Taboo and Morality Quiz

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why, because it is a hairless ape?

No, because it thinks and feels. At least, I think and feel, and others certainly seem to do the same. And that's the unprovable assertion in my moral theory. The axiom in my formal system.

Axiom 1: Living human beings have inherent value. All of them.

I proceed from there.

[notyoueither]

Why are they moral objects, but the objects they place importance in are not?

Only human beings are capable of having wrong done to them?

The RSPCA will be relieved that they can all go home now, since they have nothing to look out for.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, because it thinks and feels. At least, I think and feel, and others certainly seem to do the same. And that's the unprovable assertion in my moral theory. The axiom in my formal system.

Axiom 1: Living human beings have inherent value. All of them.

I proceed from there.

So, people in a vegatative state are game for dinner?

[Az]

KH: there is a certain amount of negative utility in the act of a person tearing up a flag of another person in front of the other person's eyes. The fact that the first person meant no disrespect is irrelevant, since the other person feels somewhat offended anyway, without being given any larger context on this action ( using flag as a bandage, etc. )

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why are they moral objects, but the objects they place importance in are not?

No, they are not. If a tribe buries a relic in a tomb which is never to be violated, and I steal it in the middle of the night and they never find out about it then I have done no wrong. If I burn a cross in my basement then I have done no wrong. If I wipe my ass with the Canadian flag in the privacy of my bathroom then I have done no wrong.

The RSPCA will be relieved that they can all go home now, since they have nothing to look out for.

See, now you're managing to get somewhere. This is the first difficult question you've managed to ask

Animals are not moral objects. Animals cannot be victims. Hurting an animal is not an absolute moral wrong. Needlessly hurting animals is against custom, and for good reason. Cruelty to animals is intensely psychologically linked to cruelty to people. People who become desensitised to animal suffering are also desensitised to human suffering. It is for that reason that this is a smart custom to uphold. As well, the spectacle of animal suffering hits anybody who might view it emotionally. If I was going to be unaffected psychologically by it (and this is a silly if), then slowly torturing a dog to death in my basement is not wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
KH: there is a certain amount of negative utility in the act of a person tearing up a flag of another person in front of the other person's eyes. The fact that the first person meant no disrespect is irrelevant, since the other person feels somewhat offended anyway, without being given any larger context on this action ( using flag as a bandage, etc. )

Yes, and that is why I said that once the other person understands the custom he should avoid doing bad things to the flag in front of somebody who might take offence..

Already covered a page and a half ago.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


So, people in a vegatative state are game for dinner?

Nope. I draw the lines more broadly than might be strictly necessary in order to not mistakenly commit a grave moral wrong.

I will say this, though: if there are 5 people starving to death in a room (which they will escape in 2 months' time, but unfortunately they will starve to death before then) and one of them is in a permanent vegetative state then I know which one should be fileted...

[Az]

Yes, but we aren't talking about this - we are talking about whether in the moment of ignorance. My line of reasoning here is: Tearing up flag hurts person B -> hurting person B is bad -> Tearing up flag is bad. The fact that person A doesn't know that they do something bad doesn't mean it's bad.

It is quite possible that the attachement that B feels for the flag is illogical, yet it's not harmful in any way, and it's a fact. there is no positive utility in tearing up the flag... well perhaps other than being useful in cleaning the toilet. But it's somewhat hard for me to decide on the relative weight of these two concept so I'll ignore the toilet cleaning utility for now - unless, of course, it was part of your original argument.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Flags are not moral objects. Flags cannot be victims. Burning a flag is not an absolute moral wrong. Needlessly burning flags is against custom, and for good reason. Burning of flags is intensely psychologically linked to cruelty to people. People who become desensitised to burning flags are also desensitised to human suffering. It is for that reason that this is a smart custom to uphold. As well, the spectacle of burning flags hits anybody who might view it emotionally. If I was going to be unaffected psychologically by it (and this is a silly if), then slowly burning a flag in my basement is not wrong.

What's the difference between spot and some guy's flag?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Nope. I draw the lines more broadly than might be strictly necessary in order to not mistakenly commit a grave moral wrong.

I will say this, though: if there are 5 people starving to death in a room (which they will escape in 2 months' time, but unfortunately they will starve to death before then) and one of them is in a permanent vegetative state then I know which one should be fileted...

So then, it is OK to eat people from time to time. Like when you get stuck late at night after delivery is shut down and you have a really bad case of the munchies.

[Az]

NYE: It's ok to eat people under certain conditions, yes, just like KH said. But these conditions are rather peculiar and severe. I think it's a fair point.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
Yes, but we aren't talking about this - we are talking about whether in the moment of ignorance. My line of reasoning here is: Tearing up flag hurts person B -> hurting person B is bad -> Tearing up flag is bad. The fact that person A doesn't know that they do something bad doesn't mean it's bad

If somebody's linked my ignition to a bomb sitting in a room full of schoolchildren and I start my car, then obviously the consequences are bad. I, however, have done no moral wrong in starting my car.

It is not ignorance of the morality of blowing up little children which excuses me (since I am not ignorant of this), but ignorance of the harm my actions might cause (through no fault of my own).

Now, to proceed from absolute harm to harm caused by a person's reaction to an otherwise amoral act:

Say I enjoyed eating a steak every friday. Say also that I had a roommate who is a vegetarian, and who finds the sight of the consumption of meat repugnant. It would be reasonable for him to request that I avoid eating meat in his presence. It would be unreasonable for him to ask that I avoid eating meat entirely.

The first time it arose (he comes home to find me grilling a steak) it is unreasonable for him to be offended by my actions. Though he might have a negative emotional reaction (as I might when watching somebody innocently torch my flag on a cold winter's night) there is no rational basis for offence; offence is properly the reaction to another's deliberate disrespect of your wishes, when such disrespect is avoidable.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


So then, it is OK to eat people from time to time. Like when you get stuck late at night after delivery is shut down and you have a really bad case of the munchies.

I have never yet been stuck in a situation where killing a human being and eating them would not have been immoral.

I've been in many situations where eating the flesh of an already deceased person would not have been immoral. Like when I get hungry at work.

A body is just a slab of meat. If nobody will ever find out, then robbing a couple of graves for snacks is not immoral.

EDIT: changed "was not" to "would not have been" in order to make clear the fact that I've never engaged in cannibalism

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What's the difference between spot and some guy's flag?

That burning a flag is not strongly correlated to homicidal psychopathy?

[KrazyHorse]

It's been fun.

Night.