Doreen's story

[rubato]

I don't actually consider myself a misanthrope, as I understand that to mean a hatred of humankind. I am just deeply pessimistic about the prospects for humankind improving.
.... " .

I don't expect human 'nature' to change, whatever that is, but the record of the past 200 years is a remarkable trajectory of bettering the human condition. In the 1st world we have eliminated so many of the historic ills that we now suffer more from excess than deprivation and are having to learn how to channel this potential in a way which is not destructive to us.

I can't look at history and not be optimistic about our possibilities.

But we will have to apply more empirical and less anger-driven methods to learning the best ways to govern ourselves. Empiricism teaches us that punishing people for misbehavior only increases suffering. Some are authentic sadists, like dgs, and they will never give up the pleasure in torturing those they hate even if it is shown that compassion produces a better outcome.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Nobody I have seen has claimed rube is STUPID..

Oh, well then let me be the first.

In the more than a decade that I read rube's posts, I never read one; not a single one...that suggested to me that he possessed anything other than the most mediocre of intellects.

And I'm not just talking here about his obvious complete inability to interact with other human beings in even a minimally effective way. It's possible to be an intelligent person and still be a social retard; I've known some very intelligent people who had little to no interpersonal skills.

And nor am I just talking about someone with whom I disagree on just about everything; there are a number of folks here who would fall into that category, and I have nothing but respect for their intellectual abilities, (Merely being wrong doesn't make one stupid. Smart people reach the wrong conclusions all the time. )

No, I'm talking about a supposed "scientist" who apparently finds himself deeply challenged trying to interpret simple charts, tables and graphs. (On numerous occasions, he would reference one of these that in no way demonstrated what he claimed they did; the obvious explanation for this is that he didn't know how to read them correctly)

I'm talking about a self proclaimed "inventor" who has almost never expressed an original thought, and who has openly bragged about being "predictable". 90% of what rube has posted has been copy and paste jobs, and most of the rest consists either of smarmy and or/juvenile insults, or assertions that bespeak a profound ignorance of the subject matter, (like, "there was no genocide before Christianity", "the Catholics don't value education" and "Rousseau was a reactionary")

This sort of behavior is evidence of both intellectual laziness and a lack of intellectual curiosity. Qualities not generally considered to be the hall marks of an intelligent person.

I have seen nothing that suggests to me that rube possesses a level of native intelligence any greater than that of quaddriver, for example. In fact they have one major characteristic in common; the complete disconnect between their perception of their character, knowledge and intelligence, and the evidence of it.

[Lord Jim]

Rube is also completely oblivious to what a nasty and hateful little scut he is. How can one who is such a stranger to their own nature possibly be considered intelligent?

Look, I know that I can be an asshole. Rube is obviously an asshole of the first magnitude, and yet it became apparent to me that in his own mind (at first I thought he was kidding...surely no one could be that imperceptive about themselves) he sees himself as a kind, caring and sweet natured soul...filled with love for his fellow man, and over flowing with an ecumenical sense of "social conscience" ...

[BoSoxGal]

rubato, I consider it a sign of the terribly flawed nature of humankind that diseases of excess are plaguing the first world, as you pointed out, when so many millions of people on the planet are hungry and dying from lack of access to clean water.

I think that with the advances of the past 100+ years, if humankind were truly good, that wouldn't be the case.

[Rick]

I sometimes get exhausted just opening an envelope too...

[rubato]

rubato, I consider it a sign of the terribly flawed nature of humankind that diseases of excess are plaguing the first world, as you pointed out, when so many millions of people on the planet are hungry and dying from lack of access to clean water.

I think that with the advances of the past 100+ years, if humankind were truly good, that wouldn't be the case.

I don't think mankind is "truly good". I don't think that statement makes any sense. Nor does the statement we are "truly bad".

Nature has sculpted us with 500,000 years of hardship and struggle. Our 'nature's are well adapted to survive difficulty and deprivation. We have a few decades of excess and have not learned to adjust yet. As a species, I don't think we have recognized the significance of going from a condition where we were driven to work by need to one where we have to choose to labor and choose what to labor for. Our bodies and minds are made to struggle and strive and we suffer when we don't. But we have never had to decide for ourselves what we ought to struggle for.

Some people have always done this, some from the ranks of those who were well-enough off to stop and think about it. There are a lot people who will give up luxury and comfort and bear great risks to better other people's lives.

yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

Some are of the opinion that humankind is morally superior to other animals; that was my meaning. I think we are, overall, morally inferior.

[Rick]

Some are of the opinion that humankind is morally superior to other animals; that was my meaning. I think we are, overall, morally inferior.

Huh?

There is morality in nature?

[dales]

[BoSoxGal]

Are humans not part of nature?

Doh.

[Rick]

True but you insinuate we are morally inferior.

The supposition that nature in total is moral.

I submit that the human animal is the only species in nature that ponder the morality on any position.

I've not read anything by a lion on the killing of zebras or by mistletoe about slowly sucking the life out of an oak.

....

[rubato]

Some are of the opinion that humankind is morally superior to other animals; that was my meaning. I think we are, overall, morally inferior.

I can't think of any other species which engages in moral reasoning at all.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

That's speciesism.

We don't really know what feelings or thinking processes other beings are capable of; we just tell ourselves we do.

Recall the video I posted of a dog risking its life to pull an injured friend from the path of highway traffic?

Other higher primates are clearly capable of complex thinking; many other mammals may be as well. I predict at some future time in human history we will have to grapple with the truth that we have wholesale slaughtered other intelligent species, along with the millions of our own.

[Joe Guy]

I predict at some future time in human history we will have to grapple with the truth that we have wholesale slaughtered other intelligent species, along with the millions of our own.

There's an acceptable (to many) reason for killing those other species if the reason was in order to eat them.

It also gives another meaning to the term 'eating smart.'

[Rick]

That's speciesism.

That's reality.

A dog pushing another dog is not an indication of morality, animals communicating (if that is what they are actually doing) is not an indication of morality.

Intelligence alone is not a measure of morality...

[Lord Jim]

Human beings are the only species capable of behaving morally and also the only species capable of behaving immorally. We are the only species for whom morality is even a factor; if you believe you are observing moral or immoral behavior in another species you are engaging in anthropomorphic projection.

It is impossible to be a person of faith and not believe that there is a greater moral worth to human life than to that of lower species. (It's possible for an atheist to see a greater moral value to human life as well, though it's possible for them not to see this.)

That's speciesism.

Yes, quite right. Absolutely. And proud of it. I would think I had completely lost my moral bearings if I didn't think this way.

To anyone who doesn't see a greater moral worth to human life, I put a hypothetical question:

You are standing alone on a beach. Out in the water in one direction, you see a child flailing about, clearly drowning. Out in the water in a separate direction of equal distance, you see a basket with half a dozen kittens sinking in the water, (or substitute some other species if you like). You only have the time to swim out to rescue one or the other; the child or the six kittens. Who do you rescue?

Seems to me that the "moral philosophy" of anyone who embraces the "no greater moral worth" argument would require them to swim out to rescue the kittens; since you would be saving six lives of equal value to the one that you weren't saving.

That is a "moral philosophy" that I feel quite comfortable in totally rejecting.

BTW I have asked this hypothetical question of a number of people over the years who have expressed views on this similar to those expressed here by BSG, and in most cases they start hemming and hawing and not wanting to say "yes, I'd save the cats and let the kid drown"...

Which I then tell them indicates to me that even though they claim that they don't see any difference in the moral value of human life and that of other animals, they don't really actually believe it, or they would have no problem saying they would save the kittens rather than the child. If you really believe that, it's the morally appropriate thing to do.

[dales]

Humans are made in GOD'S image, animals aren't.

[BoSoxGal]

Humans are merely advanced primates; there is no God.

That is, after all, a position of equal merit and provability.

[Lord Jim]

BSG, do you believe that human life has no greater moral worth than that of other species?

[Rick]

Humans are merely advanced primates; there is no God.

That is, after all, a position of equal merit and provability.

Again Intelligence does not equal morality.

Might want to rethink yer statement (not this one, the original morality one)...