Not all people care about well being

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Bahamut
Total Posts:  6
Joined  19-01-2011
 
 
 
10 February 2011 14:31
 

The claim that what humans value the most is well being is the foundation for most of The Moral Landscape, however you can easily see how human and animal well-being has had no value for many tribes and cultures.

People sacrifice animals. People kill, mistreat, hurt each other. If we valued well-being over all else, this wouldn’t happen, not so much.

We value our SELF well-being, that much is true, but the well-being of others? Not really, not unless under an imaginary utopia of all people living in harmony or something of the sort.

I’m just confused about this. I’m struggling to understand. Any comments deeply appreciated.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
11 February 2011 18:51
 

Are you saying that you don’t value the well-being of others as much as your own well-being, or are you saying that you don’t at all value the well-being of anyone other than yourself? (Or more likely, something else, right?)

I noticed in a neighboring thread that you seem to value the life of your cat more than the lives of human strangers. What is your reference position—that is, are you referring to your visceral feelings (visceral morality, in a sense), or to your intellectual take (considered morality, so to speak)?

 
 
MarcoTenshi
 
Avatar
 
 
MarcoTenshi
Total Posts:  22
Joined  13-10-2007
 
 
 
20 April 2011 08:15
 

Soooo the only description of morality you would subscribe to is one that miraculously, or by convoluted design, describes precisely the way people happen to behave anyway? As if the only valid description of morality is one in which it is impossible to behave immorally?

This is kind of similar to the view people have of international affairs. People just say “thats not our business because its their country…how does it affect us?”. There is only 1 planet and 1 human race. We are connected. Imaginary international borders don’t change that.

When you think about something like people mistreating people you think about it in a very insulated benign way. “Why shouldn’t you mistreat others?” But thats the wrong point of view. A better point of view is “do you want to be in a world where it is OK for people to mistreat people??”. When you put it in real terms it is very different. The system can be fair or unfair. Most of the ways of it being unfair are cruel to you. Few of the unfair systems are disproportionately generous to you. If you endorse a world where mistreating people is OK, you will get mistreated. You endorse a world where its not OK and you wont. And no-one will.

 
buybuydandavis
 
Avatar
 
 
buybuydandavis
Total Posts:  41
Joined  04-06-2010
 
 
 
24 April 2011 02:02
 
Bahamut - 10 February 2011 07:31 PM

The claim that what humans value the most is well being is the foundation for most of The Moral Landscape

Sam’s argument is that you *should* value the well being of all conscious creatures, not that you do. Now, I don’t find your confusion that surprising, because Sam’s argument isn’t particularly coherent. But the fundamental broad claims are that there is a single objective morality, and that the Well Being of Conscious Creatures provides the standard by which one judges whether an action is good or bad; that which increases WBCC is good, that which decreases it is bad.

Sam is actually trodding down a path travelled with much more agility and vigor by Ayn Rand. I don’t agree with Rand either, but she makes a credible attempt to bridge the is ought gap, while Sam does not. If Sam were really aware of Rand’s argument, no doubt he would be appalled at the similarity, and embarrassed at how poorly he does in comparison.

 
buybuydandavis
 
Avatar
 
 
buybuydandavis
Total Posts:  41
Joined  04-06-2010
 
 
 
24 April 2011 02:07
 
nonverbal - 11 February 2011 11:51 PM

I noticed in a neighboring thread that you seem to value the life of your cat more than the lives of human strangers.

Most people with pets in the developed world do. We spend enough on food, medical care, and grooming of one pet to feed a poor family, or a few, in the undeveloped world.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
toombaru
Total Posts:  800
Joined  12-11-2010
 
 
 
24 April 2011 14:38
 
buybuydandavis - 24 April 2011 06:07 AM
nonverbal - 11 February 2011 11:51 PM

I noticed in a neighboring thread that you seem to value the life of your cat more than the lives of human strangers.

Most people with pets in the developed world do. We spend enough on food, medical care, and grooming of one pet to feed a poor family, or a few, in the undeveloped world.

And what exactly would you do about that?
Mao raged against keeping dogs and had his people kill them for food.
It is easy to rail against the perceived conditions of the world and offer simplistic solutions.
Are you a Democrat?

 
buybuydandavis
 
Avatar
 
 
buybuydandavis
Total Posts:  41
Joined  04-06-2010
 
 
 
24 April 2011 15:26
 
toombaru - 24 April 2011 06:38 PM
buybuydandavis - 24 April 2011 06:07 AM

Most people with pets in the developed world do. We spend enough on food, medical care, and grooming of one pet to feed a poor family, or a few, in the undeveloped world.

And what exactly would you do about that?

I pointed out that most people routinely violate maximizing WBCC, or “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”. I didn’t say or even imply that *I* considered these actions a problem, and certainly gave no indication that Something Must Be Done about it.