Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Insects

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 1:48:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?

Depends on their level of consciousness. I kind of doubt they are conscious so I don't see much issue with killing them unless you believe they are. We're conscious, sentient beings so I don't think the comparison is very applicable. However, it's kind of hard to apply morality to aliens.

Spiders however...deserve to die no matter what! Jk
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cheshire
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:21:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?

I think the difference is that an alien species which is that far advanced most likely has reached consciousness; and would be aware that they were killing other conscious beings. Ants are typically considered unconscious of their own existence, therefore we consider it okay to kill them. However, the alien species may have a completely different set of morals, in which case it may be immoral to us but not to them.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:24:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Killing insects may be immoral, especially without justification. There can be things such as if they have consciousness or not, which they might.

If you're talking about ratios of intelligence, then I don't really believe that morality should rest on that.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?

Do you believe that, on a meta-ethical level, there is no justification for the making of objective normative claims? If so, then, in answer to your question, no, aliens wiping out the human race is no more immoral than you squashing a bug or Bob's raping Jasmine, at least not so in an objective sense. You know, we probably might not like the idea of aliens wiping us out, but they're not doing anything "wrong" in the relevant sense if they were, in fact, to wipe us out.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 11:29:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Moral, immoral, who knows. But we could reasonably say they lack compassion and likewise that we lack compassion for needlessly killing insects.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 3:45:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Their moral code will certainly be massively different to ours as they'd have much more development. I'd imagine us at worst, ignoring self-acknowledged amoral aliens - either becoming under benign imperial rule, at best treated as incredibly stupid equals. However, we suffer from all or moral judgements being anthropocentric.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?

I'm pretty sure you already know the answer to this RT: insects have no self-conscious or the ability to feel pain. It makes no difference how much higher on the food chain we are or how much greater our technology is.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:40:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 6:02:43 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?

I'm pretty sure you already know the answer to this RT: insects have no self-conscious or the ability to feel pain. It makes no difference how much higher on the food chain we are or how much greater our technology is.

Why value "self-conscious" or the "ability to feel pain"? After all, on an atheistic view, "consciousness" and the "ability to feel pain" are both just electro-chemical reactions that take place in seat of the brain. Why value human-shaped consciousness electrochemical reactions or human-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions over, say, cricket-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:12:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 6:40:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:02:43 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?

I'm pretty sure you already know the answer to this RT: insects have no self-conscious or the ability to feel pain. It makes no difference how much higher on the food chain we are or how much greater our technology is.

Why value "self-conscious" or the "ability to feel pain"? After all, on an atheistic view, "consciousness" and the "ability to feel pain" are both just electro-chemical reactions that take place in seat of the brain. Why value human-shaped consciousness electrochemical reactions or human-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions over, say, cricket-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions?

Because their chemical reactions don't lead to self-consciousness or pain. This is the difference. Also, DakotaKrafick you are right that I already knew the answer. I just wanted to spark up a conversation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:15:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 6:40:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:02:43 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 1:21:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I kill insects like nothing. If I see a spider or a bug, I'll grab a tissue, squish it, and put it in the toilet or the garbage. If an Alien species who was so much more advanced than us destroyed us, like we us Raid an ant hill, would they be immoral? If so, are we immoral for killing insects?

I'm pretty sure you already know the answer to this RT: insects have no self-conscious or the ability to feel pain. It makes no difference how much higher on the food chain we are or how much greater our technology is.

Why value "self-conscious" or the "ability to feel pain"? After all, on an atheistic view, "consciousness" and the "ability to feel pain" are both just electro-chemical reactions that take place in seat of the brain. Why value human-shaped consciousness electrochemical reactions or human-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions over, say, cricket-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions?

A cricket doesn't even have the capacity to know it exists, and cannot feel pain like we feel pain.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:18:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:12:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Because their chemical reactions don't lead to self-consciousness or pain. This is the difference.
That wasn't his question. Why even put *value* on that? You're walking in circles.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:34:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:18:52 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:12:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Because their chemical reactions don't lead to self-consciousness or pain. This is the difference.
That wasn't his question. Why even put *value* on that? You're walking in circles.

It should be self-evident. We are aware of our pain and surroundings, so when things happen like pain; it effects us negatively and we feel empathy and sympathy when it happens to other creatures. An ant does not have this. Also, why place value on a soul? Just because it lasts forever? Why place value on lasting forever? We can all just keep asking "why put value on that". The only one implying "circles" is you.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 11:44:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:34:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It should be self-evident.
That's not an argument.

We are aware of our pain and surroundings, so when things happen like pain; it effects us negatively and we feel empathy and sympathy when it happens to other creatures.
And that makes us objectively valuable, why?

An ant does not have this. Also, why place value on a soul?
Irrelevant.

Just because it lasts forever?
No, irrelevant.

Why place value on lasting forever?
Not sure, you tell me.

We can all just keep asking "why put value on that".
Objective* value.

The only one implying "circles" is you.
I made no argument, so nothing is circular. The logical fallacies you've committed above are plenty. If you feel your answer suffices for Sovereign's ask, good for you.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 12:02:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:12:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:40:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Why value "self-conscious" or the "ability to feel pain"? After all, on an atheistic view, "consciousness" and the "ability to feel pain" are both just electro-chemical reactions that take place in seat of the brain. Why value human-shaped consciousness electrochemical reactions or human-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions over, say, cricket-shaped pain-shaped chemical reactions?

Because their chemical reactions don't lead to self-consciousness or pain. This is the difference.

Right, but "self-conscious" and "pain" are just, at bottom, atoms bumping into each other in a "pain-shaped" or "conscious-shaped" manner. Why value atoms bumping into one another in way A over atoms bumping into each other in way B?

See, n materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion. Yet there is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B. Pain and suffering, on materialistic athism, at most supervenes upon neurons firing in the brain (along with chemical reactions and other physical phenomenon). My question for the materialist is: What reason can be provided for favoring matter moving in way A (call it, the way neurons fire when someone is in a state of bliss) over matter moving in way B (neurons firing in the way which causes pain)?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 12:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 11:34:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:18:52 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/9/2013 11:12:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Because their chemical reactions don't lead to self-consciousness or pain. This is the difference.
That wasn't his question. Why even put *value* on that? You're walking in circles.

It should be self-evident. We are aware of our pain and surroundings, so when things happen like pain; it effects us negatively and we feel empathy and sympathy when it happens to other creatures. An ant does not have this.

You might say that humans and animals tend to avoid situations which cause neurons to fire in a "pain-shaped" (that is, B) manner. However, this fails to provide an answer to the question, because all it does is push the question back to a higher level. It would change to: Why should we favor physical observable phenomenon which don't cause avoidance over those that do? Again, the avoidance of B would simply be matter moving in a different way. In order to make a judgment between them, one would have to reach beyond the material world and into the world of objective meaning and value; this is, necessarily, a world which is nonexistent on materialism. Even if one could provide an answer to this second question, say "We tend to not like B. Things we don't like are bad", then we would have a purely subjective reality. What of the serial killer who delights in torturing himself, causing things to B? What reason do we have for saying what he is doing is wrong, because, after all, he likes B?

Also, why place value on a soul? Just because it lasts forever? Why place value on lasting forever? We can all just keep asking "why put value on that". The only one implying "circles" is you.