Comments on: The Paragon of Animals http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Uncoherant Rambling on Bio-Ethics and the State http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Uncoherant Rambling on Bio-Ethics and the State Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:30:09 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-69 [...] hard to dissect many of the Popes statements due to their arbitrary reasoning. However, I find them speciesist, an appeal to tradition and assuming universal natural right to life is [...] [...] hard to dissect many of the Popes statements due to their arbitrary reasoning. However, I find them speciesist, an appeal to tradition and assuming universal natural right to life is [...]

]]> By: Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Reation to Tractatus 1 of ? http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Reation to Tractatus 1 of ? Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:00:35 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-68 [...] has a role in cognition but its not the whole story. Even a dog pictures reality in thought. Other primates seem to get along without language. It is trivial for an animal to consider causality - for example [...] [...] has a role in cognition but its not the whole story. Even a dog pictures reality in thought. Other primates seem to get along without language. It is trivial for an animal to consider causality – for example [...]

]]> By: Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » The Paragon of Animals: A Response http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » The Paragon of Animals: A Response Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:46:29 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-67 [...] your post you stated your aim as “to argue that we share many characteristics with primates and if we [...] [...] your post you stated your aim as “to argue that we share many characteristics with primates and if we [...]

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-66 El Sordo Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:17:28 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-66 By the by, my response on animal/human ethics raises some interesting questions and problems, which conveniently I think also add to our discussions concerning alien philosophy. By the by, my response on animal/human ethics raises some interesting questions and problems, which conveniently I think also add to our discussions concerning alien philosophy.

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-65 El Sordo Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:16:02 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-65 Regarding Chimp ethics and Human ethics in my post (tommorow hopefully) I will point out certain of the compatible similarities between the two. The point that I will be making is that despite similarities chimp ethics and human ethics have evolved seperately from their common source. And inter-species ethics is a nice idea but falls at quite a few fences. For the bible quotation, re-read what I say as meaning that the English translation is unsatisfactory. The hebrew word used can be variably translated. When translated into Latin as non occides it was subsequently retranslated in the vulgate languages as kill. The correct term is thou shat not kill without authority. Killing in self defence for example is perfectly acceptable, as are situations where God has given permission (so to speak) to kill (i.e. Samson and the Philistines). The difference becomes important to ethics, much the same way that the philosophical understanding of chaos is somewhat different from the Scientific definition. Regarding Chimp ethics and Human ethics in my post (tommorow hopefully) I will point out certain of the compatible similarities between the two. The point that I will be making is that despite similarities chimp ethics and human ethics have evolved seperately from their common source. And inter-species ethics is a nice idea but falls at quite a few fences.
For the bible quotation, re-read what I say as meaning that the English translation is unsatisfactory.
The hebrew word used can be variably translated. When translated into Latin as non occides it was subsequently retranslated in the vulgate languages as kill. The correct term is thou shat not kill without authority.
Killing in self defence for example is perfectly acceptable, as are situations where God has given permission (so to speak) to kill (i.e. Samson and the Philistines). The difference becomes important to ethics, much the same way that the philosophical understanding of chaos is somewhat different from the Scientific definition.

]]> By: Anti Citizen One http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-64 Anti Citizen One Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:02:41 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-64 On second thoughts, lets not quibble over Bible references. It is too off topic and I think we would better spend time on the topic I raised. (I am still interested in "thou shalt not kill" but I don't want to get side tracked. Perhaps answer it in a comment only?) AC1 On second thoughts, lets not quibble over Bible references. It is too off topic and I think we would better spend time on the topic I raised.

(I am still interested in “thou shalt not kill” but I don’t want to get side tracked. Perhaps answer it in a comment only?)

AC1

]]> By: Anti Citizen One http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-63 Anti Citizen One Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:18:02 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-63 And since you are going to follow up with a full response, you mentioned "but until they can prove their ability to understand human ethics ... they are not obliged to follow human ethics". The point I was trying to make was in the most important aspects of human ethics, chimp ethics is the same. Perhaps some counter examples? AC1 And since you are going to follow up with a full response, you mentioned “but until they can prove their ability to understand human ethics … they are not obliged to follow human ethics”. The point I was trying to make was in the most important aspects of human ethics, chimp ethics is the same. Perhaps some counter examples?

AC1

]]> By: Anti Citizen One http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-62 Anti Citizen One Thu, 31 May 2007 21:27:17 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-62 Just a quick come back on your comment. You stated: "‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a misquote." I am slightly confused - that _is_ one of the ten commandments! Do you mean there is additional context in Exodus, or its a mis-translation? By the way, it's restated in Matthew 19:18. AC1 Just a quick come back on your comment. You stated: “‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a misquote.” I am slightly confused – that _is_ one of the ten commandments! Do you mean there is additional context in Exodus, or its a mis-translation?

By the way, it’s restated in Matthew 19:18.

AC1

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-61 El Sordo Thu, 31 May 2007 18:52:07 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-61 Thats not my full response to the dialog, I will post tommorow on your first question. Once again excellent post. Thats not my full response to the dialog, I will post tommorow on your first question.
Once again excellent post.

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/comment-page-1/#comment-60 El Sordo Thu, 31 May 2007 18:49:53 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/05/31/the-paragon-of-animals/#comment-60 nice post, much to think about, in the spirit of previous dialogs will provide a response on just one single issue. I guess as an ethicist the best place to start for me will be your first question. My brief (tongue in cheek) responses to your questions goes like this: 1) Chimps can benefit from a human posited ethic (simian rights) but until they can prove their ability to understand human ethics (beyond simple reward and pain avoidance motivation) they are not obliged to follow human ethics. Any chimp ethic quite probably exists within chimp culture and is probably concerned with social taboo. 2) We can kill anything, but ought we? 'Thou shalt not kill' is a misquote. The term should be murder/kill without authority. An anthrocentric philosophy/belief that promotes humanity above the other species could justify killing of our 'relatives' on the authority clause. But could also reject killing by invoking the 'stewardship' clause. Interesting note, industrial pollution and high toxic emissions all followed the development of capitalism, they did not precede it. A materialistic philosophy and ethic could (would!) evaluate species by their 'value' in capital accumulation and could contentedly for example wipe out the Borneo rainforest and destroy the Orangutan habitat. The same materialistic philosophy could also argue against the existence of the soul, describe humans as being animals, and justify primate killing as a survival of the fittest motive. Buddhism alternatively rejects all killing, as all species are interconnected, and more importantly the next fly you swat could be the karmic reincarnation of one of your ancestors, and killing one of them will not look good on your karmic c.v. 3) To answer this question we need to ask other species... no answer, ok then I guess we then need to try to understand their communications, they obviously are in possession of sense data, they obviously have the mental faculty to understand and respond to sense data but can they deal with theoretical concepts (minus sense data) or anticipate possible responses to impending and unexpected sense data? 4) 2 questions really. What will replace us? hmmm there is talk of a split with some humans evolving and others regressing (who knows). I like the idea of Teilhard de Chardin's that the focal point for our evolution is the Omega Point. What will our species be condemned for? Alas a relative question, if our successors have evolved they would probably condemn our species for quite a lot. Or maybe they would just excuse us with a 'well they were animals' condescention. If we persist in threatening the environment the earth may not live long enough to allow for another species to evolve that would be able to condemn us. My own opinion, our intellectual arrogance in every field of knowledge, from creationists to evolutionists, none of us ever like to think we might be wrong. nice post, much to think about, in the spirit of previous dialogs will provide a response on just one single issue. I guess as an ethicist the best place to start for me will be your first question.
My brief (tongue in cheek) responses to your questions goes like this:
1) Chimps can benefit from a human posited ethic (simian rights) but until they can prove their ability to understand human ethics (beyond simple reward and pain avoidance motivation) they are not obliged to follow human ethics. Any chimp ethic quite probably exists within chimp culture and is probably concerned with social taboo.
2) We can kill anything, but ought we? ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a misquote. The term should be murder/kill without authority. An anthrocentric philosophy/belief that promotes humanity above the other species could justify killing of our ‘relatives’ on the authority clause. But could also reject killing by invoking the ‘stewardship’ clause. Interesting note, industrial pollution and high toxic emissions all followed the development of capitalism, they did not precede it. A materialistic philosophy and ethic could (would!) evaluate species by their ‘value’ in capital accumulation and could contentedly for example wipe out the Borneo rainforest and destroy the Orangutan habitat. The same materialistic philosophy could also argue against the existence of the soul, describe humans as being animals, and justify primate killing as a survival of the fittest motive.
Buddhism alternatively rejects all killing, as all species are interconnected, and more importantly the next fly you swat could be the karmic reincarnation of one of your ancestors, and killing one of them will not look good on your karmic c.v.
3) To answer this question we need to ask other species… no answer, ok then I guess we then need to try to understand their communications, they obviously are in possession of sense data, they obviously have the mental faculty to understand and respond to sense data but can they deal with theoretical concepts (minus sense data) or anticipate possible responses to impending and unexpected sense data?
4) 2 questions really. What will replace us? hmmm there is talk of a split with some humans evolving and others regressing (who knows). I like the idea of Teilhard de Chardin’s that the focal point for our evolution is the Omega Point.
What will our species be condemned for? Alas a relative question, if our successors have evolved they would probably condemn our species for quite a lot. Or maybe they would just excuse us with a ‘well they were animals’ condescention. If we persist in threatening the environment the earth may not live long enough to allow for another species to evolve that would be able to condemn us.
My own opinion, our intellectual arrogance in every field of knowledge, from creationists to evolutionists, none of us ever like to think we might be wrong.

]]>