Morality from the ground up

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Weighing the good and the bad of two actions and doing the one with most good should work, right? Of course then another question arises..what exactly is good or bad? What if we based it on survival? that should work. Instead of instant gratification long term survival and well being can be considered.
Although when we base things on long term survival and well being it may not necessarily jive well with people hooked on instant gratification and short term highs. Enough people get this feeling they overthrow the long term based system.

I guess the most ethical way is probably also the most toughest way..

[Astonished]

Is it possible to make a moral system without reference to instinct or to superstition, but rooted in rational principles?  How might we go about doing that?

Maybe, but no one has yet fully succeeded in doing so. I'd say Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics comes the closest. Even then, he relies on a primal universal desire for happiness. Maybe Seneca or Marcus Arelius.

Maybe if theistic fucks like you stop getting in the way it wouldn't be so difficult.

[bennyboy]

That's known as rational self interest.  Isn't that exactly what you asked for?  "Nobody hurt me" becomes "nobody should hurt others"..because, rationally, we recognize that we are the others to everyone else.

I'd say this represents the norm. However, a significant number of people fall outside the norm. My own case, which I won't bother to bring up explicitly, shows that there can be disconnects in places that are surprising to both parties.

Here's an example. I don't want to be hurt, and I can see that animals are capable of being hurt, so I choose to avoid where I can anything that is likely to cause animal suffering. But people are omnivores, and relatively few hold that seem feeling. This is non-trivial, because it applies to people, too. I see all people as deserving respect. However, there are MANY people, in all parts of the world, who see their own as important, and strangers as nearly irrelevant.

Is there a way to mediate this rationally, or must it done by the democracy of action-- whichever group can generate more action will take control of that part of the set of moral memes?

[Astonished]

That's known as rational self interest.  Isn't that exactly what you asked for?  "Nobody hurt me" becomes "nobody should hurt others"..because, rationally, we recognize that we are the others to everyone else.

I'd say this represents the norm.  However, a significant number of people fall outside the norm.  My own case, which I won't bother to bring up explicitly, shows that there can be disconnects in places that are surprising to both parties.

Here's an example.  I don't want to be hurt, and I can see that animals are capable of being hurt, so I choose to avoid where I can anything that is likely to cause animal suffering.  But people are omnivores, and relatively few hold that seem feeling.  This is non-trivial, because it applies to people, too.  I see all people as deserving respect.  However, there are MANY people, in all  parts of the world, who see their own as important, and strangers as nearly irrelevant.

Is there a way to mediate this rationally, or must it done by the democracy of action-- whichever group can generate more action will take control of that part of the set of moral memes?

I hate the vegetarian/vegan moral argument. From what I learned in one of my bio/anthro classes, if our evolutionary ancestors weren't eating the flesh (and brains) of other animals, it doesn't seem like our brains would have enlarged and developed to the point they are at now. We owe the ability to even contemplate these matters rationally on carnivorous diets. I do agree unnecessary harm should be avoided (furs, animal testing that isn't medical) since tormenting them is a sign of psychopathy that can spread to how one treats other humans, but food and essential materials (I think they make glue from horse hooves, or they used to or something) or even donor organs from compatible animals, are easily permissible.

[bennyboy]

I hate the vegetarian/vegan moral argument. From what I learned in one of my bio/anthro classes, if our evolutionary ancestors weren't eating the flesh (and brains) of other animals, it doesn't seem like our brains would have enlarged and developed to the point they are at now. We owe the ability to even contemplate these matters rationally on carnivorous diets. I do agree unnecessary harm should be avoided (furs, animal testing that isn't medical) since tormenting them is a sign of psychopathy that can spread to how one treats other humans, but food and essential materials (I think they make glue from horse hooves, or they used to or something) or even donor organs from compatible animals, are easily permissible.

I'm neutral on the vegetarian arguments, even though I'm vegetarian myself. What I can say is that the animals' "opinion" on whether they should be killed and eaten is probably different than ours. I'd ask this though: is there a non-arbitrary distinction between this inter-species view and the killing of other humans on the grounds that they are perceived by us as less important? Cows are much less threatening to my family than are, say, North Koreans. Should I save a cow and eat a gook?

As for vegetarianism: I believe that large-scale farm machinery (threshers) etc. probably kill very many ground-dwelling birds and mammals, and that grazing animals probably kill relatively few. So if I eat a single grazing cow, I may very well be saving many lives. That being said, I'd say that eating grain-eating cattle is a double sin, since animals died to make the grain, and the cattle-feeding is an inefficient use of calories.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe, but no one has yet fully succeeded in doing so. I'd say Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics comes the closest. Even then, he relies on a primal universal desire for happiness. Maybe Seneca or Marcus Arelius.

Maybe if theistic fucks like you stop getting in the way it wouldn't be so difficult.

I've provided a two reasonable starting points - natural law and stoicism. Neither is necessarily theistic.

[Astonished]

I hate the vegetarian/vegan moral argument. From what I learned in one of my bio/anthro classes, if our evolutionary ancestors weren't eating the flesh (and brains) of other animals, it doesn't seem like our brains would have enlarged and developed to the point they are at now. We owe the ability to even contemplate these matters rationally on carnivorous diets. I do agree unnecessary harm should be avoided (furs, animal testing that isn't medical) since tormenting them is a sign of psychopathy that can spread to how one treats other humans, but food and essential materials (I think they make glue from horse hooves, or they used to or something) or even donor organs from compatible animals, are easily permissible.

I'm neutral on the vegetarian arguments, even though I'm vegetarian myself.  What I can say is that the animals' "opinion" on whether they should be killed and eaten is probably different than ours.  I'd ask this though: is there a non-arbitrary distinction between this inter-species view and the killing of other humans on the grounds that they are perceived by us as less important?  Cows are much less threatening to my family than are, say, North Koreans.  Should I save a cow and eat a gook?

As for vegetarianism: I believe that large-scale farm machinery (threshers) etc. probably kill very many ground-dwelling birds and mammals, and that grazing animals probably kill relatively few.  So if I eat a single grazing cow, I may very well be saving many lives.  That being said, I'd say that eating grain-eating cattle is a double sin, since animals died to make the grain, and the cattle-feeding is an inefficient use of calories.

Non-arbitrary? How about the fact that there are many disorders that can occur from cannibalism of our own species?

Or just the fact that we're the only species capable of discussing this topic and making conscious choices. No other species can really render their opinion.

Maybe if theistic fucks like you stop getting in the way it wouldn't be so difficult.

I've provided a two reasonable starting points - natural law and stoicism. Neither is necessarily theistic.

Good for you. Now if you and everyone else just drop your theistic baggage that will inevitably poison everything, we'll be getting somewhere.

[The Grand Nudger]

 I'd ask this though: is there a non-arbitrary distinction between this inter-species view and the killing of other humans on the grounds that they are perceived by us as less important?  Cows are much less threatening to my family than are, say, North Koreans.  Should I save a cow and eat a gook?

Sure there is, but it's never going to tell you to save a cow and eat a person, since that non-arbitrary measure we use both in determining whether or not it's okay to eat something -and- how we should handle that somethings end of life is sentience. More importantly......farming and eating people aint exactly a good idea on the health front, laying aside ethics. That said, if we - for whatever reason, had no choice but to mow down on sentient creatures...as we currently have no choice but to end life for the sake of our own...that;s what we'd do, and while it would be sub-optimal I doubt anyone would condemn you for it.

As for vegetarianism: I believe that large-scale farm machinery (threshers) etc. probably kill very many ground-dwelling birds and mammals, and that grazing animals probably kill relatively few.  So if I eat a single grazing cow, I may very well be saving many lives.  That being said, I'd say that eating grain-eating cattle is a double sin, since animals died to make the grain, and the cattle-feeding is an inefficient use of calories.

It's a highly efficient use of perishable or unavailable calories, of marginal lands, of skills, of infrastructure, and of funds.  I suppose that if you only consider it from the point of view of the end consumer that might not be immediately visible - but those are the things that actually go into the decision to run a cattle operation, not the musings on caloric efficiency or density of a vegetarian.

[brewer]

Tell you what .. if you don't fuck with me or my stuff, I'll return the favor.  We good?  (That wasn't so hard.)

But you stuff is better than my stuff and that's not fare. 

Being fare is moral.

Gimme some stuff damnit.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say this represents the norm.  However, a significant number of people fall outside the norm.  My own case, which I won't bother to bring up explicitly, shows that there can be disconnects in places that are surprising to both parties.

Unlikely, otherwise it wouldn't be called "the norm".   I think it;s easier to maintain that people do not always make identical decisions when acting out of rational self interest, but, ofc, why would they?  Different people, different circumstances, different strategies, and yet strangely similar outcomes.

Here's an example.  I don't want to be hurt, and I can see that animals are capable of being hurt, so I choose to avoid where I can anything that is likely to cause animal suffering.  But people are omnivores, and relatively few hold that seem feeling.  This is non-trivial, because it applies to people, too.  I see all people as deserving respect.  However, there are MANY people, in all  parts of the world, who see their own as important, and strangers as nearly irrelevant.

That;s true, we don;t always extend our sense of rational self interest to everyone, but we can easily demonstrate that the same currents are operating -within- whatever that person considers their sphere.  For example..we may say, if everyone thinks rape is bad, why does so and so rape their conquered enemies - but the more pressing question is -do they rape their own-?  The answer is no.  That simply shows a moral failure, and it;s in our interest (and theirs) to show them how their small mindedness will harm -them-.  Which we do.  Similarly, you have concerns that eating meat will cause animals to be hurt..so you take action, or..rather, inaction on one front - but here you are advocating for the idea on the other. Sounds to me like this is working as intended? Though, I will say here that it's not entirely a rational chain of thought that leads you from a to b, at least not a rationally self interested one. A world in which cows can be eaten still isn't a world in which -you- can be eaten, nor is there any reason that we have to hurt animals to eat them...so it boils down to your own personal preferences, which you are obviously free to have and act on - but it's very difficult to extend it as compulsion to others- particularly in that we -do- live in a world where animals have to die for us to live. At worst, it's a sub-optimal field where we choose the lesser of many evils. Personally, I don't find the suffering of any creature capable of suffering irrelevant, but I do have a list of priorities that puts human beings at the top and plants at the bottom, so..lol.

Is there a way to mediate this rationally, or must it done by the democracy of action-- whichever group can generate more action will take control of that part of the set of moral memes?

Groups in power often claim and subvert morality.  The christers are still trying it even after they lost their grip.