Comments on: The logical consequences of Utilitarianism and the Principle of Equality http://www.pixcapacitor.com/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality The Fruit of Knowledge Digest: Now in weblog technology Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Pixel http://www.pixcapacitor.com/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/comment-page-1#comment-5178 Pixel Wed, 21 May 2008 23:24:20 +0000 http://pixcapacitor.com/blog/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/#comment-5178 :) I agree. It's the reason I've decided not to have kids. Also, I'm mostly kidding about the killing part. I do think that becomes more moral under utilitarianism, but that doesn't mean I believe it. :) I agree. It’s the reason I’ve decided not to have kids. Also, I’m mostly kidding about the killing part. I do think that becomes more moral under utilitarianism, but that doesn’t mean I believe it.

]]> By: annie http://www.pixcapacitor.com/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/comment-page-1#comment-5175 annie Tue, 20 May 2008 22:57:32 +0000 http://pixcapacitor.com/blog/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/#comment-5175 "Kill all of your closest friends and family members." that has to be the worst comment ever made. what does that have to do with anything? ya okay respect the animals and plants that live here too but you know what?since we've already contaminated water beds, ruined forests and mutated species i say GO FOR THE GUSTO!! “Kill all of your closest friends and family members.” that has to be the worst comment ever made. what does that have to do with anything? ya okay respect the animals and plants that live here too but you know what?since we’ve already contaminated water beds, ruined forests and mutated species i say GO FOR THE GUSTO!!

]]> By: Ex_cal http://www.pixcapacitor.com/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/comment-page-1#comment-1225 Ex_cal Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:36:40 +0000 http://pixcapacitor.com/blog/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/#comment-1225 I'm going to just bring up a quick point for the reason why the definition of humans is so troublesome. Personally, from what I myself have encountered, it seems that many people (mostly from a Christian point of view) have used the term 'soul' to include the body. Hence, someone with a disabled body is seen as half a soul. Now I know, and you know, that a psyche, which basically 'is' the soul, means the <i>mind</i> but then, again, comes the problem of brain dead humanity, brain damaged humans, and so on. I think humanity is best defended from an empathetic standpoint. Humans are of <i>more</i> worth in my personal philosophy (well... the 2% at least) due to the fact that I can know what evil upon them feels like. I have no idea, as far as I know, how a dog feels in every day life. I don't know a dog's pain. Nor pleasure. However I can, debatably, know what another person feels. Also morality, as a human construct, is obviously going to be far more suited to humanity than other species. Obviously I don't think animals should be given undue pain; pointedly called 'humane' treatment. But if we were to switch the world view around, and applied an across the board morality that the highest population of 'entities' subscribe to (which would basically come down to insects), utilitarianism would fade away in comparison to an obvious Darwinistic slant. But this is absurd in itself: humans apply human rules to itself, and sometimes seems to attempt to apply the same rules to nature. Morality is a perfect example of this. By the way, Peter Singer is a nutter. What are his books printed on? Hopes and dreams, or freshly lopped trees from the Amazon? Eh? EH? I’m going to just bring up a quick point for the reason why the definition of humans is so troublesome.

Personally, from what I myself have encountered, it seems that many people (mostly from a Christian point of view) have used the term ’soul’ to include the body. Hence, someone with a disabled body is seen as half a soul. Now I know, and you know, that a psyche, which basically ‘is’ the soul, means the mind but then, again, comes the problem of brain dead humanity, brain damaged humans, and so on.

I think humanity is best defended from an empathetic standpoint. Humans are of more worth in my personal philosophy (well… the 2% at least) due to the fact that I can know what evil upon them feels like. I have no idea, as far as I know, how a dog feels in every day life. I don’t know a dog’s pain. Nor pleasure. However I can, debatably, know what another person feels.

Also morality, as a human construct, is obviously going to be far more suited to humanity than other species. Obviously I don’t think animals should be given undue pain; pointedly called ‘humane’ treatment. But if we were to switch the world view around, and applied an across the board morality that the highest population of ‘entities’ subscribe to (which would basically come down to insects), utilitarianism would fade away in comparison to an obvious Darwinistic slant. But this is absurd in itself: humans apply human rules to itself, and sometimes seems to attempt to apply the same rules to nature. Morality is a perfect example of this.

By the way, Peter Singer is a nutter. What are his books printed on? Hopes and dreams, or freshly lopped trees from the Amazon? Eh? EH?

]]> By: D http://www.pixcapacitor.com/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/comment-page-1#comment-1224 D Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:33:36 +0000 http://pixcapacitor.com/blog/2006/02/the-logical-consequences-of-utilitarianism-and-the-principle-of-equality/#comment-1224 well...Singer isn't quite so big an idiot as *that*. He doesn't say the death of a frog is the same as the death of a human. What he says is more like "all else being equal, the mere fact that X belongs to species x1 and Y belongs to species y1 should not let you privilege one over the other". Here "all else" would be some mix of intellectual faculties, emotional capacity, ability to feel pain, plan for the future or potential in these respects etc whose precise composition isn't all that relevent to his argument. So for instance, he'd argue that there is no moral way to say you can perform experiments on chimpanzees without also being willing to perform the same experiments (say) on brain dead orphaned human infants with similar abilities. This is itself an argument that is "out there", but the man is hardly saying you can't use streptomycin because of all the bacteria you'd kill, or that rats are equal to people. well…Singer isn’t quite so big an idiot as *that*.

He doesn’t say the death of a frog is the same as the death of a human. What he says is more like “all else being equal, the mere fact that X belongs to species x1 and Y belongs to species y1 should not let you privilege one over the other”. Here “all else” would be some mix of intellectual faculties, emotional capacity, ability to feel pain, plan for the future or potential in these respects etc whose precise composition isn’t all that relevent to his argument.

So for instance, he’d argue that there is no moral way to say you can perform experiments on chimpanzees without also being willing to perform the same experiments (say) on brain dead orphaned human infants with similar abilities. This is itself an argument that is “out there”, but the man is hardly saying you can’t use streptomycin because of all the bacteria you’d kill, or that rats are equal to people.

]]>