šeštadienis, vasario 19, 2011

Universali etika

Puiki prezentacija apie universalią etiką.

8 komentarai:

  1. Pažiūrėjau šį pristatymą, paskaitinėjau knygą (tiesa, dar ne visą) ir kilo klausimas, kaip universali etika vertina gyvūnų teises? Kaip suprantu, gyvūnų išnaudojimas "cannot be a morally neutral action, since it is a preference that is enforced upon another." Tad turime du pasirinkimus - arba tai moralus veiksmas, arba amoralus. Pasiskaičius skyrelius "rape" ir "murder" atrodo, kad universali etika būtų už tai, kad gyvūnų išnaudojimą paskelbti amoraliu. Ar vis gi klystu?

    AtsakytiPanaikinti
  2. Nežinau Stefan'o nuomonės šiuo klausimu, bet mano supratimu nėra prasmės kalbėti apie rūšies teises, jei jos atstovai jų nesuvokia ir per savo gyvenimą nesuvoks (skirtingai nuo vaikų, kurie užaugę teisių koncepciją suvokti tampa pajėgūs), todėl agresiją prieš gyvūnus (ir augalus, kurie, beje, irgi galima manyti, kad turi tam tikras preferencijas, pvz. stiebtis į saulę) reiktų priskirti prie aestethically negative veiksmų kategorijos.

    AtsakytiPanaikinti
  3. Stef on vegetarism:

    "To me, there are some practical considerations to questions of vegetarianism that I think are important to remember, outside of the moral arguments that are put forward in my book.

    It is true that a highly retarded human being may not be a whole lot more intelligent than a chimpanzee, but the reality is that very few people want to eat either apes or people, so I don't consider that to be a highly pressing issue, to say the least.

    Secondly, I do think that it is a slippery slope to say that eating plants is "better" than eating animals -- plants certainly seem capable of feeling pain, and I'm not sure where the clear demarcation is between, say, lizards and plants -- if we are going to say that it is okay to eat the category "plants" but not "lizards" - then we are already saying that a category called "less intelligent/less aware" is okay to eat, which also would include "humans" versus "animals/plants."

    Thirdly, I think it's also important to remember that if we stop eating animals, we will not treat the ones we have better -- which certainly would be great of course -- but all that will happen is that we will have fewer animals. It seems quite possible that cows would become extinct -- or close to it -- and perhaps chickens and pigs as well, so I'm not sure that would be a better solution for them.

    Fourthly, one of the reasons I think that animals are treated quite badly in domestication -- and why we eat them in such quantities -- is because the true cost of meat is obscured by near-universal government subsidies. Of course we are all aware of the fact that it takes 7 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of meat -- as well as a prodigious amount of extra water -- and yet grain does not cost a tiny percentage of meat -- that is because of government subsidies, which of course should be -- and would be -- eliminated in a voluntary society. This would result in vastly increased prices of meat, relative to vegetables and grains, which would reduce demand, and thus reduce the number of domesticated animals designated for slaughter.

    Fifthly, if we do have the goal of raising our empathy towards animals -- which I think is a fine idea -- then I think that we face the requirements to first raise people's empathy towards human beings, which seems far easier, although still terrifically difficult.

    For instance, it seems impossible to imagine that Americans would become more empathetic towards animals before they become more empathetic to the victims of US imperialism, such as the innocent Iraqi civilians who are murdered by the tens of thousands.

    Thus the goal of raising empathy towards animals has to go through the requirement of raising empathy towards humans. And of course there is no way to raise empathy towards others without raising empathy towards oneself, which is the great challenge of self-knowledge and gentleness with the self.

    The elimination of cruelty towards animals would seem to me to be only achievable after the elimination of cruelty towards the self, and cruelty towards other human beings, particularly children -- thus I think that the goals of this philosophy conversation are necessary prerequisites for the goals of animal rights activists, and so I am sure that we can work together to achieve the necessary empathy within the human race that serve both of our goals of elevating the moral sentiments of mankind. :)"

    AtsakytiPanaikinti
  4. Bandau ieškoti knygoje, bet nerandu teigiant, kad teises gali turėti tik jas suvokiantieji. Iš tikro, apskritai nerandu, kur apibrėžiama, su kokiais objektais elgesys gali būti vertinamas kaip (a)moralus. Ar tik su tais, kurie suvokia moralę? Kaip tuomet rimtą (jeigu reikia - įgimtą) protinę negalią turintys žmonės?
    Ką radau susijusio, tai pastraipą, sakančią, jog moralės nesuvokiantieji nesielgia nei blogai, nei gerai, tačiau iš to neaišku, kaip vertinti elgesį su jais pačiais: "where choice is absent, or inapplicable, morality is also absent, or inapplicable. Thus the man in a coma, while his actions cannot be considered evil, neither can they be considered good. He exists in the state without choice, like an infant, or an animal – thus he can be reasonably exempted from moral rules, since there is a physical state that objectively differentiates him from a man who can choose, which is allowable under UPB."

    AtsakytiPanaikinti
  5. Ačiū, outsider, padėjo susidaryti kiek platesnį vaizdą, nors kai kurių teiginių teisingumu ir abejoju (pvz.: "plants certainly seem capable of feeling pain") Vis gi jeigu grįžtant prie etikos, tai man įdomu, ką Stefan turi galvoje sakydamas "there are some [...] moral arguments that are put forward in my book", nes nepamenu kad knygoje būtų kalbama apie vegetarizmą (apie gyvūnų teisės užsimenama, tačiau jokie argumentai neišplėtojami ir skyrelis baigiamas kaip "gray area")

    AtsakytiPanaikinti
  6. Pabandyk pagooglinti "plants" ir "pain", turėtum rasti medžiagos. Va vienas šaltinis su nuoroda į atliktą studiją - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_a_plant_feel_pain_without_a_nervous_system

    Bet kokiu atveju, ar organizmas jaučia skausmą, kai jį žudai / žaloji, ar ne nagrinėjant platesnį moralės klausimą yra +/- nesvarbu. Skausmas yra indikatorius, reakcija, jeigu organizmas negeba jausti / parodyti, kad jam vienaip ar skauda, nereiškia, kad jam nedaroma žala.

    Dabar pamenu knygoje į temą vieną vietą (gal yra ir daugiau): 90-92 psl., skyreliai "Don't Eat Fish" ir Animal Rights.

    O šiaip http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/ galima rasti intelektualių diskusijų šia tema, tik dabar, kaip tyčia, nei vienos per paiešką nerandu :)

    AtsakytiPanaikinti
  7. OK, žiūrėsiu anglišką forumą.

    Kas liečia knygą, tai joje gyvūnų teisės labai silpnai tepaliestos ir likę daug neatsakytų klausimų.

    AtsakytiPanaikinti