With this thread, I hope to create a place to which we can bring controversial issues to discuss logically without morality coming into play.
In the event that your argument is "Society views this as wrong, and so that's how it's gotta be.", then we shall move the issue into a hypothetical world in which people have no opinions (wouldn't that be great?).
To get us started, I'll begin with a little-discussed Taboo of most societies: Cannibalism. Despite the act being unnecessary in all but the most unlikely scenarios, why is it actually illegal?
From what I understand, the movie "Alive" was based on a true story. If cannibalism weren't such a taboo, and they hadn't hesitated, would more people have survived that ordeal? Furthermore, are the people who DID survive living out the rest of their lives in shame over an act that might not have a good reason for being illegal? That's the only example I know of offhand, but that's enough to get the ball rolling.
Other topics of discussion are welcome at the same time. Just make sure you put at the start of your post which one you're talking about; or directly quote the people you are responding to.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I was expecting this to be a Randian thread.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
Seems to me that in any scenario where a person is being cannibalistic, said person would be commiting other crimes as well, such as murder and/or desecration of a corpse.
As an aside, the proposition that I have put forth is a good example of a tautology, a word that had been discussed in other threads recently.
Of course, I might be proven wrong. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The Maori were major cannibals. They ate a bunch of Captain Cook's crew. They were known as the fiercest warriors in the South Pacific.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Once somebody's dead, I honestly don't care what you do with 'em. As long as it isn't messy or a health risk - actually, eating dead people probably constitutes a major health risk, so that may be part of the reason.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Let's say you're a Maori, late 1700s. You eat people. You whip their butts in war, then you eat them brains. To you, this is pretty acceptable. To Cap'n Cook and his crew, it ain't cool at all.
Who's right? Does it depend on perspective?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I suppose we can ignore killing in order to eat someone; murder is illegal anyway, for good and obvious reasons. So that leaves, presumably, the case where you take a body dead from other causes, and eat it. I think there are several possible legal reasonings for making that illegal:
1. Borderline cases. Did he, or didn't he, contribute to that accident because he wanted to be a cannibal?
2. Ownership rights. Who owns a corpse? The next of kin? Better get their permission to eat it, then. And there may be quite a few people with - you should excuse the expression - a stake in the matter. Friends of the deceased? Distant relatives? The county coroner, who might want to take a look at that heart attack? It's just all-around less messy if the corpse is intact.
3. Health issues, as was already mentioned.
4. A deterrent in cases where cannibalism is not absolutely necessary for survival, but someone might get just so dang hungry that they suggest drawing straws anyway.
When you get down to it, though, I don't think any of that is the real reason. Simply put, humans don't like to think of themselves as meat, cannibalism is a taboo as nearly universal as incest, and that sort of widespread, deep repugnance tends to get backed up by the law whether or not there's an actual reason for it. Take the case of sodomy laws, for example. There are any number of them still on the books, and if you were to go back to the time they were introduced, I doubt you'd find any better reasoning than "Icky! Icky! Disgusting!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, one more thing: Although the correlation is not perfect, there's a reasonable likelihood that a non-desperate cannibal may be quite disturbed in other ways. It may be useful to have a good reason to lock him up.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I hadn't considered the 'ownership' and 'autopsy' views on it. The Health issues I can't see though. Cannibalism doesn't necessarily imply it to be raw. I doubt Human flesh has anything unhealthy that 400 F won't take care of.
The next issue on my mind has probably been discussed here before, but I wasn't here for it, and it's on a law that I truly feel doesn't have a leg to stand on: Suicide/Euthanasia.
I feel a weird kind of comfort knowing that it's probably the hardest law in the book to enforce (Being that, if you succeed, then you get off clean ), and even when you don't succeed, the penalty is generally light, being that they don't want to push you completely over the edge (no pun intended, don't sue me).
This law seems, to me, to be a projection of one persons fear of death onto the masses, followed by an attempt to enforce it. With the world population approaching 7 Billion, the word overpopulation is becoming less sarcastic every year. I think we might be only one objective president away from this law being thrown out.
Opinions?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I can see the suicide prohibition to be a public matter as well. Many attempted suicides are unsuccessful, and as a result cause expense and injury to the community.
At the same time, it's also kind of a last ditch effort to help a person who clearly has a lot of problems. Maybe the fact that it's illegal will trigger some sort of morality or anti-law-breaking emotion which will prevent them from killing themselves, and thus keep the possibility that they become a productive and beneficial member of society.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Despite the act being unnecessary in all but the most unlikely scenarios, why is it actually illegal?
I don't think there is any reasonable answer to that question that doesn't bring morality into play.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: I doubt Human flesh has anything unhealthy that 400 F won't take care of.
How about prions?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Stop that, Noemon. You know what I mean.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: I feel a weird kind of comfort knowing that it's probably the hardest law in the book to enforce (Being that, if you succeed, then you get off clean ), and even when you don't succeed, the penalty is generally light, being that they don't want to push you completely over the edge (no pun intended, don't sue me).
This law seems, to me, to be a projection of one persons fear of death onto the masses, followed by an attempt to enforce it. With the world population approaching 7 Billion, the word overpopulation is becoming less sarcastic every year. I think we might be only one objective president away from this law being thrown out.
Opinions?
You'd be hard pressed to find an example of this law "in the book" today, anywhere in the world. That is, it's more than a bit of a moot point already.
There are often still laws (and enforcable laws, at that) against other people aiding, abetting and counselling suicide for someone, just not generally still against the given act by the relevant individual.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I feel a weird kind of comfort knowing that it's probably the hardest law in the book to enforce (Being that, if you succeed, then you get off clean [Roll Eyes] ), and even when you don't succeed, the penalty is generally light, being that they don't want to push you completely over the edge (no pun intended, don't sue me).
Neither suicide nor attempted suicide is a crime in the United States.
Helping another commit suicide generally is a crime in the U.S. One of the principle justifications for this is that our governing principles include a foundational belief that taking a human life should not be done absent due process except in very rare circumstances. Assisting someone else in suicide circumvents that process.
Presumably, since you've grouped euthanasia with suicide, you refer to voluntary euthanasia - that is, medical assistance in ending the life of a consenting person. There are quite a few reasons to make it illegal - a belief that it is impossible to truly consent; a belief that even if it is possible to truly consent, there is no process that provides reliable enough evidence that consent was knowing and voluntary; a belief that allowing euthanasia as an option lets us as a society off the hook for providing adequate care for disabled/terminally ill people; a belief that people will be pressured into accepting euthanasia by medical professionals who work for a company that stands to profit from consent.
By the way, my participation should not be interpreted as agreeing to your starting premise that these topics should be discussed without reference to morality. Each criminal law has at its heart a moral principle. Any justification for punishing an act includes the premise "people ought not to do this act." That premise is either a moral premise or is itself justified by a moral premise somewhere in the chain of reasoning.
quote:I think we might be only one objective president away from this law being thrown out.
Are you using "objective" to mean anything other than "agrees with me on this topic"? Are you honestly saying that there is no objective argument in favor of laws banning assisted suicide?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[deleted for inappropriate behavior ]
[ December 18, 2007, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Aw, man, I always miss the inappropriate behavior!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
[Edited to remove a hilarious but possibly off color joke that would have had you rolling had you read it]
[Edited to emphasize that it really was screamingly funny]
[Further edited to note that your life is distinctly poorer for not having gotten to see the original post]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm just going to make up my own little story in my mind about CT's inappropriate behavior, then.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It had to do with Dagonee and dancing. The rest is left to the imagination.
*prim, secretive and paranoid, since 1970
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Getting back to cannibalism, the health risk is that if you didn't murder the person, you don't know why they did die and eating them could also kill you.
Heating something to 400 F makes it pretty inedible anyway.
Can one quantify, objectively, whether it is matters to look at a particular being as something to be loved vs. a potential meal?
Vegans, of course, believe it is objective to see all living creatures with respect.
If ideas like love and respect are absent the conversation, I don't believe it is worth having. Arbitrary social mores can be discussed, though.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Ouch, lawyered. As far as actual suicide goes, I thought there was a law against it. I stand corrected.
Re: Consent. A DNR order is only a half a step away from a suicide consent as it is. What are the requirements for THAT? I don't see how it should be much different from any other medical consent form. There's no such thing as a perfect system. Someone will find ways to abuse it no matter what. But then, people even get away with murder occasionally, and an innocent man is sentenced for life/death every now and then. This doesn't bring our legal system to a screeching halt does it?
This subject seems to be going in the direction of something I read about once called Bio-Ethics. I'll admit up front that all I really know about it is what I read in a Dean Koontz book (it was a weak moment ), but the basic gist of it seemed to be that potential happiness could be used to help measure a persons worth. I don't expect that branch of discussion to go very far on Hatrack.com though; even in a thread where you're asked to check your Morals at the door, but on the off chance that someone DOES want to comment on it, go for it.
Which brings me to my next point. I made this thread to learn. Not only about the arguments on the discussed issues, but also how to present them. I fully intend to play the part of Devil's Advocate on every subject that I can think of an argument for, even if there's a good chance I'll be proven wrong. Oh, and if I can take my foot out of my mouth long enough to make a point... (Thanks for pointing that out Dag )
Re: Morality. I disagree. I think it started out being the other way around. People made laws based on real world situations that HAD to be addressed at the time. After enough time, these laws were so deeply ingrained that they became part of our definitions for "Right" and "Wrong". On some issues, I feel that some, not all, nor even most, but some laws have been made via a moral 'jump' rather than it's very own logical analysis. Which laws, I'm not sure yet. That's what I hope to find with this thread.
I hope the euthanasia topic isn't dead yet. It only lasted a few posts so far. In the event that it is though, I would like to discuss immigration.
A popular internet personality named Maddox (I'm sure plenty around here have heard of him) put forward a theory on how to alleviate the job situation between illegals and Americans (premise that Illegal aliens are putting Americans out of work by working for cheaper wages). He proposed that we extend the minimum wage laws to INCLUDE illegal immigrants. Now, at first glance, this "Solution" doesn't make much sense. He wants to pay the illegals MORE?!? Wouldn't that just encourage them?
But then look at it from an employers point of view. Whereas before an employer could save a ton of money in wages by paying an illegal immigrant less to do the same job, now what reason is there to hire them over an American? I personally can't see any flaws in it. (not that it will solve the problem over night, but I could see it helping)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:A popular internet personality named Maddox (I'm sure plenty around here have heard of him) put forward a theory on how to alleviate the job situation between illegals and Americans (premise that Illegal aliens are putting Americans out of work by working for cheaper wages). He proposed that we extend the minimum wage laws to INCLUDE illegal immigrants. Now, at first glance, this "Solution" doesn't make much sense. He wants to pay the illegals MORE?!? Wouldn't that just encourage them?
You, uh, you ever read maddox's page?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: This subject seems to be going in the direction of something I read about once called Bio-Ethics. I'll admit up front that all I really know about it is what I read in a Dean Koontz book (it was a weak moment ), but the basic gist of it seemed to be that potential happiness could be used to help measure a persons worth. I don't expect that branch of discussion to go very far on Hatrack.com though; even in a thread where you're asked to check your Morals at the door, but on the off chance that someone DOES want to comment on it, go for it.
Was that the sound of a gauntlet clattering to the floor I heard? Paging Steve Drake...
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
This is slightly related. I have always felt that having seperate laws and punishments for hate crimes made absolutely no sense. Is murdering someone for their race or religion somehow worse than any other premeditated murder? I really cannot think of any other laws where the motivation for the crime plays a role in its punishment.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
murder?
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Sorry, to clear up... Hate Crimes equaled murder in my mind when typing that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So what are we talking about now, illegal immigration?
There are a lot of ways around minimum wage laws already, so that wouldn't really solve anything. People who work under a certain number of hours, businesses under a certain size, domestic workers, it would even be possible to set someone up as an exempt executive (though they have a weekly minimum) as long as they have responsibility over other workers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
No, seriously. I mean if you murder a cop specifically because he is a cop and you want to send a message to other cops to stay away, I rather suspect that the punishment will be different from if you kill a guy because he's sleeping with your wife and it turns out that he's a cop.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Heating something to 400 F makes it pretty inedible anyway.
*gasp*
What have I been doing to cookies and pizza all these years?! Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Heating then at 400 dgrees. The preposition makes a big difference.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
And dkw read my mind.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Ah. Although my particular examples are thin enough that I wouldn't think it would take that long to heat them to 400 degrees F. I don't really have an easy way to verify that, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On some issues, I feel that some, not all, nor even most, but some laws have been made via a moral 'jump' rather than it's very own logical analysis.
Can you provide a logical analysis supporting laws against theft that doesn't have such a moral jump in it?
If theft is one of the laws included in your "some" from above, you could use murder.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
400 is good for pizza, biscuits, and previously frozen foods. I'd say cookies are more in the 350-375 area. A pizza can be cooked at 350. The recommended temperature for roasting meat is usually 325, with the inside of the meat testing between 140-170 F.
What's the temperature oil burns at? That's generally the limit for pizza and cookies, in terms of what temperature they actually would reach.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: The next issue on my mind has probably been discussed here before, but I wasn't here for it, and it's on a law that I truly feel doesn't have a leg to stand on: Suicide/Euthanasia.
I feel a weird kind of comfort knowing that it's probably the hardest law in the book to enforce (Being that, if you succeed, then you get off clean ), and even when you don't succeed, the penalty is generally light, being that they don't want to push you completely over the edge (no pun intended, don't sue me).
This law seems, to me, to be a projection of one persons fear of death onto the masses, followed by an attempt to enforce it. With the world population approaching 7 Billion, the word overpopulation is becoming less sarcastic every year. I think we might be only one objective president away from this law being thrown out.
Opinions?
Dag says there's no current law against attempted suicide. But doesn't attempted suicide cause an near-automatic commitment for psychiatric observation? Is that due to laws or just common practice in the mental health community?
Also, I've read that historically attempted suicide was a capital crime in England. I gather the death sentence was an attempt to prevent damnation for the victim/perp. I wish I had a link to back that up, but I don't--I could be wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Here's a good summary at Straight Dope. You may find the England bit useful.
quote:On some issues, I feel that some, not all, nor even most, but some laws have been made via a moral 'jump' rather than it's very own logical analysis.
Can you provide a logical analysis supporting laws against theft that doesn't have such a moral jump in it?
For both theft and murder, the analysis is very simple: Most people prefer to live in societies where theft and murder are rare, for the good and simple reason that they don't want to be victims. Hence they pass such laws as deterrents. No morality needed.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Dag says there's no current law against attempted suicide. But doesn't attempted suicide cause an near-automatic commitment for psychiatric observation? Is that due to laws or just common practice in the mental health community?
Not necessarily commitment, but a mandatory period of psychiatric evaluation is pretty common. I don't have time to check, but I think it takes some kind of legal action to extend the period beyond 72 hours most places, which does happen in many cases.
These are statutes that empower mental health professionals to deny your liberty - for a short time at least - if they believe you are a danger to yourself or to others.
There are pros and cons to mental health professionals having that power, but it's not an issue of the individual having committed a crime - it's an attempt to protect the individual and society from what is deemed to be dangerous irrational behavior.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Most people prefer to live in societies where theft and murder are rare, for the good and simple reason that they don't want to be victims. Hence they pass such laws as deterrents. No morality needed.
There's a premise there: that laws should reflect the preferences of the people that live in society.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Well, when I'm dictator, that premise won't hold much water.
Sure, maybe I'll throw the people a bone here or there, but trust me, most of the laws will be about how great I am and will help to improve the quality of life for my family and friends (at the expense of the other people that live in my society, btw).
I'm sure it's a brilliant plan that no one else has ever imagined, let alone tried.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Most people prefer to live in societies where theft and murder are rare, for the good and simple reason that they don't want to be victims. Hence they pass such laws as deterrents. No morality needed.
There's a premise there: that laws should reflect the preferences of the people that live in society.
No, there's an observed fact that they commonly do. I made no judgement on whether it's good or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, there's an observed fact that they commonly do. I made no judgement on whether it's good or not.
Ah, then you weren't answering my original question, which asked for support for the laws, not the reason for their existence.
To clarify: syl has implied that one can arrive at what laws should be - not what they are - based purely on logical analysis, without "moral jumps."
I asked him to do so for theft or murder laws.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, try this. Any individual can do this bit of reasoning:
1. I prefer not to be murdered. 2. A law against murder makes it less likely that I will be murdered. 3. Therefore, there should be a law against murder.
This is valid for each individual who prefers not to be murdered, which I think we can reasonably take as all humans.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No, there's an observed fact that they commonly do. I made no judgement on whether it's good or not.
Ah, then you weren't answering my original question, which asked for support for the laws, not the reason for their existence.
To clarify: syl has implied that one can arrive at what laws should be - not what they are - based purely on logical analysis, without "moral jumps."
I asked him to do so for theft or murder laws.
I'm formulating a response, but it'll have to wait till after work.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I would dare-say that Theft and Murder laws were among the first to be agreed upon in large societies. As such, I think the logic behind them is pretty simple: Is a productive civilization possible in a society that allows theft and murder? No, it isn't.
Murder is impossible to excuse in a starting civilization. Some people's lives are so important to a growing society (Blacksmith, doctors, a multitude of either gender, even farmers)) that to not protect them from harm is to threaten the entire community.
Theft is a similar concept, but on a smaller scale. If a persons belongings have no insurance from theft, then the existence of the entire community is thrown into question. A professional in an upcoming society needs their tools (Farmer, Miner, Smith etc.) to ensure productivity. Furthermore, to rob a productive member of society of their rewards for contributing is to threaten said members participation in the society. Why would a farmer grow food for everyone if they don't get to keep some for themselves?
Theft and Murder laws are vital to maintain a successful civilization.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1. I prefer not to be murdered. 2. A law against murder makes it less likely that I will be murdered. 3. Therefore, there should be a law against murder.
There's an unstated premise here:
2.5. Laws that make my preferences more likely to occur should be passed.
quote: Is a productive civilization possible in a society that allows theft and murder? No, it isn't.
"Laws should make productive civilization possible" is a moral jump.
quote:Murder is impossible to excuse in a starting civilization. Some people's lives are so important to a growing society (Blacksmith, doctors, a multitude of either gender, even farmers)) that to not protect them from harm is to threaten the entire community.
"Laws should protect lives that are important to society" is a moral jump.
quote:Theft and Murder laws are vital to maintain a successful civilization.
"Society should enact laws that are vital to maintain a successful civilization" is a moral jump.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:1. I prefer not to be murdered. 2. A law against murder makes it less likely that I will be murdered. 3. Therefore, there should be a law against murder.
There's an unstated premise here:
2.5. Laws that make my preferences more likely to occur should be passed.
Yes, fair enough; I took that as obvious. I don't think it's a moral jump, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course it is.
It's certainly not a premise supported only by logical analysis.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think perhaps we are talking past one another. I gave an argument that can be used by anyone to convince someone else that they want a particular law passed. All humans will find it convincing, and desire to pass the law, quite irrespective of what moral system they follow. What test are you applying that it does not pass?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:What's the temperature oil burns at?
Autoignition temperature is about 1200F. But vegetable oil oxidizes at temperatures as low as room temperature depending on oxygen concentration and mixing characteristics. You're looking for the temperature oil pyrolyzes at, not the temperature it burns at.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Murder is impossible to excuse in a starting civilization. Some people's lives are so important to a growing society (Blacksmith, doctors, a multitude of either gender, even farmers)) that to not protect them from harm is to threaten the entire community.
"Laws should protect lives that are important to society" is a moral jump.
quote:Theft and Murder laws are vital to maintain a successful civilization.
"Society should enact laws that are vital to maintain a successful civilization" is a moral jump. [/QB]
You can make anything sound like a moral by paraphrasing it. In my eyes, all three of the quoted statements above say: "If this is allowed, then my probability of survival goes down". I don't see morality in that.
I don't think we'll come to any conclusions until we understand each other's definition of Morality. I feel that morality certainly has a basis in logic. As I said before, I think morality initially STARTED as reason. After a time though, as certain concepts became a part of every day life, people forgot the line of reason that led to those concepts. I'll give an example.
Endangered species. Certainly they are worth protecting, as driving them to extinction can have unforeseen consequences. Some people don't stop with endangered species though. Some feel that this umbrella of protection should extend to protect other, more common animals, from animal testing. This doesn't make sense. This is an example of a "Moral jump".
Another correlated subject is something I'll call an "Expired moral conclusion". Something that once made sense that is no longer applicable in the world we live in. An example: Several generations ago, when the world population wasn't nearing 7 Billion, it made perfect sense to frown upon Abortion. A society could fail do to low birthrates alone. Today, however, that isn't likely. Their just doesn't seem to be enough consequences for it to be an issue any more (in my opinion).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
How is, "Survival is an imperative," any less of a moral then, "Murder is bad?"
What makes it logical not moral that we should preserve even our own lives?
[ December 20, 2007, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Cannibalism:
There is a sort of dignity we would like to apply to human-ness, so that we don't end up treating people as mere objects. By this I mean that I move my sofa, or lock it in the house, or stick needles in it to reupholster it or bury it in the dump or saw it to bits, with no twinge of reservation, but -- think about doing those things to human beings. I'm *glad* we don't think of people as mere objects! But if I eat someone's body, I treat that person as a mere object. If it were a ritual thing like in Stranger in a Strange Land, it might be different, but if it's just hmm, McDonalds or drop by the funeral home today? then I must have an attitude that people are just objects, not in the usual I'm-a-little-selfish way, but *truly* objects.
There are people that have no trace of concern for the dignity or rights of others. They are called sociopaths.
This I think is why cannibalism is viewed with revulsion, and should be viewed with revulsion. It's true that an already dead body has no person in it, but it's close enough to personhood that violating it makes one dangerous to the living as well.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I don't think we'll be able to avoid moral questions here (certainly not by replacing "good" with "healthy" or "to be desired"!). But maybe the purpose of this thread was for us to discuss the effects of cannibalism and its taboo, or whatever, rather than just the flat answer "it's wrong." It is wrong, but it also has certain effects when you practice it.
One of which is diseases. That's another good reason that we find it disgusting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Endangered species. Certainly they are worth protecting, as driving them to extinction can have unforeseen consequences. Some people don't stop with endangered species though. Some feel that this umbrella of protection should extend to protect other, more common animals, from animal testing. This doesn't make sense. This is an example of a "Moral jump".
"Endangered species are certainly worth protecting" is an example of a "moral jump."
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Endangered species. Certainly they are worth protecting, as driving them to extinction can have unforeseen consequences. Some people don't stop with endangered species though. Some feel that this umbrella of protection should extend to protect other, more common animals, from animal testing. This doesn't make sense. This is an example of a "Moral jump".
"Endangered species are certainly worth protecting" is an example of a "moral jump."
Only if you take it out of the context that was set by the rest of the sentence...
That's like someone taking the phrase "If you're absolutely desperate to get out of the house tonight and don't have anything remotely close to being considered a life, then I suppose 'I am Legend' is a fine choice of movies for you.", and cutting it down to "I am Legend is a fine choice of movies." (don't get me wrong, I didn't hate this movie, it was just the first one to come to mind, so I used it as my example)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Endangered species are certainly worth protecting" is an example of a "moral jump."
Have you thought this through? I would think it would make at least some sense to keep them around for future scientific study. I think it's also pretty rude to kill endangered species that many other people enjoy seeing in nature. I'm not saying these are absolutes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dag, if you're not too busy with Christmas, I'm still interested in your response.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
), and even when you don't succeed, the penalty is generally light, being that they don't want to push you completely over the edge (no pun intended, don't sue me). ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
), but the basic gist of it seemed to be that potential happiness could be used to help measure a persons worth. I don't expect that branch of discussion to go very far on Hatrack.com though; even in a thread where you're asked to check your Morals at the door, but on the off chance that someone DOES want to comment on it, go for it.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
)