I Need Your Help on an Ethics / Logic Problem

IHateGovernment said:
Now we must consider the utilitarian merits of a cannibalistic society vs. a non-cannibalistic one. A cannibalist society creates more harm in that a society in which one has no reasonable level of assumed safety from being eaten by their neighbor inhibits the ability for man to form a cohesive society and cooperate amongst one another. Thus we could see that many of the things that create happiness and alleviate suffering in a society such as science, medicine and technology would be put in jeopardy and thus a cannibalistic society violates both postitive and negative utilitarianism.
Click to expand...

You've stumbled upon the rationale for all morality, it allows us to work TOGETHER and achieve results that benefit us all, as individuals. When morality is twisted and ceases to perform this function, it is not longer morality and is just a pack of crap justifying oppression.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I recognise your point, rudimentary social morality has been exhibited in other species, I have seen footage of great apes apparently showing compassion to members of its own social group, but have you ever seen any other creature consider a moral position on members of other species?

Yes Dogs with their human companions. I'm sure you have heard of many of the stories of dogs saving a human being in the case of seizures or even choking.

But by natural extension of the negative utilitarian argument you could justify cannablism, if the person being eaten wasn't aware of their imminent death, and didn't suffer greatly during the process of being killed...and eating the individual saves the other human days of a slow suffering death through starvation, it could be deemed moral... lol

You could but then you could argue that cannibalistic activity has an effect greater than the two parties involeved and that cannibalistic behavior is an impediment to the fostering of a socially cohesive society. From a negative utliitarian viewpoint one could say that cannibalism creates more harm because it harms society as well.

Then we would need to find a demarcation that isn't, or is less, arbitrary. I agree, using the ability to exhibit any moral outlook would seem to be arbitrary. Maybe altering my premise to state 'those capable of making the utilitarian moral decision to only cause suffering if that suffering alleviates a greater suffering'?

And that is exactly where I wanted to lead you. In my paper I argue that the only tenable demarcation to establish is within our own species. The reason for this is more about cannibalism we talked about earlier. Cannibalism has much stronger backing to be forbideen than the eating of any other organism because cannibalistic practices have more severe consequences.

To show this I will use the blending of two ethical ideas. First the categorical imperative and second negative utilitarianism.

First if we were to recommend cannibalism in any instance then we must accept that we are arguing in favor of a society that accepts cannibalism as per the categorical imperative.

Now we must consider the utilitarian merits of a cannibalistic society vs. a non-cannibalistic one. A cannibalist society creates more harm in that a society in which one has no reasonable level of assumed safety from being eaten by their neighbor inhibits the ability for man to form a cohesive society and cooperate amongst one another. Thus we could see that many of the things that create happiness and alleviate suffering in a society such as science, medicine and technology would be put in jeopardy and thus a cannibalistic society violates both postitive and negative utilitarianism.
Click to expand...

You've made some very good points, on here and in the paper, IH8. Still working through them, should have a response tomorrow... ;-)
 
Now we must consider the utilitarian merits of a cannibalistic society vs. a non-cannibalistic one. A cannibalist society creates more harm in that a society in which one has no reasonable level of assumed safety from being eaten by their neighbor inhibits the ability for man to form a cohesive society and cooperate amongst one another.

If we are considering a permanent society, then the points you make are very valid.

But in an extreme position where, for example, a group were isolated at sea in a boat, it could be seen to be negatively utilitarian to exercise cannabalism. If the death of one individual prevented the death of many....
 
Now we must consider the utilitarian merits of a cannibalistic society vs. a non-cannibalistic one. A cannibalist society creates more harm in that a society in which one has no reasonable level of assumed safety from being eaten by their neighbor inhibits the ability for man to form a cohesive society and cooperate amongst one another. Thus we could see that many of the things that create happiness and alleviate suffering in a society such as science, medicine and technology would be put in jeopardy and thus a cannibalistic society violates both postitive and negative utilitarianism.

This is a black-and-white look at what can be more than black-and-white. One does not have to be a murderer to practice cannibalism, nor does one have to be a victim to be... (crap there is no delicate way to say it, ill just say it this way) enjoyed as dinner.

Imagine a society where instead of burying the remains of loved ones they had a "wake"... crap. Ever read 'Stranger in a Strange Land' by Robert Heinlien?
 
But in an extreme position where, for example, a group were isolated at sea in a boat, it could be seen to be negatively utilitarian to exercise cannabalism. If the death of one individual prevented the death of many....

Perhaps but that is why I advocated a blend of utilitarianism and categorical imperative.

Negative utilitariansim would have us kill everyone who has AIDS to prevent the deaths of those not yet infected.
 
This is a black-and-white look at what can be more than black-and-white. One does not have to be a murderer to practice cannibalism, nor does one have to be a victim to be... (crap there is no delicate way to say it, ill just say it this way) enjoyed as dinner.

Imagine a society where instead of burying the remains of loved ones they had a "wake"... crap. Ever read 'Stranger in a Strange Land' by Robert Heinlien?

Yes Damo but that related to carrion. I think even strict vegetarians and vegans would not say it is ethically wrong to eat a dead animal one encountered. They would say it is wrong to cause death.

Perhaps we should clarify and say this argument is about killing for food.

Some vegans are also against enslaving for food.

Neither apply with carrion.
 
IHateGovernment said:
This is a black-and-white look at what can be more than black-and-white. One does not have to be a murderer to practice cannibalism, nor does one have to be a victim to be... (crap there is no delicate way to say it, ill just say it this way) enjoyed as dinner.

Imagine a society where instead of burying the remains of loved ones they had a "wake"... crap. Ever read 'Stranger in a Strange Land' by Robert Heinlien?

Yes Damo but that related to carrion. I think even strict vegetarians and vegans would not say it is ethically wrong to eat a dead animal one encountered. They would say it is wrong to cause death.

Perhaps we should clarify and say this argument is about killing for food.

Some vegans are also against enslaving for food.

Neither apply with carrion.
Click to expand...
But it would still be cannabalistic, which was my point... Even cannabilism is not a black and white issue.

However, it is impossible to eat without using energy created by life. Hence my wish that we had synthetic foods that could provide the necessary nutrients.
 
I suppose you are correct but the cannibalism I speak of is the killing of people for food not the harvesting of their corpses.

We can assume when I speak of cannibalism I speak of the first dynamic not the second.
 
IH8, still working on a retort to your paper (playing devil's advocate), will present after w/end.

On the subject of negative utilitarianism.

I think even the best negative utilitarian would be able to argue that Aids victims should be culled to prevent the suffering of future generations.

The idea of negative utilitarianism is to reach the minimum amount of suffering. I am sure there are methods of eradicating the spread without a cull, which would produce less suffering... [/B]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top