Tilikum and Seaworld... Is it a good idea to release him or not?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

It's a crime, certainly, but calling it terrorism seems a bit much to me. I might lack some background information, though.

It is still a form of coercion. Terrorism is attempted coercion using acts of violence.

Like?
Not all humans are rational, or moral agents.

Have you tried giving a trained monkey rights to owning firearms?

Unfortunately before we continue with this argument, I would like you to answer my "How equal" first.

Actually, I believe morality is very important, and does indeed not have to contradict itself.

Moral actually originates from the latin word "moralitas" meaning manner, character, proper behavior, each of this are controversial due to them being viewed from different perspectives - the cause of its self-contradiction on the various degrees.

It would be better put as "morals are just what we believe in and act in the name of to make ourselves feel good". I don't fault the "feeling good" part, rather I fault the idea of equating it to social propriety then naming it "morals" and require the members of society to practice that, or be outcasted. Practicing it is simply degrading us to the hypocrites we try so hard to avoid becoming.

With pertinence to the "moral" entitlement : how can granting a certain right be "moral"? How do we even know what that animal wants? And how can giving an animal something it doesn't even need or want be exactly "moral"?

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Meaning : If you can talk, write and bootlick to influence, you will reach the highest echelons even if you don't know the technicalities. Linguistics can influence greatly over a person who doesn't exercise the benefit of doubt.

[Kaijo]

People are animals, but animals aren't people. It's long been the natural order that those higher on the food chain, consume and subjugate those lower on it. Everything must consume something living to survive, thus, animals don't get the same rights people do.

They do get some rights, but this is more in the interest of mankind, to keep the animals around and ensure they are there for when we need them for whatever reason. This is the ultimate reason for treating animals well, and for taking proper care of them in situations like this, even though most probably won't follow their thoughts to this point.

At least, this is the logical reason we need to use to push laws. PETA and ALF and their ilk do more harm than good.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is still a form of coercion. Terrorism is attempted coercion using acts of violence.

Actually, depending on the definition, it's a bit more than that - like targeting innocent bystanders.
Also, I believe the official stance of the ALF is that they want to prevent animals from being tortured through those (not at all frequent) acts, not scare the public into submission.

Have you tried giving a trained monkey rights to owning firearms?

Have you ever tried giving a person with a brain condition firearms?
I said that animals deserve equal consideration, not that they should be treated exactly like humans.

It would be better put as "morals are just what we believe in and act in the name of to make ourselves feel good". I don't fault the "feeling good" part, rather I fault the idea of equating it to social propriety then naming it "morals" and require the members of society to practice that, or be outcasted. Practicing it is simply degrading us to the hypocrites we try so hard to avoid becoming.

So... everyone should be allowed to do what they want?

With pertinence to the "moral" entitlement : how can granting a certain right be "moral"?

Respecting that right is moral, granting it is a formality, in my opinion.
Morality, to me, is treating everyone with equal consideration. As for the nature of morality... I'm sure Wikipedia has pages and pages on that.

How do we even know what that animal wants?

Common sense - at least when it comes to the most important things.
For example, we know an animal does not want to suffer with the same certainty we know an infant doesn't want to suffer.

And how can giving an animal something it doesn't even need or want be exactly "moral"?

Who wants to do that?

Meaning : If you can talk, write and bootlick to influence, you will reach the highest echelons even if you don't know the technicalities. Linguistics can influence greatly over a person who doesn't exercise the benefit of doubt.

I'm sorry, but I'm missing the context.

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

It's long been the natural order that those higher on the food chain, consume and subjugate those lower on it. Everything must consume something living to survive, thus, animals don't get the same rights people do. They do get some rights, but this is more in the interest of mankind, to keep the animals around and ensure they are there for when we need them for whatever reason.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Are animals morally equivalent to humans, as Nogitsune says they are? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but the argument is irrelevant (except for God[s], if you believe in his/her/their existence).

The fact of life is that every species acts in its own interest. It's part of nature. Humans are no exception, orcas are no exception. It's natural to look at other species through a filtered lens, denying them the feelings and sufferings of one's own kind. Humans and orcas are both known for their strong, lifelong mother-child relationships. Humans and orcas also intentionally separate mother-child pairs of other species to satiate their craving for young meat. Until recently, humans weren't overly bothered about it (of course, orcas still aren't bothered).

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Rights are a concept we created, true, but that doesn't mean we can't extend them to animals. [...] Tilikum, in my opinion, has the right to be treated with the same consideration a human would be treated with.

[...] However, I'm speaking of moral entitlements, not nature. Nature doesn't care about our understanding of morality or mercy.

Nogitsune seems to understand too.

The question is... why must we as humans exempt ourselves from the laws of nature and extend a concept we have created - for our own benefit - to our fellow living organisms, all of whom act only in their own interest?

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Are animals morally equivalent to humans, as Nogitsune says they are? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but the argument is irrelevant (except for God[s], if you believe in his/her/their existence).

If so, then morality itself is irrelevant.
I'm not a big fan of Nihilism, though.

The fact of life is that every species acts in its own interest. It's part of nature. Humans are no exception, orcas are no exception. It's natural to look at other species through a filtered lens, denying them the feelings and sufferings of one's own kind.

It also seems to be "natural" that humans think of morality as something inherently valuable.

Humans and orcas are both known for their strong, lifelong mother-child relationships. Humans and orcas also intentionally separate mother-child pairs of other species to satiate their craving for young meat. Until recently, humans weren't overly bothered about it (of course, orcas still aren't bothered).

Humans also used to think rape, slavery and discrimination are great, and that only people of one's own nation deserve any consideration at all.

The question is... why must we as humans exempt ourselves from the laws of nature and extend a concept we have created - for our own benefit - to our fellow living organisms, all of whom act only in their own interest?

If we see morality in terms of personal benefits, then that has two consequences:

1) We don't have a reason to be considerate of those who can neither help nor hinder us. This includes animals as well as certain kinds of humans.
2) We don't have a reason to care about morality when the person we are hurting will never know who was responsible.

I will not try to convince people who believe that's perfectly fine this way. I can not prove that morality has inherent value.
Luckily for me, though, most people indeed believe that's the case, and more than half of them even think it's morally incorrect to slowly torture a cat to death. As long as they can not name a morally relevant difference between animals and all humans, yet treat them by different standards, they are being morally inconsistent, which is the same as following no moral theory at all.

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

If we see morality in terms of personal benefits, then that has two consequences:

1) We don't have a reason to be considerate of those who can neither help nor hinder us. This includes animals as well as certain kinds of humans.
2) We don't have a reason to care about morality when the person we are hurting will never know who was responsible.

I will not try to convince people who believe that's perfectly fine this way. I can not prove that morality has inherent value.

No, I see morality in terms of:
(1) The categorical imperative - "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (yes, I copied/pasted that; I'm no philosopher).

As "universal laws" created by humans can only ever be observed by humans, it is my view that we do have a reason to be considerate to all humans - regardless of whether they can help or hinder us - whereas we have no such obligation towards animals who do not know of, and will never be able to observe, the laws of humanity.

(2) The golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

As for the categorical imperative. It is unreasonable to expect animals to treat you as you would treat them.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

As long as they can not name a morally relevant difference between animals and all humans, yet treat them by different standards, they are being morally inconsistent, which is the same as following no moral theory at all.

I think I see what you're getting at when you say "all humans", but excuse me if I misunderstand you.

Yes, it can be argued that a cat or a dog has as much intelligence and capacity for feeling as an infant or mentally-disabled person. The way I see it, however, is that you and I have both been infants at one point, we are likely to produce infants at some point, and it is possible that our offspring might not be completely "normal". Hence, the categorical imperative and golden rule apply: we would not wish for ourselves or our children to be mistreated regardless of our/their stage of mental development. The same argument does not apply to animals - unless you believe in reincarnation.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

more than half of them even think it's morally incorrect to slowly torture a cat to death.

I have to say I'm also opposed to senseless, needless mistreatment of animals for the purpose of entertainment. However, when human interests and animal interests come into conflict (e.g. in the case of medical experiments on animals), then I do believe that human interests should always take priority. So yes... if slowly torturing a cat to death can contribute significantly to medical research on resuscitating a dying person with multiple organ failure... then yes, I think it is justified, but only when it is done expressly for that purpose.

[MeoTwister5]

The problem in trying to determine whether a species possesses or is capable of consciousness in the form of self-awareness sometimes isn't as much a problem of the organism itself as it is a problem of the other trying to ascertain if the species in question truly "has" one through some form of communication that proves this beyond a reasonable doubt.

While it has been proven that another species has mental and intellectual capabilities in similar to a human, it has not yet been proven if another species aside from humans are capable to abstraction and self-awareness, and most of morality and ethics is developed and thought of within abstraction. Some animals I believe are capable of some logical reasoning, but abstractions into things beyond the immediate and the tangible still seem to be only exclusive thus far to humans. The human brain mainly differs from other mammals by having a much larger frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex, areas that house the capabilities of reasoning and abstraction, and almost disproportionately so.

There is considerable difficulty in determining whether another species possesses capabilities and sensibilities (for lack of a better term) because of the communication divide. We aren't even sure yet if other animals possesses a sense of individuality through self-awareness comparable with our own, whether they are species capable of objective rational and maybe even abstract thought that is ideally universally understood by humans and other animals alike. Ideally if such animals are capable of this then bridging the gap can be done, as both parties able to develop ways from both ends to communicate.

Until then, we don't know if other animals are capable of those abilities, feelings and emotions because we can't really KNOW, at least not yet.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

As "universal laws" created by humans can only ever be observed by humans, it is my view that we do have a reason to be considerate to all humans - regardless of whether they can help or hinder us - whereas we have no such obligation towards animals who do not know of, and will never be able to observe, the laws of humanity.

But not all humans can observe such things. How can a species be morally relevant any more than gender or nationality?

(2) The golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The original position is very similar to this rule, and indeed drew a similar conclusion you did - only moral agents, and those protected by moral agents, deserve moral consideration.
If you are an orphaned child stranded on an island with a moral agent who doesn't care about you one way or the other... too bad.

As for the categorical imperative. It is unreasonable to expect animals to treat you as you would treat them.

Neither can I expect the mentally disabled to do that. However, if I was mentally disabled myself, I would like to be treated with consideration.
The same would be true if I was a dog.

I think I see what you're getting at when you say "all humans", but excuse me if I misunderstand you.

No, you understood correctly.

Yes, it can be argued that a cat or a dog has as much intelligence and capacity for feeling as an infant or mentally-disabled person. The way I see it, however, is that you and I have both been infants at one point

But never an orphaned one, or a mentally-disabled one - or (in my case, at least) even a male one.
And anway, when I was an infant, I didn't want to be treated well any more than a dog wants to be treated well, as I had no rational understanding of the concept.

, we are likely to produce infants at some point,

I'm not, so does that mean I could drop the above mentioned child (who doesn't have any family left, anyway) off a cliff without the action being morally incorrect?
What about a mentally disabled person? I never was one, I most likely never will be one, and even if I were one, I would not be able to grasp the concept of moral consideration.

and it is possible that our offspring might not be completely "normal".

What about those who know they won't have any children, and orphaned children?

Hence, the categorical imperative and golden rule apply: we would not wish for ourselves or our children to be mistreated regardless of our/their stage of mental development. The same argument does not apply to animals - unless you believe in reincarnation.

There are pets - I would not want to get a dog and learn it had been mistreated.
Also, I once was a child, but I'm not anymore, and I have no idea what it felt like. Saying, "what if I still was a child" is, I believe, no different than saying, "what if I had been born a dog".

@MeoTwister5:
Theoretically, I can't even know that you are capable of experiencing feelings and emotions.
If I am convinced my non-existent child is happy, that's because it expresses its happiness in a very obvious way. My dog does the same.
Also, don't forget about those humans who are not nearly as obviously rational as we are.his

[Yukinokesshou]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

But not all humans can observe such things. How can a species be morally relevant any more than gender or nationality?

As morality is itself an artificial construct that has gained currency due to widespread acceptance (you have said as much), is it not also possible for moral inconsistencies to achieve validity by the same mechanism?

As long as they can not name a morally relevant difference between animals and all humans, yet treat them by different standards, they are being morally inconsistent, which is the same as following no moral theory at all.

That is one view. Another view is that moral inconsistencies have always existed and will always exist. Moral inconsistencies were accepted even as modern-day concepts of ethics and human rights were being developed.

As you point out, the dividing line of morality was once between social classes and ethnic groups. While the concept seems abhorrent to us in the present day, it would be absurd to argue that Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, all the great ethicists and political philosophers of old in fact followed no moral theory at all because they accepted the moral inconsistencies of their time.

Yes, I might be morally inconsistent in drawing a dividing line between all humans and non-humans. But I don't see anything wrong with it. Nor do I consider my moral inconsistencies to imply that I do not follow any moral theory. I am sure there are many who would agree.

I'm not, so does that mean I could drop the above mentioned child (who doesn't have any family left, anyway) off a cliff without the action being morally incorrect? What about a mentally disabled person? I never was one, I most likely never will be one, and even if I were one, I would not be able to grasp the concept of moral consideration. What about those who know they won't have any children, and orphaned children?

If you were to take my reasoning to its logical extremes, then perhaps it would not be morally wrong.

However, morality (to non-philosophers) is, and has always been, a combination of principles and public acceptance, with a bucketfull of inconsistencies added to the mix.

[Yukinokesshou]

To me, whether or not to release/kill Tilikum is a practical matter of public acceptance, not a theoretical question of morals. Since I personally don't believe there is any moral issue involved in the treatment of non-humans, it all boils down to public acceptability and personal emotions. Would I kill Tilikum? No, because (1) it wouldn't be publicly acceptable and (2) I happen to like orcas. That's it. No profound discussion of morality.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Yukinokesshou

As morality is itself an artificial construct that has gained currency due to widespread acceptance (you have said as much), is it not also possible for moral inconsistencies to achieve validity by the same mechanism?

Most, if not all great "evils" in history stemmed from moral inconsistencies. The moment I say that moral inconsistencies are perfectly acceptable, I'm saying everyone can just go ahead and do whatever they want, and I become unable to discuss moral issues with people who have beliefs that differ from mine.
In my opinion, that's a serious problem.

That is one view. Another view is that moral inconsistencies have always existed and will always exist. Moral inconsistencies were accepted even as modern-day concepts of ethics and human rights were being developed.

Actually, people have always tried to avoid inconsistencies. They may have made severe errors in judgment, but those who truly cared about morality usually were not aware of them.

As you point out, the dividing line of morality was once between social classes and ethnic groups. While the concept seems abhorrent to us in the present day, it would be absurd to argue that Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, all the great ethicists and political philosophers of old in fact followed no moral theory at all because they accepted the moral inconsistencies of their time.

I don't remember any philosopher saying, "I'm being morally inconsistent here, but please bear with me".
In fact, the one thing philosophers agree on is that morality should be consistent. It's an ideal that is not easy to reach, but if a philosopher truly believes he is inconsistent in his morals, then he will try to erase that inconsistency.

Yes, I might be morally inconsistent in drawing a dividing line between all humans and non-humans. But I don't see anything wrong with it. Nor do I consider my moral inconsistencies to imply that I do not follow any moral theory. I am sure there are many who would agree.

Maybe saying that a moral theory has to be consistent was not the best way of putting it. A moral theory has to aim towards being consistent. And that they usually do, which is why Kant, for example, only included moral agents into his "moral law".


Edit:
@FireBorn:
Hum, so humans who do not possess the ability to reason are worth less than the rest in your opinion?

[MeoTwister5]

There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena. - Friedrich Nietzsche

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Edit:
@FireBorn:
Hum, so humans who do not possess the ability to reason are worth less than the rest in your opinion?

Erm the world would be a better place if these people are placed at the bottom of social hierarchy.

This refers to those who don't reason at all and blatantly make statements without backing them up. They are trash.

But I believe the "ability to reason" exists in everyone, it is just whether want to use it or not. Otherwise, why and how do we give excuses?

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena. - Friedrich Nietzsche

The thing that actually diluted "morality" isn't just lack of logical reasoning, but also the consistency of a person looking at the big picture to suit his/her emotional needs. If a woman prostitutes herself so that her daughter can go to school, she is deemed immoral by the general society as a whole just because of her acts. The fact that almost everything is easier said than done, combined with the unlicensed judge's singular biased perspective makes "moralism" a "holier-than-thou" act rather than the sound judgement it is supposed to be.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Erm the world would be a better place if these people are placed at the bottom of social hierarchy.

This refers to those who don't reason at all and blatantly make statements without backing them up. They are trash.

But I believe the "ability to reason" exists in everyone, it is just whether want to use it or not. Otherwise, why and how do we give excuses?

Uhm...
*points at small children and the mentally disabled*

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Uhm...
*points at small children and the mentally disabled*

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Erm the world would be a better place if these people are placed at the bottom of social hierarchy.

This refers to those who don't reason at all and blatantly make statements without backing them up. They are trash.

But I believe the "ability to reason" exists in everyone, it is just whether want to use it or not. Otherwise, why and how do we give excuses?

Read again. Not just the first line.

Even children and the mentally disabled do their best to get out of trouble by giving excuses. Trash don't.

[MeoTwister5]

The big issue with moral consistency has, over the years, been really based on who's calling the shots. One day it might be illegal to whore yourselves in the streets and then one hundred years later it becomes the job of choice. The very idea that the questionable morality of a said act can be increased or diminished by certain extenuating circumstances isn't universal. Even the Catholic Church admits that actions aren't always universally condemnable and can't be treated the same way every time.

The universality of morality is a tricky subject because so far there hasn't been any moral or set of morals that have been empirically accepted as universally applicable to the extent that it must be inherent by default in all rational minds to accept that such a thing is universally true.

This is of course one of the core problems or morality: that for morality to be truly applicable for everyone there must be certain core facets that are fundamentally true in any and all situations, and everything else derives from these core truths. If not, if all morality is bendable to the differences of phenomena, then morality as a strict universal code does not make sense.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

The big issue with moral consistency has, over the years, been really based on who's calling the shots. One day it might be illegal to whore yourselves in the streets and then one hundred years later it becomes the job of choice. The very idea that the questionable morality of a said act can be increased or diminished by certain extenuating circumstances isn't universal. Even the Catholic Church admits that actions aren't always universally condemnable and can't be treated the same way every time.

The universality of morality is a tricky subject because so far there hasn't been any moral or set of morals that have been empirically accepted as universally applicable to the extent that it must be inherent by default in all rational minds to accept that such a thing is universally true.

This is of course one of the core problems or morality: that for morality to be truly applicable for everyone there must be certain core facets that are fundamentally true in any and all situations, and everything else derives from these core truths. If not, if all morality is bendable to the differences of phenomena, then morality as a strict universal code does not make sense.

One question, then why do we follow morals instead of using logic of having everyone benefit through a "win-win" situation?

And often, our choice of words seem to quote "moral" more than we actual practice it. I have seen pastors who espouse "honesty is the best policy" yet refuse to reveal the church expenditure and accounting to the general public when requested.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

This is of course one of the core problems or morality: that for morality to be truly applicable for everyone there must be certain core facets that are fundamentally true in any and all situations, and everything else derives from these core truths.

Like the principle of equality?
It's not accepted by all people, but by quite a few. And I believe it leads to the conlusion, "no morally relevant difference without a relevant other difference".

To quote Mark Rowlands, a professor of philosophy and author concerned about Animal Rights:

"Among philosophers of a certain persuasion, there is a basic argument for animal rights. Ethics isn’t mathematics; but by the standards of accuracy and precision involved in moral reasoning, this argument is about as unassailable an argument as you can get in moral philosophy. There is a problem with unassailable moral arguments however, and that is that it’s hard to make people care about them."

It's actually the beginning of a book review, but it fits quite neatly.

[MeoTwister5]

Some might consider morality to be an archaic entity. The closest we probably have on the issue is the insistence of Objective Ethics, that there are moral and ethical truths independent of the mind and of it's interpretations, such that there will always be universal ethics that are universally true, that they are perceivable in their true form that must be true from any angle, and any deviation is simply a refusal to accept them as true. Of course this does not answer as to how such morality and ethics became reality regardless of our capability to think, and why we are unable to recognize them as a whole without conflict.

The truth is that we don't even know how or why ethics and morality came to be, who was the first one to introduce such concepts and why. All we know of is that at some point in human history ethics became something of a social contract in society, that people decided to accept a distinct set of rules that are not necessarily logical. What we do know, or at least believe, that it must have originated somewhere, that some entity created it for people to follow. Nietzsche tried to explain it through the Slave and Master conflict of morality but even he admits that most of it is conjecture. Religion explains it through some sort of deity.

On the other hand Ayn Rand's Objectivism tried to distill morality into a personal code not necessarily tied to a commonly accepted morality; that humans follow their own moral compass and that this compass is dictated by what he chooses and not dictated by someone else. The things is you could even extend this to social ethics, that it may even have been possible that humans themselves established ethics by their own personal beliefs to the point that their peers decided to follow in their footsteps.

As to WHY people follow social ethics and morals well that's a whole different can of beans. Personal ethics and morals aside, social morals are again tied to what I have said above, and people likely accept it because they believe in some form of universality to these moral codes as dictated by something more powerful than they are. As Nietzsche again suggested, the slaves bowed down the the morals of the masters, but once they gained control they introduced their own.