Philosophy Now Forum

Doc,

Yeah, digging shot out is a pain, but I only got one gun, so I make do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:30 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:52 pm Snuffing out another feeling, sensing being's life for the sake of health is how nature works.

Taking other's lives away just for fun is amoral hubris.

This cannot be true, unless: a) hubris is wrong, b) being amoral is bad, and c) you are accidentally drawing on an objective concept of morality that you don't even acknowledge has any validity.

Nothing is wrong, in a secular world. "Wrong" is just a word for "Greta doesn't like it."

For those confused at this odd response, it's an extension of another debate. In short: Immanuel insists that a 2,000 year-old book of Middle Eastern myths provides a sound guide for modern western morality.

Immanuel, things happen in actual reality too - and they actually matter more than word games. So hubris is basically a variant on complacency. Do you think complacency is a good idea? Do you need a religious book to tell you that?

Note that amoral groups don't tend to survive because they are vulnerable against more cohesive groups.

I have a more personal problem with hunting, although I realize this is mostly irrational since I'm not a vegetarian myself or anything, and a lot of the times, hunting is a more humane way for these animals to die than the meat factories.

For me, It's more about what I think of the person who is willing to kill another sentient thing without hesitation. I don't know that I can trust them on the same level.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:35 am I have a more personal problem with hunting, although I realize this is mostly irrational since I'm not a vegetarian myself or anything, and a lot of the times, hunting is a more humane way for these animals to die than the meat factories.

For me, It's more about what I think of the person who is willing to kill another sentient thing without hesitation. I don't know that I can trust them on the same level.

Same here. People who kill things for fun cannot be very kind or wise. True, fox hunting for instance is exciting and risky but drag hunts that use a piece of meat can provide the same sort of activity. Personally, I love our native wild dog species and I would spoil the hunters' sport if I got the chance.

I have in mind the tourist industry which caters for those mentally and morally deficient people who enjoy shooting caged wild animals.

"fox hunting for instance is exciting"

I guess if you're a nobleman, on horseback, with the dogs at your command, it might be.

Not so much, on foot, trudgin' around in the dark, alone.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:35 am I have a more personal problem with hunting, although I realize this is mostly irrational since I'm not a vegetarian myself or anything, and a lot of the times, hunting is a more humane way for these animals to die than the meat factories.

For me, It's more about what I think of the person who is willing to kill another sentient thing without hesitation. I don't know that I can trust them on the same level.

Perhaps some people think only of the thrill of killing another being but over the years I have considered many other reasons for hunting. For example farmers welcome the elimination of woodchucks from pasture land due to the danger of livestock breaking a leg in the holes that are dug for dens. The elimination of large predators in the East made hunting necessary to control the numbers of the wild herd of white-tale deer.

Are other weapons legally used to hunt animals, e.g. bow and arrow or a harpoon?

PhilX

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:44 pm Could you clarify this incoherence?

In what way? It seems very clear to me.

Also, could you bother to look up the meaning of "secular"?

I've given a full explanation of the history and meaning of that word before, in other strands, so that would be redundant. One of its implications is "without reference to the spiritual." It was in that way I was applying it in the previous message.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:32 pm So hubris is basically a variant on complacency. Do you think complacency is a good idea? Do you need a religious book to tell you that?

Hubris is not just some variant of complacency. It may just as well be said to be a variant anger, a variant on aggression, a variety of contempt, a variant on imperiousness, and so on. None of these is likely to conduce to complacency at all. And yes, you do need some authoritative basis to say that hubris is wrong. It will not be enough that you personally think or feel that it is...rational people will need to be convinced by rational means that it is actually wrong. For there is no general agreement on that point. Some people think hubris is the road to self-love, to well-being and to empowerment, in fact.

Note that amoral groups don't tend to survive because they are vulnerable against more cohesive groups.

You mean like in the Soviet Union? Stalin and his "more cohesive" group killed 11 million of his own people who failed to be sufficiently "cohesive." Your theory makes him the moral hero of the story.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:13 pm Are other weapons legally used to hunt animals, e.g. bow and arrow or a harpoon?

PhilX

Yes, there are special seasons for bow hunting for big game and fishing and whaling regularly use a harpoon.

Doc people who kill for pleasure should be ashamed of themselves. I do understand that killing for pleasure is due to to thoughtlessness.

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:23 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:35 am I have a more personal problem with hunting, although I realize this is mostly irrational since I'm not a vegetarian myself or anything, and a lot of the times, hunting is a more humane way for these animals to die than the meat factories.

For me, It's more about what I think of the person who is willing to kill another sentient thing without hesitation. I don't know that I can trust them on the same level.

Perhaps some people think only of the thrill of killing another being but over the years I have considered many other reasons for hunting. For example farmers welcome the elimination of woodchucks from pasture land due to the danger of livestock breaking a leg in the holes that are dug for dens. The elimination of large predators in the East made hunting necessary to control the numbers of the wild herd of white-tale deer.

I don't think it's something they actively think about, it's just the ability to actually kill animals that bothers me.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that hunting really keeps overpopulation in check, that's something I would have to look into. I would assume we've done a lot of things to the environment which keeps that in check already.

Greta wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:32 pmSo hubris is basically a variant on complacency. Do you think complacency is a good idea? Do you need a religious book to tell you that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:53 pmHubris is not just some variant of complacency. It may just as well be said to be a variant anger, a variant on aggression, a variety of contempt, a variant on imperiousness, and so on. None of these is likely to conduce to complacency at all. And yes, you do need some authoritative basis to say that hubris is wrong. It will not be enough that you personally think or feel that it is...rational people will need to be convinced by rational means that it is actually wrong. For there is no general agreement on that point. Some people think hubris is the road to self-love, to well-being and to empowerment, in fact.

Complacency leads to hubris.

Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence.

A society suffering from "dangerous overconfidence" is one that is complacent. Whatever, I don't care for word games.

Taking another being's life just for fun shows a lack of appreciation the connections of life's web and a failure to empathise at all due to an inflated sense of self-importance. Causing harm and suffering for kicks to intelligent animals capable of emotional suffering is the worst thing anyone can do. Thus, if that's not morally wrong, then nothing is.

Note that amoral groups don't tend to survive because they are vulnerable against more cohesive groups.

Immanuel Can wrote:You mean like in the Soviet Union? Stalin and his "more cohesive" group killed 11 million of his own people who failed to be sufficiently "cohesive." Your theory makes him the moral hero of the story.

Hello?? Earth to Immanuel??

If you believe that self inflicted genocide and civil war is a sign of societal cohesion it may help explain a few things about you

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:02 am Whatever, I don't care for word games.

Well, hubris is not merely a synonym for complacency, as you have acknowledged.

Taking another being's life just for fun shows a lack of appreciation the connections of life's web and a failure to empathise at all due to an inflated sense of self-importance.

You mean like when a woman aborts her unborn baby? That kind of "failure to empathize," and "inflated sense of self-importance"? In that case, I would agree.

Causing harm and suffering for kicks to intelligent animals capable of emotional suffering is the worst thing anyone can do. Thus, if that's not morally wrong, then nothing is.

Yes, it's morally wrong. But you have no logical explanation for why you say it is. In a merely material universe, nothing is actually wrong...not even that.

Thank God that's not the real universe.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:22 pm Doc people who kill for pleasure should be ashamed of themselves. I do understand that killing for pleasure is due to to thoughtlessness.

Are you a non-leather-wearing vegetarian? Or do you just prefer that the cruelty you deplore is conducted by corporations, out of your sight, so you can benefit from it without your conscience heating up?