eat them. If no, then eat hearty.

I expect some one to ask what's a person?

If the question is asked, we can dive in. For now, for this (I think) coherent response, I'll assume the reader knows it when he sees it..

You start: what's a person?


it should be available to many animals. Any animal that can know what it wants should probably meet the criteria.

Knowing what it wants: sounds like self-awareness. You reckon self-awareness is part of personhood? Which animals are self-aware?

[henry quirk]

Henry, are you being balanced with the variety of information you present(?)

Lace, did you review the https://swprs.org/ material?

[FlashDangerpants]

flowery poetry

you didn't like it?

I think it's cool.

I'm sure it's very lovely. But it's just a way of hiding that cannot describe the thing at all, so you must vaguely allude to it. Just as you are now refusing to digress whether that is because this sense of self-ownership is so basic and fundamental that it is literally indescribable, or is it something that you could describe, but you choose not to because it inspires uncontrollable bouts of poetic exhuberance.

There's no scope to define what success is in this task if you don't have a definition of what personhood actually is

As I say...

eating meat?

If morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another man (person), then this is a non-brainer. Don't eat people. Is a chicken a person? Is a horse a person? If yes, it's wrong to eat them. If no, then eat hearty.

I expect some one to ask what's a person?

If the question is asked, we can dive in. For now, for this (I think) coherent response, I'll assume the reader knows it when he sees it..

You start: what's a person?

The problem with that analysis is that you've stolen half an argument from contractarian rights theory and made into a general moral principle, even the whole argument was very good, but the halved version you wield is just bad. It gives you all the problems they have, but doesn't even give you their one useful thing (the contract bit). Without the contract bit, I can simply end run your argument, there is no basis for it as a conclusion to any argument, it's just an unsupported and insufficient assertion.

If we went with anyway in spite of it being so bad, the category of person would have to include everything to which we can have a moral obligation or duty of care. That must include all pets, most wildlife, and probably much more than that too.

Otherwise we can simply observe that the category is not relevant to this matter, as we do indeed have moral reasons not to abuse our power over helpless animals whether they are persons or not.

If we make pigs into full persons then bacon sandwiches are cannibalism. If we make them into partial persons then perhaps not but it's getting tricky. If we try to pretend that non-personhood makes them morally irrelevant then we have argued ourselves into absurdity.

it should be available to many animals. Any animal that can know what it wants should probably meet the criteria.

Knowing what it wants: sounds like self-awareness. You reckon self-awareness is part of personhood? Which animals are self-aware?

I want to know what your self ownership thing is Henry. The personhood thing is a diversionary tactic.

[henry quirk]

so: we're not gonna talk about what is a person?

okay

[Impenitent]

Canadian bacon would be socialistic cannibalism...

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

so: we're not gonna talk about what is a person?

okay

Dude, that's a pure Mannie tactic, you don't wanna get into those habits. You are supporting some assertion "persons" are the only possible object of moral concern, there's no point in arguing about what a "person" is, it has to be anything that we have legitimate moral concern for. It is morally wrong to tear the wings off a fly, therefore, by definition, a fly must now be a person.

[henry quirk]

so: we're not gonna talk about what is a person?

okay

Dude, that's a pure Mannie tactic, you don't wanna get into those habits. You are supporting some assertion "persons" are the only possible object of moral concern, there's no point in arguing about what a "person" is, it has to be anything that we have legitimate moral concern for. It is morally wrong to tear the wings off a fly, therefore, by definition, a fly must now be a person.

tell it to the wind...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

[Lacewing]

Henry, are you being balanced with the variety of information you present(?)

Lace, did you review the https://swprs.org/ material?

Why would I simply follow your path without fact-checking the credibility of your sources? And based on that assessment (which I posted), I have no interest in investing my energy in wading through stuff that you think is compelling. You've already demonstrated your obviously lop-sided and distorted views, so your sources are bound to be as absurd as your conclusions are, right?

If you have anything non-skewed to say in your own words, that might be interesting.

[henry quirk]

Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns. This is why old rules about how hard a man should beat his wife when she talks too much are so absurd today.

kickin' (or eatin' or fuckin') a dog may be immoral in flash's neck of the woods: but somewhere on earth such things are A-OK

properly, all a moral anti-realist can say is, when in rome...

[henry quirk]

so: you didn't review the material

okay

[Lacewing]

so: you didn't review the material

okay

Because your sources suck. (Another of the countless details you choose to ignore.)

[FlashDangerpants]

Morality is a socio-linguistic construct created and constantly refined by consensus, that is largely unexamined in most cases and not remotely consistent. It is a constantly moving, out of focus picture of what we as a society as well as countless little sub-groupings of shared interests consider the right and wrong ways to make decisions, and its present configuration such as can even be ascertained represents our current set of concerns. This is why old rules about how hard a man should beat his wife when she talks too much are so absurd today.

kickin' (or eatin' or fuckin') a dog may be immoral in flash's neck of the woods: but somewhere on earth such things are A-OK

properly, all a moral anti-realist can say is, when in rome...

Pretty much. I mean there's reasons why the Romans do what they do right? the fact they don't do exctly what Henry does doesn't entail that they are bouncing around at random

Look at the mess you guys all get yourselves into when you try to make moral facts. It's always incoherent. There's a reason why the framework always permits something blatantly wrong like torture, and it's because you guys always try to make some one-dimensional moral set based on something you hope is incontrovertible. So you forget to include fairness, or justice, or in some truly absurd cases even leaving out the whole right and wrong thing altogether... And then you always do the eliminative thing to try and get out of the problems this oversight causes you. That's where you take whatever it is that you can't account for in your flawed model, and say that everyone else is wrong for thinking it should be included. And that's how you end up having to defend what you probably know is an absurd argument.

I mean surely you could see that as soon as you made the matter of dog harm one of mental illness I was just going to work my way down the list of morally questionable things we do to our animal companions until you had to argue that it is a sign of mental illness if somebody leaves their puppy home alone while they are at work. Where did you really expect to get with that artificial notion that only persons can be the subject of moral concern, and why didn't you just give up and let that weak position go when it became obvious it wasn't sustainable?

[henry quirk]

Because your sources suck.

yes, your source sez it, so it must be so

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?