Inherent rights iff inherent value?

[Alan Wostenberg]

Some time ago, Ll, wrote "everyone please: what is your definition of inherent value?". That seemed fruitful. Could we have a summary of definitions? Distinguish between /what/ inherent value is and it's cause.

Atheists suspect there is an argument for theism in the premise "X has inherent value" and they may be right. It's interesting lawrey alone is making the case for inherent value from atheism.

But as I understand the term "inherent value" is an endowment -- like species membership - and not contingent on individual achievement or any other creature ascribing or even recognizing it.

Moreover, to be a locus of inherent value means I may not legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end. For X to value Y means X is using Y as a means to some end and /not/ treating Y as an end.

Now not every entity has inherent value. I may use rocks as means to ends. I may use living things as food, medicine, clothing, for the species not possessed of inherent value.

We could take it as a mystery certain beings are endowed with inherent value and table the causal explanation for now.

For if nothing has inherent value, what is the basis for inherent rights?

[Rupert]

Would it be fair to say that if an entity had inherent value then that inherent value would be a source of reasons for acting which were independent of the agent's desires?

[klytu]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:14:31 PM UTC-4, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Some time ago, Ll, wrote "everyone please: what is your definition of inherent value?". That seemed fruitful. Could we have a summary of definitions?  Distinguish between /what/ inherent value is and it's cause.

Atheists suspect there is an argument for theism in the premise "X has inherent value" and they may be right. It's interesting lawrey alone is making the case for inherent value from atheism.

But as I understand the term "inherent value" is an endowment -- like species membership - and not contingent on individual achievement or any other creature ascribing or even recognizing it.

Klytu: I think everything that exists has value. But since I also think value is a mental construct, I don't think that value or any other mental construct would exist if no thinking beings existed. So to me value is contingent on some thinking being making a value judgement. 

Moreover, to be a locus of inherent value means I may not legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end. For X to value Y means X is using Y as a means to some end and /not/ treating Y as an end.

Now not every entity has inherent value. I may use rocks as means to ends. I may use living things as food, medicine, clothing, for the species not possessed of inherent value.

We could take it as a mystery certain beings are endowed with inherent value and table the causal explanation for now.

Klytu: From your commentary above, it sounds to me like you really associate "inherent" as simply being a member of human species (or perhaps also a member of any thinking species). I submit that your reasons for making the distinction is simply because you are human. I do the same thing, valuing things I think are less like me differently than things I think are more like me.

For if nothing has inherent value, what is the basis for inherent rights?

Klytu: The basis is that we recognize that we are social, co-operating  with others within a group for mutual benefits. A concept of inherent rights insures that all members have basic protections and benefits from the group which is an incentive for each individual to willingly participate in it.

[Alan Wostenberg]

K. You propose basic rights are not rooted in inherent value but that "we recognize that we are social, co-operating with others within a group for mutual benefits.". Let's test that.

Suppose "we" don't recognize "them" as one of us. We use them as mere means to ends -- as did the slavers -- and there is no /objective/ basis for equal fundamental rights. If it depends on the subjective will of "we" it cannot be a basis for inherent rights. But If basic rights are not rooted in inherent value, then what?

You wonder do I "associate "inherent" as simply being a member of human species (or perhaps also a member of any thinking species)"? Not specific human but rationality has some connection to inherent value.

The traditional term is "rational animal" which allows ample room for other non-human entities. Should we come across any it would be as wrong to treat them as mere means to an end as it would members of our own species. Conversely, should bug-eyed monsters invade earth and use us as a convenient protein source, it would be a violation of basic rights rooted in our inherent value as rational animals.

So, K, I think you are onto something connecting inherent value to the capacity for reason.

[John Stockwell]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:14:31 PM UTC-6, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Some time ago, Ll, wrote "everyone please: what is your definition of inherent value?". That seemed fruitful. Could we have a summary of definitions?  Distinguish between /what/ inherent value is and it's cause.

Atheists suspect there is an argument for theism in the premise "X has inherent value" and they may be right. It's interesting lawrey alone is making the case for inherent value from atheism.

The reality is that the individual views his or her life as having infinite value, whereas others might not share that opinion.  In short "value" is a useless concept. 

 

But as I understand the term "inherent value" is an endowment -- like species membership - and not contingent on individual achievement or any other creature ascribing or even recognizing it.

Moreover, to be a locus of inherent value means I may not legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end. For X to value Y means X is using Y as a means to some end and /not/ treating Y as an end.

Now not every entity has inherent value. I may use rocks as means to ends. I may use living things as food, medicine, clothing, for the species not possessed of inherent value.

We could take it as a mystery certain beings are endowed with inherent value and table the causal explanation for now.

For if nothing has inherent value, what is the basis for inherent rights?

Rights are not a measurement of value. The theory of rights assumes that everyone has the same value and is thus entitled to the same treatment under the

law.  In short, if you accept the modern notion of "rights" you give up the notion of value.  

-John

[Observer]

On Thurs04/10/14 02:54:23 PM Observer

There are no “inherent rights or values “, save those concocted in the minds of men, women and probably other sentient beings in the face primarily sociologically induced awareness of our interdependency and the value of mutual cooperation.

 

Psychonomist

 

 

 

[klytu]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:21:21 PM UTC-4, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

K. You propose basic rights are not rooted in inherent value but that "we recognize that we are social, co-operating  with others within a group for mutual benefits.".  Let's test that.

Suppose "we" don't recognize "them" as one of us.  We use them as mere means to ends -- as did the slavers -- and there is no /objective/ basis for equal fundamental rights. If it depends on the subjective will of "we" it cannot be a basis for inherent rights.  

But If basic rights are not rooted in inherent value, then what?

Klytu: I think any talk of "rights" is meaningless outside of social groups. When people think of their group in only a limited, tribal, racial, or nationalistic sense we often see "others" used as a means to an end.  "Others" were often thought of as less than human and had limited or no rights. If we think of our entire planet as an interconnected, global community the idea of universal or "inherent" rights emerges. The basis is a broader, more inclusive group. The problem is that most people think tribally. 

 

You wonder do I "associate "inherent" as simply being a member of human species (or perhaps also a member of any thinking species)"?  Not specific human but rationality has some connection to inherent value.

The traditional term is "rational animal" which allows ample room for other non-human entities. Should we come across any it would be as wrong to treat them as mere means to an end as it would members of our own species. Conversely, should bug-eyed monsters invade earth and use us as a convenient protein source, it would be a violation of basic rights rooted in our inherent value as rational animals.

So, K, I think you are onto something connecting inherent value to the capacity for reason.

Klytu: To be clear I'm connecting any valuation to some rational animal or group of rational animals making a value judgement. In absence of any I'm saying there is no concept of value.  Between you and I (a small social group), thinking beings have value. But we might disagree about whether we should be vegetarian because we may value some animals slaughtered for meat differently  than plants and therefore attribute different rights to each. Neither plants nor animals has any more or less rights than we collectively decide. So "inherent" is subjectively in the mind of a thinker or group of thinkers.

[klytu]

Klytu: Exactly. 

 

 

[Rupert]

What do you mean by "rational animal"? Why exactly is it that you are justified in using cows and pigs for food?

[Loopflanger]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:21:21 PM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

K. You propose basic rights are not rooted in inherent value but that "we recognize that we are social, co-operating  with others within a group for mutual benefits.".  Let's test that.

Suppose "we" don't recognize "them" as one of us.  We use them as mere means to ends -- as did the slavers -- and there is no /objective/ basis for equal fundamental rights. If it depends on the subjective will of "we" it cannot be a basis for inherent rights.  But If basic rights are not rooted in inherent value, then what?

Wouldn't the objective basis for rights be whatever ruling class that  enforces those rights? & how can there be equal rights between antagonistic classes?

"Inherent rights"  is an idea.  Values depends on valuers making valuations & value systems depend on enforcers.

[Rupert]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:41:14 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:21:21 PM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

K. You propose basic rights are not rooted in inherent value but that "we recognize that we are social, co-operating  with others within a group for mutual benefits.".  Let's test that.

Suppose "we" don't recognize "them" as one of us.  We use them as mere means to ends -- as did the slavers -- and there is no /objective/ basis for equal fundamental rights. If it depends on the subjective will of "we" it cannot be a basis for inherent rights.  But If basic rights are not rooted in inherent value, then what?

Wouldn't the objective basis for rights be whatever ruling class that  enforces those rights? & how can there be equal rights between antagonistic classes?

What do you mean by "equal rights"?

I don't see any fundamental problem with the idea that a society could contain class antagonisms but nevertheless have a legal system in which everyone had equal rights before the law. But of course it all depends on exactly what your conception is of what is involved in having equal rights before the law.

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:56:32 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

What do you mean by "equal rights"?

I don't see any fundamental problem with the idea that a society could contain class antagonisms but nevertheless have a legal system in which everyone had equal rights before the law. But of course it all depends on exactly what your conception is of what is involved in having equal rights before the law.

The product of class antagonism is inequality.  & antagonistic relations are evidently problematical. So "equal rights before the law" is a facade masking inequality under these circumstances. & doesn't the law reinforce this inequality? 

[lawrey]

                    

       Alan,

                       I may be wrong but I do not think this question can be resolved unless and or until we agree a universal understanding of the term  "inherent".

                      We must also understand that the term "value", generally speaking is imposed by human assessment of a value. Humans are incapable of thinking of value
                       without something to compare a value with. It must stand to reason then that humans, not unreasonably claim, 'there is no such thing as inherent value, because are unable to assess it.
               
                      This is what I contend, but first, what does the term "inherent mean" strictly in relation to this question. It means one thing and one thing only, "Innate" "Inborn".
                       Apart from the initial copulation, humans have no influence upon the outcome. It is as it is. During the development of the fetus genes past down from the generation are
                       installed, the system supplies the fetus with a survival kit. My argument stems from the question "WHY" The answer is admittedly subjective but goes along the line that
                        the fetus is required to survive, again "WHY" The answer again subjective is because, there is a value to the fetus in survival. Therefore I reason there has to be inherent value.
                       Nothing to do with humans or gods or any other superstition. It is just as it is, and it is that way Inherent value is a'proiri to birth on and of its own, all other values are imposed by humans
                       posteriori to birth. Science and human scientific methods are of no account  What is inherent,is taken out of the realms of humanities abilities to effect a simple answer, much less seek
                       to assert a value on a'priori life or to pretend to understand it. I know nothing so I would not know anyway. For me it remains still a belief personal to me and my understanding so far.

[Rupert]

By "inequality" you just mean economic inequality?

[e_space]

it seems that from your viewpoint, inequality exists between every person ... one has more money than the other so there is a class distinction ... one is a boss, so the other is exploited ... everybody is different, so why put so much emphasis on it? viva la difference i say ... 

[Alan Wostenberg]

Lawrey, the gist of the O.P. was to put some meat on the bone:    " I understand the term "inherent value" is an endowment -- like species membership - and not contingent on individual achievement or any other creature ascribing or even recognizing it. ".  Your term "innate" is equivalent to "inherent" and works for me.

It may be helpful to contrast with something we would both agree has no inherent value: my car.  My car certainly has value to me as a means to an end: get me from point A to B.  But if it breaks own, it has no value to me as transportation. It's value is relative to my purposes.   If I sold it to you, it would have value related to your purposes, which may differ from mine. Perhaps you don't care if it runs but value it for your collection of late 20th Century American SUV gas guzzlers.  

Now contrast this with an entity endowed with inherent value. Such an entity may never legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end.

So on this theory, fundamental rights are rooted in inherent value. I await an atheist to defend the alternative that a being has inalienable rights without having inherent value.  But so far, no takers. 

[Alan Wostenberg]

So if I understand you aright, K, you answer "yes" to the title: inherent rights if and only if inherent value.  You reason "but nothing has inherent value; therefore, nothing has inherent rights". Correct? 

[Alan Wostenberg]

Rupert, if X has no inherent value, X may legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end. That's what it means to say "no inherent value".  And I think we agree inherent value has some connection to rationality -- that is why you suggested cows and pigs instead of tomato plants.  We could discuss that connection between inherent value and rationality if you please.

To your question: cows and pigs are animals but are they rational animals? No. Therefore, they have no inherent value.  Consequently they can be treated as mere means to ends.    That said, it is beneath our human dignity to cause them undue suffering in our legitimate use of them.

[klytu]

Klytu: Actually I think neither necessarily implies the other, so my best answer would be no. I also think that for purposes of encouraging individuals to participate in societal group a concept of inherent rights is useful - although objectively there is no such thing.

[John Stockwell]

>Now contrast this with an entity endowed with inherent value. Such an entity may never >legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end.

>So on this theory, fundamental rights are rooted in inherent value. I await an atheist to defend the >alternative that a being has inalienable rights without having inherent value. But so far, no takers.

No. The only possible meaning that value could have is if value can be different. Rights level the playing field by eliminating the difference in value.

-John

[Alan Wostenberg]

John if I understand you aright you deny persons are endowed with innate value but affirm "The theory of rights assumes that everyone has the same value"? I am wondering how that is possible. For if everyone has equal value wouldn't it imply the value of a person is not contingent on circumstances but innate?

[Alan Wostenberg]

John you say "the only possible meaning that value could have is if value can be different". And I think we agree value can differ. My car has value to me as transportation, as does my bicycle, yet they differ. But neither has inherent value. That's why I may use them them as means to my ends.

In contrast to be a locus of inherent value means one can't be legitimately treated as a mere means to an end. To do so would be a violation of rights. That much I understand.

Yet you want to argue, or so it seems to me, that basic rights are /not/ rooted in innate value. Correct? Then in what are they grounded?

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:35:24 PM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

John if I understand you aright you deny persons are endowed with innate value but affirm "The theory of rights assumes that everyone has the same value"?

That's *a* theory of rights.  Isn't it an idealist one?


 

I am wondering how that is possible. For if everyone has equal value wouldn't it imply the value of a person is not contingent on circumstances but innate?

Since this value can't be perceived,  it must be just a conception.




 

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 4:39:23 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

What do you mean by "equal rights"?

I don't see any fundamental problem with the idea that a society could contain class antagonisms but nevertheless have a legal system in which everyone had equal rights before the law. But of course it all depends on exactly what your conception is of what is involved in having equal rights before the law.

The product of class antagonism is inequality.  & antagonistic relations are evidently problematical. So "equal rights before the law" is a facade masking inequality under these circumstances. & doesn't the law reinforce this inequality? 

By "inequality" you just mean economic inequality?

Social, not just one aspect of it.
 

[Rupert]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 11:58:14 PM UTC+2, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Rupert, if X has no inherent value, X may legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end. That's what it means to say "no inherent value".  And I think we agree inherent value has some connection to rationality -- that is why you suggested cows and pigs instead of tomato plants.  We could discuss that connection between inherent value and rationality if you please.

To your question: cows and pigs are animals but are they rational animals? No. Therefore, they have no inherent value.  Consequently they can be treated as mere means to ends.    That said, it is beneath our human dignity to cause them undue suffering in our legitimate use of them.

I was just interested in your spelling out in more detail what is meant by a "rational animal". Cows and pigs may have less reasoning ability than a typical adult human, but I'm sure they've got some kind of rudimentary reasoning ability, certainly a lot more than a human fetus, or an adult human with an IQ of 10 (and such a human was once found by the Supreme Court to be endowed with basic human rights). How about Koko the gorilla who communicates in sign language, have you heard of her?

I believe that rationality is a continuum, and I believe that any organism with any capacity for conscious experience at all is entitled to at least some level of moral consideration. In the case of tomato plants it's fairly doubtful that any conscious experience is present.

As far as undue suffering goes, my veganism is mainly based on a desire not to be responsible for causing undue suffering. There is plenty of information available about the suffering of animals on modern farms which you can find easily enough, I can give you a few links if you like. You could start by Googling "CIWF broiler chickens".

[Rupert]

You're suggesting that the idea that we all have equal rights before the law is a myth, is that the idea? Can you perhaps give some examples illustrating this view of yours?

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:16:01 AM UTC-7, e_space wrote:

it seems that from your viewpoint, inequality exists between every person ...

No,  I'm talking about inequality between classes, not between "classless" individuals.

 

one has more money than the other so there is a class distinction ... one is a boss, so the other is exploited ... everybody is different, so why put so much emphasis on it? viva la difference i say ... 

If a warden got up and told all the inmates & guards that everybody is different & "viva la difference",  that isn't going to change the fact that either you're going to be an inmate,  a guard or a warden under those circumstances.

& there's people within a class that have more or less assets than the average members of that class, but there's a fundamental class difference in this society between those who depend on selling their labor and those who depend on exploiting the labors of others.

[lawrey]

      Alan,

                        Thanks but if you have understood my point, even if not agreed, it should tell you that you still have no takers.
                         because after all my explanation you should understand there cannot possibly be inherent rights, for this one single fact,
                         that rights are defined by human beings after the fact. Each right allotted to its condition for right by its proposer.
                         You cannot claim and inherent right without first stipulating what the terms you use are intended to mean.
                         That is why I have spent so much time reiterating what I infer when I use the term.

                          You say: "Now contrast this with an entity endowed with inherent value." With respect this totally contradicts the meaning of inherent.
                          "An Entity" unless it is born of an animal species with recognizable life or life form has no inherent value.

                          A motor car is not born, it is manufactured, although it may have faults or traits built into it, which we say are inherent to that model or type
                          we must know in what sense we apply the term " inherent."

                           I see you have not entirely grasped the concept of inherent where life is concerned and still require to treat it as a humans conscious valuing ability.

                          when you say: "To your question: cows and pigs are animals but are they rational animals? No. Therefore, they have no inherent value. "

                           ON what or who's authority do you presume to make such a statement, Humans have no jurisdiction or power over that which is deemed inherent.
                           Cow and Pigs live don't they? they are born with the same inherent value as you and I they survive or not just as you and I, they have the same survival
                           instincts as you and I. You nor I can put a value on that we just accept it as it is"INHERENT". You can put any value you like on it after it is born. Not before.

[Rupert]

Is there really such a fundamental difference?

I have to sell my labour if I want to get my needs met. But also, in order to meet my needs, I have to buy goods that were produced by other people, so that in some sense I am buying the labour of otheres. Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"? Where would you draw the line here? Do I cross the line if I start up my own company and hire some staff? What are the grounds for drawing the line in that particular place?

[Alan Wostenberg]

I am sympathetic to your vegan practice, Rupert, e.g. "my veganism is mainly based on a desire not to be responsible for causing undue suffering". I'm catholic and abstaining from meat on Fridays is an old penitential practice I and my family keep. During Lent meatless Fridays are an obligation under pain of sin so if you see your Catholic friends chow down give them some grief OK?

You say "rationality is a continuum". I agree. But unless you hold the view that every existing thing is to some degree rational - even rocks - you probably distinguish between those things that have some degree of rationality from those that have none.

And the concept "rational animal" allows for differences in degree but refers mainly to a difference in kind. Two things differ by degree if they both possess a property but in different amount. Two things differ by kind if one has the property and the other totally lacks it. So the term "rational animal" carves out genus "animal" by specific difference "rationality". (I'm not using genus/species in there modern biological connotation here but as used in the perennial philosophy)

The rational animals differ by degree from one another but degree of rationality but from the brute animals by kind. And it is a capacity that need not be actualized. Just as the immature human is an animal before actually perceiving or moving about, so he's a rational animal before actually reasoning.

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:25:22 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

it seems that from your viewpoint, inequality exists between every person ...

No,  I'm talking about inequality between classes, not between "classless" individuals.

 

one has more money than the other so there is a class distinction ... one is a boss, so the other is exploited ... everybody is different, so why put so much emphasis on it? viva la difference i say ... 

If a warden got up and told all the inmates & guards that everybody is different & "viva la difference",  that isn't going to change the fact that either you're going to be an inmate,  a guard or a warden under those circumstances.

& there's people within a class that have more or less assets than the average members of that class, but there's a fundamental class difference in this society between those who depend on selling their labor and those who depend on exploiting the labors of others.

Is there really such a fundamental difference?

I have to sell my labour if I want to get my needs met. But also, in order to meet my needs, I have to buy goods that were produced by other people, so that in some sense I am buying the labour of otheres.

Obviously, you're just exchanging goods for your labor for what is produced by theirs.  You're not extracting a surplus value.


 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.


 

Where would you draw the line here? Do I cross the line if I start up my own company and hire some staff? What are the grounds for drawing the line in that particular place?

Having some means of production would just make you a part of the petty bourgeoisie,  subordinated by the bigger bourgeoisie. (& at this stage of the game,  it's the financiers who are in the drivers seat.) 
 

[Rupert]

Yes, all well and fine, but I'm still not fully convinced that a cow or a pig cannot be considered a rational animal even in the least degree. I'm quite sure that they are able to form beliefs about their environment and reason about it in some kind of rudimentary way. In fact, pigs are even known to be quite intelligent. So I'm not fully convinced that their difference from us can be said to be a difference of kind rather than a difference of degree.

[e_space]

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:32:14 AM UTC-4, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

I am sympathetic to your vegan practice, Rupert, e.g.  "my veganism is mainly based on a desire not to be responsible for causing undue suffering". I'm catholic and abstaining from meat on Fridays is an old penitential practice I and my family keep.  During Lent meatless Fridays are an obligation under pain of sin so if you see your Catholic friends chow down give them some grief OK?

rupert is not likely to do that because the practice is a silly cult ritual ...as if it makes any difference what you eat on what day you eat it ... how childish! ... just another brainwashing tactic put to work that you 'ate' up and absorbed as valid, truly showing the height of ludicrousicity exemplified ... 

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

The cow and pig as species are extremely pleased that we like to eat them. With the exception of fish and battery farming, being tasty to humans is a great to ensure getting a comfortable healthy life with food brought to them. Under our stewardship they don't have to face the painful prospect of life in the cruelty of nature with its seasonal scarcity, the gnashing teeth and slashing claws of predators, diseases, and no vets.  

Non-battery farmed domestic animals are about as happy as an animal can be. Perhaps more so than many city dwelling humans, take our eating them away and life becomes collectively much more difficult for most of them.

If I was not a human I would want to be a domesticated farmyard animal outside a battery farm.   

 

[Rupert]

In the case of beef cattle the issue is somewhat complicated and would vary with the type of farm, but as far as pigs go, you are quite mistaken in thinking that pigs benefit from the demand for pork.

http://ciwf.org.uk/what_we_do/pigs/default.aspx

[Alan Wostenberg]

Sure, Rupert, pigs have a mind. But they lead no intellectual life. They cannot said to be in intelligent, if by intelligent, we mean an intellectual mind.

I gather, Rupert, the reasons you don't eat pigs are radically different than the reason you don't eat people. You said earlier "my veganism is mainly based on a desire not to be responsible for causing undue suffering". Is that also why you don't eat people? I trust not!

Presumably you agree it would be wrong to eat people even if science gave us a means to do it without causing them to suffer. So it seems to me by your own lights there is a radical difference in kind, not degree, between pigs and people.

If the difference in kind is not grounded in that godlike power -- rationality -- then in what is it rooted?

[Alan Wostenberg]

E, you wondered "if it makes any difference what you eat on what day you eat it ".

It's Friday because Christ died for our salvation on Friday.

18. Gratefully remembering this, Catholic peoples from time immemorial have set apart Friday for special penitential observance by which they gladly suffer with Christ that they may one day be glorified with Him. This is the heart of the tradition of abstinence from meat on Friday where that tradition has been observed in the holy Catholic Church.

(*) http://usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/lent/us-bishops-pastoral-statement-on-penance-and-abstinence.cfm

[Alan Wostenberg]

So on your view Lawrey a) no inherent rights and b) living things have inherent value at birth.

Your view differs from the other atheists, most of whom deny inherent value and inherent rights.

You argue "there cannot possibly be inherent rights, for this one single fact,
that rights are defined by human beings after the fact. Each right allotted to its condition for right by its proposer.". That may be true of some rights, such as the right to operate a motor vehicle. Not so for the fundamental rights. Other people may recognize fundamental rights, or not, but if they define them, that would be contrary to our sense of justice.

I mean by "inherent rights" the same as "fundamental rights". Do you?

Regarding your second term "inherent value" is "born of an animal species with recognizable life". So we agree automobiles have no inherent value. That is why we may use cars as means to ends. In contrast a thing endowed with inherent value exists for its own sake and may not be legitimately treated as a mere means to ends.

But why should birth be the marker of inherent value? For on that view wouldn't it follow the marsupial mammals and the birds have no inherent value because they are never born? Birth is an event in the life of certain species of organisms. Why would it have any more to do with inherent value than any other event in the life of an organism?

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

Sure, as I said farmyard animal not battery farm/stall one.

In my country (SA) we only really battery farm chicken (still very bad). Beef and Pork are mostly free range/farmyard. I understand in the USA/Mexico they battery farm beef and pork which is abhorrent.  

[Loopflanger]

"Here's the dirt on pigs: They are perhaps the smartest, cleanest domestic animals known - more so than cats and dogs, according to some experts. But pigs don't have sweat glands, so they roll around in the mud to stay cool*. A sign of their cleverness came from experiments in the 1990s. Pigs were trained to move a cursor on a video screen with their snouts and used the cursor to distinguish between scribbles they knew and those they were seeing for the first time. They learned the task as quickly as chimpanzees."
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24628983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/smartest-animals/#.U0mZukq9bWI

Rationality deemed as a "god-like" power is just a projection of human type intelligence imagined as omniscient & omnipotent. But there's all kinds of intelligence.

[Rupert]

Well, you made the general statement "The cow and pig as a species are extremely pleased that we like to eat them", without really making it clear that you intended to narrow the scope of that statement to your own country. Looking at modern food production in the world today as a whole, in places such as Australia or the United States or the European Union for example, then no, the cow and the pig do not have strong reason to be grateful that we like to eat them, although in the case of the cow the issue is somewhat complicated. There could exist some farming operations in various parts of the world where cows and pigs are treated reasonably well, although obviously the process of slaughter is not going to be particularly pleasant for them.

If you think that it is morally acceptable to use nonhuman animals for food so long as you give them a pleasant life, but not to do the same thing to human beings, then obviously you're drawing some kind of moral distinction here, presumably based on some kind of difference in cognitive capacities. That is precisely what I am exploring with Alan at the moment, whether you can make that notion of "different cognitive capacities" precise.

[Rupert]

No, actually, I don't see any radical difference in kind. Pigs, like people, are able to form some conception of themselves as an entity existing over time and to form a preference for going on living. In my view ths makes killing them a moral wrong of a similar kind to killing people. I don't find the claim that they lead no intellectual life to be relevant. I don't know exactly what you mean by "an intellectual life" here, do you just mean that they can't use language?

[Rupert]

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:03:40 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:25:22 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

it seems that from your viewpoint, inequality exists between every person ...

No,  I'm talking about inequality between classes, not between "classless" individuals.

 

one has more money than the other so there is a class distinction ... one is a boss, so the other is exploited ... everybody is different, so why put so much emphasis on it? viva la difference i say ... 

If a warden got up and told all the inmates & guards that everybody is different & "viva la difference",  that isn't going to change the fact that either you're going to be an inmate,  a guard or a warden under those circumstances.

& there's people within a class that have more or less assets than the average members of that class, but there's a fundamental class difference in this society between those who depend on selling their labor and those who depend on exploiting the labors of others.

Is there really such a fundamental difference?

I have to sell my labour if I want to get my needs met. But also, in order to meet my needs, I have to buy goods that were produced by other people, so that in some sense I am buying the labour of otheres.

Obviously, you're just exchanging goods for your labor for what is produced by theirs.  You're not extracting a surplus value.

I see, so why would the situation somehow change if I set up my own company?
 

 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.

What do you mean by "exploitation" here? Who's exploiting me? Is the University of Münster exploiting me, is that the idea? By employing me to write research papers?

 

Where would you draw the line here? Do I cross the line if I start up my own company and hire some staff? What are the grounds for drawing the line in that particular place?

Having some means of production would just make you a part of the petty bourgeoisie,  subordinated by the bigger bourgeoisie. (& at this stage of the game,  it's the financiers who are in the drivers seat.) 

But presumably if I were sufficiently successful at investing then at some point I would cross the line into being a member of the bourgeoisie. So where is that line and on what grounds is it drawn?
 

 

[John Stockwell]

Apr 11Alan Wostenberg

>John if I understand you aright you deny persons are endowed with innate value but affirm
>"The theory of rights assumes that everyone has the same value"? I am wondering how that is possible. For if everyone has equal value >wouldn't it imply the value of a person is not contingent on circumstances but innate?

No, Allan. What the notion of equal rights tells us is that all humans are entitled to equal guarantees under the law inspite of any all attempts to assign value. Rights transcend "value". Rights are not contingent on the existence of some mythical creator, nor are they granted by some governmental body.

John

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

Humans can ask questions and they can question the meaning of those questions. No other creature can do this - this is a fundamental difference. 

The only ethical positions of any meaning with respect to diet/nutrition/food security are ones that include a deep consideration of feeding all humans, especially those living currently in extremely marginal situations far away from supermarkets. The vast majority of persons in Africa living at the subsistence level could not afford, financially or nutritionally, to go Vegan. Arguments in favour of Veganism that ignore the everyday nutritional needs of marginal populations (i.e. the vast majority of humans) are myopic in nature.  

Here is a measure for veganism as far as ethics goes: Tell a person living in the high arctic and therefore subsisting primarily on meat products, because vegetables do not grow, to go Vegan. For me if an ethics cannot be, at least, in principal applied to all humans then it is a conceit given a particular persons aesthetics and what they cannot stomach.

Moreover, if chimpanzee testing is required (note that my argument is it is required) for better medical drugs for humans and the chimps suffer... then the ethical position is that they must suffer. My position is, drawn from conversation with biologists, that DNA once properly unlocked and understood ethically requires us to alter and subjugate every aspect of our environment through our re-design thereof to meet human needs and reduce human suffering.

Genetically re-engineer elephants to be walking houses that we could eat if necessary, or whales to be swimming houses. Take DNA and treat it as we would any industrial program and re-program it to meet our needs. DNA and biology give us the road map to advanced nano-tech, with the cell as its engine, and we should re-design every aspect of our environment from the DNA up... screw things that are not human.      

[Rupert]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:05:37 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Sunday, 13 April 2014 09:07:00 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:17:44 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Saturday, 12 April 2014 17:24:40 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 4:27:23 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:48:12 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 6:32:14 AM UTC+2, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

I am sympathetic to your vegan practice, Rupert, e.g.  "my veganism is mainly based on a desire not to be responsible for causing undue suffering". I'm catholic and abstaining from meat on Fridays is an old penitential practice I and my family keep.  During Lent meatless Fridays are an obligation under pain of sin so if you see your Catholic friends chow down give them some grief OK?

You say "rationality is a continuum". I agree. But unless you hold the view that every existing thing is to some degree rational - even rocks - you probably distinguish between those things that have some degree of rationality from those that have none.

And the concept "rational animal" allows for differences in degree but refers mainly to a difference in kind. Two things differ by degree if they both possess a property but in different amount. Two things differ by kind if one has the property and the other totally lacks it. So the term "rational animal" carves out genus "animal" by specific difference "rationality". (I'm not using genus/species in there modern biological connotation here but as used in the perennial philosophy)

The rational animals differ by degree from one another but degree of rationality but from the brute animals by kind.  And it is a capacity that need not be actualized. Just as the immature human is an animal before actually perceiving or moving about, so he's a rational animal before actually reasoning.

Yes, all well and fine, but I'm still not fully convinced that a cow or a pig cannot be considered a rational animal even in the least degree. I'm quite sure that they are able to form beliefs about their environment and reason about it in some kind of rudimentary way. In fact, pigs are even known to be quite intelligent. So I'm not fully convinced that their difference from us can be said to be a difference of kind rather than a difference of degree.

The cow and pig as species are extremely pleased that we like to eat them. With the exception of fish and battery farming, being tasty to humans is a great to ensure getting a comfortable healthy life with food brought to them. Under our stewardship they don't have to face the painful prospect of life in the cruelty of nature with its seasonal scarcity, the gnashing teeth and slashing claws of predators, diseases, and no vets.  

Non-battery farmed domestic animals are about as happy as an animal can be. Perhaps more so than many city dwelling humans, take our eating them away and life becomes collectively much more difficult for most of them.

If I was not a human I would want to be a domesticated farmyard animal outside a battery farm.   

In the case of beef cattle the issue is somewhat complicated and would vary with the type of farm, but as far as pigs go, you are quite mistaken in thinking that pigs benefit from the demand for pork.

http://ciwf.org.uk/what_we_do/pigs/default.aspx

Sure, as I said farmyard animal not battery farm/stall one.

In my country (SA) we only really battery farm chicken (still very bad). Beef and Pork are mostly free range/farmyard. I understand in the USA/Mexico they battery farm beef and pork which is abhorrent.  

Well, you made the general statement "The cow and pig as a species are extremely pleased that we like to eat them", without really making it clear that you intended to narrow the scope of that statement to your own country. Looking at modern food production in the world today as a whole, in places such as Australia or the United States or the European Union for example, then no, the cow and the pig do not have strong reason to be grateful that we like to eat them, although in the case of the cow the issue is somewhat complicated. There could exist some farming operations in various parts of the world where cows and pigs are treated reasonably well, although obviously the process of slaughter is not going to be particularly pleasant for them.

If you think that it is morally acceptable to use nonhuman animals for food so long as you give them a pleasant life, but not to do the same thing to human beings, then obviously you're drawing some kind of moral distinction here, presumably based on some kind of difference in cognitive capacities. That is precisely what I am exploring with Alan at the moment, whether you can make that notion of "different cognitive capacities" precise.

Humans can ask questions and they can question the meaning of those questions. No other creature can do this - this is a fundamental difference. 

Yes, that is correct. Also, babies can't do it, and an adult human being with an IQ of 10 can't do it, yet nevertheless the Supreme Court found that such an individual has basic human rights. So I don't know what your point is, really.
 

The only ethical positions of any meaning with respect to diet/nutrition/food security are ones that include a deep consideration of feeding all humans, especially those living currently in extremely marginal situations far away from supermarkets. The vast majority of persons in Africa living at the subsistence level could not afford, financially or nutritionally, to go Vegan. Arguments in favour of Veganism that ignore the everyday nutritional needs of marginal populations (i.e. the vast majority of humans) are myopic in nature.  

We are not talking about what the ethical obligations are of starving people who live in Africa. We are talking about the ethical obligations of people like yourself who are well-off by global standards, and who live in technologically advanced, agriculturally bountiful societies, with easy access to a broad range of tasty and nutrtitious foods from both plant-based and non-plant-based sources, when you know that you could easily keep yourself happy and healthy on a vegan diet if you chose to, and when you also know, or could easily find out if you could be bothered doing any research about the matter, that modern farming methods cause considerable pain and suffering to nonhuman animals. That's what we are talking about. I never put forward any claim that a starving person in Africa was obliged to go vegan. For that matter I didn't put forward any claim that you are obliged to go vegan either, but if you are interested in having a discussion about the matter then bringing up the point that there are other people in different circumstances to yourself is irrelevant.

Here is a measure for veganism as far as ethics goes: Tell a person living in the high arctic and therefore subsisting primarily on meat products, because vegetables do not grow, to go Vegan. For me if an ethics cannot be, at least, in principal applied to all humans then it is a conceit given a particular persons aesthetics and what they cannot stomach.

Well, that's stupid, the ethical considerations that apply to the question of whether you should be buying factory-farmed meat obviously have nothing to do with the ethical considerations that apply to the Inuit person living in the high Arctic.
 

Moreover, if chimpanzee testing is required (note that my argument is it is required) for better medical drugs for humans and the chimps suffer... then the ethical position is that they must suffer.

Well, that's a different issue, and also all you did is make an assertion without offering any argument.

My position is, drawn from conversation with biologists, that DNA once properly unlocked and understood ethically requires us to alter and subjugate every aspect of our environment through our re-design thereof to meet human needs and reduce human suffering.

Without any regard at all to any nonhuman animal suffering we might be causing?
 

Genetically re-engineer elephants to be walking houses that we could eat if necessary, or whales to be swimming houses. Take DNA and treat it as we would any industrial program and re-program it to meet our needs. DNA and biology give us the road map to advanced nano-tech, with the cell as its engine, and we should re-design every aspect of our environment from the DNA up... screw things that are not human.      

Yes, but why? Most people are prepared to give at least some moral consideration to nonhuman animals, for example if they see someone torturing a stray dog with a blowtorch then they will call the police. If you want to claim that these people have somehow got things wrong, then the burden is on you to defend your view. If you are willing to accept that we owe nonhuman animals at least some moral consideration, then the burden is on you to specify where you would draw the line and why, and then we can look at the facts about what actually happens to nonhuman animals on modern farms.

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

On Monday, 14 April 2014 09:01:10 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:05:37 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

Humans can ask questions and they can question the meaning of those questions. No other creature can do this - this is a fundamental difference. 

Yes, that is correct. Also, babies can't do it, and an adult human being with an IQ of 10 can't do it, yet nevertheless the Supreme Court found that such an individual has basic human rights. So I don't know what your point is, really.

This would be a response to your claiming not to see a radical difference between humans and pigs. This is a radical difference. 

On Babies: These entities have the potential to become this questioning and meaning seeking being and in such should be treated as possessed of this difference.

On developmentally stunted: Very sad, however, this does not change the difference put in place.

On Supreme Court findings: In considering ethics I'm not overly interested in the finds of a particular legal system in a country we are talking about a thing that can be applied to all human beings.     

 

The only ethical positions of any meaning with respect to diet/nutrition/food security are ones that include a deep consideration of feeding all humans, especially those living currently in extremely marginal situations far away from supermarkets. The vast majority of persons in Africa living at the subsistence level could not afford, financially or nutritionally, to go Vegan. Arguments in favour of Veganism that ignore the everyday nutritional needs of marginal populations (i.e. the vast majority of humans) are myopic in nature.  

We are not talking about what the ethical obligations are of starving people who live in Africa. We are talking about the ethical obligations of people like yourself who are well-off by global standards, and who live in technologically advanced, agriculturally bountiful societies, with easy access to a broad range of tasty and nutrtitious foods from both plant-based and non-plant-based sources, when you know that you could easily keep yourself happy and healthy on a vegan diet if you chose to, and when you also know, or could easily find out if you could be bothered doing any research about the matter, that modern farming methods cause considerable pain and suffering to nonhuman animals. That's what we are talking about. I never put forward any claim that a starving person in Africa was obliged to go vegan. For that matter I didn't put forward any claim that you are obliged to go vegan either, but if you are interested in having a discussion about the matter then bringing up the point that there are other people in different circumstances to yourself is irrelevant.

If we, in discussing ethics, are not interested in the concerns of all currently alive people, as in vegan ethical position/obligation, then what is being discussed starts to look like an aesthetic concerns of decadent (relatively) rich people with a West orientated education (hence the criticism: Vegan ethics is myopic). The vast majority of people are not living in the environment you describe as such it is off little interest or meaning to non-decadent relatively rich people. I was born in Africa and live in Africa, and in reading stuff on veganism I see no concern for the majority. Ethics is not about what you or I cannot stomach it is about all people.    

 

Here is a measure for veganism as far as ethics goes: Tell a person living in the high arctic and therefore subsisting primarily on meat products, because vegetables do not grow, to go Vegan. For me if an ethics cannot be, at least, in principal applied to all humans then it is a conceit given a particular persons aesthetics and what they cannot stomach.

Well, that's stupid, the ethical considerations that apply to the question of whether you should be buying factory-farmed meat obviously have nothing to do with the ethical considerations that apply to the Inuit person living in the high Arctic.

Ethics that cannot be in principal applied (not here insisting on it being accepted) to all people becomes too easily the myopic aesthetic concerns of individuals living detached from the everyday concerns of people. Ethics is not personal it is universal, it is not how I treat myself and my friends, it is how we treat and consider everyone and each other. 

 

 

Moreover, if chimpanzee testing is required (note that my argument is it is required) for better medical drugs for humans and the chimps suffer... then the ethical position is that they must suffer.

Well, that's a different issue, and also all you did is make an assertion without offering any argument.

Not really we are talking about the treatment of animals are we not? This would be a place wherein a justification for causing an animal suffering could be found.

 

My position is, drawn from conversation with biologists, that DNA once properly unlocked and understood ethically requires us to alter and subjugate every aspect of our environment through our re-design thereof to meet human needs and reduce human suffering.

Without any regard at all to any nonhuman animal suffering we might be causing?

Basically this is an extension of the medical testing position. If it reduces human suffering or increase the quality of human lives then it is whatever suffering is being generated is ethically tolerable. This is essentially a position in which enslaving all nature is being advocated. I find the idea of slavery shocking, but it is an honest assessment of the position.   

 

Genetically re-engineer elephants to be walking houses that we could eat if necessary, or whales to be swimming houses. Take DNA and treat it as we would any industrial program and re-program it to meet our needs. DNA and biology give us the road map to advanced nano-tech, with the cell as its engine, and we should re-design every aspect of our environment from the DNA up... screw things that are not human.      

Yes, but why? Most people are prepared to give at least some moral consideration to nonhuman animals, for example if they see someone torturing a stray dog with a blowtorch then they will call the police. If you want to claim that these people have somehow got things wrong, then the burden is on you to defend your view. If you are willing to accept that we owe nonhuman animals at least some moral consideration, then the burden is on you to specify where you would draw the line and why, and then we can look at the facts about what actually happens to nonhuman animals on modern farms.

My recent ethical shtick is premised on maximising human potential. In such re-engineering the environment from the DNA up to create a Garden of Eden in which any human could by extending a hand reach out an grab something to eat removes the anxiety of what am I going to eat, where I am going to find shelter. As a teacher working in the poorer communities of Africa I experience this anxiety as being the biggest hindrance to individual development. People locked into concerns about the source of their next meal (i.e. breakfast/lunch tomorrow) do not invest much in education (a future concern) as they are invested in getting a meal now. Taking these lower level concerns off the table by re-engineering the environment would mean more people investing time in higher order concerns - like getting an education, doing science, and/or generating art.

A person blowtorching a dog is not at stake here. As such a person (especially if they are young) is possibly starting on a path towards self-destructive behaviour that is clearly a problem. We do want to maximise empathy, in this caring for animals/pets is useful.

As to modern farming practices, re-engineering the environment solves many of these problems. We can place a farm inside a building in a city with the right engineering and grow food locally, this could include growing non-conscious meat products on a lattice of some sort.       

         

 

[Loopflanger]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:14:44 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:03:40 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:25:22 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

it seems that from your viewpoint, inequality exists between every person ...

No,  I'm talking about inequality between classes, not between "classless" individuals.

 

one has more money than the other so there is a class distinction ... one is a boss, so the other is exploited ... everybody is different, so why put so much emphasis on it? viva la difference i say ... 

If a warden got up and told all the inmates & guards that everybody is different & "viva la difference",  that isn't going to change the fact that either you're going to be an inmate,  a guard or a warden under those circumstances.

& there's people within a class that have more or less assets than the average members of that class, but there's a fundamental class difference in this society between those who depend on selling their labor and those who depend on exploiting the labors of others.

Is there really such a fundamental difference?

I have to sell my labour if I want to get my needs met. But also, in order to meet my needs, I have to buy goods that were produced by other people, so that in some sense I am buying the labour of otheres.

Obviously, you're just exchanging goods for your labor for what is produced by theirs.  You're not extracting a surplus value.

I see, so why would the situation somehow change if I set up my own company

As a consumer you benefit from goods but you're not extracting a surplus value from the labor that produced them.


 

 

 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.

What do you mean by "exploitation" here? Who's exploiting me? Is the University of Münster exploiting me, is that the idea? By employing me to write research papers?

The university is dependent on producing things in order for it to get funds. You're not being paid the value you're creating for them,  so that's why it's exploitation. Also consider that the private sector benefits from research. You don't get a dime from them.


 

 

Where would you draw the line here? Do I cross the line if I start up my own company and hire some staff? What are the grounds for drawing the line in that particular place?

Having some means of production would just make you a part of the petty bourgeoisie,  subordinated by the bigger bourgeoisie. (& at this stage of the game,  it's the financiers who are in the drivers seat.) 

But presumably if I were sufficiently successful at investing then at some point I would cross the line into being a member of the bourgeoisie. So where is that line and on what grounds is it drawn?

Success isn't the deciding factor here. Investing is.

 

 

 

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

Oh, you old Marxist you. Industrial capitalism has been replaced by financial capitalism herein. The industrialist no longer owns the means of production, the financier does; but it is essentially a Marxist account of exploitation.

Is my assessment of your position correct?

  

[lawrey]

           Alan,
                      Thanks for response: This is why it is so important that we understand and agree the meaning of the terms we use. Understanding this point is fundamental to
                      any discussion: Fundamental here meaning a key point or, a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.

                       There can be no such thing as an inherent right. Rights are man made impressions of what they deem to be a fundamental and logical principles, by which humans
                       and other species should be allowed to co-exist either as individuals, or collectively as groups and or societies. Humans, place a value on these principles and term them RIGHTS.
                       They are defendable in law. Man holds great store in his rights as a human being. They are not however inherent, that would be survival instincts, which man has no control over
                        or say in.

                         Fundamental rights cannot be termed as inherent rights because you are not born with them, they are applied after birth, by a human being..

                         Let's get this right!: Innate, Inborn, Inherent. Means they are outside of the human's scope to effect them, you are born with them whether you like it or not.

[Rupert]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:38:57 AM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Monday, 14 April 2014 09:01:10 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:05:37 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

Humans can ask questions and they can question the meaning of those questions. No other creature can do this - this is a fundamental difference. 

Yes, that is correct. Also, babies can't do it, and an adult human being with an IQ of 10 can't do it, yet nevertheless the Supreme Court found that such an individual has basic human rights. So I don't know what your point is, really.

This would be a response to your claiming not to see a radical difference between humans and pigs.

Not a difference in *kind*. A difference in degree, which is certainly quite marked.
 

This is a radical difference. 

On Babies: These entities have the potential to become this questioning and meaning seeking being and in such should be treated as possessed of this difference.

What's your position on abortion, then?
 

On developmentally stunted: Very sad, however, this does not change the difference put in place.

On Supreme Court findings: In considering ethics I'm not overly interested in the finds of a particular legal system in a country we are talking about a thing that can be applied to all human beings.     

 

The only ethical positions of any meaning with respect to diet/nutrition/food security are ones that include a deep consideration of feeding all humans, especially those living currently in extremely marginal situations far away from supermarkets. The vast majority of persons in Africa living at the subsistence level could not afford, financially or nutritionally, to go Vegan. Arguments in favour of Veganism that ignore the everyday nutritional needs of marginal populations (i.e. the vast majority of humans) are myopic in nature.  

We are not talking about what the ethical obligations are of starving people who live in Africa. We are talking about the ethical obligations of people like yourself who are well-off by global standards, and who live in technologically advanced, agriculturally bountiful societies, with easy access to a broad range of tasty and nutrtitious foods from both plant-based and non-plant-based sources, when you know that you could easily keep yourself happy and healthy on a vegan diet if you chose to, and when you also know, or could easily find out if you could be bothered doing any research about the matter, that modern farming methods cause considerable pain and suffering to nonhuman animals. That's what we are talking about. I never put forward any claim that a starving person in Africa was obliged to go vegan. For that matter I didn't put forward any claim that you are obliged to go vegan either, but if you are interested in having a discussion about the matter then bringing up the point that there are other people in different circumstances to yourself is irrelevant.

If we, in discussing ethics, are not interested in the concerns of all currently alive people, as in vegan ethical position/obligation, then what is being discussed starts to look like an aesthetic concerns of decadent (relatively) rich people with a West orientated education (hence the criticism: Vegan ethics is myopic).

I am perfectly happy to give some thought to the question of what the ethical obligations of a starving person in Africa might be, but I shouldn't necessarily think that it has all that much bearing on what I myself am obliged to do. And when you speak of "vegan ethics" it depends what form of vegan ethics you are talking about. Peter Singer, or Gary Francione? People who are vegan for ethical reasons work within different ethical frameworks.
 

The vast majority of people are not living in the environment you describe as such it is off little interest or meaning to non-decadent relatively rich people. I was born in Africa and live in Africa, and in reading stuff on veganism I see no concern for the majority. Ethics is not about what you or I cannot stomach it is about all people.    

I described a particular group of human beings and suggested that we should consider what the ethical obligations of members of this group were: namely, people who were in a position to keep themselves healthy and happy on plant-based food, and who knew, or at least could find out if they bothered to research the matter, that nonhuman animals living on modern farms suffer a lot. It was quite a large group, it would easily cover one half of all the human beings who live today, including you despite the fact that you live in Africa. If you are interested in discussing dietary ethics as it applies to you personally, then we need to look at what you do actually eat and how it is produced, and what your other options are for how to feed yourself a diet that will keep you healthy and happy. Just the same as if we were discussing dietary ethics for any other individual. I am perfectly happy to undertake this examination if you are interested.

 

Here is a measure for veganism as far as ethics goes: Tell a person living in the high arctic and therefore subsisting primarily on meat products, because vegetables do not grow, to go Vegan. For me if an ethics cannot be, at least, in principal applied to all humans then it is a conceit given a particular persons aesthetics and what they cannot stomach.

Well, that's stupid, the ethical considerations that apply to the question of whether you should be buying factory-farmed meat obviously have nothing to do with the ethical considerations that apply to the Inuit person living in the high Arctic.

Ethics that cannot be in principal applied (not here insisting on it being accepted) to all people becomes too easily the myopic aesthetic concerns of individuals living detached from the everyday concerns of people. Ethics is not personal it is universal, it is not how I treat myself and my friends, it is how we treat and consider everyone and each other. 

Yes, ethics is universal, but any sensible ethical system will give some consideration to the different circumstances that different individuals find themselves in, and so in that regard will be at least somewhat situational. It would be ridiculous for me to say "Because I'm not prepared to morally condemn an Inuit person for eating meat, I should therefore go and ahead and conclude that it must be perfectly fine for me and other people in circumstances like mine to buy factory-farmed meat from the supermarket". That would obviously be absurd.

 

 

 

Moreover, if chimpanzee testing is required (note that my argument is it is required) for better medical drugs for humans and the chimps suffer... then the ethical position is that they must suffer.

Well, that's a different issue, and also all you did is make an assertion without offering any argument.

Not really we are talking about the treatment of animals are we not? This would be a place wherein a justification for causing an animal suffering could be found.

The reason it is a different issue is that the suffering is being inflicted for a somewhat weighter reason than satisfying a personal preference for the taste of a particular kind of food. That's why it's a different issue, although as you say it's easy to see why it came up in this context.

I am happy to examine your thought-experiment further if you wish, but so far your assertion that the suffering would be justified is just that, an assertion. You need to flesh out more details as to why you think it would be justified, and what your general views are about when suffering is justified.
 

 

My position is, drawn from conversation with biologists, that DNA once properly unlocked and understood ethically requires us to alter and subjugate every aspect of our environment through our re-design thereof to meet human needs and reduce human suffering.

Without any regard at all to any nonhuman animal suffering we might be causing?

Basically this is an extension of the medical testing position. If it reduces human suffering or increase the quality of human lives then it is whatever suffering is being generated is ethically tolerable. This is essentially a position in which enslaving all nature is being advocated. I find the idea of slavery shocking, but it is an honest assessment of the position.   

Well, if you're saying that all the suffering that we inflict on animals on modern farms is justified simply because it helps us to satisfy a culinary preference for the taste of meat, then I completely disagree with you and find your point of view morally abhorrent.
 

 

Genetically re-engineer elephants to be walking houses that we could eat if necessary, or whales to be swimming houses. Take DNA and treat it as we would any industrial program and re-program it to meet our needs. DNA and biology give us the road map to advanced nano-tech, with the cell as its engine, and we should re-design every aspect of our environment from the DNA up... screw things that are not human.      

Yes, but why? Most people are prepared to give at least some moral consideration to nonhuman animals, for example if they see someone torturing a stray dog with a blowtorch then they will call the police. If you want to claim that these people have somehow got things wrong, then the burden is on you to defend your view. If you are willing to accept that we owe nonhuman animals at least some moral consideration, then the burden is on you to specify where you would draw the line and why, and then we can look at the facts about what actually happens to nonhuman animals on modern farms.

My recent ethical shtick is premised on maximising human potential. In such re-engineering the environment from the DNA up to create a Garden of Eden in which any human could by extending a hand reach out an grab something to eat removes the anxiety of what am I going to eat, where I am going to find shelter. As a teacher working in the poorer communities of Africa I experience this anxiety as being the biggest hindrance to individual development. People locked into concerns about the source of their next meal (i.e. breakfast/lunch tomorrow) do not invest much in education (a future concern) as they are invested in getting a meal now. Taking these lower level concerns off the table by re-engineering the environment would mean more people investing time in higher order concerns - like getting an education, doing science, and/or generating art.

Obviously I think it is a good idea to try to make sure that all humans have basic food security, and there's no particular reason why that couldn't be done with vegan agriculture. In fact vegan agriculture is a more sustainable way to feed the current human population than animal agriculture, and animal agriculture contributes to global warming which potentially could have quite serious adverse consequences for poor people. Furthermore, by eating a plant-based diet I'm reducing my contribution to the demand for grain (because more grain is required to produce a given quantity of animal protein than plant protein) and thereby freeing up more grain to be available for meeting the food needs of people living in extreme poverty.

 

A person blowtorching a dog is not at stake here.

Well, extreme pain and suffering is at stake, including mutilations done without any anaesthesia. I'm perfectly happy to go through the facts about modern farming with you if you like, I've already given you one link.
 

As such a person (especially if they are young) is possibly starting on a path towards self-destructive behaviour that is clearly a problem. We do want to maximise empathy, in this caring for animals/pets is useful.

As to modern farming practices, re-engineering the environment solves many of these problems. We can place a farm inside a building in a city with the right engineering and grow food locally, this could include growing non-conscious meat products on a lattice of some sort.       

Well, all well and fine, but that's completely hypothetical and it doesn't apply to my personal decisions about what to buy at the supermarket, or to yours.
 

         

 

[Rupert]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:40:38 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:14:44 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:03:40 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:25:22 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

it seems that from your viewpoint, inequality exists between every person ...

No,  I'm talking about inequality between classes, not between "classless" individuals.

 

one has more money than the other so there is a class distinction ... one is a boss, so the other is exploited ... everybody is different, so why put so much emphasis on it? viva la difference i say ... 

If a warden got up and told all the inmates & guards that everybody is different & "viva la difference",  that isn't going to change the fact that either you're going to be an inmate,  a guard or a warden under those circumstances.

& there's people within a class that have more or less assets than the average members of that class, but there's a fundamental class difference in this society between those who depend on selling their labor and those who depend on exploiting the labors of others.

Is there really such a fundamental difference?

I have to sell my labour if I want to get my needs met. But also, in order to meet my needs, I have to buy goods that were produced by other people, so that in some sense I am buying the labour of otheres.

Obviously, you're just exchanging goods for your labor for what is produced by theirs.  You're not extracting a surplus value.

I see, so why would the situation somehow change if I set up my own company

As a consumer you benefit from goods but you're not extracting a surplus value from the labor that produced them.

Whereas I would be if I set up my own company and started hiring staff?
 

 

 

 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.

What do you mean by "exploitation" here? Who's exploiting me? Is the University of Münster exploiting me, is that the idea? By employing me to write research papers?

The university is dependent on producing things in order for it to get funds. You're not being paid the value you're creating for them,  so that's why it's exploitation. Also consider that the private sector benefits from research. You don't get a dime from them.

Do you have any thoughts about how we would go about measuring the value of my research, by some means other than its market value?
 

 

 

Where would you draw the line here? Do I cross the line if I start up my own company and hire some staff? What are the grounds for drawing the line in that particular place?

Having some means of production would just make you a part of the petty bourgeoisie,  subordinated by the bigger bourgeoisie. (& at this stage of the game,  it's the financiers who are in the drivers seat.) 

But presumably if I were sufficiently successful at investing then at some point I would cross the line into being a member of the bourgeoisie. So where is that line and on what grounds is it drawn?

Success isn't the deciding factor here. Investing is.

I thought that the extent of the income you derived from the investment determined whether you were part of the petty bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie proper.
 

 

 

 

[lawrey]

       Alan,

                     I address this question separately to give you chance to consider and review the question.

                    " For on that view wouldn't it follow the marsupial mammals and the birds have no inherent value because they are never born?"

                    They give live birth, but they do not have long gestation times like placental mammals. As with birds born of eggs, they still have first to survive.
                     they still have survival instincts mapped into their genetic system. that is still the basis of their inherent value. I wonder why you asked the question?

On Saturday, 12 April 2014 20:07:28 UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 2:20:15 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

As a consumer you benefit from goods but you're not extracting a surplus value from the labor that produced them.

Whereas I would be if I set up my own company and started hiring staff?

Clearly,  how you function as an employer and as a consumer are two different things.
 

 

 

 

 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.

What do you mean by "exploitation" here? Who's exploiting me? Is the University of Münster exploiting me, is that the idea? By employing me to write research papers?

The university is dependent on producing things in order for it to get funds. You're not being paid the value you're creating for them,  so that's why it's exploitation. Also consider that the private sector benefits from research. You don't get a dime from them.

Do you have any thoughts about how we would go about measuring the value of my research, by some means other than its market value?

What about its use value?  That's determined by peer review,  isn't it?

 

 

 

Where would you draw the line here? Do I cross the line if I start up my own company and hire some staff? What are the grounds for drawing the line in that particular place?

Having some means of production would just make you a part of the petty bourgeoisie,  subordinated by the bigger bourgeoisie. (& at this stage of the game,  it's the financiers who are in the drivers seat.) 

But presumably if I were sufficiently successful at investing then at some point I would cross the line into being a member of the bourgeoisie. So where is that line and on what grounds is it drawn?

Success isn't the deciding factor here. Investing is.

I thought that the extent of the income you derived from the investment determined whether you were part of the petty bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie proper.

I wasn't making an absolute distinction between the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie in the above.

 

 

 

 

 

[Loopflanger]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:07:00 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:17:44 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

The cow and pig as species are extremely pleased that we like to eat them...

 

Well, you made the general statement "The cow and pig as a species are extremely pleased that we like to eat them", without really making it clear that you intended to narrow the scope of that statement to your own country.

Wow. How about him narrowing the scope to just reality?  His assertion is pulled straight out of his ass.
 

[Rupert]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:00:27 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 2:20:15 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

As a consumer you benefit from goods but you're not extracting a surplus value from the labor that produced them.

Whereas I would be if I set up my own company and started hiring staff?

Clearly,  how you function as an employer and as a consumer are two different things.
 

Well, they are different in some respects. I can't see any difference in terms of whether or not I'm extracting "surplus value", maybe you can help me a bit here.
 

 

 

 

 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.

What do you mean by "exploitation" here? Who's exploiting me? Is the University of Münster exploiting me, is that the idea? By employing me to write research papers?

The university is dependent on producing things in order for it to get funds. You're not being paid the value you're creating for them,  so that's why it's exploitation. Also consider that the private sector benefits from research. You don't get a dime from them.

Do you have any thoughts about how we would go about measuring the value of my research, by some means other than its market value?

What about its use value?  That's determined by peer review,  isn't it?

Well, it gets peer reviewed to determine whether it is correct and of interest to the mathematical community. My salary on the other hand is determined by the University of Münster, and the amount of money available in general is determined by the SFB. I'm not exactly sure what kind of system of funding for research in pure maths you're advocating. Do you think it should be publicly or privately funded? Bit of both, maybe?

 

 

 

Where would you draw the line here? Do I cross the line if I start up my own company and hire some staff? What are the grounds for drawing the line in that particular place?

Having some means of production would just make you a part of the petty bourgeoisie,  subordinated by the bigger bourgeoisie. (& at this stage of the game,  it's the financiers who are in the drivers seat.) 

But presumably if I were sufficiently successful at investing then at some point I would cross the line into being a member of the bourgeoisie. So where is that line and on what grounds is it drawn?

Success isn't the deciding factor here. Investing is.

I thought that the extent of the income you derived from the investment determined whether you were part of the petty bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie proper.

I wasn't making an absolute distinction between the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie in the above.

Right, so as soon as I bought any stock I'd become a member of the bourgeoisie, is that the idea?
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:20:13 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Whereas I would be if I set up my own company and started hiring staff?

Clearly,  how you function as an employer and as a consumer are two different things.
 

Well, they are different in some respects. I can't see any difference in terms of whether or not I'm extracting "surplus value", maybe you can help me a bit here.

Unless you're shitting a substantial amount of gold,  the only thing you're going to get out of consuming your tofu salad is whatever nutritional value it had. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.

What do you mean by "exploitation" here? Who's exploiting me? Is the University of Münster exploiting me, is that the idea? By employing me to write research papers?

The university is dependent on producing things in order for it to get funds. You're not being paid the value you're creating for them,  so that's why it's exploitation. Also consider that the private sector benefits from research. You don't get a dime from them.

Do you have any thoughts about how we would go about measuring the value of my research, by some means other than its market value?

What about its use value?  That's determined by peer review,  isn't it?

Well, it gets peer reviewed to determine whether it is correct and of interest to the mathematical community.

But that community is under pressure of the market,  isn't it, however indirectly? But if things weren't market driven, there's still a means to determine the usefulness of your research.  I'm not assuming that a capitalist economy is the only possible economy.
 

But presumably if I were sufficiently successful at investing then at some point I would cross the line into being a member of the bourgeoisie. So where is that line and on what grounds is it drawn?

Success isn't the deciding factor here. Investing is.

I thought that the extent of the income you derived from the investment determined whether you were part of the petty bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie proper.

I wasn't making an absolute distinction between the petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie in the above.

Right, so as soon as I bought any stock I'd become a member of the bourgeoisie, is that the idea?

That would be petty bourgeoisie unless you're talking about billions of dollars of stock.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[e_space]

pigs are some of the smartest animals on the planet ... some are smarter than certain humans ... but don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance ... 

[e_space]

like i said ... its a cult thing ... nobody else cares about it, only those brainwashed by their religion ... i'm sure many christians eat meat on friday because they know these rules are a bunch of cultist bunkum ... 

[Rupert]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:44:23 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:20:13 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Whereas I would be if I set up my own company and started hiring staff?

Clearly,  how you function as an employer and as a consumer are two different things.
 

Well, they are different in some respects. I can't see any difference in terms of whether or not I'm extracting "surplus value", maybe you can help me a bit here.

Unless you're shitting a substantial amount of gold,  the only thing you're going to get out of consuming your tofu salad is whatever nutritional value it had. 
 

That's right, and I have to pay for obtaining that nutritional value, and if I ran a company and wanted to get people to perform services for the company that were valuable to me then I'd have to pay them too. So I'm not really clear on what the difference is.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you say I'm someone who "depends on exploiting the labour of others"?

You're not a member of the class that owns the means & the means of the means of production.  You may benefit by exploitation of other people's labor by being a citizen of an imperialist country, which exploits other nations by opportunistically "developing" them,  but you're still dependent on your labor in order to make a living & are exploited yourself.

What do you mean by "exploitation" here? Who's exploiting me? Is the University of Münster exploiting me, is that the idea? By employing me to write research papers?

The university is dependent on producing things in order for it to get funds. You're not being paid the value you're creating for them,  so that's why it's exploitation. Also consider that the private sector benefits from research. You don't get a dime from them.

Do you have any thoughts about how we would go about measuring the value of my research, by some means other than its market value?

What about its use value?  That's determined by peer review,  isn't it?

Well, it gets peer reviewed to determine whether it is correct and of interest to the mathematical community.

But that community is under pressure of the market,  isn't it, however indirectly? But if things weren't market driven, there's still a means to determine the usefulness of your research.  I'm not assuming that a capitalist economy is the only possible economy.
 

It depends on exactly what you mean by "the pressure of the market". There is a limited amount of funding available, certainly, which researchers have to compete for. I find it hard to envisage how things could possibly be any other way. 

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

On Monday, 14 April 2014 11:17:48 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:38:57 AM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Monday, 14 April 2014 09:01:10 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:05:37 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

Humans can ask questions and they can question the meaning of those questions. No other creature can do this - this is a fundamental difference. 

Yes, that is correct. Also, babies can't do it, and an adult human being with an IQ of 10 can't do it, yet nevertheless the Supreme Court found that such an individual has basic human rights. So I don't know what your point is, really.

This would be a response to your claiming not to see a radical difference between humans and pigs.

Not a difference in *kind*. A difference in degree, which is certainly quite marked.

What would make a difference in kind then? 

My position: Thinking born in a creature such as us that can question the value/meaning of questions is so different to a thing that cannot asks these questions that it is different kind of thinking. 

You could take me out of killing someone using ethics, whereas you could not talk a pig/non-human animal out of killing someone using anything other than force. A difference in kind. 

 

This is a radical difference. 

On Babies: These entities have the potential to become this questioning and meaning seeking being and in such should be treated as possessed of this difference.

What's your position on abortion, then?

Pro-choice. A person does not have the right to use your body without your consent. If I connected myself to your body - without your agreement - and my life was connected to yours for nine months, you do not have to subjugate yourself to my needs because I will otherwise die. You might upon hearing I will otherwise die agree to take on the burden, but I do not have the right to force you to take on that burden.   

 

On developmentally stunted: Very sad, however, this does not change the difference put in place.

On Supreme Court findings: In considering ethics I'm not overly interested in the finds of a particular legal system in a country we are talking about a thing that can be applied to all human beings.     

 

The only ethical positions of any meaning with respect to diet/nutrition/food security are ones that include a deep consideration of feeding all humans, especially those living currently in extremely marginal situations far away from supermarkets. The vast majority of persons in Africa living at the subsistence level could not afford, financially or nutritionally, to go Vegan. Arguments in favour of Veganism that ignore the everyday nutritional needs of marginal populations (i.e. the vast majority of humans) are myopic in nature.  

We are not talking about what the ethical obligations are of starving people who live in Africa. We are talking about the ethical obligations of people like yourself who are well-off by global standards, and who live in technologically advanced, agriculturally bountiful societies, with easy access to a broad range of tasty and nutrtitious foods from both plant-based and non-plant-based sources, when you know that you could easily keep yourself happy and healthy on a vegan diet if you chose to, and when you also know, or could easily find out if you could be bothered doing any research about the matter, that modern farming methods cause considerable pain and suffering to nonhuman animals. That's what we are talking about. I never put forward any claim that a starving person in Africa was obliged to go vegan. For that matter I didn't put forward any claim that you are obliged to go vegan either, but if you are interested in having a discussion about the matter then bringing up the point that there are other people in different circumstances to yourself is irrelevant.

If we, in discussing ethics, are not interested in the concerns of all currently alive people, as in vegan ethical position/obligation, then what is being discussed starts to look like an aesthetic concerns of decadent (relatively) rich people with a West orientated education (hence the criticism: Vegan ethics is myopic).

I am perfectly happy to give some thought to the question of what the ethical obligations of a starving person in Africa might be, but I shouldn't necessarily think that it has all that much bearing on what I myself am obliged to do. And when you speak of "vegan ethics" it depends what form of vegan ethics you are talking about. Peter Singer, or Gary Francione? People who are vegan for ethical reasons work within different ethical frameworks.

So ethics is a personal aesthetic preference then?

 

The vast majority of people are not living in the environment you describe as such it is off little interest or meaning to non-decadent relatively rich people. I was born in Africa and live in Africa, and in reading stuff on veganism I see no concern for the majority. Ethics is not about what you or I cannot stomach it is about all people.    

I described a particular group of human beings and suggested that we should consider what the ethical obligations of members of this group were: namely, people who were in a position to keep themselves healthy and happy on plant-based food, and who knew, or at least could find out if they bothered to research the matter, that nonhuman animals living on modern farms suffer a lot. It was quite a large group, it would easily cover one half of all the human beings who live today, including you despite the fact that you live in Africa. If you are interested in discussing dietary ethics as it applies to you personally, then we need to look at what you do actually eat and how it is produced, and what your other options are for how to feed yourself a diet that will keep you healthy and happy. Just the same as if we were discussing dietary ethics for any other individual. I am perfectly happy to undertake this examination if you are interested.

So ethics is an aesthetic preference for a certain group of people?

Here is a measure for veganism as far as ethics goes: Tell a person living in the high arctic and therefore subsisting primarily on meat products, because vegetables do not grow, to go Vegan. For me if an ethics cannot be, at least, in principal applied to all humans then it is a conceit given a particular persons aesthetics and what they cannot stomach.

Well, that's stupid, the ethical considerations that apply to the question of whether you should be buying factory-farmed meat obviously have nothing to do with the ethical considerations that apply to the Inuit person living in the high Arctic.

Ethics that cannot be in principal applied (not here insisting on it being accepted) to all people becomes too easily the myopic aesthetic concerns of individuals living detached from the everyday concerns of people. Ethics is not personal it is universal, it is not how I treat myself and my friends, it is how we treat and consider everyone and each other. 

Yes, ethics is universal, but any sensible ethical system will give some consideration to the different circumstances that different individuals find themselves in, and so in that regard will be at least somewhat situational. It would be ridiculous for me to say "Because I'm not prepared to morally condemn an Inuit person for eating meat, I should therefore go and ahead and conclude that it must be perfectly fine for me and other people in circumstances like mine to buy factory-farmed meat from the supermarket". That would obviously be absurd.

It is not about condemnation of Inuit people. It is saying you cannot expect people to be vegetarian/vegan on ethical grounds, and as such your desire to be is merely an aesthetic preference given your contextual situation. Your attempts to justify it beyond that preference are a side-effect of what you personally cannot stomach with respect to the industrial husbandry practices. 

  

Moreover, if chimpanzee testing is required (note that my argument is it is required) for better medical drugs for humans and the chimps suffer... then the ethical position is that they must suffer.

Well, that's a different issue, and also all you did is make an assertion without offering any argument.

Not really we are talking about the treatment of animals are we not? This would be a place wherein a justification for causing an animal suffering could be found.

The reason it is a different issue is that the suffering is being inflicted for a somewhat weighter reason than satisfying a personal preference for the taste of a particular kind of food. That's why it's a different issue, although as you say it's easy to see why it came up in this context.

I am happy to examine your thought-experiment further if you wish, but so far your assertion that the suffering would be justified is just that, an assertion. You need to flesh out more details as to why you think it would be justified, and what your general views are about when suffering is justified.

This would be an interesting exercise, if interested I would be up for some correspondence on this issue beyond the forum.  

 

 My position is, drawn from conversation with biologists, that DNA once properly unlocked and understood ethically requires us to alter and subjugate every aspect of our environment through our re-design thereof to meet human needs and reduce human suffering.

Without any regard at all to any nonhuman animal suffering we might be causing?

Basically this is an extension of the medical testing position. If it reduces human suffering or increase the quality of human lives then it is whatever suffering is being generated is ethically tolerable. This is essentially a position in which enslaving all nature is being advocated. I find the idea of slavery shocking, but it is an honest assessment of the position.   

Well, if you're saying that all the suffering that we inflict on animals on modern farms is justified simply because it helps us to satisfy a culinary preference for the taste of meat, then I completely disagree with you and find your point of view morally abhorrent.

It could not be justified on culinary (aesthetic) preference, but could be on meeting nutritional needs. Standard nutritional science (from biologists I talk with) points out that the human is an omnivore and in such requires either meat or access to a very wide range of plant matter (found in some modern cities at prohibitive expense for many).    

 

  Genetically re-engineer elephants to be walking houses that we could eat if necessary, or whales to be swimming houses. Take DNA and treat it as we would any industrial program and re-program it to meet our needs. DNA and biology give us the road map to advanced nano-tech, with the cell as its engine, and we should re-design every aspect of our environment from the DNA up... screw things that are not human.      

Yes, but why? Most people are prepared to give at least some moral consideration to nonhuman animals, for example if they see someone torturing a stray dog with a blowtorch then they will call the police. If you want to claim that these people have somehow got things wrong, then the burden is on you to defend your view. If you are willing to accept that we owe nonhuman animals at least some moral consideration, then the burden is on you to specify where you would draw the line and why, and then we can look at the facts about what actually happens to nonhuman animals on modern farms.

My recent ethical shtick is premised on maximising human potential. In such re-engineering the environment from the DNA up to create a Garden of Eden in which any human could by extending a hand reach out an grab something to eat removes the anxiety of what am I going to eat, where I am going to find shelter. As a teacher working in the poorer communities of Africa I experience this anxiety as being the biggest hindrance to individual development. People locked into concerns about the source of their next meal (i.e. breakfast/lunch tomorrow) do not invest much in education (a future concern) as they are invested in getting a meal now. Taking these lower level concerns off the table by re-engineering the environment would mean more people investing time in higher order concerns - like getting an education, doing science, and/or generating art.

Obviously I think it is a good idea to try to make sure that all humans have basic food security, and there's no particular reason why that couldn't be done with vegan agriculture. In fact vegan agriculture is a more sustainable way to feed the current human population than animal agriculture, and animal agriculture contributes to global warming which potentially could have quite serious adverse consequences for poor people. Furthermore, by eating a plant-based diet I'm reducing my contribution to the demand for grain (because more grain is required to produce a given quantity of animal protein than plant protein) and thereby freeing up more grain to be available for meeting the food needs of people living in extreme poverty.

That it could be done with vegan agriculture is about as hypothetical as proposals to grow non-sentient meat products (as this is being done in labs as we speak) and vertical farms in cities (which are being implemented in Japan).  

 

A person blowtorching a dog is not at stake here.

Well, extreme pain and suffering is at stake, including mutilations done without any anaesthesia. I'm perfectly happy to go through the facts about modern farming with you if you like, I've already given you one link.

I am familiar with the practices of modern husbandry.

 

As such a person (especially if they are young) is possibly starting on a path towards self-destructive behaviour that is clearly a problem. We do want to maximise empathy, in this caring for animals/pets is useful.

As to modern farming practices, re-engineering the environment solves many of these problems. We can place a farm inside a building in a city with the right engineering and grow food locally, this could include growing non-conscious meat products on a lattice of some sort.       

Well, all well and fine, but that's completely hypothetical and it doesn't apply to my personal decisions about what to buy at the supermarket, or to yours.

So you do think your argument applies to me/others? Why only some and not all... state this in a fashion that does not come across as being the concerns of a rich Westerner living in the USA/Europe where I do not live, nor grew up in, nor was educated in.  

 

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

On Monday, 14 April 2014 13:16:10 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:44:23 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:20:13 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Whereas I would be if I set up my own company and started hiring staff?

Clearly,  how you function as an employer and as a consumer are two different things.  

Well, they are different in some respects. I can't see any difference in terms of whether or not I'm extracting "surplus value", maybe you can help me a bit here.

Unless you're shitting a substantial amount of gold,  the only thing you're going to get out of consuming your tofu salad is whatever nutritional value it had. 

That's right, and I have to pay for obtaining that nutritional value, and if I ran a company and wanted to get people to perform services for the company that were valuable to me then I'd have to pay them too. So I'm not really clear on what the difference is.

Could the person running the company accumulate the wealth he does without the labour of others? Why does he get to compensate himself more - in terms of profit sharing - when the success the company overall has is as much, if not more so, dependent on employees. Does the CEO really do 365+ times more valuable work than an employee in one hour (this is an estimate of how much more they get paid than the average, not bottom, employee)? This is exploitation because the company is not paying people what they worth of their labour is in terms of the profit it bring the company.

These are not rhetorical questions.

[Rupert]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 2:18:51 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Monday, 14 April 2014 11:17:48 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:38:57 AM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Monday, 14 April 2014 09:01:10 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:05:37 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

Humans can ask questions and they can question the meaning of those questions. No other creature can do this - this is a fundamental difference. 

Yes, that is correct. Also, babies can't do it, and an adult human being with an IQ of 10 can't do it, yet nevertheless the Supreme Court found that such an individual has basic human rights. So I don't know what your point is, really.

This would be a response to your claiming not to see a radical difference between humans and pigs.

Not a difference in *kind*. A difference in degree, which is certainly quite marked.

What would make a difference in kind then? 

An example of a difference in kind would be the difference between a human being and a tomato plant or an amoeba. The latter organisms are not capable of conscious experience at all. That is a difference in kind. There could be other examples.
 

My position: Thinking born in a creature such as us that can question the value/meaning of questions is so different to a thing that cannot asks these questions that it is different kind of thinking. 

You could take me out of killing someone using ethics, whereas you could not talk a pig/non-human animal out of killing someone using anything other than force. A difference in kind. 

 

Yes, fine, as long as you also acknowledge that we are different in kind in that way from some human beings as well.
 

This is a radical difference. 

On Babies: These entities have the potential to become this questioning and meaning seeking being and in such should be treated as possessed of this difference.

What's your position on abortion, then?

Pro-choice. A person does not have the right to use your body without your consent. If I connected myself to your body - without your agreement - and my life was connected to yours for nine months, you do not have to subjugate yourself to my needs because I will otherwise die. You might upon hearing I will otherwise die agree to take on the burden, but I do not have the right to force you to take on that burden.   

Embryo experimentation?

(I agree with your argument about abortion, I am just interested in exploring the consequences of this notion that potential is relevant.)
 

 

On developmentally stunted: Very sad, however, this does not change the difference put in place.

On Supreme Court findings: In considering ethics I'm not overly interested in the finds of a particular legal system in a country we are talking about a thing that can be applied to all human beings.     

 

The only ethical positions of any meaning with respect to diet/nutrition/food security are ones that include a deep consideration of feeding all humans, especially those living currently in extremely marginal situations far away from supermarkets. The vast majority of persons in Africa living at the subsistence level could not afford, financially or nutritionally, to go Vegan. Arguments in favour of Veganism that ignore the everyday nutritional needs of marginal populations (i.e. the vast majority of humans) are myopic in nature.  

We are not talking about what the ethical obligations are of starving people who live in Africa. We are talking about the ethical obligations of people like yourself who are well-off by global standards, and who live in technologically advanced, agriculturally bountiful societies, with easy access to a broad range of tasty and nutrtitious foods from both plant-based and non-plant-based sources, when you know that you could easily keep yourself happy and healthy on a vegan diet if you chose to, and when you also know, or could easily find out if you could be bothered doing any research about the matter, that modern farming methods cause considerable pain and suffering to nonhuman animals. That's what we are talking about. I never put forward any claim that a starving person in Africa was obliged to go vegan. For that matter I didn't put forward any claim that you are obliged to go vegan either, but if you are interested in having a discussion about the matter then bringing up the point that there are other people in different circumstances to yourself is irrelevant.

If we, in discussing ethics, are not interested in the concerns of all currently alive people, as in vegan ethical position/obligation, then what is being discussed starts to look like an aesthetic concerns of decadent (relatively) rich people with a West orientated education (hence the criticism: Vegan ethics is myopic).

I am perfectly happy to give some thought to the question of what the ethical obligations of a starving person in Africa might be, but I shouldn't necessarily think that it has all that much bearing on what I myself am obliged to do. And when you speak of "vegan ethics" it depends what form of vegan ethics you are talking about. Peter Singer, or Gary Francione? People who are vegan for ethical reasons work within different ethical frameworks.

So ethics is a personal aesthetic preference then?

No, when did I say that? I'm just pointing out that there are differences between the ethical frameworks within which various philosophers defend ethical veganism, so you can't really speak of "vegan ethics" as a monolithic entity. You should specify which version of vegan ethics you want to criticise.
 

 

The vast majority of people are not living in the environment you describe as such it is off little interest or meaning to non-decadent relatively rich people. I was born in Africa and live in Africa, and in reading stuff on veganism I see no concern for the majority. Ethics is not about what you or I cannot stomach it is about all people.    

I described a particular group of human beings and suggested that we should consider what the ethical obligations of members of this group were: namely, people who were in a position to keep themselves healthy and happy on plant-based food, and who knew, or at least could find out if they bothered to research the matter, that nonhuman animals living on modern farms suffer a lot. It was quite a large group, it would easily cover one half of all the human beings who live today, including you despite the fact that you live in Africa. If you are interested in discussing dietary ethics as it applies to you personally, then we need to look at what you do actually eat and how it is produced, and what your other options are for how to feed yourself a diet that will keep you healthy and happy. Just the same as if we were discussing dietary ethics for any other individual. I am perfectly happy to undertake this examination if you are interested.

So ethics is an aesthetic preference for a certain group of people?

No, obviously I never said any such thing.
 

Here is a measure for veganism as far as ethics goes: Tell a person living in the high arctic and therefore subsisting primarily on meat products, because vegetables do not grow, to go Vegan. For me if an ethics cannot be, at least, in principal applied to all humans then it is a conceit given a particular persons aesthetics and what they cannot stomach.

Well, that's stupid, the ethical considerations that apply to the question of whether you should be buying factory-farmed meat obviously have nothing to do with the ethical considerations that apply to the Inuit person living in the high Arctic.

Ethics that cannot be in principal applied (not here insisting on it being accepted) to all people becomes too easily the myopic aesthetic concerns of individuals living detached from the everyday concerns of people. Ethics is not personal it is universal, it is not how I treat myself and my friends, it is how we treat and consider everyone and each other. 

Yes, ethics is universal, but any sensible ethical system will give some consideration to the different circumstances that different individuals find themselves in, and so in that regard will be at least somewhat situational. It would be ridiculous for me to say "Because I'm not prepared to morally condemn an Inuit person for eating meat, I should therefore go and ahead and conclude that it must be perfectly fine for me and other people in circumstances like mine to buy factory-farmed meat from the supermarket". That would obviously be absurd.

It is not about condemnation of Inuit people. It is saying you cannot expect people to be vegetarian/vegan on ethical grounds, and as such your desire to be is merely an aesthetic preference given your contextual situation. Your attempts to justify it beyond that preference are a side-effect of what you personally cannot stomach with respect to the industrial husbandry practices. 

I can put forward a claim that under certain circumstances people are morally obliged to boycott a certain type of food, without committing myself to a view that there is a universal and unconditional obligation to avoid meat. It can be a situational ethic, without having to be just a personal aesthetic preference of mine. 

  

Moreover, if chimpanzee testing is required (note that my argument is it is required) for better medical drugs for humans and the chimps suffer... then the ethical position is that they must suffer.

Well, that's a different issue, and also all you did is make an assertion without offering any argument.

Not really we are talking about the treatment of animals are we not? This would be a place wherein a justification for causing an animal suffering could be found.

The reason it is a different issue is that the suffering is being inflicted for a somewhat weighter reason than satisfying a personal preference for the taste of a particular kind of food. That's why it's a different issue, although as you say it's easy to see why it came up in this context.

I am happy to examine your thought-experiment further if you wish, but so far your assertion that the suffering would be justified is just that, an assertion. You need to flesh out more details as to why you think it would be justified, and what your general views are about when suffering is justified.

This would be an interesting exercise, if interested I would be up for some correspondence on this issue beyond the forum.  

All right, you have my email address, don't you? We can take it to email if you wish.
 

 

 My position is, drawn from conversation with biologists, that DNA once properly unlocked and understood ethically requires us to alter and subjugate every aspect of our environment through our re-design thereof to meet human needs and reduce human suffering.

Without any regard at all to any nonhuman animal suffering we might be causing?

Basically this is an extension of the medical testing position. If it reduces human suffering or increase the quality of human lives then it is whatever suffering is being generated is ethically tolerable. This is essentially a position in which enslaving all nature is being advocated. I find the idea of slavery shocking, but it is an honest assessment of the position.   

Well, if you're saying that all the suffering that we inflict on animals on modern farms is justified simply because it helps us to satisfy a culinary preference for the taste of meat, then I completely disagree with you and find your point of view morally abhorrent.

It could not be justified on culinary (aesthetic) preference, but could be on meeting nutritional needs. Standard nutritional science (from biologists I talk with) points out that the human is an omnivore and in such requires either meat or access to a very wide range of plant matter (found in some modern cities at prohibitive expense for many).    

I've always acknowledged an exception for people for whom it is in some way a nutritional need, but that's not the usual situation for people in modern societies who are reasonably well-off. I do not know how well-off you are but it looks as though you have access to a computer and enough leisure time to post to an internet forum for your entertainment. A person living in Germany on my salary certainly has no nutritional need to eat animal-derived food products, if they do then they are just satisfying a personal preference for food with a particular taste.
 

 

  Genetically re-engineer elephants to be walking houses that we could eat if necessary, or whales to be swimming houses. Take DNA and treat it as we would any industrial program and re-program it to meet our needs. DNA and biology give us the road map to advanced nano-tech, with the cell as its engine, and we should re-design every aspect of our environment from the DNA up... screw things that are not human.      

Yes, but why? Most people are prepared to give at least some moral consideration to nonhuman animals, for example if they see someone torturing a stray dog with a blowtorch then they will call the police. If you want to claim that these people have somehow got things wrong, then the burden is on you to defend your view. If you are willing to accept that we owe nonhuman animals at least some moral consideration, then the burden is on you to specify where you would draw the line and why, and then we can look at the facts about what actually happens to nonhuman animals on modern farms.

My recent ethical shtick is premised on maximising human potential. In such re-engineering the environment from the DNA up to create a Garden of Eden in which any human could by extending a hand reach out an grab something to eat removes the anxiety of what am I going to eat, where I am going to find shelter. As a teacher working in the poorer communities of Africa I experience this anxiety as being the biggest hindrance to individual development. People locked into concerns about the source of their next meal (i.e. breakfast/lunch tomorrow) do not invest much in education (a future concern) as they are invested in getting a meal now. Taking these lower level concerns off the table by re-engineering the environment would mean more people investing time in higher order concerns - like getting an education, doing science, and/or generating art.

Obviously I think it is a good idea to try to make sure that all humans have basic food security, and there's no particular reason why that couldn't be done with vegan agriculture. In fact vegan agriculture is a more sustainable way to feed the current human population than animal agriculture, and animal agriculture contributes to global warming which potentially could have quite serious adverse consequences for poor people. Furthermore, by eating a plant-based diet I'm reducing my contribution to the demand for grain (because more grain is required to produce a given quantity of animal protein than plant protein) and thereby freeing up more grain to be available for meeting the food needs of people living in extreme poverty.

That it could be done with vegan agriculture is about as hypothetical as proposals to grow non-sentient meat products (as this is being done in labs as we speak) and vertical farms in cities (which are being implemented in Japan).  

No, it's not, plenty of people get by perfectly fine on vegan agriculture. It is an entirely practical proposal for how the human population should feed itself.

I've always made it clear that my argument is not supposed to apply to a person who for some circumstantial reason is not able to provide themselves with adequate nutrition without eating meat.
 

 

A person blowtorching a dog is not at stake here.

Well, extreme pain and suffering is at stake, including mutilations done without any anaesthesia. I'm perfectly happy to go through the facts about modern farming with you if you like, I've already given you one link.

I am familiar with the practices of modern husbandry.

So you know that similar amounts of pain and suffering are at stake as in the case of the person blowtorching the dog.
 

 

As such a person (especially if they are young) is possibly starting on a path towards self-destructive behaviour that is clearly a problem. We do want to maximise empathy, in this caring for animals/pets is useful.

As to modern farming practices, re-engineering the environment solves many of these problems. We can place a farm inside a building in a city with the right engineering and grow food locally, this could include growing non-conscious meat products on a lattice of some sort.       

Well, all well and fine, but that's completely hypothetical and it doesn't apply to my personal decisions about what to buy at the supermarket, or to yours.

So you do think your argument applies to me/others? Why only some and not all... state this in a fashion that does not come across as being the concerns of a rich Westerner living in the USA/Europe where I do not live, nor grew up in, nor was educated in.  

My argument applies to a person who is in a position to feed themselves a nutritionally adequate plant-based diet. Whether you are in that position I do not know for sure. I'm also willing to acknowledge that there might be some people who are able to feed themselves on diets containing some meat which are produced in a way that causes no more harm than the typical vegan diet. (Here I am bearing in mind the point that plant-based agriculture also causes harm to animals.) My argument is not supposed to imply that people who are able to feed themselves on such diets are under an obligation to be vegan. The reason why the argument applies to some people and not all is that different people are in different circumstances and sometimes the circumstances you are in are morally relevant.

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point. I haven't been putting forward any claim about what your ethical obligations are, if you want me to give you moral advice about that then I'll need to know more about what your options are, and also possibly the methods of food production for the food to which you have access.
 

 

[Rupert]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 2:27:25 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

On Monday, 14 April 2014 13:16:10 UTC+2, Rupert wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:44:23 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:20:13 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Whereas I would be if I set up my own company and started hiring staff?

Clearly,  how you function as an employer and as a consumer are two different things.  

Well, they are different in some respects. I can't see any difference in terms of whether or not I'm extracting "surplus value", maybe you can help me a bit here.

Unless you're shitting a substantial amount of gold,  the only thing you're going to get out of consuming your tofu salad is whatever nutritional value it had. 

That's right, and I have to pay for obtaining that nutritional value, and if I ran a company and wanted to get people to perform services for the company that were valuable to me then I'd have to pay them too. So I'm not really clear on what the difference is.

Could the person running the company accumulate the wealth he does without the labour of others? Why does he get to compensate himself more - in terms of profit sharing - when the success the company overall has is as much, if not more so, dependent on employees. Does the CEO really do 365+ times more valuable work than an employee in one hour (this is an estimate of how much more they get paid than the average, not bottom, employee)? This is exploitation because the company is not paying people what they worth of their labour is in terms of the profit it bring the company.

These are not rhetorical questions.

 

I'm not really trying to debate the finer points of what a CEO's salary should be, but the point is that the CEO is answerable to the shareholders. Presumably, they take a vote on how big his salary should be, and they are the ones who invested the capital which enabled the company to function in the first place. So I don't really have a problem with the idea that they should make the decision. And of course if the company's employees find it unfair then they are free to withdraw their labour. They can also unionise if they want to, so as to organise collective withdrawal of labour if they feel that is appropriate.

[Marc James Hugh Robson]

I do not have your email address?

[Rupert]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:29:22 PM UTC+2, Marc James Hugh Robson wrote:

I do not have your email address?

 

rupertmccallum at yahoo dot com

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 6:13:22 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

That's right, and I have to pay for obtaining that nutritional value, and if I ran a company and wanted to get people to perform services for the company that were valuable to me then I'd have to pay them too. So I'm not really clear on what the difference is.

Could the person running the company accumulate the wealth he does without the labour of others? Why does he get to compensate himself more - in terms of profit sharing - when the success the company overall has is as much, if not more so, dependent on employees. Does the CEO really do 365+ times more valuable work than an employee in one hour (this is an estimate of how much more they get paid than the average, not bottom, employee)? This is exploitation because the company is not paying people what they worth of their labour is in terms of the profit it bring the company.

These are not rhetorical questions.

 

I'm not really trying to debate the finer points of what a CEO's salary should be, but the point is that the CEO is answerable to the shareholders.
 

Presumably, they take a vote on how big his salary should be, and they are the ones who invested the capital which enabled the company to function in the first place.

Labor is the enabler & the materialize-r  here. Investing capital is investing people's time & labor.  If you pay them nothing,  that would be slavery. If you pay them next to nothing,  why would that be more justifiable than the former?     



 

So I don't really have a problem with the idea that they should make the decision. And of course if the company's employees find it unfair then they are free to withdraw their labour. They can also unionise if they want to, so as to organise collective withdrawal of labour if they feel that is appropriate.

Well, hell's bells. Why stop there? Why not rid of this parasitical relationship all together THAT YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ANY NECESSITY FOR,  other than signifying that this is how things are CURRENTLY done. 

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:02:03 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Monday, April 14, 2014 6:13:22 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

That's right, and I have to pay for obtaining that nutritional value, and if I ran a company and wanted to get people to perform services for the company that were valuable to me then I'd have to pay them too. So I'm not really clear on what the difference is.

Could the person running the company accumulate the wealth he does without the labour of others? Why does he get to compensate himself more - in terms of profit sharing - when the success the company overall has is as much, if not more so, dependent on employees. Does the CEO really do 365+ times more valuable work than an employee in one hour (this is an estimate of how much more they get paid than the average, not bottom, employee)? This is exploitation because the company is not paying people what they worth of their labour is in terms of the profit it bring the company.

These are not rhetorical questions.

 

I'm not really trying to debate the finer points of what a CEO's salary should be, but the point is that the CEO is answerable to the shareholders.
 

Presumably, they take a vote on how big his salary should be, and they are the ones who invested the capital which enabled the company to function in the first place.

Labor is the enabler & the materialize-r  here. Investing capital is investing people's time & labor.  If you pay them nothing,  that would be slavery. If you pay them next to nothing,  why would that be more justifiable than the former?     

Tell me more about it and I'll tell you whether I think it's justifiable.

Who is being paid next to nothing? Which company?
 

So I don't really have a problem with the idea that they should make the decision. And of course if the company's employees find it unfair then they are free to withdraw their labour. They can also unionise if they want to, so as to organise collective withdrawal of labour if they feel that is appropriate.

Well, hell's bells. Why stop there? Why not rid of this parasitical relationship all together THAT YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ANY NECESSITY FOR,  other than signifying that this is how things are CURRENTLY done. 

Of course there's no necessity for it, no-one has to take a job with the company if they don't want to. They choose to do so voluntarily. They can quit any time they want to, no skin off my nose.

[Loopflanger]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:29:47 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Presumably, they take a vote on how big his salary should be, and they are the ones who invested the capital which enabled the company to function in the first place.

Labor is the enabler & the materialize-r  here. Investing capital is investing people's time & labor.  If you pay them nothing,  that would be slavery. If you pay them next to nothing,  why would that be more justifiable than the former?     

Tell me more about it and I'll tell you whether I think it's justifiable.

Who is being paid next to nothing? Which company?

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?



 

 

So I don't really have a problem with the idea that they should make the decision. And of course if the company's employees find it unfair then they are free to withdraw their labour. They can also unionise if they want to, so as to organise collective withdrawal of labour if they feel that is appropriate.

Well, hell's bells. Why stop there? Why not rid of this parasitical relationship all together THAT YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ANY NECESSITY FOR,  other than signifying that this is how things are CURRENTLY done. 

Of course there's no necessity for it, no-one has to take a job ...

No,  labor is necessary (for any useful things to exist &/or to be made use of). It's private ownership of this process that isn't absolutely necessary.  Now,  if you think otherwise,  explain. 

[Loopflanger]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 6:10:25 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

[Rupert]

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

I do ask you over and over again what this alternative to capitalism is that you are proposing, and I never get any answer. You're a Marxist-Leninist, are you?

[Loopflanger]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:50:32 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things. The meat industry doesn't show ads of people using small amounts of meat in a stir-fry, for instance. Supermarkets don't go out of their way to package small portions unless they are the most expensive cuts. You're ultimately trying to blame human nature rather than the real basis for why things are the way they are. You can't solve real problems that way.  Your actions suggest you have no intent to.


 

I do ask you over and over again what this alternative to capitalism is that you are proposing, and I never get any answer. You're a Marxist-Leninist, are you?

What the fuck difference does it make? The pertinent issue here is that you don't even bother to question capitalist economy & yet it is the root cause of your concerns here. Why haven't you even bothered to consider an alternative yourself? There is no purely moral solution here.  

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:44:15 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:50:32 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things.

Why not? Consumer demand is the reason the activity is profitable.
 

The meat industry doesn't show ads of people using small amounts of meat in a stir-fry, for instance. Supermarkets don't go out of their way to package small portions unless they are the most expensive cuts. You're ultimately trying to blame human nature rather than the real basis for why things are the way they are.

And what would that be? I still don't get it. You're saying it would somehow all be different if only the government controlled the productive resources of the economy, is that the idea?
 

You can't solve real problems that way.  Your actions suggest you have no intent to.

What do you suppose I would be doing if I had a genuine desire to solve the problem?

I do ask you over and over again what this alternative to capitalism is that you are proposing, and I never get any answer. You're a Marxist-Leninist, are you?

What the fuck difference does it make? The pertinent issue here is that you don't even bother to question capitalist economy & yet it is the root cause of your concerns here. Why haven't you even bothered to consider an alternative yourself? There is no purely moral solution here.  

A statement such as "the capitalist economy is the root cause of the problem" has no particular meaning unless you have some specific alternative economic system in mind.

I was in a democratic socialist organisation in my foolish youth. I came to the conclusion that their proposed model for how society should be run would not improve the situation. So the answer to your question is that I have considered an alternative.

[Loopflanger]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:17:18 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things.

Why not? Consumer demand is the reason the activity is profitable.

Consumer demand doesn't dictate how the meat industry conducts its business to meet that demand. Demand is not a command. Part of the suppliers agenda is to create that demand. If you missed it,  the key word is "root".


 

 

The meat industry doesn't show ads of people using small amounts of meat in a stir-fry, for instance. Supermarkets don't go out of their way to package small portions unless they are the most expensive cuts. You're ultimately trying to blame human nature rather than the real basis for why things are the way they are.

And what would that be? I still don't get it. You're saying it would somehow all be different if only the government controlled the productive resources of the economy, is that the idea?

Who controls the government makes the difference here but you're the one who brought it up. You're fishing for an excuse to go into your song & dance below.  That's your idea.

 

 

You can't solve real problems that way.  Your actions suggest you have no intent to.

What do you suppose I would be doing if I had a genuine desire to solve the problem?

Stop promoting inane  & ineffectual moral idealism.

 

I do ask you over and over again what this alternative to capitalism is that you are proposing, and I never get any answer. You're a Marxist-Leninist, are you?

What the fuck difference does it make? The pertinent issue here is that you don't even bother to question capitalist economy & yet it is the root cause of your concerns here. Why haven't you even bothered to consider an alternative yourself? There is no purely moral solution here.  

A statement such as "the capitalist economy is the root cause of the problem" has no particular meaning unless you have some specific alternative economic system in mind.

It has meaning because it is a fact.  What I have in mind or not is all besides the point.  Attacking me is a substitute for dealing with the real problem.

 

I was in a democratic socialist organisation in my foolish youth. I came to the conclusion that their proposed model for how society should be run would not improve the situation. So the answer to your question is that I have considered an alternative.

Your conclusions* over someone else's propositions  aren't necessarily sound  & not finding a solution doesn't mean that there is none.  So,  you haven't really proposed  any alternative here other than reformism or inept moralizing wherein you wrap up your opportunism around delusions of benevolence.  You've tried this lame song & dance routine before.  It's pathetic & transparent.

You got to do better. Your stated concerns deserve better than this. 
 

*which you haven't justified with an argument.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:16:43 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:17:18 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things.

Why not? Consumer demand is the reason the activity is profitable.

Consumer demand doesn't dictate how the meat industry conducts its business to meet that demand. Demand is not a command. Part of the suppliers agenda is to create that demand. If you missed it,  the key word is "root".

The meat industry tries to produce the product to meet the consumer demand in the most economically efficient way possible, so as to maximise profit, without any regard for the well-being of the nonhuman animals who are used in order to produce the food. I don't really see any problem with the claim that consumer demand is the root cause.
 

 

 

The meat industry doesn't show ads of people using small amounts of meat in a stir-fry, for instance. Supermarkets don't go out of their way to package small portions unless they are the most expensive cuts. You're ultimately trying to blame human nature rather than the real basis for why things are the way they are.

And what would that be? I still don't get it. You're saying it would somehow all be different if only the government controlled the productive resources of the economy, is that the idea?

Who controls the government makes the difference here but you're the one who brought it up. You're fishing for an excuse to go into your song & dance below.  That's your idea.

I'm just doing my best to understand your ideas about how society should be different, that's all.
 

 

 

You can't solve real problems that way.  Your actions suggest you have no intent to.

What do you suppose I would be doing if I had a genuine desire to solve the problem?

Stop promoting inane  & ineffectual moral idealism.

Stop promoting veganism, you mean? Why exactly would this be a positive step in the direction of solving the problem?
 

 

I do ask you over and over again what this alternative to capitalism is that you are proposing, and I never get any answer. You're a Marxist-Leninist, are you?

What the fuck difference does it make? The pertinent issue here is that you don't even bother to question capitalist economy & yet it is the root cause of your concerns here. Why haven't you even bothered to consider an alternative yourself? There is no purely moral solution here.  

A statement such as "the capitalist economy is the root cause of the problem" has no particular meaning unless you have some specific alternative economic system in mind.

It has meaning because it is a fact.  What I have in mind or not is all besides the point.  Attacking me is a substitute for dealing with the real problem.

Actually, what I said was correct.
 

 

I was in a democratic socialist organisation in my foolish youth. I came to the conclusion that their proposed model for how society should be run would not improve the situation. So the answer to your question is that I have considered an alternative.

Your conclusions* over someone else's propositions  aren't necessarily sound  & not finding a solution doesn't mean that there is none.  So,  you haven't really proposed  any alternative here other than reformism or inept moralizing wherein you wrap up your opportunism around delusions of benevolence.  You've tried this lame song & dance routine before.  It's pathetic & transparent.

You got to do better. Your stated concerns deserve better than this. 
 

Well, any time you want to start making constructive proposals for how I can do better I am happy to listen to them.
 

[e_space]

he just likes bitching because he has a shitty job and a shitty boss ... if he became a boss (which is not likely with his attitude), he may actually crawl out of his dark place, and see the light of professional progression ... 

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:49:25 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things.

Why not? Consumer demand is the reason the activity is profitable.

Consumer demand doesn't dictate how the meat industry conducts its business to meet that demand. Demand is not a command. Part of the suppliers agenda is to create that demand. If you missed it,  the key word is "root".

The meat industry tries to produce the product to meet the consumer demand in the most economically efficient way possible, so as to maximise profit, without any regard for the well-being of the nonhuman animals who are used in order to produce the food. I don't really see any problem with the claim that consumer demand is the root cause.

You just got through saying the meat industry maximizes their profits by disregarding the well-being of their livestock. The consumer has no interest in maximizing the profits of the meat industry.  So, you're blaming the wrong people here & you're not apparently considering that the meat industry also has a disregard for their workers. Your concern is centered on the well-being of non-human animals but people,  less so. Why is that?
 

 

 

 

What do you suppose I would be doing if I had a genuine desire to solve the problem?

Stop promoting inane  & ineffectual moral idealism.

Stop promoting veganism, you mean? Why exactly would this be a positive step in the direction of solving the problem?

I'm not attacking your dietary agenda. I'm attacking your philosophical approach as a method for solving social problems. 

 

 

 

I do ask you over and over again what this alternative to capitalism is that you are proposing, and I never get any answer. You're a Marxist-Leninist, are you?

What the fuck difference does it make? The pertinent issue here is that you don't even bother to question capitalist economy & yet it is the root cause of your concerns here. Why haven't you even bothered to consider an alternative yourself? There is no purely moral solution here.  

A statement such as "the capitalist economy is the root cause of the problem" has no particular meaning unless you have some specific alternative economic system in mind.

It has meaning because it is a fact.  What I have in mind or not is all besides the point.  Attacking me is a substitute for dealing with the real problem.

Actually, what I said was correct.

That's just an assertion. It's a fact that capitalism is profit driven. That's the reason for over-production & cruelty. Stop trying to blame it all on the consumer, & ignoring the human victims. If you don't deal with the root cause for the producers' actions then you're just talking a million dollars worth of denial.  Your reluctance to see this problem in an all-sided way is based on an incipient opportunism.

 

 

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:53:09 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:49:25 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things.

Why not? Consumer demand is the reason the activity is profitable.

Consumer demand doesn't dictate how the meat industry conducts its business to meet that demand. Demand is not a command. Part of the suppliers agenda is to create that demand. If you missed it,  the key word is "root".

The meat industry tries to produce the product to meet the consumer demand in the most economically efficient way possible, so as to maximise profit, without any regard for the well-being of the nonhuman animals who are used in order to produce the food. I don't really see any problem with the claim that consumer demand is the root cause.

You just got through saying the meat industry maximizes their profits by disregarding the well-being of their livestock. The consumer has no interest in maximizing the profits of the meat industry.  So, you're blaming the wrong people here & you're not apparently considering that the meat industry also has a disregard for their workers. Your concern is centered on the well-being of non-human animals but people,  less so. Why is that?
 

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

I don't really care who you blame for what happens. I'm interested in the most effective strategy for doing something about it.
 

 

 

 

What do you suppose I would be doing if I had a genuine desire to solve the problem?

Stop promoting inane  & ineffectual moral idealism.

Stop promoting veganism, you mean? Why exactly would this be a positive step in the direction of solving the problem?

I'm not attacking your dietary agenda. I'm attacking your philosophical approach as a method for solving social problems. 

What aspect of my philosophical approach? What is it that you want me to change?
 

 

 

 

I do ask you over and over again what this alternative to capitalism is that you are proposing, and I never get any answer. You're a Marxist-Leninist, are you?

What the fuck difference does it make? The pertinent issue here is that you don't even bother to question capitalist economy & yet it is the root cause of your concerns here. Why haven't you even bothered to consider an alternative yourself? There is no purely moral solution here.  

A statement such as "the capitalist economy is the root cause of the problem" has no particular meaning unless you have some specific alternative economic system in mind.

It has meaning because it is a fact.  What I have in mind or not is all besides the point.  Attacking me is a substitute for dealing with the real problem.

Actually, what I said was correct.

That's just an assertion.

And, in this case, an obviously correct one.
 

It's a fact that capitalism is profit driven. That's the reason for over-production & cruelty. Stop trying to blame it all on the consumer, & ignoring the human victims. If you don't deal with the root cause for the producers' actions then you're just talking a million dollars worth of denial.  Your reluctance to see this problem in an all-sided way is based on an incipient opportunism.

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?
 

 

 

[John Stockwell]

\On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:52:15 PM UTC-6, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

John you say "the only possible meaning that value could have is if value can be different". And I think we agree value can differ. My car has value to me as transportation, as does my bicycle, yet they differ. But neither has inherent value. That's why I may use them them as means to my ends.

In contrast to be a locus of inherent value means one can't be legitimately treated as a mere means to an end. To do so would be a violation of rights. That much I understand.

Yet you want to argue, or so it seems to me, that basic rights are /not/ rooted in innate value. Correct?  Then in what are they grounded?

Rights are a contract to honor certain entitlements. An individual finds him/herself living under this contract when he or she is born and enters
into society.

Take a mundane example. Suppose you have a $20 bill. It it has value, measured in buying power, which is subject to negotiations that you may have
with a merchant, subject to shortages, location, what have you. That is the value of the $20 bill. There is more to this, however. There is a contract
which is stated right on the bill, that  "this note is legal tender for all debts public and private". That contract is between the Federal Reserve, the US
Government, and the citizens of the  United States of America. What is that contract grounded in? It is the mutual agreement to honor the contract between
the citizenry, the Federal Reserve, and the US Government that entitles you to lay that bill down in payment and that the merchant agrees to accept this as
payment. This is independent of the value of the $20 bill.

So, to with other rights. Our rights are part of a contract that we have with our fellow citizens to honor certain entitlements. If you violate your end of the social
contract (by committing crimes), then your ability to exercise your right to liberty could be curtailed. If  you further violated your contract by committing murder,
and had the unfortunately circumstance that this crime were committed in Texas or Florida, then you could find your time to exercise your right to life severely
shortened. It has nothing to do with "value" but rather "honoring your end of an agreement".

-John

-John
 

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:11:47 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things.

Why not? Consumer demand is the reason the activity is profitable.

Consumer demand doesn't dictate how the meat industry conducts its business to meet that demand. Demand is not a command. Part of the suppliers agenda is to create that demand. If you missed it,  the key word is "root".

The meat industry tries to produce the product to meet the consumer demand in the most economically efficient way possible, so as to maximise profit, without any regard for the well-being of the nonhuman animals who are used in order to produce the food. I don't really see any problem with the claim that consumer demand is the root cause.

You just got through saying the meat industry maximizes their profits by disregarding the well-being of their livestock. The consumer has no interest in maximizing the profits of the meat industry.  So, you're blaming the wrong people here & you're not apparently considering that the meat industry also has a disregard for their workers. Your concern is centered on the well-being of non-human animals but people,  less so. Why is that?
 

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

*Actions speak louder than words.
 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven. We built this profit machine. Every machine has an off switch.



 

 

 

 

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:48:44 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:11:47 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The fact that I am a rich Westerner is beside the point.

It's the fact that you have the MINDSET of a rich Westerner is why you're on an animal rights crusade in the first place. Your moral idealism* deflects from the real problem:  capitalism is the driving force behind cruelty & over-production in the meat industry.

*& therefore lacks a sufficient connection with objective reality

What is that supposed to mean, "capitalism is the driving force"? If you mean consumer demand is the driving force then obviously I agree with you.

All this is happening under a capitalist economy,  so why the incredulity? You can't claim that consumer demand is the root cause of over-production & cruelty when profit is the main impetus for those things.

Why not? Consumer demand is the reason the activity is profitable.

Consumer demand doesn't dictate how the meat industry conducts its business to meet that demand. Demand is not a command. Part of the suppliers agenda is to create that demand. If you missed it,  the key word is "root".

The meat industry tries to produce the product to meet the consumer demand in the most economically efficient way possible, so as to maximise profit, without any regard for the well-being of the nonhuman animals who are used in order to produce the food. I don't really see any problem with the claim that consumer demand is the root cause.

You just got through saying the meat industry maximizes their profits by disregarding the well-being of their livestock. The consumer has no interest in maximizing the profits of the meat industry.  So, you're blaming the wrong people here & you're not apparently considering that the meat industry also has a disregard for their workers. Your concern is centered on the well-being of non-human animals but people,  less so. Why is that?
 

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

When was that, what did I say exactly? I'm not conflicted about other people at all. I just probably thought, correctly I would say, that they're not as badly off as the animals.
 

*Actions speak louder than words.
 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven.

You think? How do you know that?
 

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:49:00 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:29:47 AM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Presumably, they take a vote on how big his salary should be, and they are the ones who invested the capital which enabled the company to function in the first place.

Labor is the enabler & the materialize-r  here. Investing capital is investing people's time & labor.  If you pay them nothing,  that would be slavery. If you pay them next to nothing,  why would that be more justifiable than the former?     

Tell me more about it and I'll tell you whether I think it's justifiable.

Who is being paid next to nothing? Which company?

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?

Well, it's an outcome of a decision by the stockholders as to how the profits of the company should be spent. It doesn't follow that some of the workers are being paid "next to nothing". But if that is the case, then neoclassical economic theory would tell you that that is because the marginal productivity of those workers is quite low. The wage of the workers is equal to their marginal productivity, otherwise some other company would offer them a better wage for their services and they would move to that company.
 

 

 

So I don't really have a problem with the idea that they should make the decision. And of course if the company's employees find it unfair then they are free to withdraw their labour. They can also unionise if they want to, so as to organise collective withdrawal of labour if they feel that is appropriate.

Well, hell's bells. Why stop there? Why not rid of this parasitical relationship all together THAT YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ANY NECESSITY FOR,  other than signifying that this is how things are CURRENTLY done. 

Of course there's no necessity for it, no-one has to take a job ...

No,  labor is necessary (for any useful things to exist &/or to be made use of). It's private ownership of this process that isn't absolutely necessary.  Now,  if you think otherwise,  explain. 

I don't think that private ownership of the means of production is absolutely necessary, I just don't think that you've demonstrated that any of the alternatives would somehow be a less "parasitical" relationship.
 

[e_space]

what is the sense of doing something if there is no profit in it, one way or another? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Observer]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:
Some time ago, Ll, wrote "everyone please: what is your definition of inherent value?". That seemed fruitful. Could we have a summary of definitions? Distinguish between /what/ inherent value is and it's cause.

Atheists suspect there is an argument for theism in the premise "X has inherent value" and they may be right. It's interesting lawrey alone is making the case for inherent value from atheism.

But as I understand the term "inherent value" is an endowment -- like species membership - and not contingent on individual achievement or any other creature ascribing or even recognizing it.

From dictionary.com:
[quote]
[… Bu
inherent value: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute:



And will and will Moreover, to be a locus of inherent value means I may not legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end. For X to value Y means X is using Y as a means to some end and /not/ treating Y as an end.

Now not every entity has inherent value. I may use rocks as means to ends. I may use living things as food, medicine, clothing, for the species not possessed of inherent value.

We could take it as a mystery certain beings are endowed with inherent value and table the causal explanation for now.

For if nothing has inherent value, what is the basis for inherent rights?

Observer

Value is an opinion present only in the mind of the sentient creature and is therefore nothing more than a psychological process with no existence of its own. Likewise rights being of similar construct and have no existence of their own.

Psychonomist

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:12:37 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Presumably, they take a vote on how big his salary should be, and they are the ones who invested the capital which enabled the company to function in the first place.

Labor is the enabler & the materialize-r  here. Investing capital is investing people's time & labor.  If you pay them nothing,  that would be slavery. If you pay them next to nothing,  why would that be more justifiable than the former?     

Tell me more about it and I'll tell you whether I think it's justifiable.

Who is being paid next to nothing? Which company?

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?

Well, it's an outcome of a decision by the stockholders....

Which is an arbitrary decision on their part. You don't have to explain why workers with marginal productivity get low wages. You have to explain the justification for paying CEOs so much more than the people who work under them. (& if their productivity is so low, why should the CEO be awarded for that, in the first place?)

 

 

 

So I don't really have a problem with the idea that they should make the decision. And of course if the company's employees find it unfair then they are free to withdraw their labour. They can also unionise if they want to, so as to organise collective withdrawal of labour if they feel that is appropriate.

Well, hell's bells. Why stop there? Why not rid of this parasitical relationship all together THAT YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ANY NECESSITY FOR,  other than signifying that this is how things are CURRENTLY done. 

Of course there's no necessity for it, no-one has to take a job ...

No,  labor is necessary (for any useful things to exist &/or to be made use of). It's private ownership of this process that isn't absolutely necessary.  Now,  if you think otherwise,  explain. 

I don't think that private ownership of the means of production is absolutely necessary, I just don't think that you've demonstrated that any of the alternatives would somehow be a less "parasitical" relationship.

The matter is:  You haven't demonstrated that a non-parasitical relationship is impossible. You just keep trying to justify what is demonstrably parasitical even though you now admit that it isn't absolutely necessary.

Why do you support a parasitical economic order? Isn't that pathological? Doesn't that conflict with your beatific notions about alleviating suffering? Doesn't that reduce YOUR CONCERN for non-human animals to moral hypocrisy?

 

 

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:08:51 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

 

 I just probably thought, correctly I would say, that they're not as badly off as the animals.

In your supercilious opinion. 

 

 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven.

You think? How do you know that?

"Economic trade for profit has existed since at least the second millennium BC",  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ). "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}",
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens ).

 

[Eric Griswold, R.C.]

I don't think there is any sensible definition of inherent value. To ask "Can a thing have value, even if nobody is around to value it?" seems to be in the same category as the question about whether a falling tree makes a sound if nobody is around to observe it.

A realist would say: Of course it does.

An Anti-Realist would say: If you want to call a thing "real" which has no criterion and no observable properties, which makes no measurable difference to anything, go right ahead. I have a bottle of "Chi" I want to sell you. Chi is an invisible force which fills the universe and is responsible for all things. I have some in this bottle for only $19.95.

Similarly, "inherent value" seems a totally nebulous invisible thing that we want to paste on something WE value. Saving porpoises, the smile of a puppy, having human DNA, gay rights, marriage rights, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, euthanasia, going to war, you name it.

We often hear: "in order to protect the inherent value implicit in X, we really need to Y.  No matter that it is used equally on both sides of the argument. 

So my tentative definition is: 

Inherent Value: "something you happen to believe in, yet in a subconscious way, so you imagine it must come from something much bigger than yourself, preferably positing it as some sort of inherent feature of the universe."

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:14:31 PM UTC-5, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Some time ago, Ll, wrote "everyone please: what is your definition of inherent value?". That seemed fruitful. Could we have a summary of definitions?  Distinguish between /what/ inherent value is and it's cause.

Atheists suspect there is an argument for theism in the premise "X has inherent value" and they may be right. It's interesting lawrey alone is making the case for inherent value from atheism.

But as I understand the term "inherent value" is an endowment -- like species membership - and not contingent on individual achievement or any other creature ascribing or even recognizing it.

Moreover, to be a locus of inherent value means I may not legitimately be treated as a mere means to an end. For X to value Y means X is using Y as a means to some end and /not/ treating Y as an end.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:53:21 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:08:51 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

 

 I just probably thought, correctly I would say, that they're not as badly off as the animals.

In your supercilious opinion. 

No, in the opinion of everyone with access to the facts and in possession of basic common sense. Nothing "supercilious" about that opinion.
 

 

 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven.

You think? How do you know that?

"Economic trade for profit has existed since at least the second millennium BC",  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ). "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}",
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens ).

Doesn't seem to establish your claim. Even primates who trade favours of grooming each other are "trading for profit", it's just a more rudimentary economic system.

Can you give an example of something that we can recognise as an economic system that existed prior to the establishment of the institution of trading for prodit?
 

 

[Rupert]

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:41:54 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:12:37 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Presumably, they take a vote on how big his salary should be, and they are the ones who invested the capital which enabled the company to function in the first place.

Labor is the enabler & the materialize-r  here. Investing capital is investing people's time & labor.  If you pay them nothing,  that would be slavery. If you pay them next to nothing,  why would that be more justifiable than the former?     

Tell me more about it and I'll tell you whether I think it's justifiable.

Who is being paid next to nothing? Which company?

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?

Well, it's an outcome of a decision by the stockholders....

Which is an arbitrary decision on their part.

It certainly wasn't arbitrary. They made it on the basis of what they thought would maximise the profitability of the stock.
 

You don't have to explain why workers with marginal productivity get low wages. You have to explain the justification for paying CEOs so much more than the people who work under them. (& if their productivity is so low, why should the CEO be awarded for that, in the first place?)

I'd be assuming it would be because they want to have a CEO who will make a big contribution to the profitability of the company, and they have to pay him a high wage or he'll go and work for another company?
 

 

 

 

So I don't really have a problem with the idea that they should make the decision. And of course if the company's employees find it unfair then they are free to withdraw their labour. They can also unionise if they want to, so as to organise collective withdrawal of labour if they feel that is appropriate.

Well, hell's bells. Why stop there? Why not rid of this parasitical relationship all together THAT YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ANY NECESSITY FOR,  other than signifying that this is how things are CURRENTLY done. 

Of course there's no necessity for it, no-one has to take a job ...

No,  labor is necessary (for any useful things to exist &/or to be made use of). It's private ownership of this process that isn't absolutely necessary.  Now,  if you think otherwise,  explain. 

I don't think that private ownership of the means of production is absolutely necessary, I just don't think that you've demonstrated that any of the alternatives would somehow be a less "parasitical" relationship.

The matter is:  You haven't demonstrated that a non-parasitical relationship is impossible.

I never made such a claim. I don't think you've demonstrated that the relationnships that exist in the current economic system are parasitical.
 

You just keep trying to justify what is demonstrably parasitical

How so?
 

even though you now admit that it isn't absolutely necessary.

I haven't really been making any attempt to justify it. I have been offering speculations about why the stockholders make the decisions they do.

If wealth is to be created then it is necessary to have some kind of organisational structure and it is necessary that people have motivation of some description for participating in that organisational structure. I'm sure there are many possible alternatives to the structures that actually exist in the present society, but the point is you haven't demonstrated that anything is available which is appreciably better than what we've actually got.
 

Why do you support a parasitical economic order?

I don't.
 

Isn't that pathological? Doesn't that conflict with your beatific notions about alleviating suffering?

No, capitalism has been enormously successful at alleviating suffering.
 

Doesn't that reduce YOUR CONCERN for non-human animals to moral hypocrisy?

No.
 

 

 

[lawrey]

      Eric,
                Inherent value quite specifically is born of life that is to say "procreation" It is absolutely fundamental to your being a surviving human being and the most simple concept of any you will ever have to consider.

                It is so simple, that NOT ONE person here understands or seems to be able to accept it. It is too simple everyone wants to make it complicated, before they can consider it.

                In spite of what many wish to imply, inherent means, when referring to life; .. that which is "Inborn", "Innate". You are lumbered with it and you have no say, nor yet choice over the matter. No matter whether
                you are born with a deficiency , or malfunction, compos mentis, brilliant, or (a favourite of some here) pathological. Whether you are of any value or none to the society into which you are born or not has
                absolutely no bearing on inherent value or what it is. ALL LIFE HAS INHERENT VALUE. ....How do we arrive at that conclusion and what is it exactly? Before we can answer that we also have to say and or
                interpret what we mean by "value", since value is a subjective concept and means different things to a variety of people. Within the concept of that to which we refer ("life") it means:....."ADVANTAGEOUS TO".
                IT IS NOT AN OBSERVABLE VALUE as humans would normally view it.... as being something comparable to something and having a value assessed. Humans can not value inherent value, simply because
                it is inborn and before birth. Some say because of this It cannot exist and therefore there is no such thing..... They are entitled to think that way and most do.... but they are wrong!.....WHY?

                All living things are born with SURVIVAL INSTINCTS. We can know this. Then ask yourself.....are survival instincts advantageous to human survival? The answer has to be yes!. Then all life that survives has
                INHERENT VALUE.. No mater what we turn out to be there-after, good evil, pathological, demented. deaf, dumb, blind......THE FACT THAT WE SURVIVE TELLS US WE HAVE INHERENT VALUE.

                WHY ARE YOU HERE?............ON THE CHANCE THAT YOU MAY BE OF SOME VALUE TO YOUR FELLOW MAN? ............INHERENT VALUE IS BEYOND HUMAN OBSERVATION UNTIL BIRTH.
                 No god/s are required nor is religion nor is atheism or any other ism, just birth and survival at birth.

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:59:55 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:53:21 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:08:51 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

 

 I just probably thought, correctly I would say, that they're not as badly off as the animals.

In your supercilious opinion. 

No, in the opinion of everyone with access to the facts and in possession of basic common sense. Nothing "supercilious" about that opinion.

Well,  if you're going to appeal to common sense,  most people would put more value on human life than on a chicken's,  that is,  specifically,  the abuse of human beings is going to be a priority concern,  not an equal or secondary concern. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/world/asia/scores-die-in-fire-at-chinese-poultry-plant.html?_r=0

But If it's nobody you give a damn about,  then chickens are going to be priority one every single time.



 

 

 

 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven.

You think? How do you know that?

"Economic trade for profit has existed since at least the second millennium BC",  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ). "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}",
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens ).

Doesn't seem to establish your claim. Even primates who trade favours of grooming each other are "trading for profit", it's just a more rudimentary economic system.

Economic trade for profit between human beings has been going on for about 4000 years. But the species has been around a lot longer than that. So,  you're full of shit.



 

[Loopflanger]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:06:49 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?

Well, it's an outcome of a decision by the stockholders....

Which is an arbitrary decision on their part.

It certainly wasn't arbitrary. They made it on the basis of what they thought would maximise the profitability of the stock.

What actually maximizes profits is to pay as little as possible to people who actually do the work of producing something,  The only reason there are any profits in the first place is because of the productivity of those workers.  So,  you're full of shit.

 
The matter is:  You haven't demonstrated that a non-parasitical relationship is impossible.

I never made such a claim. I don't think you've demonstrated that the relationnships that exist in the current economic system are parasitical.

Obviously,  in order to create great private wealth,  one has to exploit the labor of others on a global scale.  That's inherently parasitical. Your benevolent secular dominion-ism whitewashes this parasitical relationship,  so it's a sham.


 

 

[Rupert]

On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:30:14 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:59:55 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:53:21 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:08:51 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

 

 I just probably thought, correctly I would say, that they're not as badly off as the animals.

In your supercilious opinion. 

No, in the opinion of everyone with access to the facts and in possession of basic common sense. Nothing "supercilious" about that opinion.

Well,  if you're going to appeal to common sense,  most people would put more value on human life than on a chicken's,  that is,  specifically,  the abuse of human beings is going to be a priority concern,  not an equal or secondary concern. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/world/asia/scores-die-in-fire-at-chinese-poultry-plant.html?_r=0

But If it's nobody you give a damn about,  then chickens are going to be priority one every single time.

You didn't bring up these examples before, to the best of my memory. What's your point? I'd like to stop those things from happening as well. So?
 

 

 

 

 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven.

You think? How do you know that?

"Economic trade for profit has existed since at least the second millennium BC",  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ). "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}",
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens ).

Doesn't seem to establish your claim. Even primates who trade favours of grooming each other are "trading for profit", it's just a more rudimentary economic system.

Economic trade for profit between human beings has been going on for about 4000 years. But the species has been around a lot longer than that. So,  you're full of shit.

You haven't established that.
 

 

[Rupert]

On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:49:48 PM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:06:49 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?

Well, it's an outcome of a decision by the stockholders....

Which is an arbitrary decision on their part.

It certainly wasn't arbitrary. They made it on the basis of what they thought would maximise the profitability of the stock.

What actually maximizes profits is to pay as little as possible to people who actually do the work of producing something, 

That's false.
 

The only reason there are any profits in the first place is because of the productivity of those workers.  So,  you're full of shit.

 
The matter is:  You haven't demonstrated that a non-parasitical relationship is impossible.

I never made such a claim. I don't think you've demonstrated that the relationnships that exist in the current economic system are parasitical.

Obviously,  in order to create great private wealth,  one has to exploit the labor of others on a global scale. 

No. You have not established this.
 

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 18, 2014 2:14:45 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

 

 I just probably thought, correctly I would say, that they're not as badly off as the animals.

In your supercilious opinion. 

No, in the opinion of everyone with access to the facts and in possession of basic common sense. Nothing "supercilious" about that opinion.

Well,  if you're going to appeal to common sense,  most people would put more value on human life than on a chicken's,  that is,  specifically,  the abuse of human beings is going to be a priority concern,  not an equal or secondary concern. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/world/asia/scores-die-in-fire-at-chinese-poultry-plant.html?_r=0

But If it's nobody you give a damn about,  then chickens are going to be priority one every single time.

You didn't bring up these examples before, to the best of my memory. What's your point?

You anthropomorphize animals as a way to dehumanize human beings to justify a system of exploitation that affects both. Your priority is exploitation, not benevolence. Prettifying things by alleviating degrees of suffering within these relations, but not eliminating them,  is just a means to that end.

 

 

 

 

 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven.

You think? How do you know that?

"Economic trade for profit has existed since at least the second millennium BC",  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ). "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}",
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens ).

Doesn't seem to establish your claim. Even primates who trade favours of grooming each other are "trading for profit", it's just a more rudimentary economic system.

Economic trade for profit between human beings has been going on for about 4000 years. But the species has been around a lot longer than that. So,  you're full of shit.

You haven't established that.

How are you going to claim that trading for profit is some intrinsic activity when it's only been going on for 4000 years? Trade for profit means creating a surplus value,  not simply exchanging favors or things.  & since you're willfully putting up these obfuscations,  your facade of benevolence is just a means to hide its opposite.

 

 

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 18, 2014 2:16:18 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

:

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?

Well, it's an outcome of a decision by the stockholders....

Which is an arbitrary decision on their part.

It certainly wasn't arbitrary. They made it on the basis of what they thought would maximise the profitability of the stock.

What actually maximizes profits is to pay as little as possible to people who actually do the work of producing something, 

That's false.

The more you pay to labor,  the less profits.

 

 

The only reason there are any profits in the first place is because of the productivity of those workers.  So,  you're full of shit.

 
The matter is:  You haven't demonstrated that a non-parasitical relationship is impossible.

I never made such a claim. I don't think you've demonstrated that the relationnships that exist in the current economic system are parasitical.

Obviously,  in order to create great private wealth,  one has to exploit the labor of others on a global scale. 

No.

So, you think you're going to make billions of dollars all by yourself? Good luck with that.


 

 

[Rupert]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:47:59 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Friday, April 18, 2014 2:14:45 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The statement that I am less centred on the well-being of humans than the well-being of nonhuman animals is false.

When it was brought to your attention that people working for the meat industry often suffer bad conditions your response was less than sympathetic.*  You're evidently conflicted about other people. 

 

 I just probably thought, correctly I would say, that they're not as badly off as the animals.

In your supercilious opinion. 

No, in the opinion of everyone with access to the facts and in possession of basic common sense. Nothing "supercilious" about that opinion.

Well,  if you're going to appeal to common sense,  most people would put more value on human life than on a chicken's,  that is,  specifically,  the abuse of human beings is going to be a priority concern,  not an equal or secondary concern. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/world/asia/scores-die-in-fire-at-chinese-poultry-plant.html?_r=0

But If it's nobody you give a damn about,  then chickens are going to be priority one every single time.

You didn't bring up these examples before, to the best of my memory. What's your point?

You anthropomorphize animals as a way to dehumanize human beings to justify a system of exploitation that affects both.

That's completely false.
 

Your priority is exploitation, not benevolence. Prettifying things by alleviating degrees of suffering within these relations, but not eliminating them,  is just a means to that end.

God, you talk a load of bullshit.
 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you propose to achieve a society where people are not driven by the desire to make a profit?

For most of the 100,000 years of human history,  people haven't been profit driven.

You think? How do you know that?

"Economic trade for profit has existed since at least the second millennium BC",  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ). "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}",
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens ).

Doesn't seem to establish your claim. Even primates who trade favours of grooming each other are "trading for profit", it's just a more rudimentary economic system.

Economic trade for profit between human beings has been going on for about 4000 years. But the species has been around a lot longer than that. So,  you're full of shit.

You haven't established that.

How are you going to claim that trading for profit is some intrinsic activity when it's only been going on for 4000 years? Trade for profit means creating a surplus value,  not simply exchanging favors or things.  & since you're willfully putting up these obfuscations,  your facade of benevolence is just a means to hide its opposite.

Why would exchanging favours or things not be regarded as an example of trading for profit?
 

 

 

[Rupert]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 2:00:00 AM UTC+2, Loopflanger wrote:

On Friday, April 18, 2014 2:16:18 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

:

You're referring to a situation where the CEO makes 365 times more than, I assuming,  the lowest paid employee. What's the necessity for that, (other than saying somebody arbitrarily decided to do that)?

Well, it's an outcome of a decision by the stockholders....

Which is an arbitrary decision on their part.

It certainly wasn't arbitrary. They made it on the basis of what they thought would maximise the profitability of the stock.

What actually maximizes profits is to pay as little as possible to people who actually do the work of producing something, 

That's false.

The more you pay to labor,  the less profits.

No, not if paying extra to labour is a means of acquiring more workers and thereby improving the productivity of your operation.
 

 

 

The only reason there are any profits in the first place is because of the productivity of those workers.  So,  you're full of shit.

 
The matter is:  You haven't demonstrated that a non-parasitical relationship is impossible.

I never made such a claim. I don't think you've demonstrated that the relationnships that exist in the current economic system are parasitical.

Obviously,  in order to create great private wealth,  one has to exploit the labor of others on a global scale. 

No.

So, you think you're going to make billions of dollars all by yourself? Good luck with that.

I can't even make the cup of coffee I'm drinking all by myself, what of it?
 

 

 

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

The more you pay to labor,  the less profits.

No, not if paying extra to labour is a means of acquiring more workers and thereby improving the productivity of your operation.

It takes more money to pay for more workers but OTOH,  you're not going to pay all those workers a "maximum" wage. You pay a wage as small as you can get away with or otherwise you're not going to maximize your profits.
 

 

Obviously,  in order to create great private wealth,  one has to exploit the labor of others on a global scale. 

No.

So, you think you're going to make billions of dollars all by yourself? Good luck with that.

I can't even make the cup of coffee I'm drinking all by myself, what of it?
 

You're dependent on other people to create wealth.


 

 

 

[Loopflanger]

On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:42:39 PM UTC-7, Rupert wrote:

Well,  if you're going to appeal to common sense,  most people would put more value on human life than on a chicken's,  that is,  specifically,  the abuse of human beings is going to be a priority concern,  not an equal or secondary concern. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/world/asia/scores-die-in-fire-at-chinese-poultry-plant.html?_r=0

But If it's nobody you give a damn about,  then chickens are going to be priority one every single time.

You didn't bring up these examples before, to the best of my memory. What's your point?

You anthropomorphize animals as a way to dehumanize human beings to justify a system of exploitation that affects both.

That's completely false.

Obviously,  elevating one thing as equal to the other is a way of devaluing the other thing. But you're not applying this to everybody. Just the people you want to be dismissive of,  principally the masses which the fractional remainder is dependent on in order to maintain this pyramid scheme you're trying to prop up, prettify, & flatter. So,  on one hand, you don't let people die like dogs in the streets,  but on the other,  you're more concerned about caged livestock than people caged in sweatshops and deadening labor. (That's the reason why you were making a big deal about absolute poverty on one hand, & being dismissive about relative poverty in the other.)    

 

 
How are you going to claim that trading for profit is some intrinsic activity when it's only been going on for 4000 years? Trade for profit means creating a surplus value,  not simply exchanging favors or things.  & since you're willfully putting up these obfuscations,  your facade of benevolence is just a means to hide its opposite.

Why would exchanging favours or things not be regarded as an example of trading for profit?

Because there's no surplus.