Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The Philosophy discussion


Ilunga

Recommended Posts

So, an issue near and dear to me and currently being argued in New York appellate court involves Happy the elephant and whether non human animals can have legal standing (to exercise their autonomy).  The Non-human Rights Project is currently arguing this case and if successful, it has major implications in jurisprudence i.e legal personhood, the nature of rights, who or what can be a rights-holder etc.). 

 

A decision should be coming in the next 3-4 weeks. Even if unsuccessful the NHRP plans to argue other cases nationwide, but this would be my historical “man on the moon” moment.   

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nux_win said:

"Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion."  (I don't know who said that but I can't claim it as original)

 

I think that there is some truth to that saying but that doesn't mean that all religious people act unethically.  Some of them are actually quite nice. 

That is a Steven Weinberg quote that is BS. 

 

What about a atheist drug addict that hurts others while under the influence of drugs.

 

What about soldiers that commit war crimes, then state they were just following orders. 

 

Poverty can drive people to do what we could consider evil things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the Rebel Alliance a terrorist group? Luke blowing up the Death Star, killing millions of people employed on that base. Janitors, cleaning staff, folks who never got to go home and see their families again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 5:59 AM, thrago said:

Oh well that's easy, what's right or wrong is whatever society says it is at the time. For example if you lived on a island full of cannibals, killing people and eating them would be right.  Here in Canada that would be wrong.  What is right or wrong is a social construct of the society that you live in, it's whatever it is that continues to make that society work at the time and is ever changing all the time.  What's right or maybe just ok today might be wrong tomorrow.  In the 70's for example it would have been ok to make fun of Gay people, today we have decided that it is wrong.  My point of social media and like I said the AI attached to it is,  if your not moving in the direction that society is, it will still give you conformation bias to think that, that way of thinking is ok. 

 

 

Derek Parfit has a good take on this.

 

Take slavery for example.  Historically it was once permitted, but the justification for this practice relied upon apparent reasons.  Apparent reasons arnt ‘reasons’ at all.  For example, to borrow an example from him-you come across a rattlesnake on a trail.  At the time you think running away would save your life-that’s an apparent reason. But that would be mistaken because staying still is in fact what you should do.  Parfit would argue we can have sufficient or decisive reasons of which we are unaware, and the moral wrongness of slavery is a good example.  Why slavery was permissible at the time, was because most people relied upon apparent reasons and were unaware of sufficient or decisive reasons pertaining to why this practice is wrong.  Once society become aware of these reasons, the practice was abolished. Further, people can dissmiss or ignore these reasons when they become aware of them, but Parfit argues this reflects rationality moreso which is entirely different and makes sense.  

 

The social construct part he would disagree with.  We dont “make up” reasons-reasons stem from facts.  These facts are objective whether we are aware of them at the time or not.

Edited by Angry Goose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 4:08 AM, Angry Goose said:

Derek Parfit has a good take on this.

 

Take slavery for example.  Historically it was once permitted, but the justification for this practice relied upon apparent reasons.  Apparent reasons arnt ‘reasons’ at all.  For example, to borrow an example from him-you come across a rattlesnake on a trail.  At the time you think running away would save your life-that’s an apparent reason. But that would be mistaken because staying still is in fact what you should do.  Parfit would argue we can have sufficient or decisive reasons of which we are unaware, and the moral wrongness of slavery is a good example.  Why slavery was permissible at the time, was because most people relied upon apparent reasons and were unaware of sufficient or decisive reasons pertaining to why this practice is wrong.  Once society become aware of these reasons, the practice was abolished. Further, people can dissmiss or ignore these reasons when they become aware of them, but Parfit argues this reflects rationality moreso which is entirely different and makes sense.  

 

The social construct part he would disagree with.  We dont “make up” reasons-reasons stem from facts.  These facts are objective whether we are aware of them at the time or not.

Unfortunately slavery still exists, and according to this article more people are enslaved today than at any other time in history.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Unfortunately slavery still exists, and according to this article more people are enslaved today than at any other time in history.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

 

 

sadly, yes.  our most basic obligations often go ignored.  ask me about how we treat non human animals.

Edited by Angry Goose
  • Huggy Bear 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Angry Goose said:

sadly, yes.  our most basic obligations often go ignored.  ask me about how we treat non human animals.

I know your feelings on this subject and I share them. 

It's not just Fauna either

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/30/world-plant-species-risk-extinction-fungi-earth

 

Everything is connected.

 

If one small part of a motor breaks, eventually the motor will stop running. 

 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2022 at 3:07 PM, JM_ said:

I think what the institutional aspect shows is how little you need them. I never really understood the need for a mediating body between a person and their creator. It just creates structures that foster abuse. 

 

But its not just corrupt people that look to their particular religion for ethical guidance. Look at US evangelicals, are all the ones voting for anti-gay politicians corrupt? or just mislead ethically?

 

     They seem to have been misled by the religious leaders who inserted themselves between the people and a meaninful God concept. It requires no such mediation. It has always been like this, distracting us by convincing us we need them at birth, coming of age, marriage, divorce and death -- their bread and butter -- to the more insidious types of control. 

     It occured to me the other day that the relatively new doctrine of absolute inerrancy of the bible is at least partially responsible for the rejection of scientific thinking, or just plain reasonable thought. I mean, 150 years of intellectual training that seems to consist mostly of following a serial logic that allows condractory statements. 

     Throw in the genetic legacy of brain-addling leaded gas perhaps, i don't know. 

 

     Here, though, is a great moment that shows how cynical the political and religious powers are in the US. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frank einstein said:

     They seem to have been misled by the religious leaders who inserted themselves between the people and a meaninful God concept. It requires no such mediation. It has always been like this, distracting us by convincing us we need them at birth, coming of age, marriage, divorce and death -- their bread and butter -- to the more insidious types of control. 

it taps into something people need for some reason, I guess some people just aren't comfortable with their own thoughts and need someone else they can latch on to? not sure.

 

1 hour ago, frank einstein said:

     It occured to me the other day that the relatively new doctrine of absolute inerrancy of the bible is at least partially responsible for the rejection of scientific thinking, or just plain reasonable thought. I mean, 150 years of intellectual training that seems to consist mostly of following a serial logic that allows condractory statements. 

     Throw in the genetic legacy of brain-addling leaded gas perhaps, i don't know. 

oh for sure. Setting up a false battle between science and religion really helps these cult leaders out. There isn't a conflict, science and faith seek to answer different things, there's no need for a conflict at all, unless you must believe every word in the bible. 

 

1 hour ago, frank einstein said:

 

     Here, though, is a great moment that shows how cynical the political and religious powers are in the US. 

 

 

yikes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...