Environmental Ethics -- fair share for the non-human?

[Immanuel Can]

Those who are interested in "secular morality" have already discussed it with IC.

Interesting, then, that not one of those "20" you estimate to be present was able to suggest one single moral precept required of all secularists by secularism.

Is it the case, then, that "not responding" is all they have left? Not one can respond?

So it seems.

[MikeNovack]

Those who are interested in "secular morality" have already discussed it with IC.

Interesting, then, that not one of those "20" you estimate to be present was able to suggest one single moral precept required of all secularists by secularism.

Is it the case, then, that "not responding" is all they have left? Not one can respond?

So it seems.

That is an assumption on your part. Far more likely they see no useful purpose trying to convince YOU that they are rational. They probably believe that given your irrational starting point, you are srot of correct. They can not come up with a rational explanation that would convince YOU that it was a rational argument << on that question elsewhere, I have seen you reject arguments based on the logic/reason we use in mathematics >>

OK FOLKS -- PLEASE, can we simply go on ignoring IC's objection that we are not being rational. Let's discuss the QUESTION ---- for a sustainable Earth, what percentage should we humans be leaving`for wild Nature. SEE IC. I have removed the necessity of the question being addressed in moral terms so do NOT bring that up again.

[Immanuel Can]

Those who are interested in "secular morality" have already discussed it with IC.

Interesting, then, that not one of those "20" you estimate to be present was able to suggest one single moral precept required of all secularists by secularism.

Is it the case, then, that "not responding" is all they have left? Not one can respond?

So it seems.

That is an assumption on your part.

It's not an assumption that nobody has anything. It's evident. It's what's called "the most pausible explanation of the data": unless you have something...let's see it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Those who are interested in "secular morality" have already discussed it with IC.

Interesting, then, that not one of those "20" you estimate to be present was able to suggest one single moral precept required of all secularists by secularism.

Is it the case, then, that "not responding" is all they have left? Not one can respond?

So it seems.

That is an assumption on your part. Far more likely they see no useful purpose trying to convince YOU that they are rational. They probably believe that given your irrational starting point, you are srot of correct. They can not come up with a rational explanation that would convince YOU that it was a rational argument

You are pretty much correct. Anybody familiar with the contents of books on moral philosophy should be instanly aware that the demand for that one single precept demonstrates all by itself that IC is not up to speed with any of that stuff.

Two reasonably capable moral philosophers could talk to each other about his inadequacies, but there is no point talking to him about them. If you have an actual interest in moral philosophy, I'm araid you will need to go around IC to find an audience, he is not a gatekeeper on the way to anwhere at all.

[FlashDangerpants]

The fundamental equation for sustainabiity is usually shown as:

Total ecological production = per capita standard of living (consumption) times number of persons (population)

But are we humans really entitled to the entire eological production of the planet? None left for the rest of Nature? So I propose the ethical question for us to discuss. What fraction of the total ecological production should we humans be taking and thus what fraction left for the rest of Nature? Sure, there are SOME species that do well in the human modified landscape, even thrive in it. But most do not.

I suspect that we have a wide range of opinions on this, because of course, there are implications for the maximum product per capita consumption times population. If we choose to leave a fraction for wild Nature, then that product is reduced.

I'll start off by proposing 50%, that we humans take half and leave half for the others. After all, we are only one species among many. The planet doesn't belong JUST to us.

I had never heard of this equation. Are you using I=PAT (Impact = Pop * Affluence * Tech) or some other source for it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT

I think perhaps these things really a measurement of the thing written in the headline at all and should be used only as a means to illustrate a point. Economists and other social scientists measure many immeasurable things this way, including happiness and trust. I would hesitate to argue that 50% of a happiness index should be set aside for giraffes and goats, not out of animus against the humble goat, but because I wouldn't expect them to benefit much.

[phyllo]

Interesting, then, that not one of those "20" you estimate to be present was able to suggest one single moral precept required of all secularists by secularism.

Is there one precept required of all non-secularists?

[phyllo]

I'll start off by proposing 50%, that we humans take half and leave half for the others. After all, we are only one species among many. The planet doesn't belong JUST to us.

What does 50% actually mean?

Are rhino population allowed to decline more? Are rhino populations already below the 50% allowance and people have to rebuild them in some unclear way? When are they at the exact 50% level?

How is any number that you pick not just a random number?

[Impenitent]

once the rhino demonstrates an understanding of the concept of specific numbers...

or any other non-human for that matter...

-Imp

[phyllo]

once the rhino demonstrates an understanding of the concept of specific numbers...

or any other non-human for that matter...

-Imp

That's the other thing ... this is not a negotiation with the non-human world. There is no consultation. There is no input from plants and animals.

It's just a decision by humans.

[Immanuel Can]

Interesting, then, that not one of those "20" you estimate to be present was able to suggest one single moral precept required of all secularists by secularism.

Is there one precept required of all non-secularists?

"Non-secularist" is too broad a category...they actually have nothing in common, except not being secularists.

But there are certainly moral imperatives derivable from various religious traditions. So yes, there is such a thing; it's just dependent on the tradition in question, and varies among them.

[phyllo]

Bingo

[Immanuel Can]

Bingo

Don't rejoice too early.

The claim, "There are many traditions who can reconcile their assumptions with their conclusions" does not imply, "there are many different things that are ethical," or "the things that are ethical are subjective."

All it means is that people can be consistent between their assumptions and their conclusions, and still be basing those conclusions on false assumptions. And we know that from logic: something can be what we call "valid" and still, in the conclusion, be "false," if the premises lack truth in one or the other of the basic two premises.

But the interesting thing about secularism is that it cannot even do that much. Its assumptions cannot be reconciled with ANY moral conclusions, as we have seen; and in that, it is quite unique among the religions of the world. At least the false religions make sense on their own terms, when they draw a moral conclusion. Secularism cannot even do that much.

[MikeNovack]

And we know that from logic: something can be what we call "valid" and still, in the conclusion, be "false," if the premises lack truth in one or the other of the basic two premises.

Justify your assumption.

If the premises lack truth, the conclusions will lack truth.

<< back when I was high school age, in a special program of lectures for the top students of city and suburns, included a lovely demonstration of the derivation of Kepler's Laws (true) from the premises of "The Angel Theory of Planetary Motion" (not true).

[Immanuel Can]

And we know that from logic: something can be what we call "valid" and still, in the conclusion, be "false," if the premises lack truth in one or the other of the basic two premises.

Justify your assumption.

There's no "assumption," Mike. And it's easy to demonstrate.

All unicorns are black.
Black things heat up in the sun.
Therefore, unicorns heat up in the sun.

The form of the above argument is correct. The conclusion is false, and it's the fault of the first premise. The first premise contains to untrue things: one is that unicorns "are" not a real thing but an imaginary one, so can't "be" any particular colour; the other is that the representations of these things are rarely if ever black, and usually white.

So my claim is warranted by the example: something that has valid structure can still be false, if one of the premises lacks truth.

If the premises lack truth, the conclusions will lack truth.

Not quite.

Here's the correct version: if the premises are not true, then any true conclusion would be only by accident or error, not by way of logic.

So, for example, I can write two false premises and then arrive at a true conclusion, as in this case:

All unicorns are black.
All black things are unreal.
Therefore, unicorns are unreal.

Now, while it is true that black unicorns are not real, it is not by way of the two premises that I have been able to arrive at that conclusion. Both premises are actually false, and obviously so. And the logical structure is still valid: All A are B, All B are C, therefore, conclusion. That's the right way to form a logical syllogism. But the falsity of the two premises render the conclusion only accidentally, not automatically or logically, true.

So a conclusion may be accidentally true, but the logic being used to produce it not adequate to have led to that conclusion. And that's the sort of example you're probably talking about, I think.

[thomyum2]

Interesting, then, that not one of those "20" you estimate to be present was able to suggest one single moral precept required of all secularists by secularism.

Is it the case, then, that "not responding" is all they have left? Not one can respond?

So it seems.

That is an assumption on your part.

It's not an assumption that nobody has anything. It's evident. It's what's called "the most pausible explanation of the data": unless you have something...let's see it.

I wouldn't identify myself as a 'secularist', but most people I've known who fit that description will usually cite something along the lines of 'all humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', or a variant thereof, as their basic and fundamental moral precept - i.e. that every human life has an intrinsic value and that everyone has a duty to act in ways that respect others' life and freedom. Granted that those who are not religious won't consider these rights to be 'endowed by their creator', so they don't derive that moral precept from a religious belief, yet they still take it as a given or foundational principle that those right exist and derive their moral or ethical code from that basis. So I offer that as an alternative to 'not responding' just to fill the void here.

Your posts argue that secularist can't rationally support their moral positions, which suggests to me that you think moral positions must be rationally derived from a metaphysical basis. But my experience has been that morality (especially for non-philosophers) is more intuitive than rational, and that people generally start with the moral precept and then develop the rational basis from there, when called upon to do so, rather than the other way around. I might be misunderstanding you, but I'm curious to get your thoughts on the idea that a moral precept itself could be a premise that is taken as self-evident - as a starting point - in the absence of a specific religious or metaphysical commitment.