https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/439971
Despite this downside, Jainism is all about ahimsa (non-violence) and by making this their primary cause they effectively thwart any possibility of real-world violence between people - hell is for the after life and not this one. — TheMadFool
It's an idealistic idea, but hard to implement in the real world. Jains have been known to sweep the road ahead of their feet to avoid crushing the souls of ants. They also wear masks to avoid inhaling mosquitoes. But what about the souls of those innocent plants they rip from Mother Earth, boil to death, and gnash with their teeth?
Ahimsa seems to be the basic principle of Vegetarianism carried to a logical extreme. "First do no harm" was the prime feature of the Hippocratic oath. But. like most ideal principles, it has always been hard to follow in practice. For example, a surgeon has to do harm in order to do good. In real life, there are always good exceptions to good rules. To wit, I eat the flesh of innocent animals that have been harmed without their consent. But their protein eventually becomes an integral component of my own body. So now we are "one flesh". That's good for me, no? For us? Hmmmm. :chin:
Phil Forum : Moral Progress
Re: Phil Forum : Moral Progress
granted that this dark chapter in human history lasted so long for the same reason you think Jain ahimsa won't work (too idealistic) but don't forget that slavery has been abolished (at least on paper). — TheMadFool
Ancient arguments in favor of slavery were mostly fatalistic : "that's just the way it is". But modern abolition movements were successful in changing traditional social systems, not so much due to philosophical arguments, but to concurrent technological substitutes for slaves (machines). Even though most tech-advanced nations today have officially abolished slavery, those with sluggish economies and low technology are still unofficially dealing with black-market slavery.
Likewise, mano a mano violence is on the decline in civilized societies, not directly due to religious or philosophical arguments, but to modern alternatives such as police and lawyers. In their recent books on the global decline in violence, both Pinker & Shermer admit that we still have a long way to go. And neither mentions the idealist philosophy of Ahimsa, or the divine commandment "thou shalt not kill", as a contributing cause of the on-going trend toward non-violence. Instead, it was technological proxies (nuclear weapons) for old-fashioned fisticuffs, and pragmatic political changes (laws & enforcement) that began to move violence from individual Macho retribution, to World Wars, to guerilla-actions (Al Qaeda) & nation-state (e.g. ISIS) retributive justice, and then to the restorative justice of local & international courts of law.
Don't get me wrong. I think philosophical moral ideals are necessary to worldwide ethical improvements, but practical on-the-ground cultural & technological changes (agriculture, cities, laws, etc) are the effective tools for implementation of those ideas. For example, in the future, when everybody has a robot for grunt-work and sex-work, human slavery may fade away. And when rational, unbiased, emotionless robots do our policing and warring, human violence may no longer seem necessary, to put our primitive feelings of anger, jealousy, envy, & such into practice. Unfortunately, post-apocalyptic sci-fi, makes even that kind of progress seem unobtainable, due to the inherent evils of un-evolved human nature. Personally, I am hoping that Pinker & Shermer are correct, that man's-inhumanity-to-man may eventually be eliminated by our progressive understanding and control over ourselves. Yet, even that notion may be too idealistic. But then, I am a stubborn philosophical optimist.
Modern Slavery : https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-tod ... n-slavery/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... st_century
Better Angels of our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc
Ancient arguments in favor of slavery were mostly fatalistic : "that's just the way it is". But modern abolition movements were successful in changing traditional social systems, not so much due to philosophical arguments, but to concurrent technological substitutes for slaves (machines). Even though most tech-advanced nations today have officially abolished slavery, those with sluggish economies and low technology are still unofficially dealing with black-market slavery.
Likewise, mano a mano violence is on the decline in civilized societies, not directly due to religious or philosophical arguments, but to modern alternatives such as police and lawyers. In their recent books on the global decline in violence, both Pinker & Shermer admit that we still have a long way to go. And neither mentions the idealist philosophy of Ahimsa, or the divine commandment "thou shalt not kill", as a contributing cause of the on-going trend toward non-violence. Instead, it was technological proxies (nuclear weapons) for old-fashioned fisticuffs, and pragmatic political changes (laws & enforcement) that began to move violence from individual Macho retribution, to World Wars, to guerilla-actions (Al Qaeda) & nation-state (e.g. ISIS) retributive justice, and then to the restorative justice of local & international courts of law.
Don't get me wrong. I think philosophical moral ideals are necessary to worldwide ethical improvements, but practical on-the-ground cultural & technological changes (agriculture, cities, laws, etc) are the effective tools for implementation of those ideas. For example, in the future, when everybody has a robot for grunt-work and sex-work, human slavery may fade away. And when rational, unbiased, emotionless robots do our policing and warring, human violence may no longer seem necessary, to put our primitive feelings of anger, jealousy, envy, & such into practice. Unfortunately, post-apocalyptic sci-fi, makes even that kind of progress seem unobtainable, due to the inherent evils of un-evolved human nature. Personally, I am hoping that Pinker & Shermer are correct, that man's-inhumanity-to-man may eventually be eliminated by our progressive understanding and control over ourselves. Yet, even that notion may be too idealistic. But then, I am a stubborn philosophical optimist.
Modern Slavery : https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-tod ... n-slavery/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... st_century
Better Angels of our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc
Re: Phil Forum : Moral Progress
I take that as a good refutation of the argument that's predicated on some proposal being too idealistic. — TheMadFool
Idealistic proposals are fine, as long as they are followed by Pragmatic implementation. The Quakers are also a non-violent people. They were involved in the anti-slavery movement and Amnesty International. Their practical theology got results in social improvements. But their inwardly-focused religion has lost ground to more heavenly-focused and openly-evangelical Protestant fundamentalists. The best refutation of idealistic proposals is popular indifference.
My understanding of Moral Progress is that it is more apparent when the social & technical environment is conducive to changing traditional ingrained attitudes toward Them : other cultures, other religions, gentiles, outsiders. Evolutionary progress is typically gradual & emergent rather than radical & obvious. Humans tend to adapt to their changing social milieu only grudgingly. I'm not just being critical of Idealism, but simply noting the necessity of putting theories into practice. I too, tend to be idealistic, yet introverted, and not socially-involved enough to inspire other people with my non-violent aspirations. Shame on me! :worry:
Is there such a thing as moral progress? : https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blog ... gress.html[/quote]
PS__What we need now is a modern update on Ahimsa and Quakerism that is appropriate for our multicultural modern societies. Several years ago, I was involved in the idealistic Universist Movement, intended to unite non-religious people into a campaign for a non-faith-based rationale for a peaceful society. As an internet phenomenon, it gained members quickly, but just as quickly faded away as internal divisions arose. The idealist concept of Universalism didn't have the right-stuff to attract practical and self-involved people to make the necessary compromises and commitments. My own proposal is the BothAnd philosophy, but it's too philosophical, too idealistic, and not appealing to the realistic masses --- or to philosophical critics.
BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html
Idealistic proposals are fine, as long as they are followed by Pragmatic implementation. The Quakers are also a non-violent people. They were involved in the anti-slavery movement and Amnesty International. Their practical theology got results in social improvements. But their inwardly-focused religion has lost ground to more heavenly-focused and openly-evangelical Protestant fundamentalists. The best refutation of idealistic proposals is popular indifference.
My understanding of Moral Progress is that it is more apparent when the social & technical environment is conducive to changing traditional ingrained attitudes toward Them : other cultures, other religions, gentiles, outsiders. Evolutionary progress is typically gradual & emergent rather than radical & obvious. Humans tend to adapt to their changing social milieu only grudgingly. I'm not just being critical of Idealism, but simply noting the necessity of putting theories into practice. I too, tend to be idealistic, yet introverted, and not socially-involved enough to inspire other people with my non-violent aspirations. Shame on me! :worry:
Is there such a thing as moral progress? : https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blog ... gress.html[/quote]
PS__What we need now is a modern update on Ahimsa and Quakerism that is appropriate for our multicultural modern societies. Several years ago, I was involved in the idealistic Universist Movement, intended to unite non-religious people into a campaign for a non-faith-based rationale for a peaceful society. As an internet phenomenon, it gained members quickly, but just as quickly faded away as internal divisions arose. The idealist concept of Universalism didn't have the right-stuff to attract practical and self-involved people to make the necessary compromises and commitments. My own proposal is the BothAnd philosophy, but it's too philosophical, too idealistic, and not appealing to the realistic masses --- or to philosophical critics.
BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html
Re: Phil Forum : Moral Progress
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/440573
Double standards, morality & treatment of Animals
Why do people have double standards when it comes to animals? — Gitonga
It's not a "double standard", but a broader hierarchical standard, in which we assign values to the different levels based on some communally-acceptable moral standard. The most comprehensive rule in this case is "thou shalt not kill". But, even the Holy Bible goes on to make lots of exceptions. So, apart from divine revelation, how do we evaluate the various subjects & objects of our moral obligations?
Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden were merely upright animals with hands, until they learned to make a distinction between Good & Evil. Of course, most animals instinctively know what's good or bad for the them personally. It's when we extend that discernment to other animals that the necessity for objective Moral Rules arises. Unfortunately, most animals are Moral Subjects, not Moral Agents. They are simply not mentally equipped to make such decisions for others, or to accept responsibility for their own transgressions. For example, if dogs are Moral Agents, can we require them convert to vegetarians? (is dry dog-food that's mostly cereal OK?)
However, some of the "higher" animals, such as dogs and dolphins, do seem to have the ability to extend their own sphere of interest to others of their own pack or pod. And since they sometimes, but not always ("dog bites man"), include humans in their moral circle, we feel obliged to return the favor. So, it's usually the ones that don't treat us morally that we have traditionally placed in the category of Food or Fauna. Asians don't always classify dogs as non-food*1. Yet Westerners "love" dogs that roll in their own excrement, but not pigs that taste good when cleaned-up and cooked. Is there a logical reason for that distinction? (no, pigs are not the only food animals that carry parasites)
Ironically, some humans are so morally neurotic that they make egregiously arbitrary categories of "thou shalt not eat". The exclusion of pigs as food is understandable, since they seem to be almost as smart as dogs, even though they don't seem to be quite as lovable to humans. But why exclude shrimp & lobster from the menu? Along with insects, they appear to be completely alien from humanity, so why not kill & eat them? Perhaps because some queasy eaters find them so alien that they are disgusting. Not because they are moral subjects.
In his 1994 book, The Moral Animal, Robert Wright concludes that humans have been gradually expanding their Moral Circle over the millennia from including only kin, to multi-family tribes, and eventually (in theory, if not practice) to all of mankind. In his 1981 book, The Expanding Circle, Peter Singer decided that limiting our moral concern to humans is arbitrary, so he includes most animals (but not living plants) within the definition of our moral kindred. But, it's obvious that we are far from that idealistic egalitarian ethic. Yes, our food hierarchies are somewhat arbitrary, traditional, and customary. And customs change when situations change. Perhaps when scientists learn how make food from petroleum (long-dead plants), we will be able to live like angels without the necessity for killing & eating living things.
Moral Agents : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
Moral Circle Expansion : https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... ter-singer
Logical Extreme Fallacy : "Thou shalt not kill", if generalized to all possible situations would mean that omnivorous humans are automatically sinners in the eyes of the Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
*1 Technically for Jews, dogs are "unclean" animals because they eat other animals. And presumably they were too valuable for herding sheep to sacrifice for food or sacrifices.
Double standards, morality & treatment of Animals
Why do people have double standards when it comes to animals? — Gitonga
It's not a "double standard", but a broader hierarchical standard, in which we assign values to the different levels based on some communally-acceptable moral standard. The most comprehensive rule in this case is "thou shalt not kill". But, even the Holy Bible goes on to make lots of exceptions. So, apart from divine revelation, how do we evaluate the various subjects & objects of our moral obligations?
Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden were merely upright animals with hands, until they learned to make a distinction between Good & Evil. Of course, most animals instinctively know what's good or bad for the them personally. It's when we extend that discernment to other animals that the necessity for objective Moral Rules arises. Unfortunately, most animals are Moral Subjects, not Moral Agents. They are simply not mentally equipped to make such decisions for others, or to accept responsibility for their own transgressions. For example, if dogs are Moral Agents, can we require them convert to vegetarians? (is dry dog-food that's mostly cereal OK?)
However, some of the "higher" animals, such as dogs and dolphins, do seem to have the ability to extend their own sphere of interest to others of their own pack or pod. And since they sometimes, but not always ("dog bites man"), include humans in their moral circle, we feel obliged to return the favor. So, it's usually the ones that don't treat us morally that we have traditionally placed in the category of Food or Fauna. Asians don't always classify dogs as non-food*1. Yet Westerners "love" dogs that roll in their own excrement, but not pigs that taste good when cleaned-up and cooked. Is there a logical reason for that distinction? (no, pigs are not the only food animals that carry parasites)
Ironically, some humans are so morally neurotic that they make egregiously arbitrary categories of "thou shalt not eat". The exclusion of pigs as food is understandable, since they seem to be almost as smart as dogs, even though they don't seem to be quite as lovable to humans. But why exclude shrimp & lobster from the menu? Along with insects, they appear to be completely alien from humanity, so why not kill & eat them? Perhaps because some queasy eaters find them so alien that they are disgusting. Not because they are moral subjects.
In his 1994 book, The Moral Animal, Robert Wright concludes that humans have been gradually expanding their Moral Circle over the millennia from including only kin, to multi-family tribes, and eventually (in theory, if not practice) to all of mankind. In his 1981 book, The Expanding Circle, Peter Singer decided that limiting our moral concern to humans is arbitrary, so he includes most animals (but not living plants) within the definition of our moral kindred. But, it's obvious that we are far from that idealistic egalitarian ethic. Yes, our food hierarchies are somewhat arbitrary, traditional, and customary. And customs change when situations change. Perhaps when scientists learn how make food from petroleum (long-dead plants), we will be able to live like angels without the necessity for killing & eating living things.
Moral Agents : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
Moral Circle Expansion : https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... ter-singer
Logical Extreme Fallacy : "Thou shalt not kill", if generalized to all possible situations would mean that omnivorous humans are automatically sinners in the eyes of the Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
*1 Technically for Jews, dogs are "unclean" animals because they eat other animals. And presumably they were too valuable for herding sheep to sacrifice for food or sacrifices.
Re: Phil Forum : Moral Progress
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/440600
The Religion Unmarred By Violence: Jainism.
As does the fear they experienced, the chemicals pumped in to them by industrial farming and so on. Not trying to lecture you about what you eat, but just a reminder, the protein comes with a price tag. — Hippyhead
No, I don't feel the fear of slaughtered animals, not because I'm immoral, but because I am not very Empathic. As an ethical philosophical position, like most humans, I don't consider food animals to be Moral Agents or Moral Subjects. Of course, in our industrialized society, I have the luxury of leaving the messy killing & cleaning to specialists.
If you feel the "other's" pain more than I do though, you may assuage your own visceral discomfort & feelings of guilt by offering a prayer of thanks to the animal who "sacrificed" its life for your benefit, as the Native Americans were wont to do. However, I'm not aware that they were so reverent when they ripped semi-sentient plants from their life-sustaining soil. In general, I suspect that those who distinctly fear their own death are more likely to feel queasy at the thought of any animal's death. Somehow, they feel that Death is unnatural and unjustified.
Empathic : showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
See my reply to Gitonga on the Double Standards thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/440573
See the Death is Neutral thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/440039
The Religion Unmarred By Violence: Jainism.
As does the fear they experienced, the chemicals pumped in to them by industrial farming and so on. Not trying to lecture you about what you eat, but just a reminder, the protein comes with a price tag. — Hippyhead
No, I don't feel the fear of slaughtered animals, not because I'm immoral, but because I am not very Empathic. As an ethical philosophical position, like most humans, I don't consider food animals to be Moral Agents or Moral Subjects. Of course, in our industrialized society, I have the luxury of leaving the messy killing & cleaning to specialists.
If you feel the "other's" pain more than I do though, you may assuage your own visceral discomfort & feelings of guilt by offering a prayer of thanks to the animal who "sacrificed" its life for your benefit, as the Native Americans were wont to do. However, I'm not aware that they were so reverent when they ripped semi-sentient plants from their life-sustaining soil. In general, I suspect that those who distinctly fear their own death are more likely to feel queasy at the thought of any animal's death. Somehow, they feel that Death is unnatural and unjustified.
Empathic : showing an ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
See my reply to Gitonga on the Double Standards thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/440573
See the Death is Neutral thread :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/440039
Re: Phil Forum : Moral Progress
Your body feels their fear is what I meant. Their fear generates hormones and other chemicals which you then consume. I'm not referring to empathy, but chemistry. Not making a moral point, just a biological one. — Hippyhead
So that's why my Body is so uptight. But that's OK, as long as my Mind doesn't feel the fear.
Seriously though, I'm in favor of the current move toward more humane slaughtering techniques. Not because I can taste the difference between cage-raised and free-range chickens, but simply because they are our fellow animals, even though low on the moral agency totem pole.
For those who are concerned about hormones in their food, Kosher & Hallal foods may be good choice. The ancient Jews seemed to be like Native Americans, in that food animals should be treated as respectfully as possible, in order not to offend their spirits, or God.
Humane Ritual Slaughter : https://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritu ... ghter.html
So that's why my Body is so uptight. But that's OK, as long as my Mind doesn't feel the fear.
Seriously though, I'm in favor of the current move toward more humane slaughtering techniques. Not because I can taste the difference between cage-raised and free-range chickens, but simply because they are our fellow animals, even though low on the moral agency totem pole.
For those who are concerned about hormones in their food, Kosher & Hallal foods may be good choice. The ancient Jews seemed to be like Native Americans, in that food animals should be treated as respectfully as possible, in order not to offend their spirits, or God.
Humane Ritual Slaughter : https://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritu ... ghter.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests