Debate Rounds (4)
You cannot argue the Universe, so it would be best to accept that is a personal matter, not a practical one.
'Ethics' is just the vocalization sound I have used to help describe the phenomena of the consideration for others. If you want to talk about brains and physiology then consider this: What we understand as 'love' or 'compassion' is an evolutionary tool to keep us in social groups and 'persuade' us to raise our young. (solitary animals don't feel it-for they have not needed to maintain the group in order to survive). 'Love' is actually a 'thing', its a hormone, it can be measured. It has been 'created' by evolution. There is no 'ethics' part of the brain, there is a hormone that is produced that encourages us to love, and that is it. We therefore have love, but it only extends to our family and our tribe, as its evolutionary function is to maintain group loyalty and family groups. As humans become less ignorant and more aware and connected, there 'love' expands to meet a wider group of beings as we learn to understand them. So we learn that the other tribe are actually quite similar and we encorperate them as well. People are still hateful of other nationalities, other races, people they don't understand or see as themselves, but 'good' people recognise that we are all equal, no matter how different we are. So my argument is that to incorporate other species into our circle of love is a step forward in ethics. How can cruelty to other earthlings be more ethical than not being cruel? I don't agree with your view on how we should determine ethics. Also, even with your view on ethics I still think I am right. For instance, killing an animal makes us feel horrible (until we desensitise), and if feeling horrible and cruel isn't a reflection of 'bad ethics' in my brain, then what is ?
As for the part of the brain, it's from a conversation I had a long time ago on how the brain is wired not to kill in some area, but the military is managing to numb that part of the brain, to create machines that know only one thing: do what one must to survive. I never cared for names and labels, I can't even imagine in my head anything - I feel through symbol; I feel shapes, colors and people through the essence, rather than the appearance.
I don't quite understand your logic here. For the sake of the argument I am going to assume you mean: You can love and appreciate animals, whilst acknowledging that human nature can cause them suffering. This is true, but it doesn't really mean that choosing to not support the meat market isn't a more compassionate or ethical choice. To assume and accept human nature as cruel, and to be a pacifist on that logic, is a clear example of somebody being more ignorant, more selfish or less caring than someone, who also knows human nature has been cruel, and yet chooses to resist it. I don't think anyone can argue with that. Slavery and the womens rights movement give us examples of the two groups of the population-one which want to maintain the status-quo, and the other that saw that it is was wrong and wanted to improve the lives of the underdogs. People are quick to judge Nazis, women oppressors and slave owners, yet the majority of these people are just like the meat eating portion of the population-they are either to ignorant to care for ethics, too easily led into supporting anything they are told too, or they are just plain self-grandiose and self-interested. Would you agree that vegans would probably be the civil rights fighters and the slave-abolishes?
You say: "As for the part of the brain, it's from a conversation I had a long time ago on how the brain is wired not to kill in some area, but the military is managing to numb that part of the brain, to create machines that know only one thing: do what one must to survive. I never cared for names and labels, I can't even imagine in my head anything - I feel through symbol; I feel shapes, colors and people through the essence, rather than the appearance."
Don't understand how this is relevant. Also that is not very good supporting evidence, I have learned a fair bit about the brain and your idea is almost completely wrong. There will be an heir of truth, but your just confused about pretty much anything to do with the brain. There is no ethics in our brain, our minds tell us when we do something wrong and there will be a hormonal and neuronal mechanism for feeling guilt. But guilt is subjective and brain scans cannot be used to prove ethical issues.
Want to really know how the world works? You must first stop trying to figure it out yourself, and realize that everything that you need to know, is right in front of you. The moment you make this about you, is the moment your forfeit the journey of living vicariously through the very thing that governed our existence.
We have a gut feeling and a guilty conscious which attacks us consciously and subconsciously when we fall asleep. You are really taking life for granted when you take such a magnificent Universe which attacks itself, heals itself and destroys itself time after time again throughout time, as "just an accident that has no meaning", when that's you projecting yourself.
You clearly cannot handle this discussion, if you cannot handle your emotions. You already lost to your emotions - you know nothing of this cosmic diamond I speak of, because you're still an opal that complains and withers from their lack of nutrients because they don't want to get their roots dirty, when they need to shove those roots far into the earth's soil, to retain their strength.
On the off chance that I'm wrong about this I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just really believe you are a troll. Like I said, I am not accustomed to trolling. I'm sure you have some interesting philosophies I just cannot completely understand it in the way you put it, philosophy is hard to communicate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was Trolling
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.