Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:35 am

CIN wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 8:26 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:56 am To me, the most immoral act based on the above definition is;
the deliberate evil acts by humans that result in the extermination of the human species by individual[s] or groups.

Since all the other sentient beings on this planet that we systematically torture and kill every day would be happier after we have been exterminated, this would probably be a very good act.

The point;
Morality is confined to humans only.

I hope you don't mean that there is no moral issue about how we treat other species. That would be immoral crap.

While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
For example in the thought experiment above, it is likely humans could save elephants if there is an virus pandemic that could kill all elephants; therefore it is short-sighted for elephants to be happier, if the human species were to be extinct.

Rubbish. Far from humans being essential to the survival of elephants, elephant populations have declined drastically because of human action (ivory poaching, habitat loss, etc). If humans became extinct, elephant populations would recover. Humans are bad news for elephants. There is the remote possibility that they could all be wiped out by a virus, but it is far more likely that they will be wiped out in the next few decades as a result of human action.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 12:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:35 am

CIN wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 8:26 pm
Since all the other sentient beings on this planet that we systematically torture and kill every day would be happier after we have been exterminated, this would probably be a very good act.

The point;
Morality is confined to humans only.

I hope you don't mean that there is no moral issue about how we treat other species. That would be immoral crap.

Killing is one of the most critical element of morality per se.
There is a dilemma if morality is cover to other species in the absolute sense.
It follows from the above, we cannot kill all living organisms, from those that are necessary for food to the good and bad microbes, insects that are killed with or without intention.

I wrote earlier;
While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

Note the stupidity of the Jains when morality is extended to all living things; the Jains would cover their mouth so that they do not kill insects that are likely to fly into their mouth; they would sweep the floor in front of them when they walk so they do not step and kill on any living things. But they are ignorant they are killing millions of bacteria and viruses every day.

While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
For example in the thought experiment above, it is likely humans could save elephants if there is an virus pandemic that could kill all elephants; therefore it is short-sighted for elephants to be happier, if the human species were to be extinct.

Rubbish. Far from humans being essential to the survival of elephants, elephant populations have declined drastically because of human action (ivory poaching, habitat loss, etc). If humans became extinct, elephant populations would recover. Humans are bad news for elephants. There is the remote possibility that they could all be wiped out by a virus, but it is far more likely that they will be wiped out in the next few decades as a result of human action.

You are guessing that elephant populations have declined drastically.

In recent years [compared to that of the last 100 years] there has been serious efforts to preserve the elephant species.
There are serious laws against the importation of ivory.
As a result of the above, the elephant population has increased in some places while continual greater awareness and emphasis will likely stop the reduction in the numbers of elephants elsewhere.

Resulting from the continued good work done by the wildlife services and NGOs of East and Southern Africa, elephant population sizes, by in large, are growing.

According to a presidential statement, the Tanzanian elephant population size grew from 43,000 to 60,000 between 2014 and 2019. This number has not been verified by international surveyors. The Kenyan government has, similarly, reported on population growth. Kenya’s 2021 national wildlife survey counted over 36,000 individuals.

If these numbers are accurate, between the two East-African nations, some 96,000 elephant are extant. That is already an increase on the 2016 estimate of 86,000 for the whole of the region, and it does not include figures from Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda, nor the figures from the Horn of Africa nations.

In Southern Africa, elephant population sizes have remained robust. In fact, the Zimbabwean government reported on a 16,000 individual increase between 2014 and 2021. The IUCN, writing in 2021, reiterated on the stability of African savannah elephant populations in Southern Africa.
https://tsavotrust.org/are-africas-elep ... ecreasing/

Note my principle:
While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
Thus in principle [theory], while a virus pandemic is remote, it is still a possibility, as such iff elephants are evolved with human-type intelligence, they should not expect the human species to be extinct.

When we can differentiate what is immorality between that of the 90-100th percentile from the 0-10th percentile, and those around the 50th, that would be a significant achievement for pragmatic purposes to produce utilities quite effectively.

To differentiate between 91-92-93-94 up to 98, that would result from the many variables and weights we put into the computation to arrive at a specific results which could even have decimals.
What is critical is we must include as many critical variables as relevant and included the appropriate weights to each variable.
Obviously there must sufficient consensus on the variables and weights used by as many normal rational people worldwide.

There could be some significance between 91-98 but between 91-92-93 would have little significance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:50 am When we can differentiate what is immorality between that of the 90-100th percentile from the 0-10th percentile, and those around the 50th, that would be a significant achievement for pragmatic purposes to produce utilities quite effectively.

To differentiate between 91-92-93-94 up to 98, that would result from the many variables and weights we put into the computation to arrive at a specific results which could even have decimals.
What is critical is we must include as many critical variables as relevant and included the appropriate weights to each variable.
Obviously there must sufficient consensus on the variables and weights used by as many normal rational people worldwide.

There could be some significance between 91-98 but between 91-92-93 would have little significance.

Typical pseudoscience. You're just attaching invented numbers to prejudices, calling it measurement, and declaring your opinions offically validated on that delusional basis.

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 12:37 am I hope you don't mean that there is no moral issue about how we treat other species. That would be immoral crap.

I've tested him on this before, it got weird, but in general he applies the Kant thing that it is only wrong to shoot a dog if it's somebody else's property.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:23 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:55 pm In other words, they are prescriptive where the need is to be descriptive. They tell us what may be viewed through a moral lense, instead of asking what is actually seen. Failure is guaranteed for all such efforts, they have absurd conclusions such as that it is not immoral to drown kittens.

Strawman as usual.

I have never asserted it is immoral to drown kittens.
I stated, morality is only confined to the human species except where there they are a positive interests to humans.
As for kittens, humans use cats as pets, so humans has a positive interest in cats, thus it would be immoral to drown kittens belonging to a person.

As for other living non-humans where there is no obvious interests to humans,
and since morality is confined only to the human species,
there is no question of 'immorality' in relation to living non-humans.
However there are other ways of extending kindness and consideration to living non-humans.

i think i agree with Iwannaplato. sustained torture's gotta be the worst (any of it... political, sexual, sadistic, etc).

since any basis for what is considered good and bad is directly relative to what is considered pleasurable and painful, the one thing that isn't relative is the universal aversion to pain shared by everyone.

but the problem is, there's no reason to say 'u shouldn't torture that dude just because we all agree that pain sucks'. that doesn't logically follow.

all u can really do is point out to the one trying to justify torturing someone that the suffering they would endure if they didn't torture someone (let's say a sadist who gets 'depressed' when he can't torture someone) couldn't possibly be worse than the suffering his/her victim would endure if he/she tortured em. so by running some inverse hedonic algorithmic calculus we can show that the one tortured would suffer a greater degree of pain than would the sadist who is depressed because he can't torture someone.

u can't do this with political torture tho becuz that gets tricky. what if a whole city gets blown up if u don't waterboard this guy and get the information u need to stop it?

I don't know what is the most immoral act, but participating in a discussion that attempts to establish what it might be must certainly count among the most ridiculous and pointless acts.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:48 am I don't know what is the most immoral act, but participating in a discussion that attempts to establish what it might be must certainly count among the most ridiculous and pointless acts.

Well, it helped me rule out some of my plans for this week, so it's had it practical side, as far as I can tell.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:29 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:48 am I don't know what is the most immoral act, but participating in a discussion that attempts to establish what it might be must certainly count among the most ridiculous and pointless acts.

Well, it helped me rule out some of my plans for this week, so it's had it practical side, as far as I can tell.

It's just that I've been following VA's journey towards complete lunacy over the past months, and I'm worried that indulging him might hasten his arrival.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:46 pm It's just that I've been following VA's journey towards complete lunacy over the past months, and I'm worried that indulging him might hasten his arrival.

I have also noticed a change: he now sees realists are barbaric and that some of them will kill antirealists, for example; and his recent posts are, well, some of his worst, as far as soundness.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:21 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:46 pm It's just that I've been following VA's journey towards complete lunacy over the past months, and I'm worried that indulging him might hasten his arrival.

I have also noticed a change: he now sees realists are barbaric and that some of them will kill antirealists, for example; and his recent posts are, well, some of his worst, as far as soundness.

Do we need to inform anyone, do you think?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:23 pm Do we need to inform anyone, do you think?

I suppose we could google Veritas Aequitas and see if we can find his parents or residential advisor. But I'm not optimistic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:37 am While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:37 am While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

Veritas Aequitas is well known for his cruelty to animals, and has had numerous run-ins with various animal rights groups. He would probably commend you for beating your dog.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:22 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:37 am While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

Veritas Aequitas is well known for his cruelty to animals, and has had numerous run-ins with various animal rights groups. He would probably commend you for beating your dog.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm merely seeking confirmation from the man himself, and I intend to then ask him from what theoretical basis he derives this ethical view. I expect I could find that out by reading all the stuff he has posted in this forum, but I'm 70 years old, and my life expectancy is less than 20 years........