Would you kill a puppy for $1000000? | Page 55 | INFJ Forum

Would you kill a puppy for $1000000?

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by Majesty, Nov 20, 2010.

Share This Page

Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 41 users.
More threads by Majesty
  1. Asa

    Asa Resident palindrome

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2015
    Threads:
    69
    Messages:
    2,841
    Featured Threads:
    18
    Likes Received:
    11,966
    Trophy Points:
    1,681
    Gender:
    Female
    MBTI:
    INFJ

    I'll try harder to convey that. I'm pretty deadpan. :blush::tearsofjoy:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. Pin

    Pin Commander-in Chief / Ren's Counterpart

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    14,236
    Trophy Points:
    1,428
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    ENTJ
    Enneagram:
    8w7, 8-3-7
    There's plenty of things I wouldn't do for money that go without saying.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Willenstarke, Asa, Ren and 1 other person like this.
  3. Hostarius

    Hostarius Apostate INFJ

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Threads:
    13
    Messages:
    1,953
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    13,021
    Trophy Points:
    1,742
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2
    Five minutes earlier

    Pin's internal dialogue: Oh, crap, people are going to start PMing me with offers to do immoral shit for money, aren't they? I better make a statement...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Willenstarke, Asa, Ren and 2 others like this.
  4. Pin

    Pin Commander-in Chief / Ren's Counterpart

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    14,236
    Trophy Points:
    1,428
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    ENTJ
    Enneagram:
    8w7, 8-3-7
    [​IMG]
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #1084 Pin, Jan 2, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    Hostarius likes this.
  5. Pin

    Pin Commander-in Chief / Ren's Counterpart

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    14,236
    Trophy Points:
    1,428
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    ENTJ
    Enneagram:
    8w7, 8-3-7
    [​IMG]
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Willenstarke, Ren and Hostarius like this.
  6. Fidicen

    Fidicen Community Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2017
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    3,681
    Trophy Points:
    1,112
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    He's probably received dozens of offers from INFJ billionaires who have too many puppies and are too moral to kill them. And because Pin Administration doesn't have a bureau of puppy disposal, he's drowning in both money and puppies at the moment and has to put an end to this madness.

    Sadly, this is one of the reasons we have countries, so that we can feel morally incorruptible while the faceless entity called "administration" or "government" does the dirty work.
     
  7. Ren

    Ren Pin's android and co-founder of Stoic Café

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Threads:
    33
    Messages:
    5,171
    Featured Threads:
    23
    Likes Received:
    40,803
    Trophy Points:
    3,467
    Location:
    Geneva
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    458
    As much as people may disagree with your position, I do think that it's pretty consistent.

    Leaving virtue ethics aside for one moment: what is it about humans that makes them "special" compared to other animals, and which is such as not to be seen in puppies? What is your criterion of distinction here?
     
    Willenstarke, Hostarius, Asa and 2 others like this.
  8. Ren

    Ren Pin's android and co-founder of Stoic Café

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Threads:
    33
    Messages:
    5,171
    Featured Threads:
    23
    Likes Received:
    40,803
    Trophy Points:
    3,467
    Location:
    Geneva
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    458
    I would agree with Fidicen here... I think there are implicit value judgements (i.e. presupposed ethical commitments) in your statements of categorical imperatives. What is a "sick" game? If you use the argument that it's a sick game in your justification of the imperative, you're effectively saying: "It's sick and shouldn't be done because it's sick" — so it's a circular argument, in a way.

    I do think the categorical imperative is a useful tool, but it is remarkably difficult to state it in such a way as not to presuppose (or presuppose only very few) implicit ethical axioms when stating it. Which is a rather good thing, as 'universal moral laws' better be not too numerous anyway.
     
  9. charlatan

    charlatan Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    1,509
    Trophy Points:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ne-ILE-H
    Enneagram:
    6 spsx
    FWIW, I wouldn't.

    I guess to add footnotes to make it slightly less boring an answer, I don't think a culture that eats what we consider cute is any worse than one which just eats the 'standard' animal cuisines.

    On things like not eating meat, well I don't personally, but I'm more enthused about a future where we actually hit the problem at a high-level and address the industry than about people giving meat up in the present day.
    A high level solution might be something like being able to create meat in a lab that is a replica, and genuinely tastes as good, and is not deficient in any way.

    I don't have very utilitarian intuitions -- it seems to me if I were to care about morality at all, I'd most likely end up viewing living things as ends in themselves, and so I'm not sure a world with 1 person in misery and a million happy people actuallly moves me much more than one with 1 misery 1 happy. To put it differently, imagine we're at 1-1 -- it seems to me the million happy world is just one where we kept hte 1 misery the same and made a hell of a lot more creatures without addressing the one intrinsically valuable life's misery.
    OTOH, if we had 2 happy, or at least 1 neutral 1 happy, that probably would strike me as improvement (let's use 'happy' generically for a morally positive outcome rather than worry about whether happiness is a morally positive outcome).

    Sometimes, I am tempted to consider the conundrum: even if that's the case, perhaps the fact that each life is valuable makes it more self-consistent to try to save the ones we can, even if it isn't 'making the world a better place' in some sense.
    Still, that tends to lead to an insoluble dilemma: the same concern for each life being equally/intrinsically valuable in itself seems to lead to it being impossible to decide whom to save. The arguments for rolling the dice no longer strike me as ones that follow quite as obviously from the intrinsic value point of view.

    Basically, I think if I'm not going to adopt an intrinsic life point of view, why not just forget about morality and strive for other things like intellectual clarity?

    Usually I favor the relatively uncontroversially better (to the extent there is such a thing) worlds, and don't comment much on the more gruesome pragmatic choices, as I'm not sure I'm ever truly convinced by any one of them.
     
    #1089 charlatan, Jan 2, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  10. Pin

    Pin Commander-in Chief / Ren's Counterpart

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    14,236
    Trophy Points:
    1,428
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    ENTJ
    Enneagram:
    8w7, 8-3-7
    All of the things that make our species beautifully unique: the location of our larynx enabling our linguistic range, our preference for bipedal locomotion, our superior ability to reason, our ability to generate so many distinctive arts and cultures.

    We are so special.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #1090 Pin, Jan 2, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    Willenstarke, Hostarius and Ren like this.
  11. charlatan

    charlatan Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    1,509
    Trophy Points:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ne-ILE-H
    Enneagram:
    6 spsx
    Oh and the only 'universal moral intuition' I have ever found that there may be good arguments for on rational grounds (vs on the basis of something like affection-- i.e. a more emotional love for living things) is the problematic nature of suffering.
    I do think that's one case where it may be bad by definition, vs almost anything else seems relative.
     
    Willenstarke, Hostarius and Ren like this.
  12. Ren

    Ren Pin's android and co-founder of Stoic Café

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Threads:
    33
    Messages:
    5,171
    Featured Threads:
    23
    Likes Received:
    40,803
    Trophy Points:
    3,467
    Location:
    Geneva
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    458
    I think there is a causal mechanism missing here. You are listing traits that are specific to the human species, sure, but without explaining why these traits make us specially exempt from the non-immorality of killing living beings. Let me hazard a guess: morality requires self-consciousness, and since other species lack self-consciousness, they lack a moral sense; and lacking a moral sense, they cannot be considered to lie within the realm of morality at all. Hence, the killing of a non-human being is not immoral, nor moral, but amoral. When we kill them, we just do that, for our own reasons; and there is no morality to be spoken of in such cases.

    What do you think?
     
    Willenstarke, Fidicen and Hostarius like this.
  13. Pin

    Pin Commander-in Chief / Ren's Counterpart

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    14,236
    Trophy Points:
    1,428
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    ENTJ
    Enneagram:
    8w7, 8-3-7
    I do suspect your argument argument is right. My only issue with it is that it isn't empirical enough. I can't 'point' at self-consciousness or verify that other animals aren't self-conscious or lack morality.

    Ya know, a posteriori.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. Ren

    Ren Pin's android and co-founder of Stoic Café

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Threads:
    33
    Messages:
    5,171
    Featured Threads:
    23
    Likes Received:
    40,803
    Trophy Points:
    3,467
    Location:
    Geneva
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    458
    Indeed, and this lack of empirical verifiability could be one way to justify universal animal rights.

    Another option would simply be to say: "the strong ought to dominate the weak, as is natural." This is more or less the stance that Nietzsche took, with remarkable (if sometimes spine-chilling) consistency. Because in such a case, you would also have to condone or at least show indifference towards the killing of people with disability (endorsed by Nietzsche, who called disabled people "vegetative cowards"), etc.
     
    Willenstarke, Fidicen and Hostarius like this.
  15. Hostarius

    Hostarius Apostate INFJ

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Threads:
    13
    Messages:
    1,953
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    13,021
    Trophy Points:
    1,742
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2
    Maybe Pin is a 'blond beast' after all?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Willenstarke and Ren like this.
  16. BeautifulSuffering

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Threads:
    3
    Messages:
    38
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    468
    Gender:
    Female
    MBTI:
    INFJ-T
    That is exactly what the Kalergi Plan is about. Creating a one race, one religion, one goverment New World Order. But ofcourse the simple minded who are way too comfortable in society call it conspiracy theories.
     
    Willenstarke likes this.
  17. Wyote

    Wyote Con Risa Absoluta
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Threads:
    221
    Messages:
    23,865
    Featured Threads:
    14
    Likes Received:
    88,846
    Trophy Points:
    4,271
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ni Space
    Enneagram:
    9 Seas
    Of course! God damn simpletons. They're everywhere.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Willenstarke, Fidicen and Hostarius like this.
  18. BeautifulSuffering

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Threads:
    3
    Messages:
    38
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    468
    Gender:
    Female
    MBTI:
    INFJ-T
    Don;t bother calling me a neo-nazi. Your lover Hitler was a fraud anyway and worked hand-in-hand with the same Ashkenazi families that are now in control of the world central banks, media such as hollywood etc. Everything we know and have been teached is a lie sadly.
     
    Willenstarke likes this.
  19. Hostarius

    Hostarius Apostate INFJ

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Threads:
    13
    Messages:
    1,953
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    13,021
    Trophy Points:
    1,742
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2
    I'm not sure you have been 'teached' to be honest.

    I don't know why it's acceptable to casually dismiss the knowledge of a whole discipline like that. This is why the whole David Irving thing was so infuriating; because the actual evidence is so abundant and obvious, meaning that it's hard not to assume that the ignorance is wilful.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. Fidicen

    Fidicen Community Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2017
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    3,681
    Trophy Points:
    1,112
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    This discussion looks like you set up a trap with the initial question, forcing Pin to commit the naturalistic fallacy, i.e. to list properties of human beings as if we could deduce self-evident morals from those properties. But Pin didn't pin down any moral rule, so he didn't actually step into the trap, just very close to it. The causal mechanism you speak of is the spring of the trap. Once you say such a mechanism exists, the view can be refuted on the grounds that we have no compelling reason to say that morals should be decided by natural properties.

    You make an unexplained logical leap here. Saying that morality requires self-consciousness, it's not at all evident what you mean by morality. By saying it is connected to self-consciousness you imply that morality is a property of a certain kind of being and limited to that. We may consider that sentence being correct now although of course we don't know about the moral feelings of other creatures. However, in this case what you mean by morality is merely an understanding of right or wrong. It does not follow that creatures that have no such sense are outside morality. When we talk about morality we're always talking about human values and that includes not only other human beings but the entire world (whether to pollute the planet etc), which affects our well-being and views in complex ways. So there are two meanings of the word morality you're using: one as a moral sense and another one as a mental phenomenon that has an effect on things. Even if you take the moral sense away from creatures, it's still possible to say that some things are immoral, defining harmful effects etc.
     
    Willenstarke, Hostarius and Wyote like this.
Loading...

Share This Page