houndred wrote:So why is it OK to kill non human beings but not humans (lets see if you can show any sort of consistency- my bet is that you can't)
I just explained this too you, because allowing the killing of other human beings would decrease overall happiness for the human race since we would all have to be a lot more on guard around others. Like Ayn Rand said it is in our own rational self-interest to not murder and steal from each other.
None of this is needed just because you kill cows because cows cannot retaliate or plan political schemes for the murder of human beings.
houndred wrote:Actually they pretty much are, espcially how you phrase them .You have not thought out any sort of moral framework.
Try harder.
I am a utilitarian, I believe in things because they work the best out of all possible solutions, this just so happens to also align pretty much perfectly with libertarian principles like the non-aggression principle or the fact that stealing is morally wrong. My principles do not clash with my utilitarianism like you claimed they would.
houndred wrote:Then there is the utiltarian (using the proper meaning of the word) that the sacrifice of a few innocents for the greater good is morally acceptable. For example (true story) the SOE in world war two killed several people who knew the exact date and place of D-Day when SOE knew that most if not all of them were almost certainly no risk at all. The risk of teh germans finding out the details would have put tens of thousands at risk. This was accepted by both the UK and US governments of the time as being unpleasant but necessary.
Even from a utilitarian aspect this can be argued against by saying that allowing the government to murder ''a few innocents'' gives them the authority to rule over the life and death of others and this will eventually lead to widescale murder which is not in the interest of the general population or their own happiness.
Saying government has the authority to kill in the name of the greater good is like saying the Crips gang has the authority to kill a few innocents in order to accomplish what they consider to be good, it is easy to see how giving the Crips the authority to murder people at will could spiral out of control and create a very evil society that does not increase overall happiness.
houndred wrote:So essentially you refute your own claim that there is a universal moral standard. All you are really claiming is that YOU have a baseline moral standard. I have baseline standards too just as Kman has no baseline standards- he just justifies his own previously held praxis....indeed this is what most people do.
The point is however that there is an underlying code underneath the chaotic mass of human action, a code which if you follow it increases aggregate happiness in society in the long term. That means that morality is not subjective but a fixed thing that we can discover.
houndred wrote:Lots of people have their own moral standards. Some actually rationally think them through, most ,like Kman, don't
Oh please, I have given this more thought than 99.9% of people out there because I actually find these types of philosophical questions mentally stimulating, you are just basically calling me stupid because you cannot understand what I am saying, nobody has ruled that you are an expert in this field and have the capability to judge whether a certain person is stupid or not. Maybe the truth is that
you are the one who has not given this enough thought?
houndred wrote:No one has ever been able to do that because morality is utterly subjective.
No it is not, there is a code out there for people to discover and if they can read this code they become more happy because being able to read this code that underlines human reality enables you to create a better functioning society that makes people happier.
houndred wrote:My primary axiom isa rule constrained reverse utilitarianism aka painism. That 'the good' is that we should take actions that minimise suffering(rather than maximising pleasure) within a framework of basic human rights.
Painism and ''Happinism'' (utilitarianism) are essentially the same thing, what I argue for would increase happiness IE it would reduce pain and misery so the two things are different descriptions of the same thing (I cannot remember the term for this concept).
houndred wrote:I extend that to all sentient beings on thenasis that if you feel pain then you have an interest in not doing so.
Why not? Just because someone inflicts pain on an animal does not mean they will do it on a human being and you are a human being so you should not care.
KlassWar wrote:Of course you have a duty to help someone in extreme distress when you can do so without risk to yourself! Folks shouldn't just be left to die and rot. Even if you do face risk of injury, you should help. You might not be required to, but you sure as Hell are obligated to call for fucking help.
You should not be obligated to do anything since that would establish a power relationship between human beings with an entity using force against an innocent person and that easily leads to very bad outcomes.