logic and compassion aren't polar enemies

Post Reply New Topic

the fact is, animal testing does nothing in terms of the advancement of humanity. thte fact is, that if experimental drugs are given to an animal and it dies, the test result is ignored. it is pointless and barbaric, and exists for no other reason than for the financial benefit that it provides to the pharmaceutical industry.

this page:

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/Lords.htm

is very interesting on the topic of animal experiments

Really, so scientific research labs don't know what they are doing despite the fact that researchers on the area think that such models are effective? I mean, animal testing has played a role in virtually every single medical advancement in the last century. How about animal testing for the sake of drugs for animals, certainly that does not suffer from the same criticism you level with that article from your biased author, I know that Vernon Coleman is a campaigner for animal rights. After all, there is no better creature to test a dog medicine than on a dog and to do so in the name of the welfare of our pets IS for the advancement of humanity given the joy and economic value we place upon our individual pet. As well, when it comes to the opinions of the medical community on animal research, it appears that Dr. Coleman is in the minority "Although research opponents portray the medical community as deeply divided over the merits of animal research, a survey by the American Medical Association found that 99 percent of active physicians in the U.S. believed that animal research had contributed to medical progress, and 97 percent supported the continued humane and responsible use of animals for basic and clinical research. More recently, a survey of living Nobel Laureates for medicine found unanimous support for animal research." not only that but nobel prize seekers find that animal testing is ideal for their work as well and the nobel prize isn't some corporate issue. http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/nobels.htm It really appears that Vernon Coleman is on the less popular side of medical opinion on this matter, this doesn't mean that he is wrong, but I am distrusting of him, especially because on his site he seems more ideological than I typically desire from an expert.

Logical is NOT using their DNA as an excuse for negative behavior, but being man enough to rise over it. Logical is people working together and having some moral structure to live in a more logic based society. Are you a person or a f*****g robot?

Logical IS using their DNA in a manner that promotes our interests. Being "man" enough to rise above that is meaningless in the context because it requires a definition of "being man" that frankly has not been objectively shown. Logical is people working together and having some legal structure to live in a more logic based society. It does not matter if our neighbor next door is amoral, or even immoral by our standards so long as he obeys laws designed to improve human interaction. Well sir, I am a human being, just compared to you, I like reason rather than emotionalist BS and I recognize that in arguments and other discussions of that nature, reason is the only thing that man should use, I am capable of showing a broad range of emotions on my own time I just am not so stupid to only think with emotion and throw away logic for that reason.

Dude look, what I'm saying is this. Human society needs to evolve, and we're not going to evolve by submitting to our negative instincts. yes, your ways are negative because innocent beings have to suffer so you can build your ego. Evolution isn't JUST about logic, it's also about morality. The society most decent people wanna work towards is a society that doesn't require suffering, selfishness, ignorance, apathy, or any of your tribal dominance BS.
Maybe logic and empthaty aren't joined at the hip, but they both have a needed purpose. You don't have a "god given right" to bully those weaker than you. Logic and empathy can co-exist, and if humanity ever makes it to become something, we make this trip TOGETHER. But obviously not with f**ktards like you.

Well, how does society need to evolve and why? So far, society has not seemed to seek evolution, as well, this has nothing to do with meaningless value statements of negative and positive and everything to do with human freedom of action and freedom of conscience. One may say that boxing, drinking, and pre-marital sex are bad but that does not mean that they need to be banned. Evolution IS about logic as it IS about improvement. If something does not logically make things better than it isn't an improvement. As well, I only argue that people should not abolish their "evils" by forcing their wills upon other people and a ban against certain actions in regards to living property is an example of exactly that. The comment about "decent people" does not really have any meaning in context of the philosophical dispute as well, there is no statistical interview of law-abiding citizens to go off of but I'd say that most decent people, where decent is defined as law-abiding, put the highest value upon their quality of life and that of their children, and allowing certain additional forms of use for living property does not interfere with those objectives and is more likely to promote them by allowing for more taxable income and more forms of entertainment.

Prove it. Prove that empathy towards animals is necessary for human society, or even necessary period. Our economic structure is not built on empathy, our political structure is not built upon empathy, our social structure is not built upon empathy. In fact, from examining the 3, empathy seems to be rather weak human emotion and not the driving force of society. As well, some political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes have argued that the rights of man do include the right to commit acts of violence upon our fellow men, and that society is built upon ideas of self-preservation. I never argued anything about a god given right, you are the proponent of rights arising from nothing here, I try to avoid the concept because of the impossible proof. If humanity ever makes it to become something all it needs is logic and logic alone, empathy does not create knowledge and knowledge is the pre-requisite for becoming something. Empathy is not required and many of our greatest civilizations rose with a lack or because of a lack of empathy. The man who doesn't think is the f**ktard though, not the man who does.

I give up arguing with you, you are truely one stupid son of a b***h.

Obviously as far as animals go, ones with enough cognitive ability to have personalities should be alittle different than an insect. That's common since. Look I don't give a f--k about your tribal domination s**t, or how humans are geared on it socially or economically, f**k all that s**t. Wrong is determined by making innocents suffer, if a dog, or a pig, or a cow for that matter, or a person, is abused for no apparent reason (that counts, bloodlust doesn't count you dumb ape) then it's wrong.... Freedom, but with some moral restraints... Do anything you want as long as you don't hurt an innocent victim. Fish, birds, and insects are fine, they have no cognitive abilities, and in so not having cognitive abilities, they have no resemblance to man..... Any animal that has some cognitive ability enough to show a personality obviously has alittle bit of humanity in them (not DNA, you hafta think and get a headache). Even then though, they shouldn't ever be tortured.

Perhaps what you should both do, now, is argue the other persons side without the insults and other unproductive things. This will provide each of you a chance to actually fully understand the other side. Honestly, I can see logic without compassion and logic WITH compassion.

awesomelyglorious,

So, basically what you're speaking of sort of similar to a simple caste system. Humans over animals because we have intellect, or the ability to dominate. Why stop the system, there? Can certain human's life be more valuable than others?

There is a veritable cornucopia of job opportunities in human slave trafficking. Can you imagine how much further medical testing could go with human experimentation? Going off the assession that morality is bunk, what makes my dog's life any more valuable than say, yo mama's? Given that she's probably wore out her useful years, in old age? Yes, it sounds extreme, but can you object "morally"? Individual perspective.

If I stab a cripple in the skull, I'm just helping humanity by weeding out the weak, then? Once again, just using your logic. Many people's totem poles just have more levels.

I have been thinking the same thing about you for quite some time given your poor attacks on my logic.

Why? No, it isn't common sense, common sense as I defined it earlier(well, technically Einstein) is not a valid proof of anything. Certainly it is a technical difference, but why should it constitute a moral difference? Why is wrong determined the way you claim it is? I purposefully based my claim upon ideas that required the fewest assumptions and tried to minimize all unjustifiable ones. How do you do the same thing? As well, human desire is an apparent reason, we have already accepted it as an apparent reason in our actions of meat consumption and animal testing, the only thing I stress now is logical consistency. Finally, what moral restraints? You have yet to proven objective morality, we already have the necessary restraints to function in our society, why should you impose more based solely off of your morality. If people agree with you they won't abuse animals, if they don't then why should you dictate their actions. I am a heterosexual but that doesn't mean I seek to prevent homosexual choices. Why should you attack the choice of a dog-fight lover?

I don't think that snake321 can even see my side, and I can argue against my animal rights position if I really wanted to, I am arguing my point for funsies more than any concern one way or another about the animals. I know I cannot argue for logic with empathy though, the position makes no sense to me from an epistemic stand point. We derive truth solely through observation or through logic, empathy relates to neither.
Absolutely, that already is true. Certain people are judged as being more valuable than others by society. If all people were valued as equal, then all people would have equal value in both the services they can provide and in the skills and talents that they have.
I already dealt with a lot of this. Slave trafficking is illegal mostly because of the fact that individuals don't want to be slaves, because of this we created laws so that we would never have to fear this happening to us. Human experimentation is the same thing. Really though, neither is wrong if individuals want to be slaves or lab rats, the majority don't and because they fear such an encroachment upon their own actions they make laws to prevent this. "Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself.'-Thomas Hobbes(note this is not so much of a moral statement as it is a statement of rule-utilitarianism, a philosophy which by your deontological standards could be considered relatively amoral), because we know that in the absence of laws protecting us from such things many other humans that we value would succumb to them, and possibly we would succumb to them, we create a state with laws to protect ourselves from this in order to promote the greater good and our collective self-interest. I make no moral claim about the value of your dog or of my mother. In fact, if we were in the absence of legal protection I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot killed both for the hell of it. The only thing is that there is a distinction between human and non-human within the context of human society, out of the spirit of rule-utilitarianism, we give ourselves and our fellow human beings rights in order to protect ourselves with that rule but because we can easily distinguish legally between animals and humans, an encroachment upon the freedom of animals does not interfere with the reason that human society was established and actually promotes the self-interested goals of that establishment. Individually speaking, it is alright for an individual to want to practice human sacrifice, but if he were to do so in violation of the interests of the sacrificed, the rest of the human population would hunt him down because he would be a threat to us.
No, you aren't helping out humanity at all by stabbing a cripple. What if individuals care about that cripple? You have just hurt their lives. Therefore, you have no legal freedom to kill the cripple, in the rules of our society, it has been deemed that your cripple stabbing is a threat to the rest of our collective interests because you still kill a member despite the legal structure, animals can never become members though so the protection cannot extend to them.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 08 Jan 2007, 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Can empathy not be 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you?' If you dont like being burned, should you burn others? Many kill but I don't think many want to BE killed.

Is judging others valuable? Someone may have skills they have not had the pleasure of utilizing, yet. In fact, many people, probably EVERYONE has a skill they don't know about.

As for mental abilities, everyone has the same starting ground for learning purposes so I imagine any mental knowledge can be obtained by anyone.

The Golden Rule is empathy, the Hobbesian inverse isn't.


Yes, it is valuable in order to allocate resources efficiently. Someone might have that kind of skill and in order to prove their worth to their fellows they have every incentive to find it, however, it would be impractical and inefficient to not judge based upon imperfect information.

Everyone knows just as little, but they don't have the same mental capabilities. Some people are born with greater learning capabilities born into them, and twin studies show that many mental characteristics are innate, these mental capabilities include IQ(although some environmental factors are important) and many success characteristics depend more upon the success of the parents by blood and not so much by the qualifications of the parents raising the child.

"Everyone knows just as little, but they don't have the same mental capabilities."

Depends how you view it. In 'A Beautiful Mind' you would call that man 'intelligent' but he only did one thing - math. Is intelligence based on what you dont know and someone else does? Is someone who is an expert in language intelligent even if they cannot do math at all?

How about a mechanic who knows everything about cars? How about someone with a memory that can dictate full books? I have a friend who isnt 'book smart' but when it comes to 'ingenuity' with his crafts, he is very capable. Is being 'innovative' intelligence, even if that person can't remember facts well?

We all have a deep level of mental capabilities but there are a number of things that prevent people's full potential. Everyone is good at something. I may not be able to knit but there are people that can whip out a sweater.

There are things that can prevent knowledge, such as a poor memory, amoung some. Brain decay and other mental conditions can also help. Generally, I think your intelligence lies within how focused you are but this is another discussion, isnt it? I think I changed topics a bit

Intelligence is relative and many people argue that there are multiple intelligences. The language expert is perfectly intelligent, at least in his field and that intelligence might be all he needs and it might be what society wants.
The mechanic has an intellectual gift as does the guy with the good memory as does the non-book smart friend as he is good at applying knowledge even if he is weaker as gaining it. The
Not necessarily true, what about those who suffer from major retardation? They tend to be weaker in conceptualization, application of knowledge, acquisition of knowledge and even physical skill. It can be argued that some are not good at anything relative to the rest of the population. The reason I speak of them is because they provide an obvious example of this. As well, even if they are all good at something does not mean that they are equally important, if we have a bajillion mechanics and only 3 doctors than the doctor will end up being more valuable than the mechanic as his talents and skills are rarer but dearly needed, if it is converse than it works the other way around as a mechanics skills can be rare and dear as well.

Well, the discussion of intelligence, and my intelligence in particular is a shift in topic, but not too unwelcome as I can tell you definitely are thinking on this issue and I respect thought. I would say I can be focused and I thank you for mentioning something so kindly. I would say that the examples you give showing your viewpoint are quite good and tend to show a good ability to think on an issue. I will refrain on a deeper comment on what I might hypothesize where your ability lay, but that is because I dislike imprecision and guesses.