Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:@ chaz wyman excrescence ????? That's the first time I've seen offspring of an organism called as such. But thats beside the point.

The implication was yours.

I suppose there are a number of different ways linked to being a moral agent within a moral ingroup, be it based on personhood or sophisticated personal preferences. Problem is as I see it you then run into the problem associated with the Post Birth Abortion paper and you don't have non arbitrary reasons to keep babies and non person infants alive. Personally my on stance leans towards a Jainist position linked to similar interests -somewhat the Peter Singer line- but with a totally different result.

I think the Jainist position would utterly refute your position on the absolute choice of the woman.
And what is Pete Singer's line here?

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:@ chaz wyman excrescence ????? That's the first time I've seen offspring of an organism called as such. But thats beside the point.

The implication was yours.

I suppose there are a number of different ways linked to being a moral agent within a moral ingroup, be it based on personhood or sophisticated personal preferences. Problem is as I see it you then run into the problem associated with the Post Birth Abortion paper and you don't have non arbitrary reasons to keep babies and non person infants alive. Personally my on stance leans towards a Jainist position linked to similar interests -somewhat the Peter Singer line- but with a totally different result.

I think the Jainist position would utterly refute your position on the absolute choice of the woman.
And what is Pete Singer's line here?

It isn't my stance I'm not a strong bodily autonomy/feminist account supporter, I was just pointing out -given one abortion rights account that incorporates what is considered a crucial consideration- that the viability account has serious questions to answer. Where something is isn't by itself morally relevant.

Peter Singer in his animal rights Preference utilitarianism stance thinks that we should treat things according to their interests, especially since we can share similar interests. He thinks since non person sentient animals have an interest in not suffering, then it makes sense not to cause them suffering. As opposed to say a rock that cannot suffer or be harmed as it has no interests. But persons have an additional interest with existential desires, therefore unlike non person animals they have a right to life. Where I differ is that I think you can ground existential concerns in other ways, namely present and future wellbeing concerns.

chaz wyman wrote:
Does he take a subtle line on domesticated food animals - or is he a vegetarian all the way. From an evolutionary perspective sheep, pigs and cattle have an interest in being killed and tasting good. Their survival as a species depends on their utility to human kind.

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Does he take a subtle line on domesticated food animals - or is he a vegetarian all the way. From an evolutionary perspective sheep, pigs and cattle have an interest in being killed and tasting good. Their survival as a species depends on their utility to human kind.

All his line says is that non person animals should be killed humanely not that they shouldnt be killed or used at all. I think he is a vegetarian for other reasons.

And by offering to animals that right then we ought to be obliged to treat humans with at least the same care. There are implications here for torture, and safe imprisonment.

You point about it being in their interest to be killed and eaten would seem a reasonable one to make. But the trouble with that -combined with a flaw in using personhood for moral rights- is that in principle one could use human non persons ie babies and non person infants and persons breed to think -like that animal at the restaurant at the end of the universe in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe- that it is in their interests, to be breed to be eaten.
Yeah Douglas Adams was all over that philosophical dilemma - in a way his solution was sort of preferable to killing a reluctant creature. I thought the TV dramatisation of that was excellent.

If we were invaded by an alien species and told extinction or being breed to be eaten, I wonder what people would choose if they could live a a comfortable life but at any momment be killed humanely for a alien meal.

I suppose that would depend on the quality of life in the interim. Most food is best gathered before maturity for reasons of efficiency. We would have to live in a Logan's Run type of society.

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Does he take a subtle line on domesticated food animals - or is he a vegetarian all the way. From an evolutionary perspective sheep, pigs and cattle have an interest in being killed and tasting good. Their survival as a species depends on their utility to human kind.

All his line says is that non person animals should be killed humanely not that they shouldnt be killed or used at all. I think he is a vegetarian for other reasons.

And by offering to animals that right then we ought to be obliged to treat humans with at least the same care. There are implications here for torture, and safe imprisonment.

You point about it being in their interest to be killed and eaten would seem a reasonable one to make. But the trouble with that -combined with a flaw in using personhood for moral rights- is that in principle one could use human non persons ie babies and non person infants and persons breed to think -like that animal at the restaurant at the end of the universe in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe- that it is in their interests, to be breed to be eaten.
Yeah Douglas Adams was all over that philosophical dilemma - in a way his solution was sort of preferable to killing a reluctant creature. I thought the TV dramatisation of that was excellent.

If we were invaded by an alien species and told extinction or being breed to be eaten, I wonder what people would choose if they could live a a comfortable life but at any momment be killed humanely for a alien meal.

I suppose that would depend on the quality of life in the interim. Most food is best gathered before maturity for reasons of efficiency. We would have to live in a Logan's Run type of society.

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:[


All his line says is that non person animals should be killed humanely not that they shouldnt be killed or used at all. I think he is a vegetarian for other reasons.

And by offering to animals that right then we ought to be obliged to treat humans with at least the same care. There are implications here for torture, and safe imprisonment.

You point about it being in their interest to be killed and eaten would seem a reasonable one to make. But the trouble with that -combined with a flaw in using personhood for moral rights- is that in principle one could use human non persons ie babies and non person infants and persons breed to think -like that animal at the restaurant at the end of the universe in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe- that it is in their interests, to be breed to be eaten.
Yeah Douglas Adams was all over that philosophical dilemma - in a way his solution was sort of preferable to killing a reluctant creature. I thought the TV dramatisation of that was excellent.

If we were invaded by an alien species and told extinction or being breed to be eaten, I wonder what people would choose if they could live a a comfortable life but at any momment be killed humanely for a alien meal.

I suppose that would depend on the quality of life in the interim. Most food is best gathered before maturity for reasons of efficiency. We would have to live in a Logan's Run type of society.

we seem to have come to an understanding and at least some agreement. In some ways this is similar to slavery in that I would think that many people if offered a comfortable life would not mind being slaves if the alternative was much less desirable. If i was offered the life of a millionaire until say 65 and then killed humanely to be eaten by an alien I don't think i would think twice.But then again I don't see eating human flesh as intrinsically wrong. Maybe if the age was brought down to Logans Run I would have a problem. How about 40? LOL we are showing our age I was into Logans Run as well. Maybe i should watch Soylent Green again.

The Voice of Time wrote:some threads never end do they?

I usually retreat from the chaos of thread after it reaches 5 pages. It just becomes a mess to try and catch up with things and sort out all the silly stuff.

chaz wyman wrote:
Good old Charlie Heston!! Wadda guy! NRA moron!!
65 sounds pretty soon to me. I might have entered into such a contract when I was 15, but not now - even-though I doubt I'll make it on my own I don't think the cash is much of a bargain.
If you only had 2 years to live and could exchange 1 of those years for cash - how much would you ask? I can't image any amount that would do it for me though the idea that I might be able to give it away before I died might be worth the sacrifice.

chaz wyman wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:some threads never end do they?

I usually retreat from the chaos of thread after it reaches 5 pages. It just becomes a mess to try and catch up with things and sort out all the silly stuff.

Yeah - considering the content of my last post and comparing it to the title - er..... The phrase lost the thread seems to apply.

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:some threads never end do they?

I usually retreat from the chaos of thread after it reaches 5 pages. It just becomes a mess to try and catch up with things and sort out all the silly stuff.

Yeah - considering the content of my last post and comparing it to the title - er..... The phrase lost the thread seems to apply.

While we are talking about philosophy and TV shows and movies, I'd like to do a Twlight Zone thread based on the Button Button episode and link it to abortion. A new thread? Any takers?

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:
While we are talking about philosophy and TV shows and movies, I'd like to do a Twlight Zone thread based on the Button Button episode and link it to abortion. A new thread? Any takers?

I don't know the episode can you link it?

Wait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-N4fs2yolE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcbP-625 ... ure=relmfu

Got it.

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:
While we are talking about philosophy and TV shows and movies, I'd like to do a Twlight Zone thread based on the Button Button episode and link it to abortion. A new thread? Any takers?

I don't know the episode can you link it?

Wait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-N4fs2yolE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcbP-625 ... ure=relmfu

Got it.

Thats it how about we take it to a new thread

chaz wyman wrote:From an evolutionary perspective sheep, pigs and cattle have an interest in being killed and tasting good. Their survival as a species depends on their utility to human kind.

Kayla wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:From an evolutionary perspective sheep, pigs and cattle have an interest in being killed and tasting good. Their survival as a species depends on their utility to human kind.

this presupposes that individual sheep pigs and cattle have an interest in the continuation of their species as opposed to an interest in them personally not being killed