(Untitled)

[proteinjello]

The most important idea that I am thinking about right now is the question of what makes people's actions moral or immoral. Some of my friends and I have discussed this at great length and they have come to the conclusion that morality is based in innate human worth, which I agree with. They claim, however that this worth is rooted in human

Comments

case specific

[anonymous]

A question: what defines a person? I would suggest awareness of the self as a seperate conceptual entity. Awareness of the self as abstract, or maybe capability thereof. This is what allows an individual to make moral decisions. Without this an entity is an animal. Is it immoral to kill animals? Sometimes. It's a case by case basis, I think. An individual would need to be too retarded to be a person in order for them to be exempt from morality. It's basically a responsibility that comes with an ability. Now I believe there are situations in which it is morally feasible to kill: for instance, in defense of the innocent. You're leaning towards the Kantean, if you wish to avoid case-by-case anlysis. What do you think?

-Jace

[anonymous]

Yeah, I think moral responsibility comes from one's ability to see oneself objectively, because he can then think of how he wants to be treated, and understand that that's how others should be treated (given he thinks objectively about how he should be treated). I have thought of what you said, Ali, and you're right about that. I know it wouldn't be moral to use or kill a severely retarded person, but based on the idea that peoples' worth comes from their ability to conceptualize truth and use reason, it would be perfectly okay. But if a person can't see himself objectively, or conceptualize truth, what makes him human? Sure he's of the human species, but what stops him from being an animal? Nothing I can think of. That's a tricky question. Would it be okay to slaughter him and eat him, or keep him chained up in the back yard as a pet? I think not, but I couldn't tell you why. What do y'all think?

[anonymous]

Yeah, Jace, that person would be exempt from moral responsibility, but should they then be treated as an animal?

-Kelly (that last one was me, too)

Haha, it just asked me to confirm that I'm human by typing these letters and numbers at the bottom. Maybe that's all it takes.

[anonymous]

I think in certain situations it would be morally permissible to eat this person or chain them, if the situation called for it. Like, if you couldn't keep them in the house and they liked the yard: chain em. If you're on a boat and people are starving: eat em. Cruelty is never permissible however. Cruelty as defined by wantonness. I mean, this individual would practically have to be a vegetable to be without moral choice. Was the Chief reprehensible in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?

-Jace

All dogs go to heaven.

[anonymous]

Yeah, I guess cruelty is the idea I was searching for, because I think that applies to treatment of animals, as well. No, I don't think the chief was reprehensible. Certainly if someone's a vegetable, then their life doesn't make much of a difference either way. And besides, that's a sorry state for a person to live in. But the middle ground between vegetation and cognition is what I'm looking at. And I suppose there really is no reason to make the distinction between an animal-like human being (ie one without any faculties of reason) and an animal. I just brought it up because my gut feeling told me otherwise.
-Kelly

[styleless]

i love you and i miss you.

[styleless]

Stay out of this!!

Ali

[styleless]

Is your relationship now so demanding that you can't ever update?

-Jace

Re: Ali

[styleless]

You're one to talk, Jace.