Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:10 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:23 pm
"I wouldn't want" doesn't make something "immoral." It just makes it unpalatable to you.

Performing surgery or removing trash is unpalatable to most people. Neither is immoral.

So if cannibalism is going to be objectively immoral, as opposed to merely unpalatable-to-Gary, we need something more there.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It's not a "feeling," Gary. It's a rational indicator that your explanation doesn't work.

Can you supply something better, something that should compel people to agree with you that cannibalism is wrong?

No. Why do you ask?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:10 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:56 pm

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It's not a "feeling," Gary. It's a rational indicator that your explanation doesn't work.

Can you supply something better, something that should compel people to agree with you that cannibalism is wrong?

No. Why do you ask?

Because if you can't, then you have no reasons to support your belief that cannibalism is wrong at all. In fact, it can't even be clear what you mean by calling it wrong, or evil, or immoral, since all it translates to is, "Gary doesn't like X."

Is "immoral" the same as "doesn't like"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:10 pm
It's not a "feeling," Gary. It's a rational indicator that your explanation doesn't work.

Can you supply something better, something that should compel people to agree with you that cannibalism is wrong?

No. Why do you ask?

Because if you can't, then you have no reasons to support your belief that cannibalism is wrong at all. In fact, it can't even be clear what you mean by calling it wrong, or evil, or immoral, since all it translates to is, "Gary doesn't like X."

Is "immoral" the same as "doesn't like"?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Is there any other way that I could compel you to believe that cannibalism is wrong?

Is "immoral" the same as "doesn't like"?

No

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 4:25 pm According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

That's my interpretation of things. In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet. There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

Actually, the group never agreed to kill the the one who tries to kill someone else. When the time came to eat the one with the shortest straw, they found that they could not find it within themselves to kill one of their group.

One of them obviously disagreed because when the rest of the group was sleeping, one of them tried to kill another but before they could do it, or complete the job, because the victim started screaming, they were discovered and the group killed the "killer", so there was only one dead person - the "killer". It was something that just happened - not that they agreed to kill one of them that tries to kill first.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 10:15 pm I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

Why is it paradoxical? Because moral ideas contradict themselves. If the mother dies, the children also die as they have no one to care for them. Which is worse - that they all die, or some of them do for the others to survive and hopefully the mother can have more kids when things are better.

You say that it never happened in reality, but I'm sure in the entire history of humans this has occurred, where a parent is faced with starvation and many mouths to feed. Nor do you know how things will end up in the future when humans are on the verge of becoming extinct. So it's not fucking ridiculous. You're just short-sighted in this case.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:22 pm

Is "immoral" the same as "doesn't like"?

No

Well, Gary, if it is an assessment that goes beyond "doesn't like," and beyond your personal feelings, then we have to ask, what makes it obligatory for somebody else?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:28 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 4:25 pm According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

That's my interpretation of things. In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet. There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

Actually, the group never agreed to kill the the one who tries to kill someone else. When the time came to eat the one with the shortest straw, they found that they could not find it within themselves to kill one of their group.

One of them obviously disagreed because when the rest of the group was sleeping, one of them tried to kill another but before they could do it, or complete the job, because the victim started screaming, they were discovered and the group killed the "killer", so there was only one dead person - the "killer". It was something that just happened - not that they agreed to kill one of them that tries to kill first.

OK. Perhaps, then. if they had made some kind of agreement to that effect between them beforehand then the killer would not have killed that person? Perhaps, "social contract" is something that cannot be objectively made. Perhaps things "just happen" the way they should. I don't know. I still think cannibalism is immoral. I can't prove it but it seems pretty immoral to me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:22 pm

Is "immoral" the same as "doesn't like"?

No

Well, Gary, if it is an assessment that goes beyond "doesn't like," and beyond your personal feelings, then we have to ask, what makes it obligatory for somebody else?

I don't know what makes it "obligatory" for somebody else. What else do you want from me? I promise I will never kill and eat anyone. If I try to, then please, kill me.

I suspect that part of the problem in this entire
''cannibalism is immoral" lies in the word.. Immoral..
what exactly does this word mean? Immoral to.. whom?
why is it ... immoral? what makes this action ... immoral?
the rub here is not in cannibalism, but in the word.. immoral...

Kropotkin

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:22 pm

No

Well, Gary, if it is an assessment that goes beyond "doesn't like," and beyond your personal feelings, then we have to ask, what makes it obligatory for somebody else?

I don't know what makes it "obligatory" for somebody else. What else do you want from me?

Coherency.

So far, you call something "immoral," but can't say why it's "immoral." It raises the question of why you called anything "immoral" in the first place. You must have had something in mind, but it's not at all clear what it was.

You then said it's more than "Gary doesn't like...," so it's only fair I ask you to explain what more you mean.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:12 pm I suspect that part of the problem in this entire
''cannibalism is immoral" lies in the word.. Immoral..
what exactly does this word mean? Immoral to.. whom?
why is it ... immoral? what makes this action ... immoral?
the rub here is not in cannibalism, but in the word.. immoral...

Kropotkin

Is Socialism "moral"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:12 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:29 pm
Well, Gary, if it is an assessment that goes beyond "doesn't like," and beyond your personal feelings, then we have to ask, what makes it obligatory for somebody else?

I don't know what makes it "obligatory" for somebody else. What else do you want from me?

Coherency.

So far, you call something "immoral," but can't say why it's "immoral." It raises the question of why you called anything "immoral" in the first place. You must have had something in mind, but it's not at all clear what it was.

You then said it's more than "Gary doesn't like...," so it's only fair I ask you to explain what more you mean.

I can't perform those tasks. I can't tell you "why" something is immoral. I can only say what seems immoral to me. You either agree or you don't.

Do you think cannibalism is "immoral"? If so, then "why" do you think it's immoral?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:12 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:38 pm

I don't know what makes it "obligatory" for somebody else. What else do you want from me?

Coherency.

So far, you call something "immoral," but can't say why it's "immoral." It raises the question of why you called anything "immoral" in the first place. You must have had something in mind, but it's not at all clear what it was.

You then said it's more than "Gary doesn't like...," so it's only fair I ask you to explain what more you mean.

I can't perform those tasks. I can't tell you "why" something is immoral.

Then you should probably abandon using the word. It lacks content, for you.

You said it doesn't mean "Gary doesn't like": but then you revert to,

I can only say what seems immoral to me.

Then you're not really saying anything at all. You're saying, "What Gary doesn't like is what Gary doesn't like."

Do you think cannibalism is "immoral"? If so, then "why" do you think it's immoral?

Certainly. But I'm a moral objectivist, so there's nothing inconsistent in me saying so.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:12 pm
Coherency.

So far, you call something "immoral," but can't say why it's "immoral." It raises the question of why you called anything "immoral" in the first place. You must have had something in mind, but it's not at all clear what it was.

You then said it's more than "Gary doesn't like...," so it's only fair I ask you to explain what more you mean.

I can't perform those tasks. I can't tell you "why" something is immoral.

Then you should probably abandon using the word. It lacks content, for you.

You said it doesn't mean "Gary doesn't like": but then you revert to,

I can only say what seems immoral to me.

Then you're not really saying anything at all. You're saying, "What Gary doesn't like is what Gary doesn't like."

Do you think cannibalism is "immoral"? If so, then "why" do you think it's immoral?

Certainly. But I'm a moral objectivist, so there's nothing inconsistent in me saying so.

OK. If you want to believe that I can't know what is immoral and what isn't, then so be it. I feel like I do. However, on the bright side, at least we both agree that cannibalism is immoral. Can we call it a "win" then? We both seem to be onboard in taking that stand against cannibalism.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:23 pm I can't perform those tasks. I can't tell you "why" something is immoral.

Then you should probably abandon using the word. It lacks content, for you.

You said it doesn't mean "Gary doesn't like": but then you revert to,

I can only say what seems immoral to me.

Then you're not really saying anything at all. You're saying, "What Gary doesn't like is what Gary doesn't like."

Do you think cannibalism is "immoral"? If so, then "why" do you think it's immoral?

Certainly. But I'm a moral objectivist, so there's nothing inconsistent in me saying so.

OK. If you want to believe that I can't know what is immoral and what isn't, then so be it. I feel like I do.

I know. I can see you do.

However, what we do in philosophy is more than have feelings. We try to figure out whether or not those feelings are appropriate, and what good reasons we might have for feeling as we do.

However, on the bright side, at least we both agree that cannibalism is immoral. Can we call it a "win" then? We both seem to be onboard in taking that stand against cannibalism.

It's not good enough, Gary. Because somebody is going to ask us why we think what we think...not merely about cannibalism, perhaps, but about murder, abuse, slavery, theft, sloth, character assassination, perjury and so forth. And when they do, we have to have something much better to tell them than, "Well, Gary and I feel this way..."

If that's all we've got, we can expect to lose our case, right away.