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

Well, that's similiar to why why I said we could never use a normal five-year old. Although, I would be skeptical that a 5 year old is that much smarter than a Chimpanzee, since most texts I have read state they have roughly equal intelligence. Equal intelligence implies one would be vastly more knowledgable than the other. Bonobo Chimpanzee's are extremely intelligent. I think you don't give them much credit. In fact, according to this source: The chimpanzees are actually quite close to us [...] [in] their brain fysionomy [and] are actually very close to the one of Homo sapiens. [...] And the chimpanzee is one of the few species, besides from the human race, that has shown abilities of using tools to help solving problems in certain situations. But this is not the only thing that makes it closer related to human beings; the chimpanzee has shown signs of being able to, in some degree, think in abstract terms. http://www.temporaryart.org/96/stoc/Chimpanzees.html A 4-5 year old also does not think in complex abstract thought. The actual IQ of a chimp is not much less than that of a 4 year old human (or so I read). Humans have a hemispheric specialization, but this does not mean that on certain levels, humans aren't roughly the same. If they are, they deserve equal treatment. Even if what you say were true, which seems doubtful, a severely retarded 5 year old most certainly would be worse than a normal 5 year old, thus the per-unit value would decrease significantly. Technically, (at least according to my biology books), sentience is different from sapience. Sapience is the ability to be aware of being aware, whereas sentience is merely being aware. I hear several animal species are sentient, but not sapient. Not every animal can reach human potential though, regardless of their sentience. Humans are supposedly sapient. Perhaps that's a better criterion to use. Can a 3-4 year old be aware of being aware? Are there any other animals that are at a stage in which humans aren't sapient? I haven't seen studies on that; I don't know. Point considered on the thought experiment. However, this does not negate scenarios in which they are roughly equivalent. If they are on the same intelligence level and the human can not advance, or advance much, beyond that point, there's no reason to claim the human is more valuable morally.

Why am I messed up? Is there something wrong with my position? I am open to criticism. I would like to inquire, however, as to what you think exactly makes Humans special and what establishes moral personhood? We treat animals differently because they are not our equals. According to the ethical principle of equality, equality is given where equality is due. We don't see animals as equal to humans. Why? You cannot say it's because Humans are God's chosen or because Humans have souls. THere's no evidence of those concepts. IF we are to discriminate freely between creatures, we must make a legitimate argument as to why. This argument usually states that we use other animals because we have criteria that judge them to be inferior and fit for use. The only real, concrete characteristic separating most humans from many other animals is a basic level of intelligence and potential. Humans are more valuable than other animals because of what we can accomplish and do potentially---because we possess higher intelligence. It's arbitrary. If one uses a slide-rule, or even a basic threshold system of intellect, there is nothing, other than our intellect, that makes humans so special that we can freely engage in speciesism when said species used has equal or roughly equal intelligence. For example, we could never use a normal 5 year old for experiments, because that 5 year old is far different from a Chimpanzee, which might have the mental equivalent of a 5 year old. WHy? Eventually, the 5 year old will progress and actualize human potential. The Chimp never will. The Human will become more aware and progress as time goes on. The Chimp never will. Now look at someone who is severely mentally handicapped insofar as he has little sapience or at most intelligence below that or equal to that Chimp. Should we treat that being as an equal to others? Does it possess the necessary valuable characteristics of Humans? No. Why? It's not equal. According to the Principle of Equality, again, you treat beings equally where equality is due. If, however, you can find even less intelligent species, that's fantastic; use them. However, if they cannot provide as great a scientific result--as great knowledge as can be provided if you use animalistic humans, then you ought to use the humans who are better test subjects due to biology. However, one must then weigh the benefits against the costs. If that great mental dificiency, which morally allows testing, would cause the results to be skewed or wrong or bad, then the consequences are too bad and the ends do not justify the means. Thought Experiment: You have one Human and one Alien scientist. Compare this to a Human and Chimp. The alien is to the human as the human is to the chimp. We don't treat chimps equal to humans, so why should the alien treat us as equals when we are so vastly inferior? What makes the alien more/less valuable than the Human? Are we better simply because he's not human? Is he better simply because he's a member of his own race? I wouldn't agree. There must be some objective criterion, and if we use such a criterion, we must be consistant in its application. We cannot pick and choose. Many people here believe that Ethics and morality are totally relative. If that be true, then really, my proposal is not unethical anyway.

I would suggest doing a report on some issue dealing with Dramaturgical Analysis. People acting to fufill roles in society. Emo kids are like this. It;s a really big problem, as people are acting to fill the roles other people put before them. People are becomming herd-like sheep. Look on myspace. Everyone's a damn emoclone.

we should not only test on other animals. We should test on humans who are the mental equivalent, or roughly so, of animals we do tests on. Perhaps the extremely mentally retarded infants, for example. However, if this negatively affected the tests results in some way, then obviously this is a poor choice. If not, it really doesn't matter.

Women belong in the Kitchen as much as men do. Telling women to be in the Kitchen and clean is just laziness on behalf of your partner.

I can't wait to watch him Pwn Neo-Cretinism.

I wanted to separate this from the main post, because I have become irritated by the lack of actual thought put into several of his posts, including positions that verge on the praise of Social Darwinism. Provide evidence that the "stupid" are outbreeding the "superior intellects" and that this is a major problem for society. This is nonsense, since the people who breed the most typically are the poor, but poor does not = stupid. There is a high correlation between lower classes and reproduction, but I have seen little evidence of stupidity and vastly higher reproduction. Society isn't being hurt because the "poor" or "inferior" are breeding. That's arbitrary. There is no concept of perfection, and you don't know squat about what could potentially be "valuable" as a gene. Everyone who survives in today's society ought to survive, because Natural Selection is not, and never has been, a measuring stick of morality in any academic field. There is no "master race" or "master genetic makeup." The only bad genes are those which preclude the happy, funtional lives. It's also a false cause fallacy to assume people are naturally stupid, and thus the solution is to stop breeding. That only works with people with subpar intelligence (IE. Mentally Retarded). Intelligence is an extremely hard factor to monitor and measure, and there are very few reliable tests, because we artifically measure certain aspects of intelligence (IE. IQ tests). Intelligence of most individuals in society, apart from the obviously retarded, is a product of culture and enviornment. There is less genetic responsibility for stupidity among average people than the enviornment.

This is absurd Sophistry. yourdadonapogos' logic here is woefully inadequate. He's essentially setting up not only a false dillema, but an unrealistic, artificial scenario. Observe: A. He is arbitrarily taking away a major evolutionary trait of humans, and then concluding we must say they suck, as a species, because we are then ill-equipped to deal with nature. Humans get nothing and suck, and other animals get to keep all thier traits and are good. Bullshit Sophistry Mark I. Related to the first stupid argument that stinks of Sophistry is if we put bears and wild predators up against naked, defenseless citizens, they would die. No shit sherklock. Humans are pack animals that use weapon-tech (even basic, non mechanical) and tactics, not their bare hands. This moronic argument of yours is like saying Crocodiles suck because they cannot kill a marine at 15 yards, while he's weilding a Gustav Recoilless Rifle. According to your imbecilic logic, the Croc is a poor species because it doesn't have built in rocket launchers to take down the human at long range. Obviously Crocodiles are weak and pathetic! They are no match for a hairless primate with a firestick! How sad. All we have to do is substitute the primary genetic trait allowing for ueberness in bears/crocs, or other creatures, and they are equally as worthless. Let's take away the strength of the bear and make it like a cute little kitten and then wonder why it dies! B. Bullshit argument number 2 is he's misunderstanding natural selection. Survival of the Fittest is a nonsense slogan. It's incorrect. The species to survive is not necessarily the most fit, rather the one that's fit enough for the enviornmental pressures. Humans are not the most fit species in the universe; they are fit enough, however, for what has currently been thrown their way. Could this change? Yes. All the other retarded animals could also die, just the same. 1. Humans aren't the "most advanced creature" nor are they the "pinnacle." No. However, this is irrelevant, because if a species survives, it is good enough for its environment. Humans have been able to survive and dominate a large portion of the globe using the products of evolution--intelligence. Human strength has never come from our physical body, rather our intellect. Does being physically weak make us a poor species? No. Many animals are physically weak when it comes to many other animals types, but they don't have the intelligence to make up for it. Man is physically weak, intellectually strong, and has the benefit of numbers, education, and orper Does it mean we are good survivors? Humans have survived for thousands of years because we are fit enough, not because we are the fittest. 2. Even if you think Humans are "weak," and physically inferior, not even that can hold water, since Humans have various useful traits. There are important characteristics of our hearing, sight, as well as mode of locomotion. All help create a unified whole sufficient enough to live on earth. Human psiology isn't substandard at all. We are good enough. We don't need to be perfect, and there is no standard. No creature is "more evolved" than other. They are all equally evolved for their surroundings. More Sophistry hides under another false assumption undertaken by urdadonapogos---the notion that technology is something mystical and complex and that, given some ueber event, would all disappear, thus ensuring human extinction. Utter Sophistry. Breaking a damn branch off a tree and using it as an eating utensile is technology, using really jagged rocks to bang other rocks, and using sharp sticks to fend off creatures, are all examples of technology, and all of which The Bonobo Chimpanzee can do. If the Chimp can do it, it's most assured Humans, who have higher intelligence can do it (the Chimp has the intelligent of little more than a small child from around 3-5). Absurd conclusion on your part. It's also nonsense that people cannot make fire w/out matches. Bullshit--provide evidence of this nonsense claim. People don't want to make fire w/out lighters and matches because humans have become more lazy than they were before. All animals are lazy; they do the least quantity of work they need to in order to complete the task. Civilization has come up with easy ways to create fire, therefore, it's a waste of damn time to notch a hole into a stick, start friction with another stick in said hole, and then add brush w/slight blowing. It's not that people can't do it; it's that people don't have to. If people don't know how, it's irrelevant, since humans are animals that learn through socialization. Those who don't learn will die. You aren't born knowing how to make fire any more than the Bonobo are born knowing the cultural morays of their society (and the bonobo do have culture). People teach you. Survivors, of which some will most definitly know how to make fire (many people do today) can pass the skill on. You are taking the most extreme situtation, which rarely makes for good arguments. 2. Humans are not solitary creatures, nor are they produced from nature able to combat a bear, kill a gator, or russle us up some dinosaurs. Saying humans are deficient because we cannot do this is patently moronic. We don't need to, because, as was mentioned by man-a-poster, Humans have the ability to create, replicate, and think up technology to aid us in this.

Sociology is typically held as one of the least academic and reliable of the social-sciences. Personally, I thought anthropology was far more scientific (physical, anyway). Anthropology tends to have a better connotation in academic circles, but cultural anthropology can be somewhat fluffy. I think it's better than sociology, though.

One problem is that it's very difficult to curb oil use, especially when you indirectly need it to get to necessary locations, warm your house during the winter monthes, etc. High oil also raises the price of food and other commodities. You can't go without everything, and not everyone can pay for the costs. However, you don't want to do anything to the market. Going over or below market equilibrium price is a bad idea. Usually, you want to go about the situation some other way. Welfare distribution to the people who cannot afford it, but need it to get to work, for example. Or, it would be good if the wealthy donated more to people who really needed it. I didn't like Bill's idea of companies curbing profits, if he ment lower prices. What they ought to do is donate a sum of their profits to a fund that gets distributed to those who need it--at least for a little while to ameliorate the crisis. Of course they would never do this, since that means they wouldn't be able to make enough money to buy those extra 4 sportscars. Then again, even if you use alternative methods of giving fuel to those who need it, you have to monitor how much they are using in relation to the supply. You don't want to defeat the purpouse of the market prices, which keep the product from running out. You don't want to give people access (if they need it) only to have the supply run out anyway!