Postmodernism and moral relativism?

[pood]

For some people, eating meat is immoral. For some, abortion is immoral. We know that. So?

 

[excreationist]

You missed my point entirely. Most important, you see to continue to miss the fact that I am not arguing for a point-of-view independent morality. And you have largely ignored all the points I made.

If the method of infanticide was to expose the baby to the elements and recoiling from that was the reason for it being immoral - what about killing and preparing animals for meals? I think that would involve much more recoil so does that mean meat is even more immoral?
So I think meat is relevant because your key reason for infanticide being immoral is because people would "instinctively recoil" to it.

Are there other reasons why infanticide is immoral and killing and preparing animals isn't? I was just investigating your recoil argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

Yeah. Yesterday I was asking Google about a bristlecone pine on our local mountain.

Google told me the Raintree was 12' in diameter. The Raintree (no idea where the name comes from) truly is a large bristlecone pine on our local mountain. But it's about 6' in diameter and is not the tree I was looking for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

Yes I wanted to hear a very compact, in depth and easy to understand summary. My wife isn't capable of that. Plus it was easy to copy and paste but it would involve typing if someone else produced it. BTW I added the references now.

So you don't care whether it's telling the truth or not??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What does the history of infanticide, even on the doubtful premise that the AI summary is accurate, have to do with what I wrote — the post you responded to?

You wrote:
"Most people — apart from ethicists, maybe — would instinctively recoil at killing a newborn for any reason"

That is true in our culture but like I showed that isn't necessarily the case in other cultures - e.g. "Estimates suggest that in prehistoric times, 15–50% of children may have been victims of infanticide". Note it is based on Wikipedia and Britannica. Surely those two references are accurate.
Maybe they'd still "instinctively recoil" but they'd kill the baby anyway. In a similar way I think most people would "instinctively recoil" when killing an animal and preparing it for eating.

Just because it's sources are good doesn't mean the results are. AI is very prone to blending facts.

 

[pood]

You missed my point entirely. Most important, you see to continue to miss the fact that I am not arguing for a point-of-view independent morality. And you have largely ignored all the points I made.

If the method of infanticide was to expose the baby to the elements and recoiling from that was the reason for it being immoral - what about killing and preparing animals for meals? I think that would involve much more recoil so does that mean meat is even more immoral?
So I think meat is relevant because your key reason for infanticide being immoral is because people would "instinctively recoil" to it.

Are there other reasons why infanticide is immoral and killing and preparing animals isn't? I was just investigating your recoil argument.

Except that is not my argument, so there is that to consider.

 

[pood]

Let me try to restate it. I am not saying there is an objective morality mediated by whether we recoil from something. I do not believe there is an objective morality. I am saying that one metric among potentially many would be if you instinctively recoil from something, and then doing that something could be called immoral for you. However, I’m also saying that morality is not entirely subjective either, but intersubjective, and that most people, intersubjectively, would recoil from killing an infant, whereas far fewer, by contrast, would recoil from eating meat. So for most people killing an infant would be immoral but eating meat, not so much.

 

[TomC]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

Perhaps I misinterpreted the point to your post. This is not a history subforum or thread, it's about morality and ethics.

Lots of things I consider appalling were common in the primitive past. We've come a long way since then, at least sometimes. Infanticide is now (mostly) a thing of the past, although murderous tribalism is alive and well.
Tom

 

[excreationist]

most people, intersubjectively, would recoil from killing an infant, whereas far fewer, by contrast, would recoil from eating meat. So for most people killing an infant would be immoral but eating meat, not so much.

I was talking about killing an infant by leaving it out in the cold. I didn't talk about just eating meat - I talked about personally killing an animal and preparing it for eating by skinning it and pulling its guts out. I'd say most people would recoil more from personally killing and skinning and gutting an animal for meat than to leave a baby out in the cold. I think people would also recoil more from videos of killing, skinning and gutting an animal compared to leaving a baby out in the cold.

 

[excreationist]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

Perhaps I misinterpreted the point to your post. This is not a history subforum or thread, it's about morality and ethics.

It's about different cultures and lots of the different types are from the past.

Lots of things I consider appalling were common in the primitive past. We've come a long way since then, at least sometimes. Infanticide is now (mostly) a thing of the past, although murderous tribalism is alive and well.
Tom

That excerpt said:

Christianity strongly opposed infanticide, leading Roman emperors like Constantine the Great to ban it in the 4th century
- Infanticide has become rare in industrialized societies due to contraception, abortion, and social welfare systems.

So infanticide isn't an issue mainly because modern society is able to kill the foetus before birth - which wasn't as safe in the past. (and also it was banned in the Roman empire, etc)

 

[pood]

most people, intersubjectively, would recoil from killing an infant, whereas far fewer, by contrast, would recoil from eating meat. So for most people killing an infant would be immoral but eating meat, not so much.

I was talking about killing an infant by leaving it out in the cold. I didn't talk about just eating meat - I talked about personally killing an animal and preparing it for eating by skinning it and pulling its guts out. I'd say most people would recoil more from personally killing and skinning and gutting an animal for meat than to leave a baby out in the cold. I think people would also recoil more from videos of killing, skinning and gutting an animal compared to leaving a baby out in the cold.

Leaving aside the fact that once again you are totally failing to engage with my actual argument, I can only say WTF? to the above post. You really think most people would recoil more from killing and skinning and gutting an animal for meat than for leaving a baby out to die in the cold?? You do realize, perhaps, that hunters and fishers do the former thing all the time, everywhere, and there are vast numbers of recreational and professional hunters and fishers? Honesty, I had to read that three times to make sure you were really saying what you were saying.

 

[excreationist]

if you instinctively recoil from something, and then doing that something could be called immoral for you.

It seems you're talking about me and I guess you.
And the (updated) examples I'm giving are - leaving a newborn baby in the cold, going away, and coming back later - vs personally killing, skinning and gutting a large mammal with a knife.

most people, intersubjectively, would recoil from killing an infant, whereas far fewer, by contrast, would recoil from eating meat. So for most people killing an infant would be immoral but eating meat, not so much.

Do you see the problem with you summarising my example of killing and preparing an animal with just "eating meat".

Do you realize that "recreational and professional hunters and fishers" aren't "most people". The animals I'm talking about are mammals not fish like the fishers would be used to.

So I'd recoil more from having to personally use a knife on a large mammal vs leaving a baby in the cold and coming back and you did say "could be called immoral for you".

Anyway you seem to only be talking about modern people and modern people might have been raised to care more about infants than animals - but that is how they're raised rather than it involving instinctive recoiling.

 

[excreationist]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

Yes I wanted to hear a very compact, in depth and easy to understand summary. My wife isn't capable of that. Plus it was easy to copy and paste but it would involve typing if someone else produced it. BTW I added the references now.

So you don't care whether it's telling the truth or not??

Well my wife and family know basically nothing about infanticide and the AI was based on Wikipedia and Britannica. I read through it and it seemed ok. Even if many of its points were hallucinations the main point remains - that infanticide was widespread in many cultures. I wanted a summary and Wikipedia's summary would be too long (the entire article) or too short (the opening paragraph). I didn't want to type out my own summary. If people don't like the AI summary they can look at the references links.

 

[pood]

So I'd recoil more from having to personally use a knife on a large mammal vs leaving a baby in the cold and coming back and you did say "could be called immoral for you".

Most people that kill, skin, and gut an animal do so to eat. There are plenty of people throughout the world even today who have to do that. They can’t just stroll over to the corner grocery store. And, of course, the grocery store contains meat from animals that were killed barbarically.

And, by the way, fish feel pain, are sentient, and have other fish as friends. Goldfish can recognize individual humans. I regard hunting or fishing as repellant unless there is no alternative other than starve.

So, yes, I think the best thing is if everyone could be vegetarian or vegan, but that is not going to happen.

But I also think that if you regard hunting or fishing as more morally repellant than leaving an infant out in the cold to die, then that says a lot about you that if I were you I wouldn’t want to reveal.

I still can’t really fathom what point you are struggling to make with respect to this thread.

 

[pood]

Anyway you seem to only be talking about modern people and modern people might have been raised to care more about infants than animals - but that is how they're raised rather than it involving instinctive recoiling.

Maybe, maybe not, but why do you keep laboring this point in speaking to someone who has repeatedly said that he does not believe there is some objective morality?

Of course, most people in the past who practiced passive or active infanticide probably did so not because they reveled in killing babies, but out of perceived necessity, such as, for example, they deemed the baby too weak or deformed to survive. Social animals in the wild do this, too, But again, what is your point? We know that moral standards change over time. So what?

 

[pood]

most people, intersubjectively, would recoil from killing an infant, whereas far fewer, by contrast, would recoil from eating meat. So for most people killing an infant would be immoral but eating meat, not so much.

I was talking about killing an infant by leaving it out in the cold. I didn't talk about just eating meat - I talked about personally killing an animal and preparing it for eating by skinning it and pulling its guts out. I'd say most people would recoil more from personally killing and skinning and gutting an animal for meat than to leave a baby out in the cold. I think people would also recoil more from videos of killing, skinning and gutting an animal compared to leaving a baby out in the cold.

Let me address this claim again. What is your evidence for it?

If it were really true that most people would recoil from personally killing and skinning and gutting an animal, than they would from leaving a baby out to die in the cold, then we should expect to see more babies left out to die in the cold than we do animals killed, skinned and gutted.

But, we don’t.

 

[excreationist]

Most people that kill, skin, and gut an animal do so to eat.

Though some do it for the fur or for taxidermy. Let's say it was just for fur and not food. I'm trying to make my argument as strong as possible. The point is about instinctive recoil - not whether they're doing it for a good reason.
Note you said:

if you instinctively recoil from something, and then doing that something could be called immoral for you

So I thought we'd talk about me and you, not a minority of modern people who don't have a problem cutting the fur off of a large mammal.

most people, intersubjectively, would recoil from killing an infant, whereas far fewer, by contrast, would recoil from eating meat. So for most people killing an infant would be immoral but eating meat, not so much.

I was talking about killing an infant by leaving it out in the cold. I didn't talk about just eating meat - I talked about personally killing an animal and preparing it for eating by skinning it and pulling its guts out. I'd say most people would recoil more from personally killing and skinning and gutting an animal for meat than to leave a baby out in the cold. I think people would also recoil more from videos of killing, skinning and gutting an animal compared to leaving a baby out in the cold.

Let me address this claim again. What is your evidence for it?

If it were really true that most people would recoil from personally killing and skinning and gutting an animal, than they would from leaving a baby out to die in the cold, then we should expect to see more babies left out to die in the cold than we do animals killed, skinned and gutted.

But, we don’t.

A thing to keep in mind is that in our society it is illegal to leave a baby to die in the cold. And it is perfectly legal to kill certain animals. And a reason it is so common is because people get paid to do it.
"If it were really true that most people would recoil"
I think people who have no problem with personally killing, skinning and gutting animals are a minority on our modern culture.

 

[pood]

I don’t know where this stupid conversation is going, so talk to yourself. Someone who actually believes more people would recoil at killing animals than leaving a baby out in the cold to die is wrong and clueless.

 

[excreationist]

I don’t know where this stupid conversation is going, so talk to yourself. Someone who actually believes more people would recoil at killing animals than leaving a baby out in the cold to die is wrong and clueless.

I’m saying it isn’t the instinctual recoil but partly to do with the laws in our society (against mistreating a baby). And it is the skinning and gutting that would cause me to recoil the most, not the killing.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So, this whole fucking thread is more YouTube bullshit.

Also more AI bullshit, it's sad people are now relying on AI so much to "think" for them.