Prev: Goo consistently self-outstupided by his own challenge(s).
Next: Amazing Animals
From: Rupert on 5 Aug 2008 01:44
On Aug 5, 12:25 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> rupie the incoherent blabbered:
>
> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
> than that they not live at all"
>
> He can't define or give any coherent meaning to "better".
>
> "I answered the question by explaining that I am simply speaking of the
> outcome being 'better'."
>
> That didn't help.  It's still undefined.

"Better outcome" is an undefined term, Ball, as "set" and "member of"
are in set theory. You can postulate a theory about the terms "set"
and "member of" for consideration, and some mathematicians may
consider the theory to be reasonable. Similarly, you can postulate an
ethical theory about what makes the outcome better for ethicists to
consider. They may or may not find it reasonable. Theories can be
examined and criticised in various ways. You are using an undefined
notion of the outcome being "better" for a certain individual, you
cannot define this notion either. It is necessary to use some
undefined terms, you can try to clarify what you do and don't believe
about these terms.

I can say something about what I believe does and does not make the
outcome better, and I have said a few things about that issue, without
setting forward a comprehensive theory. (Without necessarily claiming,
by the way, that it is always morally permissible or morally
obligatory to make the outcome better, that is a separate issue. Only
consequentialists believe that it is always morally obligatory to do
whatever it takes to make the outcome better.) Similarly, you can
choose not to work in that framework and instead only speak of the
outcome being better for this individual or that individual, and say
something about what you believe does or does not make the outcome
better for this individual or that individual (which will not alter
the fact that it is an undefined term).

You have not shown that your framework is preferable. You have
asserted it very strongly, countless times, but you have made no
effort to argue the point. There are plenty of professional moral
philosophers who would not accept your view, although I suppose that
in itself is neiher here nor there. The point is that you have an
obligation to make a decent attempt to argue the point. So far all you
have done is point out that I am using an undefined term, that gets
you nowhere because you too are using an undefined term, we cannot get
by without undefined terms. You can say, I haven't presented a
comprehensive theory about what does and does not make the outcome
better as yet. Well, you haven't presented a comprehensive theory
about what does and does not make the outcome better for a particular
individual as yet. It is a complex topic, Derek Parfit has written an
essay about it.

You could drop the notion of the outcome being better for a particular
individual and instead just work with the time-relative notion of
whatever best satisfies an individual's preferences overall at a given
moment. Economists work with that notion and assume that economic
agents are generally rational when it comes to trying to fulfil their
preferences (although some question that assumption in various ways;
they question whether it is valid for mentally ill people for
example). Perhaps you want to say, you can do ethics using this notion
alone, and I haven't shown that my notion of the outcome being
"better" or "worse" is a useful one to work with in ethics. Yes, you
could push that line if you want. But if you're going to say it's a
flaw in my position that I haven't come up with a comprehensive
ethical theory just yet, then you've got an obligation to come up with
a comprehensive ethical theory yourself, otherwise your position is
just as flawed.

So, feel free to elaborate. Tell us all about your ethical theory.
From: dh on 5 Aug 2008 10:16
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>You could drop the notion of the outcome being better for a particular
>individual and instead just work with the time-relative notion of
>whatever best satisfies an individual's preferences overall at a given
>moment.

Goo can't. Goo can't comprehend how life can have positive
value for anything, much less how that value can and does
change during the course of our/their lives. The Goober is too
shallow to think in depth or detail. Instead he makes up simple
rules for a simple mind, and some of his rules you and Goo seem
to have had in common until recently:

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo
From: Rupert on 6 Aug 2008 02:34
On Aug 6, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 5, 12:25 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> rupie the incoherent blabbered:
> >>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
> >>>> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
> >>>> than that they not live at all"
> >>>> He can't define or give any coherent meaning to "better".
> >>>> "I answered the question by explaining that I am simply speaking of the
> >>>> outcome being 'better'."
> >>>> That didn't help.  It's still undefined.
> >>> "Better outcome" is an undefined term  [snip few hundred words of wheeze]
> >> Of *COURSE* it is, rupie - you refuse to define it so you can take it to
> >> mean whatever you like.  Gotcha.
>
> > Just as, for you, "better outcome for a specific individual" is an
> > undefined term,
>
> No, rupie.  You are the only one who uses undefined terms around here.
> You did it deliberately.
>

Okay, let's just focus on that, I haven't got the energy to respond to
your whole post. You're saying you're not using an undefined term. So
your notion of "a better outcome for this or that individual" is
defined. What's the definition?

From: Rupert on 6 Aug 2008 02:58
On Aug 6, 4:43 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 5, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 5, 12:25 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> rupie the incoherent blabbered:
> >>>>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food on farms
> >>>>>> have lives which are such that it is better that they live that life
> >>>>>> than that they not live at all"
> >>>>>> He can't define or give any coherent meaning to "better".
> >>>>>> "I answered the question by explaining that I am simply speaking of the
> >>>>>> outcome being 'better'."
> >>>>>> That didn't help.  It's still undefined.
> >>>>> "Better outcome" is an undefined term  [snip few hundred words of wheeze]
> >>>> Of *COURSE* it is, rupie - you refuse to define it so you can take it to
> >>>> mean whatever you like.  Gotcha.
> >>> Just as, for you, "better outcome for a specific individual" is an
> >>> undefined term,
> >> No, rupie.  You are the only one who uses undefined terms around here.
> >> You did it deliberately.
>
> > Okay, let's just focus on that, I haven't got the energy to respond to
> > your whole post. You're saying you're not using an undefined term.
>
> And you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sheesh, Ball. You talk about whiffing off. Just answer the question
that you snipped, you pathetic pitiful coward. If you don't do that
then it will be plain for all sensible people to see that you are
incapable of having a serious debate with me. Actually, all sensible
people figured that out years ago, by the way.
From: dh on 6 Aug 2008 09:34
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:56:13 -0700, Rudy Canoza <pipes(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:16:35 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You could drop the notion of the outcome being better for a particular
>>>individual and instead just work with the time-relative notion of
>>>whatever best satisfies an individual's preferences overall at a given
>>>moment.
>>
>> Goo can't. Goo can't comprehend how life can have positive
>>value for anything, much less how that value can and does
>>change during the course of our/their lives. The Goober is too
>>shallow to think in depth or detail. Instead he makes up simple
>>rules for a simple mind
>
>Coming into existence is not a "benefit" to the animal

Yes, simple rules for a simple mind, like that, and like this:

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first
place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Goo consistently self-outstupided by his own challenge(s).
Next: Amazing Animals