I really need to be doing things...

[avevale_intelligencer]

...but I can't let this go. Someone (whom I won't name because I don't know if they want their LJ and FB identities linked) just quoted on Facebook:

"Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religon is doing whatever you are told no matter what is right."

As an example of the statement that sounds good without at any point touching on truth, I don't think that can be bettered, and it shows up how insidiously persuasive a nice jingly Wildean paradox can be--I almost found myself nodding sagely at it for a second. But good grief, morality is *all about* what we're told--morality is tribal. And as for the stupid, facile old canard about religion being mindless obedience, I don't even need to bother refuting that, do I? I'm sure I've done it before, anyway, and I haven't got the spare computer time right now.

So, let's compose some nice jingly Wildean paradoxes.

"Bacon and eggs are tasty without being healthy. Muesli is healthy without being tasty."

See how it works? You have a try. See how convincing you can make any old rubbish just by balancing two phrases one against the other.

I'll check back tonight. I may award points.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm cool with using "morality" and "ethics" in this way, and in fact, did so for years, until (I think) I started running into the "2 point vs 5 point system of morality" thing.

And yes, your point about reason having primacy is why I think that "religion means doing what you're told regardless of what is right" is not a fair generalization. (This actually gets back to the five point system of morality (meaning ethics in this case) under "enforce submission to authority"--conservatives generally consider this part of ethical behavior, liberals don't; I don't, hence the alignment here.)

Trying to alleviate the suffering of animals is going to get you into a real can of worms, of course. Alleviating the suffering of domestic animals is comparatively easy (and one can make a real case we have more responsibility to relive suffering resulting from our actions than to relieve suffering we didn't cause) so I think it's reasonable that people tend to concentrate on that. But really, once one starts considering the suffering of, say, cottontails, as being as important as the suffering of, say, kindergarteners, what do we do? Do we keep wolves from chasing them, mauling and killing them? We would certainly defend, uh, "feral kindergarteners"(oxymoron alert) from wolves. But then what about the poor starving wolves? Going hungry is suffering too.

And at what point does an animal become simple enough that we don't need to care anymore? (2nd can of worms) Do we worry about the suffering of mice? Slugs? Amoebae? Do slime molds count as animals? What about yeast? Bacteria?

Anyway, I guess I'm seriously digressing. Sorry. While I'm bringing up issues I see with the ideas you mentioned, I don't want to suggest that I think you shouldn't mention them or anything.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

And at what point does an animal become simple enough that we don't need to care anymore?

I think we care should about animals/people in proportion to how much they're able to suffer, and to appreciate being alive. When the decision is a life or death one, that includes how much they will be able to appreciate being alive in the future (this is why I place a high value on the lives of human embryoes/foetuses).

With bacteria and yeast, all evidence we have suggests these abilities are at zero, or something very close to zero.

Animal suffering that isn't caused by human beings is, as you say, a massive can of worms. But part of Utilitarianism involves spending your time and money on the most cost effective interventions, and at the moment I can't think of any way of preventing non-human-caused animal suffering which is definitely more effective than all the ways we have of preventing human suffering and human-caused animal suffering.

If we were living in a Utopia where all humans lived blissfully happy lives where they didn't hurt animals at all, I could see there would be some thorny issues (perhaps we should prevent all carnivores from breeding until they die out, while managing the ecosystem to make sure that doesn't cause disaster? perhaps we should genetically modify them so they can live on plants?) but since that isn't ever likely to happen, I'm not too concerned about it (though it's vaguely interesting to think about).

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think we care should about animals/people in proportion to how much they're able to suffer, and to appreciate being alive.

So moral status based on central nervous system development as a rule of thumb. Okay. This seems reasonable. Indeed more reasonable than treating chimpanzees as though they had the mental capacity of slugs.

And I agree that it makes more sense to spend our time and energy where the improvement in happiness will be greater, and thus wild animals interactions with each other should be beyond the scope of this inquiry at this time.

I think where I depart from utilitarianism is that there are some things I think are not okay even if they would lead to a net improvement in happiness. Murdering one person with a particularly fortunate (or unfortunate) tissue type in order to provide replacement organs for two people (or ten people) who will die without them, for example. I just can't make my gut happy with that. Greatest-good-of-the-greatest-number-wise it seems to make sense, but...no.

So the fetuses thing for me--well, of course in one's own personal decisions one can put oneself at any disadvantage one likes--but in practice in society this works out to either we force pregnant women to carry unwanted fetuses to term to produce unwanted babies or we don't. And I can't get past the unfairness of enslaving women, (and only women) to save fetuses, and only fetuses (we don't enslave people to be hooked up to Uncle Walter to act as Uncle Walter's kidneys, even if Uncle Walter will die without it), to say but so many more people will be alive, and some of them will be happy--let's do it.

(For that matter there is the issue of who gets tapped to support the unwanted babies; they will be something like 25% of the birth cohort, at least in the US.)

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I just can't make my gut happy with that. Greatest-good-of-the-greatest-number-wise it seems to make sense, but...no.

It doesn't make sense to me in Utilitarian terms either, primarily because of the fear it will cause among the general population that they or someone they love will be singled out to provide tissue for others. Also because the survival rates for people with organ transplants aren't great and because it would be unecessary if we simply moved to an opt-out system for organ donation rather than the current opt-in one.

I don't think there's any clear cut Utilitarian answer to what the legal status of abortion should be (other than really obvious things like 'it should be legal if the mother's life is at risk').