Animal cruelty a felony?

Great Debates
121

I think it is safe to say that survival itself fails a rational analysis from almost any perspective I can think of. For the theist, death offers the promise of a better existence. For the atheist, death promises nothing. Apart from someone with a strong view of karmic reincarnation, survival has no rational motivation.

As such, the drive to survive must be largely, if not completely, instinctual. I will call such instinctive, genetic, or otherwise physiological bases evolutionary for this argument.

First premise: in general, all forms of life actively attempt to survive as a consequence of evolution. Creatures which have no means of survival become extinct.

We all seem in agreement, in some form or another, that each species has its own methods of survival. They may or may not be compatible with other species. That is, it is necessary for humans to kill to survive; this is incompatible with the survival of what we kill. Thus, there is a struggle between any two species with incompatible survival methods. Other forms of compatibility could be competing for the same resources, shelter, etc.

Second premise: Given the first premise, that all forms of life actively attempt to survive, the evolutionary (remember: physiological) means of survival between species with incompatible survival methods involves death.

There is a secondary survival method that some species implement: that of cohabitation. This could be a symbiotic parasite, or it could be pack groups where the size of the group aids the survival of each of the members. Though this cohabitation may not be strictly necessary for survival, in general a species’ evolutionary actions promote this behavior as well to better reinforce the action outlined in the first premise.

Third premise: humans implement the secondary survival method.

Note that up to this point there has boon no mention of how any particular species should behave, only how they must behave (generally—there could be complex physiological reasons for any particular individual of a species to act against its survival method; chances are such a deviation will result in unsuccessful survival). We describe how things should behave through a process of abstraction called a theory. Many mammals and other “higher” (more complex) animals exhibit this process of abstraction. Normally, such a lofty process is grouped under “learning.” Birds return to their nests, cats and dogs can learn techniques to get their “captors” to feed them, and so on. For humans I trust the learning process is clear enough.

In each case of learning, the member of the species has, in some way, formed an abstraction that supercedes evolutionary action; no longer is it merely a stimulus response relationship, the creature actually predicts events. This is a very low-level example of a creature understanding “how things should be.” This is not inherent in the physiology of the species’ member, it is a product of the member’s interaction with its environment. IIRC, there are creatures without brains that can learn. Flatworms, for example, seem to indicate some learning processes.

Fourth premise: only creatures of significant complexity can learn.

Higher levels of complexity result in elementary communication, complex communication, memory, and so on. This is found to be most relevant in discussing creatures with brains. While I am not prepared to go into detail about levels of brain composition and abilities, I can—upon request—refer you to a few books and papers which deal with it. Sufficient to say:

Fifth premise: once the presence of a brain is determined, the ability of the species’ member is bounded by the abilities of the brain.

Important in this fifth premise is a recognition of the step we’ve made. Previously, the physical structure of the member was crucial to survival, where as after a certain level the structure lost importance and was replaced by the structure’s controller: the brain.

After a sufficient level of complexity, a new type of learning process—which I will call the secondary learning premise—acts in addition to the one discussed in the fourth premise. This involves preferential action toward the environment, which could and probably mostly does include interaction with other species. Here, finally, we come to moral evaluations: how a creature should act. As far as I can tell, no other species other than humans exhibits this secondary learning form, though I suppose one could make the case for certain house pets and maybe the higher sea mammals. I don’t think it is particularly relevant.

First moral premise: moral valuations are not universal.

I don’t see how that can be disputed. Any moral valuation I make is not necessarily valid for a dolphin, and most likely none of them but the most vague are (and then I would argue that these very vague ones are actually conscious interpretation of primary learning).

Second moral premise: any moral premise which acts against the five previous premises is wrong.

I find this to be an effective translation: any moral code which demands action contrary to survival, physiology, and other non-moral developments is an incorrect moral code.

Thus, so long as killing dolphins does not interfere with the survival process of the one forming the moral code, killing dolphins should not be wrong. IOW:

Third moral premise: any moral code which does not interfere with, or have a high probability of interfering with, any of the first five premises of the member which forms the moral code cannot be wrong.

[/quote]

This is about as far as I am willing to take it at once shot. One comment I would like to add in closing is that the three moral premises listed above are not meant to be moral evaluations, but simply be about moral evaluations. The distinction blurs, however.

122

Has anyone considered the genetic horrors perpetrated on dogs and cats by breeders and the “registration” of “pedegreed” pets?

I have at home a Shi Tsu who, at merely age two, is experiencing circulatory problems. The bone problems (most especially hip-joints) of German Shepherds are well known. Collies have been all but killed to get thiner faces! The list of genetic barbarities is nearly endless.

In humans we consider inbreeding a very bad thing; yet we prize it in our “best friends”, whom we love and care for. ( :rolleyes: ) All for money! :mad:

Does anyone else worry about the ethical impacts of this type of organized cruelty?

123

Something I would like to add is that it is my opinion that the only thing which would warrant a felony offense is something that acts against the non-moral premises. I keep stressing that, I know, but I think it is very important.

A felony is the worst kind of crime we have, and the worst thing one can do is act against survival of the species. I just see that as common-sense, practical, and not open to semantic sand traps or intense moral development.

I love animals, I’ve had many pets whose deaths from old age and car accidents and so on have struck me deeply. hell, I had a cat from when I was 3 til I was 21 (yeah, incredible, isn’t it? Old kitty :)) and his death affected me more strongly than some family members death’s have.

But that alone doesn’t make me believe that the conclusion there is that my cat was more important or even as important as my family members. I just didn’t get the same emotional response, is all.

124

That’s fine with me, but if you need to deviate from this usage, please clarify should the change arise so we can stay on the same page.

I agree with the first statement. I would like to elaborate on the second statement. Species which cannot adapt to a change in environment become extinct, should the change affect all members of the species.

Agreed (for the sake of argument, but I would like to note that death is not necessarily the outcome of incompatible survival methods, e.g., one doesn’t necessarily have to kill an entire plant to obtain the nutrients contained therein).

I disagree. Not all humans implement this secondary survival method.

I cannot agree with this premise, nor can I disagree with this premise. I cannot agree with it because I don’t know what “learning” is to various entities. I cannot disagree with it because it seems to make sense that trees don’t think because they don’t have a physiology to support what we would consider thought. For the sake of argument, I will tentatively agree to this premise, but I will note that defining the type of complexity required to learn could get dicey.

Higher levels of complexity result in elementary communication, complex communication, memory, and so on. This is found to be most relevant in discussing creatures with brains. While I am not prepared to go into detail about levels of brain composition and abilities, I can—upon request—refer you to a few books and papers which deal with it. Sufficient to say:

I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass, but I assume you mean that the presence of a functioning brain is a limiting factor in an entities abilities, regardless of whether or not one determines a brain is present. I agree that an entity is limited by it’s physiological state.

I disagree that a distinction exists. The brain is simply a part of a physiological structure. That said, no loss of importance of the physiological structure has occured.

Are you attempting to state that the above is a corollary to the fifth premise? On another note, I disagree that the presence of preferential action is irrelevant, primarily because you have tended toward human elitism. Many creatures act preferentially; moreover, I fail to see how this capacity can be extracted from the first learning premise. Could you elaborate on how this distinction is made? One last note, how does preferential action equate with moral evaluation? You seem to imply that the ability to act preferentially dictates that there is an ability to conceive of morality. I don’t see a connection, i.e., how does the ability to make a choice imply that one should opt to act in a particular way?

I concur.

I find this to be an effective translation: any moral code which demands action contrary to survival, physiology, and other non-moral developments is an incorrect moral code.

Thus, so long as killing dolphins does not interfere with the survival process of the one forming the moral code, killing dolphins should not be wrong. IOW:
[/quote]

Okay, I’ve got a problem with this step. The first premise refers to all life forms. The second moral premise does not specifically refer to only human life forms–it holds for all life forms. I assume you are basing the last clause of your interpretation of the second moral premise on the first moral premise. Here we have the crux of the problem, specifically, a moral code is incorrect if it demands action contrary to the survival of what? Are you referring to the survival of all species, the survival of a species or the survival of an element of a species? How do you make the jump from all to a subset?

I’m going to assume that your interpretation of the second moral premise refers to an element of a species because the third moral premise specifically refers to a member and I assume you’d be consistent. If that is the case, you are stating that a moral code would incorrect if it demands action contrary to the survival of the element formulating the moral code. By that logic, I could kill any human I chose were it not contrary to my survival. Even if I were to agree with the third premise (and operate under a moral code as outlined above), I could kill any human that wasn’t one of my cohabitants. Essentially, if you were not one of my cohabitants, then I could kill you, so this moral code which allegedly doesn’t conflict with your survival could result in your death.

125

[hijack]
erislover, am I misreading this?

Does this mean that you think that felonies should only be things that act against survival of the species, or is this better read as 1. felonies are our most serious crime, 2. within that group, acts against survival of our species are the worst?
[/hijack]

126

This means that because the worst thing species A can do is act against its own survival, and because felonies are the worst crimes, the two should be synonamous. I believe events which have a high probability of causing harm to survival should also be felonies… such as armed robbery.

Nen
I disagree. Not all humans implement this secondary survival method.
[/quote]

:shrug: I think you’d be hard pressed to present to me a human who did not utilize the products of civilization. Not that I suppose some don’t exist, but I think they can be considered a statistical anomoly. And they certainly couldn’t reproduce :wink:

The specific level of complexity required doesn’t really matter, only that such a level exists. And I agree that learning is different for different entities.

Well, there isn’t a real reason to consider the brain seperate from the physiological state. What I wanted to mention is that what we would normally consider the abilities of a physical body-- limbs and other such proturbances-- are a bit of a different type than a brain. A creature without a brain and a creature with a brain, given the same body, would have different ability levels. Sort of an abstract thought experiment there. A creature with a simple nervous system is limited by its appendages. A creature with a brain isn’t necessarily limited by those appendages, yeah?

No elitism was meant to be implied there.

Also, it isn’t “extracted” from the first learning process. It acts in addition to it… it was meant to be another premise, actually, but I screwed up. :frowning:

Morals guide preferential action… that is, morals act as a value system in choosing between multiple viable alternatives.

To the survival of the one performing the moral evaluation.

Welllll, by what little I provided one could make this claim, I agree to a point. But only if you completely reject humans being pack animals. You sorta noted this: “Essentially, if you were not one of my cohabitants, then I could kill you, so this moral code which allegedly doesn’t conflict with your survival could result in your death.”

In a simplistic analysis, you are absolutely correct. I think, in fact, that when one combines this simplistic thought with philosophical dualism that we can explain away almost every war in history! :stuck_out_tongue:

We have, as humans, largely accepted that for much of our history, and most likely for most of our prehistory. It is only recently (last thousand years maybe?), with technological advances being what they are, that we are realizing that as any society becomes more complex, the amount of persons that should be considered “cohabitants” has increased. More moral evaluations.

This realization is also motivation for ecological conservation efforts, wouldn’t you agree?

127

For clarification, are you stating that, “the worst thing species A can do is act against its own survival, and because felonies are the worst crimes, the two should be synonamous,” or, “the worst thing an element of species A can do…”?

No, I wouldn’t. Bear in mind that someone who is not a pack animal does necessitate that one cannot interact with others of the same species. Many animals live solitary live but do have chance encounters with other members of the same species and deliberate encounters for the purpose of reproduction.

Yes, they would have different physiological abilities because they would have different physiologies, nonetheless, a creature with a brain is still limited by its appendages.

I didn’t read any into it, but in past posts you have made implications that humans are more important because they are the ones formulating moral codes. I think that noting that members of other species are capable of preferential action is important because you are equating the ability to act preferentially with conceiving of a moral code. I still fail to see how you arrive at the latter from the former. Would you elaborate, please?

Again, I fail to see how one can separate the two processes. Please explain.

Perhaps, but not necessarily.

It doesn’t have to be a complete rejection. By your logic, as long as one is not a cohabitant, it is acceptable to kill them.

Out of curiousity, to which philosophical dualism do you refer? But yes, one can justify war by your model. Doesn’t that seem to be a problem?

Most likely, but a precedence of justifying war through that model does not make it right.

This realization of including more elements into the cohabitant group has many ramifications. It leads to the inclusion of more humans into the group. It leads to consideration of animals and plants as cohabitants. Essentially, yes, it is a motivation for ecological conservation efforts–an effort to preserve life regardless of physiology. :wink:

128

Both; of course, we really don’t have a method to try groups of people together for felonies.

And killing that which you need to reproduce is not a good thing.

Perhaps you have heard of “toolmaking?”

Not quite. Humans become more important if the moral code is important. Are we going over this again? You hold the moral code that “all animals should not be killed.” Only you (and people who agree with you) have anything to do with that code. If you feel that code is important, it is up to you to enforce it, act on it, and keep it going. If the code is important, and you are required for the code, you are important. Really, this is a simple case of dependence.

Perhaps it would help for you to explain what you are thinking about, and how preferential action is made without morals.

How to seperate learning from morality?

Rather, it isn’t wrong from where we stand right now. Please don’t think that everything I’ve listed above is meant to be a complete and total guide for all human behavior.

Manicheanism.

Only a moral code makes something right, Nen, and by golly if your moral code justifies war then war is right.

Apart form that, I am not justifying war. I mentioned why it was not wrong given the situation. The moral code I outlined above did not forbid war. It said nothing about why one should war, ok?

I disagree, still. I see no reason to ascribe value to things in themselves, only how they apply to us. In fact, I see no way to ascribe value except for how they relate to us.

129

Manichaeanism. Sorry.

130

And I should mention that one may paraphrase it “We’re rght, and anyone who disagrees with us must be wrong.” One may also say, “We’re good, so anyone who disagrees with us must be evil.”

You might note your use of such dichotomies in your own posts, where when I say something is wrong you assume that anything not forbidden must be right.

Last post in a row, I swear.

131

Not IMO. We don’t preserve life-- generally-- regardless of physiology; IOW, we don’t preserve life because it is alive. We preserve life if not acting to preserve it is or could be detrimental to us.

I don’t see a very strong argument for why we should have some other standard, seeing as we are neither invincible nor immortal. And I have no idea where we would get that standard from.

132

How do you support that assertion. Your argument only dictates that it is wrong for an element of a species to act contrary to your five premises. It does not dictate that a species as a whole should not act contrary to your five premises.

Your argument asserts that it is wrong to act against one’s own survival. Reproduction is not a prerequisite for the survival of an individual.

Yup, but they are still limited by their appendages. A particular appendage can only do so much. That may include using a tool. Surely, if one has a brain, one has different abilities than one who does not. Nonetheless, one is still limited by one’s physiology.

I wasn’t attempting to go over it again because you had not utilized this argument in the argument we are discussing at the moment. I was alluding to the fact that were you to employ this argument, it would need to be supported by the argument you are utilizing now.

Before me are an apple and an orange. I like apples. I like oranges. Both are good in my opinion. I decide to eat the orange. I acted preferentially. I made no moral decision.

No, how do you separate the ability to learn from the capacity to act preferentially?

So if it isn’t wrong, it’s acceptable.

My moral code does not justify war. Your moral code dictates that it is not be wrong (provided you are not warring with your cohabitants) and is therefore acceptable.

No, you didn’t. I simply pointed out the contradiction in your argument.

So, we put various species on the endangered species list because they are of value to us in some way? We don’t utilize condors for food. How are they of value to us?

133

You incorrectly assume that I have made an assumption. I have noted that actions which are not wrong according to your argument are acceptable. I have not said that they are right if they are not wrong.

134

There are any number of reasons why a person would choose to find an action unacceptable, without that action being wrong.

I, for example, find the behavior of message board trolls to be unacceptable. There is nothing immoral about being a message board troll. Is this possible for you to understand?

As a further extention of this, making a moral choice IMO does not necessitate that something be valued as absolutely good or absolutely bad, or even sorta good, or good for the situation, or whatever. Your apple/orange situation is a prime example of this. When making a preferential choice, there are a number of required moral valuations that are made prior to choosing an action. The final action-- taking an orange-- may be dependent on any number of situational specifics, while the idea that you should eat a piece of fruit-- which occurred much earlier in the process-- was most likely a combination of instinctual survival methods combined with a vague sense of moral actions regarding the treatment of one’s self.

That is, though there is no fundamentally amoral situation with actors capable of formulating morality, it is possible to reach an amoral situation through a series of moral considerations. Sometimes in an analysis the specific of the situation are never reached as a blanket moral code was established somewhere further up in the person’s hierarchy. Sometimes the moral code simply says, “do something like this” and you are left to fill in the blanks.

If you say so, I really tire of the argument. For a thought experiment consider the device you use to post to a message board. Consider automated assembly lines wihch perform tasks people cannot. Consider radio telescopes, x-ray machines, bubble chambers, petri dishes. Consider weather ballons, temperature sensors, magnetic holding devices for studying temperatures near absolute zero. Humans are not limited by their appendages, they are limited by their imagination.

I think you are deliberately being difficult here, sorry to say.

You don’t seperate the two. One is constructed out of the other. One may have learning methods which act directly on an instinctual level; one may have learning methods which do not. To get to a stage where learning methods do not modify core behavior one has already passed a stage of complexity which does modify core behavior.

I’m not sure what you’ve presented of a moral code justifies any behavior whatsoever.

Because some people are of the opinion that species extinction can result in unwanted affects on the food chain, of which we are most certainly a part of. While this argument has not necessarily been used in defense of this specific animal, I will use it for my own purposes, and it is enough to convince me that extinction of a species is not a desirable thing, has a high risk of interfering with our own survival, and hence is wrong by the methods I described above.

135

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
**

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nen *

My point still stands. By your logic, it is not wrong for me to kill you; ergo, I should not be convicted of murder were I to do so. If you are going to implement the idea that murder is not wrong, but unacceptable, you’re going to need to revamp your argument. As it stands, your argument contradicts itself (or at the very least, it doesn’t seem to be a position one would maintain in light of the ramifications). If one adheres to your argument, it is only wrong to act contrary to the five premises. Two people acting in accordance with your guidelines may kill each other without any justification. Granted, person one killing person two hasn’t acted contrary to person one’s survival, but ascribing to your code doesn’t offer much in terms of personal safety aside from forbidding the killing of oneself or cohabitants.

I understand, but I disagree. I believe it is wrong to exhibit trollish behavior.

What are the moral evaluations required in selecting an orange instead of an apple?

I don’t see much relevance to this aspect of the debate aside from making clear that you made a false statement. If I hold something above your head and you cannot reach it, you are limited by your physiology (the strength of you legs) to obtain it. If you still cannot reach it, you are limited by your physiology (your brain as it attempts to conceive of a tool) to obtain it. If attempt to build the tool, you are limited by your physiology (strength, dexterity, et cetera) in your possible success. If you are successful, you are limited by your physiology (the ability to situate/use the tool so that it is useful) to obtain the object. You are limited by physiology. Whether the aspect of physiology you are limited by is your brain or your finger, you are limited by it.

Would you provide examples of both learning methods and illustrate how non-instinctual preferential action is constructed out of instinctual non-preferential action?

How will the extinction of condors interfere with your survival? Assuming that you are located in the range of the few remaining condors, how would the presence of a few additional rodents interfere with your survival. If you are not in their range, how would their extinction have even the slightest impact on your survival?

136

If you think that is what I am saying, then enjoy it. I am not saying that exclusively. As I both strongly implied and explicitely stated, the idea of which humans we cohabitate with has expanded dramatically. I’m not sure what else there is to say on the matter, hoenstly.

Could you, for the sake of argument, explain in what way this is an immoral act?

How about finding that eating something one likes is good? How about eating something that has been determined to be healthy is good? How about deciding to eat in the first place? You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe you aimlessly wander around without performing actions you think are good.

Oh, I agree completely, except for the fact that you are wrong. The sun is effectively “over your head.” Do you feel that spectrophotmetric techniques are incorrectly telling us what the sun is made of? And we didn’t even have to touch it!

Yeah, that’s what I said: a creature with a brain is limited by the brain’s ability. Come on, Nen, give someone a lobotomy and tell me the brain wasn’t the guiding factor of the person, not their appendages. Sheesh.

Learning method 1: Pavlov’s dogs.
Learning method 2: fiscal policy.

I am not prepared to illustrate how morals come about, or even how consciousness comes about. Seeing as this is a great unsolved problem of the time, I can’t see why you would even consider demanding such an explanation. read Godel Escher Bach or The Emporers New Mind for an account of what consciousness even is, and then find that the two books disagree on quite a few points.

I think that is an extremely unfair expectation.

As I said, I feel that extinction of any species has a degree of chance of affecting the food chain, and we don’t have much of a way of counteracting that.

I don’t know, how does the entire food chain work from top to bottom? how are weather patterns produced which are still pretty unpredictable?

What the hell do you want me to do, explain all the great questions to morality, biology, geology, and religion in a thread about animal cruelty? I think I have presented my case pretty clearly for an internet message board. The argument hinges on survival as paramount to other considerations. Furthermore, it even offers a rough skeleton of where morality could come from that does not conflict with survival.

On top of that, the question isn’t why is animal cruelty a felony, but more like why should we make it a felony? I don’t think we should, I’ve more than made a semi-reasonable case, and all I have in return is “all life is equal by definition” which it isn’t, and “we shouldn’t kill things because they are alive” with no mention of why life is inherently valuable across the board or where such a conclusion comes from.

You’ll forgive me for being slightly irritated, I hope? I’m not mad at you, honest, its been fun and I’ve appreciated the questions and comments, but I think I’ve reached my frustration limit.

137

I don’t think that you’re saying that. It is an implication of your argument, for that reason, I find your position untenable. I am aware of the expanded view of cohabitation, but the nature of that perspective is generally subjective, i.e., people are selective about what they feel is within their realm despite evidence to the contrary like the butterfly effect. There isn’t much more for you to say as far a I can tell. You maintain a tenet. That tenet isn’t necessarily beneficial to your survival should other people ascribe to it. I understand how it could work, but I also see it’s inherent flaws. It’s why I don’t buy it.

Sure, it is a deliberate attempt to inflict pain (in this case of the mental variety) for no purpose except getting one’s jollies out of it.

I wouldn’t expect you to believe that. Clearly, I do things which I believe to be good. I don’t think that good necessarily means moral. There isn’t a moral choice involved if I decide to eat at 7:00 PM instead of 8:00 PM so I can do something else. It’s a matter of preference, not morality. I see the two as being distinct in some situations. I only view deciding to eat as a moral decision if I would die without doing so at that moment.

What the hell is this supposed to be? I can’t hold the sun over your head.

…as well as the rest of their physiology. Someone that has a brain and no arms or legs is also limited by the fact that they can move.

I’m not saying the brain isn’t a limiting factor. I’m simply saying that it isn’t the only limiting factor.

I’m not familiar with this one. Would you explain it, please?

I’m asking you to support a premise that I don’t accept (well, an argument in the form of a premise). I think that is a valid request if you are attempting to get me to view your position as tenable. By the way, I’ve read both books.

So it’s okay to wantonly kill animals for our jollies as long as we leave a mating couple alive?

Only if you’re going to make assertions based on those topics which I feel need support.

Actually, I don’t think your case is reasonable. I thought I had pointed that out. If I’m going to construct a moral code, it would seem to make sense to me that if others ascribe to it that my death without justification should not be a result. And no, that’s not all you got. I’m still waiting for you tell me why life isn’t equal so I can proceed with my argument.

I’ve stated that life is equal by definition. To paraphrase, life is a characteristic brought about by the capacity to metabolize, reproduce, react to stimuli, etc. Gaspode presented the idea, which you seconded, that life is different when those processes differ, i.e., humans and algae metabolize in different ways. I disagree with this argument. You and I most likely react to stimuli differently. Does that mean my life is more valuable than yours or vice versa? How does one evaluate which life is more important? Despite differences in the processes which result in life, the result is the same. You can point out differences in the processes and the physiology of the entity, but can you illustrate the difference in the resultant characteristic?

Of course. I’ve become terribly frustrated at some point in the past. I completely understand. If you want to let this drop, I won’t stop you. If you want to continue, I’m game.

138

It very well could, Nen, but of course then you would need to accept that valuation from a moral code and accept that different valuations come from different moralities which you seem wont to do, so i don’t know what else to say. How about this: all morality is equal by definition of morality, so how can you say your moral code is better or more “correct” than my moral code? [note: don’t answer this yet, it will be asked again later in this post]

As you can see, I have a very big problem with implied equality.

When you say “is good” the question naturally follows, “to whom?” If the answer to that is “to the animals” then I would again ask, “They told you this?”

The same way one valuates anything: through an implicit or explicit moral code.

Yes: from a materialist point of view, that characteristic is in your head. It is an abstraction. Life, without a soul or god, does not exist except as an abstraction. I know how nihilistic that sounds, and believe me I even hate to say it, but you leave me little recourse.

Human “life” does not equal ameobic “life” except that you draw an abstraction from how a certain set of stuff reacts to a certain bunch of other stuff. A dwarf star is not the same as a red giant is not the same as a black hole. Even by definition of “intergalactic material.”

You realize you are abstracting a process and calling this process fundamental? You realize I am doing it, I think, when you challenge a premise, which is fine. But your own method of presentation fails to even stand up to some simple questioning that you would use against me.

Please, then, show me I am wrong with the following questionaire:
[li]Explain why a virus is or is not alive. (question of boundry)[/li][li]Explain how you can tell that both an amoeba and a flatworm and a human are alive. (question of premise)[/li][li]What is your opinion of mitochondria-- that is, is it a symbiote or a part of the cell? (question of implication)[/li][li]If all life is equal, why is it that some life is destroyed by other life, and why is this ok even when it isn’t absolutely necessary? (question of preference)[/li][li] all morality is equal by definition of morality, so how can you say your moral code is better or more “correct” than my moral code? (question of the validity of the principle of abstraction)[/li]
You are not obligated to answer these questions, they are truly there only to illustrate a point which I would have thought I made clear on the previous page.

139
140

Naturally, different evaluations arise from different moralities. Whether those evaluations are grounded in logic is another matter–the matter at hand.

When did I say, “is good,” pertaining to what?

Person A reacts in the fashion X to stimulus P and person B reacts in the fashion Y to stimulus P. In your opinion, the value of person A’s life differs from the value of person B’s life due to a difference in the process of reacting to stimuli. Objectively demonstrate how and why person A’s life is more valuable than person B’s life.

I’m not going to get into souls and gods. I will disagree that life is an abstraction. It is a perceptible characteristic like the color red.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
[li]Explain why a virus is or is not alive. (question of boundry)[/li][/quote]

Does a virus metabolize, reproduce, react to stimuli, et cetera? If it does, then it is alive. If it does not, then it is not alive.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
[li]Explain how you can tell that both an amoeba and a flatworm and a human are alive. (question of premise)[/li][/quote]

Does an amoeba, a flatworm and a human metabolize, reproduce, react to stimuli, et cetera? If they do, then they are alive. If they do not, then they are not alive.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
[li]What is your opinion of mitochondria-- that is, is it a symbiote or a part of the cell? (question of implication)[/li][/quote]

Okay, you’ll have to be a little patient with me on this one–I haven’t had a biology class in obout ten years. IIRC, there is something hinky about mitochondria which makes you ask this question. You’ll have to refresh my memory about it.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
[li]If all life is equal, why is it that some life is destroyed by other life, and why is this ok even when it isn’t absolutely necessary? (question of preference)[/li][/quote]

Well, I’m not sure why some entities are carnivorous or insectivorous. I assume it has something to do with evolution. I wouldn’t say it is okay if it isn’t necessary.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
[li] all morality is equal by definition of morality, so how can you say your moral code is better or more “correct” than my moral code? (question of the validity of the principle of abstraction)[/li][/quote]

I haven’t said that my moral code is better than your moral code. No objective morality exists. I’m simply pointing out inconsistences, contradictions and ludicrous ramifications of the preferential application of moral codes.

What point was that?