Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

People are the most evil animal.

Hunter695
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:46:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

There's no such thing as evil. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective. Even Hitler can be seen as "not evil" to some people, although I do have some sense of morality and think that what he did was obviously wrong.
miraculous
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:51:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

In what ways are humans not superior to other species in terms of morality? Are you saying animals have a say in what happens in society? That they are content?
If I went back in time and murdered my grandmother, therefor preventing my existence, then who killed my grandmother?
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:53:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 11:51:58 AM, miraculous wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

In what ways are humans not superior to other species in terms of morality? Are you saying animals have a say in what happens in society? That they are content?

Well, most animals lack a sense of self-awareness. Without it, they consequently don't have any sense of morality.
miraculous
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:57:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 11:53:34 AM, RevNge wrote:
At 11/24/2014 11:51:58 AM, miraculous wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

In what ways are humans not superior to other species in terms of morality? Are you saying animals have a say in what happens in society? That they are content?

Well, most animals lack a sense of self-awareness. Without it, they consequently don't have any sense of morality.
Likewise. I was wondering how a cow could have more morals then a human, when they lack self awareness or any form of morality.
If I went back in time and murdered my grandmother, therefor preventing my existence, then who killed my grandmother?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 12:26:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

We are superior because we actually have a conception of morals. If something has no conception of morals how can they be superior? They cannot. Animals have no morality and therefore cannot be superior.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 1:05:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 12:26:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

We are superior because we actually have a conception of morals. If something has no conception of morals how can they be superior? They cannot. Animals have no morality and therefore cannot be superior.

This is one if the most absurd arguments. I have seen. Your entire argument is predicated on the following assumption:

"Something is superior to another if and only if they can conceive of morals"

Even worse, if that the notion of 'superior' is completely meaningless, since it predicates a standard by which something can be superior. Which clearly has not been suggested, let alone given.

Henceforth, your entire argument is a meaningless sentence. It is not true, and it isn't even wrong.

If you are going to talk about morality,you first need to address the 'what, how, why' distinction.

1. What is moral
2. How does one act moral
3. Why should we act moral

#1 just boils down to whichever definition of moral you are using. A utilitarian will define moral as what maximises well-being with intent. A thombist will define moral as in accordance with God's nature, etc, etc.

#2 is am application of #1 to the real world. Assuming maximising well being is moral, then how does that apply to every day actions or scenarios.

#3 is necessarily subjective, and depends on our values

#3 also directly applies to animals, animals clearly have values and desires, even though they are more simplistic. But there is very little one can argue that animal values are "inferior" to human values.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 3:27:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 1:05:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 12:26:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

We are superior because we actually have a conception of morals. If something has no conception of morals how can they be superior? They cannot. Animals have no morality and therefore cannot be superior.

This is one if the most absurd arguments. I have seen. Your entire argument is predicated on the following assumption:

"Something is superior to another if and only if they can conceive of morals"

Even worse, if that the notion of 'superior' is completely meaningless, since it predicates a standard by which something can be superior. Which clearly has not been suggested, let alone given.

Henceforth, your entire argument is a meaningless sentence. It is not true, and it isn't even wrong.

If you are going to talk about morality,you first need to address the 'what, how, why' distinction.

1. What is moral
2. How does one act moral
3. Why should we act moral

#1 just boils down to whichever definition of moral you are using. A utilitarian will define moral as what maximises well-being with intent. A thombist will define moral as in accordance with God's nature, etc, etc.

#2 is am application of #1 to the real world. Assuming maximising well being is moral, then how does that apply to every day actions or scenarios.

#3 is necessarily subjective, and depends on our values

#3 also directly applies to animals, animals clearly have values and desires, even though they are more simplistic. But there is very little one can argue that animal values are "inferior" to human values.

Animals can't be moral agents. That's my philosophical belief. One that is shared by many philosophers. If something can't partake in a field that you are operating they cannot be superior. They can't compete at all.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 3:33:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 3:27:40 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/24/2014 1:05:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 12:26:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

We are superior because we actually have a conception of morals. If something has no conception of morals how can they be superior? They cannot. Animals have no morality and therefore cannot be superior.

This is one if the most absurd arguments. I have seen. Your entire argument is predicated on the following assumption:

"Something is superior to another if and only if they can conceive of morals"

Even worse, if that the notion of 'superior' is completely meaningless, since it predicates a standard by which something can be superior. Which clearly has not been suggested, let alone given.

Henceforth, your entire argument is a meaningless sentence. It is not true, and it isn't even wrong.

If you are going to talk about morality,you first need to address the 'what, how, why' distinction.

1. What is moral
2. How does one act moral
3. Why should we act moral

#1 just boils down to whichever definition of moral you are using. A utilitarian will define moral as what maximises well-being with intent. A thombist will define moral as in accordance with God's nature, etc, etc.

#2 is am application of #1 to the real world. Assuming maximising well being is moral, then how does that apply to every day actions or scenarios.

#3 is necessarily subjective, and depends on our values

#3 also directly applies to animals, animals clearly have values and desires, even though they are more simplistic. But there is very little one can argue that animal values are "inferior" to human values.

Animals can't be moral agents. That's my philosophical belief. One that is shared by many philosophers. If something can't partake in a field that you are operating they cannot be superior. They can't compete at all.

... You just ignored my entire post and essentially just reasserted your original argument... More or less.

How am I supposed to argue with that?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 3:46:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 3:33:46 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 3:27:40 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/24/2014 1:05:30 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 12:26:59 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:35:58 AM, Hunter695 wrote:
I believe that the higher an animals IQ is the higher the CAPACITY is. I mean this as if an animal is very smart that species has a higher chance of being evil, or doing evil things. Same with being good. If talking about morality we are not superior to other animals.

We are superior because we actually have a conception of morals. If something has no conception of morals how can they be superior? They cannot. Animals have no morality and therefore cannot be superior.

This is one if the most absurd arguments. I have seen. Your entire argument is predicated on the following assumption:

"Something is superior to another if and only if they can conceive of morals"

Even worse, if that the notion of 'superior' is completely meaningless, since it predicates a standard by which something can be superior. Which clearly has not been suggested, let alone given.

Henceforth, your entire argument is a meaningless sentence. It is not true, and it isn't even wrong.

If you are going to talk about morality,you first need to address the 'what, how, why' distinction.

1. What is moral
2. How does one act moral
3. Why should we act moral

#1 just boils down to whichever definition of moral you are using. A utilitarian will define moral as what maximises well-being with intent. A thombist will define moral as in accordance with God's nature, etc, etc.

#2 is am application of #1 to the real world. Assuming maximising well being is moral, then how does that apply to every day actions or scenarios.

#3 is necessarily subjective, and depends on our values

#3 also directly applies to animals, animals clearly have values and desires, even though they are more simplistic. But there is very little one can argue that animal values are "inferior" to human values.

Animals can't be moral agents. That's my philosophical belief. One that is shared by many philosophers. If something can't partake in a field that you are operating they cannot be superior. They can't compete at all.

... You just ignored my entire post and essentially just reasserted your original argument... More or less.

How am I supposed to argue with that?

Animals don't have "values" as you put it. Animals have instincts. Animals do not act in any way other than being driven by instinct. They do not have sex to have children, they have sex because their body tells them to. That is how the entire body of their actions is predicated.

As for what is moral? Morality is a code of right and wrong codified and passed down from God to men. To act moral is to obey and follow this divine code of ethics.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 8:41:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nope: cats are the most evil animal. https://www.youtube.com...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 1:05:30 PM, Envisage wrote:

This is one if the most absurd arguments. I have seen. Your entire argument is predicated on the following assumption:

"Something is superior to another if and only if they can conceive of morals"

Even worse, if that the notion of 'superior' is completely meaningless, since it predicates a standard by which something can be superior. Which clearly has not been suggested, let alone given.

I think it makes sense. If something has no concept of morality or is too simple to understand it, it can have no moral intent behind its actions and cannot be considered morally superior to a something else which does have a concept of morality and does make actions with moral intent. Isn't that just something that's intuitive?

Unless we're talking solely about actions, not intents, and you view morality as objective, then I guess you could say other animals are morally superior to humans. Maybe. Not really.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:26:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bump over spam.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King