Troye
Gallente
Strix Armaments and Defence
   |
Posted - 2008.01.11 19:36:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Troye on 11/01/2008 19:37:51
 Originally by: Jin Entres
Natural?
Quote:
Appeal to Nature
Alias:
* Argumentum ad Naturam
* Naturalistic Fallacy
Forms:
N is natural.
Therefore, N is right or good.
U is unnatural.
Therefore, U is wrong or bad.
'Another problem is that the word "natural" is loaded with a positive evaluation, much like the word "normal". So, to call something "natural" is not simply to describe it, but to praise it. This explains why it sometimes sounds odd to call some things "natural" or "unnatural". For instance, it is unnatural to wear shoes, but few would wish to condemn the practice. For this reason, to call something "natural" and then to conclude that it is, therefore, good may beg the question.'
Liberty to inflict pain? All organisms look out for themselves. They often if not mostly do this at the expense of others. Humans are no different. We have morals because it is beneficial if not fundamental to the functioning of society; codes of conduct and culturally created morality serves to embetter the lives of us all by inhibiting behaviour that is only beneficial to the individual and not society. Human rights and liberty are important constructs worth preserving and valuing, but not because they represent something fundamentally transcendent but because they are vitally useful to us.
The notion that animals have similar rights is easily fuelled by our capacity for empathy; ie. relating to their pain. It may of course serve ourselves to spare them from pain by making us feel better, but from the point of view of social reciprocity, it serves no purpose. It can be seen as a misfiring, if you will, of our evolutionarily developed altruistic tendencies, which I might add is also one of the current theories for explaining altruism on a wider (non-kin) scale.
So simply put, we don't have a pact with bugs that serves our benefit. If we want to refrain from exploiting them to our amusement on any grounds, it is only to make us feel better.
So youÆre disregarding empathy towards organisms outside our own species as a bi-product of altruism? ThatÆs why accounting for every facet of the human condition with an evolutionary purpose is so easy; you can disregard anything that doesnÆt "fit" as a simple after-effect.
But to argue on your grounds; what makes you so certain empathy towards animals serves no philanthropic purpose? When an animal is killed for meat the butcher has the option to inflict pain onto it but his choice not to is a preservation of his morals, which by your definition is what holds civilisation in place. If altruism is so easily translatable towards species not our own the true can be said in reverse, it's well documented that psychopaths exploit animals in this way before moving on to human victims. It is the act of causing pain to another creature, whether that be human or animal, that results in the degradation of our constructed morals.
Don't take me for some animal rights nutcase, I eat meat, I just prefer to know my meat hasnÆt been tortured before it gets to my plate.
Originally by: GM Nova
What the hell???
|