A Moral Dilemma?

[Harbal]

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

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

That's a comforting thought, henry.

[henry quirk]

That's a comforting thought, henry.

We even disagree on this. I find it a little sad myself.

[Age]

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, "women" and "children" are not, right?

Is there any thing that is not unique in Nature?

"he" nor "women" are not 'persons', obviously.

you human beings may have free will and may be capable of moral discretion and judgement, but you adult ones are the only thing on earth that does Wrong, and chooses to do Wrong.

And, continually doing Wrong and choosing to keep doing Wrong is certainly not being responsible for "yourselves", at all.

No other thing does Wrong, besides you adult human beings, so, for this reason alone all other things do not even have to be responsible for themselves.

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

Will you define what the word 'machines' even means or refers to, to you?
Also, when did a 'person' become 'a person', exactly, to you?

[Age]

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.

The only real pest, and the only one making a nuisance, on earth are adult human beings.

Also, a lot of the insects on earth are just eating up/cleaning the actual mess being left behind by you human beings.

So, if you human beings stopped making the mess', then there would not be as many insects, especially in what are called 'your houses, or homes'.

[Age]

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.

And, let 'us' not forget that the 'human animal' is absolutely no different in this regard.

[Age]

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.

Well then 'it' is not 'cannibalism'.

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..

LOL So, what, exactly, is stopping every other meat eating animal eating their young or their peers, or even themselves, if, as you claim here, canno refrain themselves from doing so?

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.

LOL

So, why does the snake instinctively breathe and eat, exactly like you do, and, why does the snake have a flight or fight instinct, exactly like you have?

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.

What a load of absolute 'self-centeredness'.

Why, exactly, do you, coincidentally, 'a person', believe that you persons are somehow 'more important' than any and all other animals?

[Age]

Are we having a conversation?

Only if you respond to the questions I ask you, to what I challenge you on, to where I have pointed out your Wrong and/ False claims, and/to what I say and write here.

[Harbal]

That's a comforting thought, henry.

We even disagree on this. I find it a little sad myself.

What's sad about it?

[henry quirk]

What's sad about it?

I think when men of good conscience can agree on nothing (even sumthin' as simple as a person's life belong to him and no other) there's nuthin' left but avoiding one another or war. That, to me, is sad.

[Harbal]

What's sad about it?

I think when men of good conscience can agree on nothing (even sumthin' as simple as a person's life belong to him and no other) there's nuthin' left but avoiding one another or war. That, to me, is sad.

I'm fine with the principle of a person's life belonging to them. It sounds great, even if it doesn't mean much. What I disagree with is your attitude towards other sentient creatures. I wouldn't call it sad, though.

[henry quirk]

...even if it doesn't mean much...

...to you. I know. You made it abundantly clear: a person's life is not his, your life, is not yours. It's all drivel...to you.

What I disagree with is your attitude towards other sentient creatures.

Hey, who cares what we do to creepy crawlies or lions? We're no better or different than they, right? They eat each other without worry or agonizing, yes? If we are them then let's act as they do and quit moralizing about it (cuz all that moralizing, well, none of it means much...the creepers don't care, the lion doesn't care, why should we? Why should you?)

I wouldn't call it sad, though.

I do.

[henry quirk]

...even if it doesn't mean much...

And what of all the conventions -- human rights, legal protections & rights -- these can't mean much either, yes? How can any of these conventions mean much if, like natural rights, they're just stories we tell ourselves?

[Harbal]

...even if it doesn't mean much...

...to you. I know. You made it abundantly clear: a person's life is not his, your life, is not yours. It's all drivel...to you.

No, I don't think it's drivel. I would like to think my life is my own just as much as you, but just simply considering that to be the case makes no difference to anything.

What I disagree with is your attitude towards other sentient creatures.

Hey, who cares what we do to creepy crawlies or lions? We're no better or different than they, right? They eat each other without worry or agonizing, yes? If we are them then let's act as they do and quit moralizing about it (cuz all that moralizing, well, none of it means much...the creepers don't care, the lion doesn't care, why should we? Why should you?)

I don't know why I care, I just know that I do care, and if I find anything sad, it's that you seem not to.

[Harbal]

...even if it doesn't mean much...

And what of all the conventions -- human rights, legal protections & rights -- these can't mean much either, yes? How can any of these conventions mean much if, like natural rights, they're just stories we tell ourselves?

They are backed by the authority of the state, whose role it is to protect and enforce them. Who or what is going to protect whatever "natural" rights you decide to bestow upon yourself?

[Alexiev]

And what of all the conventions -- human rights, legal protections & rights -- these can't mean much either, yes? How can any of these conventions mean much if, like natural rights, they're just stories we tell ourselves?

All "facts" are stories we tell ourselves. They are simply stories of a particular kind.

All rights are just obligations on the part of other people. The "story" behind the right is that other people are obliged (legally or morally) in a particular way.

This is obvious and incontravertable.