A Moral Dilemma?

[phyllo]

I'll be happy if I'm never reincarnated. Life has been bleak enough as a human being.

If you were a lower animal or fish or insect, then you wouldn't overthink your life. And you could be much happier.

My cat doesn't seem to worry about wars, economics or the unfairness of life at all.

[Harbal]

I'll be happy if I'm never reincarnated. Life has been bleak enough as a human being.

Well at least you have never been flushed down a toilet.

[henry quirk]

I consider you to be unjustifiably setting us apart from the rest of nature.

Man is not apart from nature, no; he is, though, unique in nature. He is a person. He is a free will capable of moral discretion and judgement. He is responsible for himself.

Gary's creepy-crawlies are functionally machines. Marvelous machines to be sure, but still just machines.

[Harbal]

I consider you to be unjustifiably setting us apart from the rest of nature.

Man is not apart from nature, no; he is, though, unique in nature. He is a person. He is a free will capable of moral discretion and judgement. He is responsible for himself.

But many animals exhibit social restraints similar to our moral restraints. For instance, carnivorous species tend not to eat members of the same species, just as human beings don't. And we most certainly regard cannibalism as a moral issue. There are things that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, but I don't think we should just assume that no other animal experiences anything akin to our human sense of morality.

We don't really know what any other living creature actually experiences

Gary's creepy-crawlies are functionally machines. Marvelous machines to be sure, but still just machines.

I can see how it is convenient to think of it like that, especially when we find those machines are making a nuisance of themselves.

[henry quirk]

carnivorous species tend not to eat members of the same species

Really? Give me some examples.

I can see how it is convenient to think of it like that, especially when we find those machines are making a nuisance of themselves.

Being a person isn't particularly convenient, no.

[Gary Childress]

carnivorous species tend not to eat members of the same species

It appears that they do when food is extremely scarce.

“Almost all predators express cannibalism when conditions get grim enough,” says Jay Rosenheim, an entomologist at the University of California, Davis. Some desperate herbivores do, too, he adds.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... 0he%20adds.

[Harbal]

carnivorous species tend not to eat members of the same species

Really? Give me some examples.

Wolves and lions. At least I'm hoping so.

I can see how it is convenient to think of it like that, especially when we find those machines are making a nuisance of themselves.

Being a person isn't particularly convenient, no.

Maybe not, but that's a separate issue. I was referring to the convenience of treating animals as if whatever emotions and sensations they are capable of experiencing are somehow insignificant compared to what human beings experience. Suffering, particularly physical suffering, is not dependant on intellectual capacity, so I imagine that being flushed away is just as horrible for a snake as it would be for a human being. Why would you say it matters less in the context of nature as a whole?

[Harbal]

carnivorous species tend not to eat members of the same species

It appears that they do when food is extremely scarce.

I don't doubt it, but humans have also been known to resort to cannibalism when food is extremely scarce.

[henry quirk]

Wolves and lions.

At least I'm hoping so.

Sorry to dash your hopes, but...every species indulges in cannibalism. And many, like lions, don't do it for food but to establish dominance. And, no, the alpha lion that kills and eats a competitor's offspring didn't choose to do it. For that lion it's instinctual.

Only humans regard cannibalism as wrong. Only persons can refrain from eating one another.

Suffering, particularly physical suffering, is not dependant on intellectual capacity

Gary's creepy-crawlies can't suffer. Suffering is a feature of the self-conscious. While conscious, no creepy-crawly has a self to be conscious of. Pain, for Gary's creepy-crawlies, is a stimulus, not an experience. Your snake doesn't want to live or die, and is incapable of being terrorized. The flush is just a change in stimulus.

Why would you say it matters less in the context of nature as a whole?

Becuz you or Gary or anyone (even age and biggy), persons, are more important, in leaps & bounds, than any bio-Roomba.

[Harbal]

Wolves and lions.

At least I'm hoping so.

Sorry to dash your hopes, but...every species indulges in cannibalism. And many, like lions, don't do it for food but to establish dominance. And, no, the alpha lion that kills and eats a competitor's offspring didn't choose to do it. For that lion it's instinctual.

Every species including human beings. Mostly in extreme circumstances, but I believe there have been cultures in which the practice was not unusual. And although most species might be capable of it, for most, it is not usual.

Only humans regard cannibalism as wrong. Only persons can refrain from eating one another.

That's just an opinion, henry.

Suffering, particularly physical suffering, is not dependant on intellectual capacity
Gary's creepy-crawlies can't suffer. Suffering is a feature of the self-conscious. While conscious, no creepy-crawly has a self to be conscious of. Pain, for Gary's creepy-crawlies, is a stimulus, not an experience. Your snake doesn't want to live or die, and is incapable of being terrorized. The flush is just a change in stimulus.

How can you possibly know that?

Why would you say it matters less in the context of nature as a whole?

Becuz you or Gary or anyone (even age and biggy), persons, are more important, in leaps & bounds, than any bio-Roomba.

If I had any idea what a "bio-Roomba" was, I have no doubt I would disagree with that opinion.

[henry quirk]

I believe there have been cultures in which the practice was not unusual.

Yep. There are people who eat people. They're the exception, even when taking cannibalism as a societal practice. Among our fellow life, however, cannibalism is ubiquitous. There is no restraint, no morality, for Gary's creepy-crawlers or your lion.

That's just an opinion, henry.

Demonstrably it's fact. I can point to folks, just like you, who don't eat their children. Show me your lion choosing to refrain from eating its competitor's offspring.

How can you possibly know that?

Easily. If life, including man, is just material (no soul) then pain, suffering, experience can only be an exercise of intellectual capacity. Man, in such a scenario, has the particular and peculiar complexity to suffer, to experience. Gary's creepers, your lion, do not.

On the other hand: if life, including man, is ensouled, then how is only man demonstrates the capability to, for example, refrain from eating his young or his neighbors?

No, as I say, man is a person, a free will, capable of moral judgement and Gary's creepers and your lion are not. Of course if any roaches or platypi or lions or amoeboids wanna pipe in here, I'd be glad to take their objections into consideration.

If I had any idea what a "bio-Roomba" was, I have no doubt I would disagree with that opinion.

A Roomba is...

a(n)autonomous robotic vacuum cleaner made by the company iRobot(.)

Roombas have a set of sensors which help them navigate the floor area of a home. These sensors can detect the presence of obstacles and steep drops (e.g., to avoid falling down stairs).

Your lion is a Roomba made of meat and bone, hence biological or bio-Roomba.

And, of course, you disagree. You, in your view, are a bio-Roomba too.

[Harbal]

I believe there have been cultures in which the practice was not unusual.

Yep. There are people who eat people. They're the exception, even when taking cannibalism as a societal practice. Among our fellow life, however, cannibalism is ubiquitous. There is no restraint, no morality, for Gary's creepy-crawlers or your lion.

That's just an opinion, henry.

Demonstrably it's fact. I can point to folks, just like you, who don't eat their children. Show me your lion choosing to refrain from eating its competitor's offspring.

How can you possibly know that?

Easily. If life, including man, is just material (no soul) then pain, suffering, experience can only be an exercise of intellectual capacity. Man, in such a scenario, has the particular and peculiar complexity to suffer, to experience. Gary's creepers, your lion, do not.

On the other hand: if life, including man, is ensouled, then how is only man demonstrates the capability to, for example, refrain from eating his young or his neighbors?

No, as I say, man is a person, a free will, capable of moral judgement and Gary's creepers and your lion are not. Of course if any roaches or platypi or lions or amoeboids wanna pipe in here, I'd be glad to take their objections into consideration.

If I had any idea what a "bio-Roomba" was, I have no doubt I would disagree with that opinion.

A Roomba is...

a(n)autonomous robotic vacuum cleaner made by the company iRobot(.)

Roombas have a set of sensors which help them navigate the floor area of a home. These sensors can detect the presence of obstacles and steep drops (e.g., to avoid falling down stairs).

Your lion is a Roomba made of meat and bone, hence biological or bio-Roomba.

And, of course, you disagree. You, in your view, are a bio-Roomba too.

Indeed I do disagree, henry, with just about everything you say.

[henry quirk]

Indeed I do disagree, henry, with just about everything you say.

And, I disagree with just about everything you say, Harbal.

[Age]

Yes, I imagine even the simplest of living organisms sort of feel they have a right to life, although very few will be able to articulate the reason why.

Well, despite our best efforts, neither can we.

The reason why every living thing has a 'natural right' to life, (and to liberty and property), is because every thing is/was 'naturally created', and/or 'naturally evolved' into creation. And, what reaffirms one's 'natural right to life' is its internal or instinctual 'want' to keep living and stay alive.

[Age]

It's interesting that persons decide that they have natural rights and that non-persons don't have natural rights.

Well, a person can decide while a non-person cannot.

And, what a 'coincidence' that some of you people claim that you have a natural right to life, liberty, and property, but not other living things.

The hypocrisy and contradiction here blindingly obvious. Well to some of 'us' anyway.