Commie_Pinko

You could always have stated, "I know how to write finely."

In your ethical system, whatever you feel like is good, do it. Ok, then the logical extention of this for society is: If you feel raping little babies is fantastic, it is moral? Even if someone does not know it's wrong, that does not make the action right. You cannot hold the person morally accountable, but the consequences are still bad.

Except for Kant's principle, kinda. Ought implies is in the form of can.

Oh, when I say (original) for Christian, I mean the original doctrine espoused "supposedly" by Christ. I don't mean to say he came up with it. The Original had a lot in common with other, earlier forms of Virtue ethics that were non-christian. Metaethics tries to say whether or not something is metaphysically justified, while normative ethics does not do that. It's a type of guideline creator and dispensor. It tells what one ought to do and then see how it functions when applied. Metaethics does not do this. It's much more difficult, because it is trying to come up with logical, consistant explanations of the Theories. When I say that normative relativism does not work, I take into account what ethics is for. It's ment to live a "good life." Realistically, at a bare minimum, this means that Human society needs to survive. Any ethical system which goes against that is dysfunctional as a tool. You could never, for example, have a deliberately malicious normative code; it would be pointless. IE. X action is moral if it does the most damage to everyone. It's counter-productive.

Well, you are right to an extent. THe original form of Utilitarianism was about hedonism, but that's not exactly what the modern version of Utility Theory is about. It still stresses the heart of the Utility Principle--Do the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number, but happiness is not the only and central component. Now, there are various flavours of Utilitarianism, including Hedonism, Negative, and Preference. However, one is not limited to these frameworks. THere are newer considerations to take into account whem comming up with a Utility Calculus IE. Objective vs Subjective. WHen we are weighing the purely subjective wants of some vs others, we simply try to maximize the desires of the people. When dealing with Objetive concerns such as suffering, physical damage, destruction, and death, we weigh the general worth of those units with the necessity and benefits of the action. Now, things like justice, pleasure, happiness, knowledge are considered alongside suffering and objective damages. It's not purely a "make everyone happy game." Preference Utilitarianism, for example, deals with the subjective desires of individuals and stresses that people should generally be responsible for determining their own happiness and fulfilling their own desires (given that they don't cause objective harm to others). This is a freer version--a more individualistic version--of Utilitarianism. I use my own version of Utilitarianism, which takes into consideration all of the above, but my main focus is not to maximize happiness, rather knowledge and rationality while minimizing unnecessary suffering and damage. Essentially, Utilitarianism is not so much strictly about maximizing Happiness. Utilitarianim is a framework of thought. It's a bottom up approach to ethics. Now, Utilitarianism isn't the only conseqeuentialist system of Ethics. Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' is also, to an extent, consequentialist, because it makes use of ethical egoism, which itself is consequentialism. General Overview from what I know. Virtue Ethics 1. Nicomachean 2. Buddhist 3. Christian (original) 4. Confucuian 5. Ayn Rand Objectivism (partly) 6. Nietchean Ethics 7. Feminist Care Ethics (Nell Noddings) Deontological: Kantian Deontology (I don't really like it much) John Rawls "Justice as Fairness" (Modern Liberalism) Prima Facie Deontology Ayn Rand Objectivism (to an extent; she's a kantian theif, virtue theif, and rights theif). Consequentialism: 1. Utilitarianism (Many variations). Excellent, widely used theory since the 19th. 2. Ethical Egoism (Sucks) Relativism. 1. Conventional Ethical Relativism (cultural) 2. Ethical Subjectivism (personal) Normatively, ethics cannot function relativistically and serve its purpouse Metaethically, it can, and probably is ultimately metaethically relative.

Sum Deus, a lot of what you speak of falls under Appeal to Anecdotal information. No one can ever verifiy what you are saying, nor is it reasonable to show what you say is false. It's also not comprehensive; it doesn't reflect the majority, for the sample is too small.

Well, before deciding whether or not someone should want to live or the mental state of said individual, why not ask the individual himself? Not all retarded people are completely incompetent. No one is better able to decide one's own end than the individual in question. It would be absurd to think you know how "happy" someone is, unless you have facts to show otherwise.

I say the Pledge, but when I come to the God part I just say "tiddlywinks."

Well, one really has to define the word "Eugenics." There are various definitions of it, especially according to Ethical Philosophers. Not all Eugenics is bad. We shouldn't confuse it with Nazism, deathcamps, castration, or such. That's a specific type.

I don't like his plan either =D

If you can afford to take care of them, and they are happy, there's nothing to be concerned about. If they cannot, however, it's not unethical to let the person good or to Euthanize. There is no moral obligation to do something that's either not possible or too costly. To have a moral obligation implies a reasonable can. If the family cannot support the individual, it is not the duty of the state to take on totally useless wards who will ammount to little. This only applies to the severely retarded, as many retarded can entertain jobs and other activities. In such circumstances, the severely mentally retarded has a Duty to Die.

I did make some additions to the above post, because I fogot some links and information. Just wanted to tell you so you don't think I changed something. I don't disagree with you then, but I am not merely comparing a human and a chimp. I am comparing very specific scenarios using them. I I understand you said it's limited. I agree, but I don't think it really is relevant if we are talking about age levels that are low and the relative inability to progress passed a low-age child mental ability. In that case, there's not much differencem, according to the above. In the early stages, around 2-3, the abilities of the Chimp. At 2, the lingustic abilities are identical. I was under the impression from Psychology that consciousness is synonomous with sapience, and that can be tested in various animals.

I see nothing wrong with doing tests on extremely retarded, small infants or at least fetuses. There's not much there to consider. Perhaps they could be mass produced for use or something and used along side other animals. What is the big deal, really?

Oh. I am not doubting there are differences between a chimp and a human, but I think you are vastly underestimating the Bonobo Chimpanzee. It's extremly similar to humans in most regards, according to myriad biological studies and sources. I am not trying to say they are identical, but they do, in fact, act identically in passing many of the critical cognition tests. You are essentially saying their ability to use and store cultural information is very limited and inflexible, but that seems the antipode to what most researchers are saying. They are passing the Bonobo off as very culturally flexible, highly intelligent near-humans who are on the same level as very small children in the ability to think. I might be misuderstanding something, but isn't a meme a cultural unit of information? How can a unit of information evolve? Perhaps I am knowing the incorrect definition used. Unless, of course, you are talking about the "evolution" of a cultural practice. Chimpanzees also have what Zoologists call "complex cultures." Dictionary.com states: Meme: A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. I agree with you that consciousness is important--awareness is important. Terry was a vegetable, therfore she had zero value. I am not saying things don't have any value. I am merely sliding the bar across the rule. The Bonobo Chimpanzee certainly passes the prerequisit tests for awareness, as well as the Heinline moral rights test. There are several sentient/sapient animals--Humans aren't the only one. I am not comparing a Human to a goat or a cockroach. I don't see why Human life is sacred, when there are many creatures that, according to Biologists, can pass the same tests small children can pass to determine mental functionality and cognition. That's where I am comming from, but I don't only think that pure awareness is the only important factor in moral decision-making, but level of intelligence. I see things as a general slide-rule, but there is a certain threshold for value. Interesting Side Note: On a side note, there are a stunning number of Parrots that can also do things (all though not at the level of the bonobo chimps). I just thought the article was interesting. Dr. Pepperberg and her assistants have been working with Alex for more than 20 years studying his cognitive capabilities in areas such as referential labeling, categorization, abstract categories like same-different and relative size, number, object permanence, intentional action, and the contribution of sound/word play to learning. As a result, Alex can produce and appropriately apply well over 100 English labels, he can recognize numbers, he can answer questions and make requests, and he appears able to predict his own behavior. I really think we are underestimating the intelligence of other animals, especially the bonobo, who, from what I have researched, are more akin to little children than you would admit. Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~bsl/Timberlake_rev_Pepperberg.htm