home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex!cash
- From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
- Subject: Re: Vegitarianism
- Sender: usenet@news.eng.convex.com (news access account)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan24.210756.19732@news.eng.convex.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:07:56 GMT
- References: <1993Jan21.184859.3220@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: zeppelin.convex.com
- Organization: The Instrumentality
- X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
- Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
- not necessarily those of CONVEX.
- Lines: 61
-
- In article <1993Jan21.184859.3220@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
- >[reply to cash@convex.com]
-
- >>Why should we think that an argument is _required_ to prohibit murder,
- >>or that a criterion must be found that confers a right to live? Where
- >>did we get the idea that philosophy ought to give us _reasons_ for the
- >>simplest things?
-
- >I agree that morals are relative.
-
- But I didn't say that. I just expressed doubt that philosophy can provide
- (or ought to provide) a foundation for morals. Why would you think that
- this means "morals are relative"?
-
- >Murder is wrong because we all (or
- >most of us, at least) agree that it is wrong.
-
- What kind of statement is this? "Murder is wrong"? At the very least, it's
- a peculiar thing to say. Indeed, this is a highly redundant--even
- tautologically empty statement, and I'm not at all sure of what to say
- about it. Perhaps you would be less inclined to say puzzling things about
- moral matters if you didn't consider such odd statements to be paradigms of
- moral judgment.
-
- Suppose we're at a trial. A policeman is being tried for shooting a
- prisoner in his custody--under suspicious circumstances. The policeman
- claims that the prisoner had produced a gun, and that he was acting in
- self-defense. A witness takes the stand. "I saw it all," he says. "The cop
- just shot the handcuffed guy down for no apparent reason. Then he took that
- little automatic out of his pocket and threw it down next to the dead guy.
- It was _murder_--there's no other word for it." During subsequent
- testimony, it's shown that the policeman was corrupt, and that the prisoner
- had threatened to expose him.
-
- Now, assuming that the facts are as presented, are you going to ask if
- shooting down a helpless prisoner is wrong? Are you going to speculate
- that it's "relative" because there might be cultures in which the officer's
- conduct was praiseworthy? Somehow, I think the temptation to talk this way
- would not exist--unlike the case where you sit at your desk and mutter to
- yourself, "murder is wrong". --Still, philosophers say the damndest things,
- so I wouldn't be surprised if one could be found who would say shooting a
- prisoner under such circumstances is only reprehensible "by convention".
-
- Moreover, one doesn't need a _justification_ for saying the cop did
- wrong--other than the facts of the case.
-
- >My problem is that if I
- >start from the premises that it is immoral to kill a human, even a
- >mentally retarded one, and that there is no abrupt discontinuity between
- >the consciousness of humans and higher mammals (as supported by primate
- >research), then I can't see a way to continue to be a carnivore without
- >being morally inconsistent.
-
- What has your premise that "it is immoral to kill a human" got to do with
- "consciousness", anyway?
-
- --
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
- Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-