Trophy Hunting Good?!

[bennyboy]

IDK, like I suggested earlier, whether or not there is some ambiguity -must- depend on whether or not a person considers killing an animal unambiguously immoral in and of itself.  A bad act in need of positive modification. Without that bit of certainty, there's just nothing to weigh on any scale.   Because I don't consider killing animals unambiguously, or objectively, immoral.... there's nothing to weigh or create ambiguity later on down the line.

No doubt. A lot of special pleading is likely to develop. We must, of course, save cute little baby seals. But mosquitoes-- fuck those assholes! Kill them with fire! We'll start making a list of rules about which animals should / shouldn't be worried about. In general, I think we'll find that the more human an animal is, the cuter it is, the more people will include under the umbrella of morality. That makes sense: our altruistic instincts extend beyond our own genetic DNA, but the degree of extension probably varies among individuals.

[Amarok]

If you had listed the faults in the argument, or mentioned how the arguments were similarly faulty,

No need the  evidence is throughout this forum 

You literally responded to someone else saying he did something he didn't even do.  

Yes responded  . But i didn't say he didn't say there was no difference. I said benny did not understand the difference. Not that their was no difference.   

You responded to a strawman someone else posted about that argument.

See above . I agree it's not Benny's position.

[The Grand Nudger]

No doubt.  A lot of special pleading is likely to develop.  We must, of course, save cute little baby seals.  But mosquitoes-- fuck those assholes!  Kill them with fire!  We'll start making a list of rules about which animals should / shouldn't be worried about.  In general, I think we'll find that the more human an animal is, the cuter it is, the more people will include under the umbrella of morality.  That makes sense: our altruistic instincts extend beyond our own genetic DNA, but the degree of extension probably varies among individuals.

The above would be suggestive of a subjective..not objective, morality.  Is it possible that some of these problems and some special pleading might vanish when subjected to an objective moral framework?

[bennyboy]

No doubt.  A lot of special pleading is likely to develop.  We must, of course, save cute little baby seals.  But mosquitoes-- fuck those assholes!  Kill them with fire!  We'll start making a list of rules about which animals should / shouldn't be worried about.  In general, I think we'll find that the more human an animal is, the cuter it is, the more people will include under the umbrella of morality.  That makes sense: our altruistic instincts extend beyond our own genetic DNA, but the degree of extension probably varies among individuals.

The above would be suggestive of a subjective..not objective, morality.  Is it possible that some of these problems and some special pleading might vanish when subjected to an objective moral framework?

Like what?

[The Grand Nudger]

For example, the qualifiers "more human" and "cuter".  Neither of these things seems like an objective basis for a moral assessment.  Invariably, the cuteness qualifier combined with the human factor means that we'd end up leaving ugly inhuman shit off the list even if it's circumstance or attributes were identical to the cute human baby like stuff.   Those two entirely subjective metrics impart ambiguity and special pleading.  

Denis Leary had a great routine about otters and cattle.  

---

---

[bennyboy]

For example, the qualifiers "more human" and "cuter".  Neither of these things seems like an objective basis for a moral assessment.  Invariably, the cuteness qualifier combined with the human factor means that we'd end up leaving ugly inhuman shit off the list even if it's circumstance or attributes were identical to the cute human baby like stuff.   Those two entirely subjective metrics impart ambiguity and special pleading.  

Denis Leary had a great routine about otters and cattle.  

---

---

Right.  You just said these things might vanish when subjected to an objective moral framework.  What framework would this be, and could you give a couple examples? It seems that all morality, either directly or indirectly, is based on an instinctive sense of value.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's self stated in the terms objective moral framework that you are only referencing objective things.   I just gave an example of how one might approach the subject with an objective moral framework..by discarding those subjective metrics.  It doesn't always have to be about what claims you can make..it can just as easily be the ones you can't. Is some animal objectively cute? Objectively human like? Are these objectives metrics for morality in the first place. Is what is moral that which conforms, somehow, to cuteness and humanness as modifying qualities? This would make it more immoral, by far, to destroy a porcelain doll than an otter. Does that seem like we've grasped some meaningful comment on the subject, or like we may have made a mistake somewhere?

If you, or I, can't isolate some objectively immoral thing in x..it wouldn't make sense to call it immoral in an objective framework. We could register our subjective and selective disgust, but not a compelling moral condemnation. Mind you, I;m not saying that we don;t do this (or that there can't be a correlation between it and an objectively valid moral comment)...that your suspicions of what we'd find in common moralities runs along cuteness and humanness factors..or that we don;t conflate our disgust -as- a moral condemenation. Merely pointing out that it's not compatible with an objective framework, and that the problems associated with it are are properly owned by selective disgust, not a coherent morality.

[bennyboy]

I just gave an example of how one might approach the subject with an objective moral framework..by discarding those subjective metrics.  

What would an objective metric for morality be?  Or should we just drop the whole concept of morality as obsolete?

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems an almost fantastic leap to suggest morality is obsolete simply because I've declined to bicker with you about what any floating objective moral metrics -are- in my own views, when I'm only trying to establish why some specific metric simply can't be one of them by definition.  Why a deference to subjective metrics expresses itself as incoherence, special pleading, or ambiguity down the line.  Turning any attendant moral calculus into meaningless busywork.

In context of trophy hunting, I'm not aware of anything that would make it objectively immoral, in and of itself.  I leave it to those who do think it's immoral to make me aware of whatever it is that makes it so.  You suggested another type of hunting that I do think is objectively immoral, that of hunting some novel species of rhino to extinction.  What is it that you think makes that specific example immoral, do you think that whatever reason you give will be meaningfully subjective or meaningfully objective....and does it apply to trophy hunting in and of itself? I think we're more likely to come to an understaning if we start from a point of mutual agreement..even if we don't end on one. I doubt, for example, that the cuteness and humaness of a rhino is what leads you to offer that as a potential example of immoral hunting.

[bennyboy]

It seems an almost fantastic leap to suggest morality is obsolete simply because I've declined to bicker with you about what any floating objective moral metrics -are- in my own views, when I'm only trying to establish why some specific metric simply can't be one of them by definition.  Why a deference to subjective metrics expresses itself as incoherence, special pleading, or ambiguity down the line.  Turning any attendant moral calculus into meaningless busywork.

I'm not saying that feeling is a moral metric.  I'm saying that morality itself is an expression of our feelings about things-- specifically, feelings of value about life, property, etc.  If nobody gave a shit about their kids or their property, then there would really be no need for morality.