arndt@lymph.DEC (04/05/85)
[ WARNING: not for the squeamish! - of course now everyone will read on]
Since we had such fun with the Hitler quote about nature being cruel,
I should send over my answer, I thought we might try again with the
following:
From MACAU, by Daniel Carney, (he also wrote WILD GEESE)
This is a great adventure story, by the way!
"First a jar of boiling oil was wheeled forward on a trolly. Beside it
was placed a large razor-sharp cleaver. With a flourish a waiter
pulled away the white table cloth, revealing a hole in the center of
the table through which was thrust a monkey, its arms strapped tightly
to its sides. The monkey's wide eyes were pierced through with fear,
and as its head rose above the level of the table it opened its mouth
wide and screamed, a sound like that of a terrified child. Thomas Wu,
with an expert flick of the cleaver, severed the crown from the monkey's
head. Immediately the boiling oil was poured over its brain and the
diners surged forward with their long-handled spoons to dig out the
still-quivering delicacy."
********************************
My question this time is . . . "Why should it not be a CHILD instead of a
monkey??? (of course an unwanted child with birth defects who can't speak
and whom we don't recognize as 'human' therefore)
Appeals to 'religious tradition' need not apply! Because we all know the
great Uibzmo doesn't exist anyway beyond the fever swamp mentality of the
unliberated 'religious believers' and of course remember, the LAW is
what people SAY it is in any given time or place, and who are YOU to
push YOUR morals down anyone else's throat . . . if you find the above
question answerable beyond "not here, you don't" but "it shouldn't happen
anywhere", I'd like to know . . . WHY???
Note:
I could have just as easily asked where do morals come from . . . yawn!
This way (MY way) maybe we can get the juices flowing and get motivated to
brace the question . . . since it may be the NEXT frontier to cross into the
Dark Ages we seem to be plunging into headlong.
GOURMET RIGHTS!!!!
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndt
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/06/85)
Dear Ken, that one is a lot easier than your first question. The quick answer is that you could use a child as easily as the monkey. Immorality is not a smooth scale function -- one you hit the treshhold you are doing something immoral -- period. Killing 5 men is not 5 times as immoral as killing 1 man. I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I think that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is necessary for our survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for killing human beings). Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/06/85)
Ken Arndt asks about the morality of cutting half the head off a live monkey, exposing the brain, pouring boiling oil on the brain, and then eating it. He wants to know why it couldn't be a human child instead. Good question, Ken. Once you've answered that one, how about these: Suppose the monkey were anesthetized first, so it felt no pain and no fear? Would that change matters? Suppose the monkey were killed by more conventional means, say, like the means used to kill cattle. Would that change the situation? What if some other animal were substituted for the monkey? Most people (myself included) have no qualms about eating the flesh of dead animals and birds.
gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (04/07/85)
> > My question this time is . . . "Why should it not be a CHILD instead of a > monkey??? (of course an unwanted child with birth defects who can't speak > and whom we don't recognize as 'human' therefore) > Dark Ages we seem to be plunging into headlong. > Ken Arndt I don't see why the Gods have to be left out! There have been many throughout history that required human sacrifices and a good number of Gods worshiped by cannibalistic nations/tribes. Being easter we could talk about the drinking of the blood (ew yuck) of Christ. The Catholics in the crowd might argue that this has ritual and symbolic meaning. I would argue that the nations that practice sacrifices (human or otherwise) don't just do it for the h--- of it. But I'm side stepping Ken's and my own original question: where do morals come from... D---ed if I know. larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile
gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (04/08/85)
> I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I think > that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is necessary for > our survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for killing human beings). > Laura Creighton This is all well and good, but what about the grey areas such as: "We must eliminate _______ for our survival as a people." fill in the balank with your favourite of the following honkies, nazis, jews, commies, THEM, politicians, etc. Basically my question to you is: What constitutes survival? larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/08/85)
Grey areas mean that you either do not have enough information, have conflictin information, or do not understand how to evaluate the information that you do have. ``It is necessary for our survival to kill all the X'', however, is not a particularily good example of this. If you were a Nazi, the Jews were not a real threat to your survival -- whereas if you were a Jew, the Nazis really were. The really difficult cases are when the outcomes of your action are fundamentally impossible to ascertain -- and you need a decision *now*. Here is a research project which will kill dozens of rats. Scientist Frozzbozz says that the research is investigating an area which is likely to cast light on the problem of why humans develop bone cancer. Scientist Gimble says that the area of Frozzbozz's proposed research has already been well mined and it would be another pointless experiment which would yield useless results. Both Gimble and Frozzbozz are sincere. Do you okay the experiment? It depends on whom you believe... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura ps -- I have a long article half written which talks about where morals come from in the general case.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/08/85)
Small questions emante from ... > From MACAU, by Daniel Carney, (he also wrote WILD GEESE) > This is a great adventure story, by the way! > > "First a jar of boiling oil was wheeled forward on a trolly. Beside it > was placed a large razor-sharp cleaver. With a flourish a waiter > pulled away the white table cloth, revealing a hole in the center of > the table through which was thrust a monkey, its arms strapped tightly > to its sides. The monkey's wide eyes were pierced through with fear, > and as its head rose above the level of the table it opened its mouth > wide and screamed, a sound like that of a terrified child. Thomas Wu, > with an expert flick of the cleaver, severed the crown from the monkey's > head. Immediately the boiling oil was poured over its brain and the > diners surged forward with their long-handled spoons to dig out the > still-quivering delicacy." > > ******************************** > > My question this time is . . . "Why should it not be a CHILD instead of a > monkey??? (of course an unwanted child with birth defects who can't speak > and whom we don't recognize as 'human' therefore) Because human society decided (quite rationally) that human beings' lives are not things to be toyed with, that each human being has rights to life, and that (more often than not) human beings are not food. The value of human beings' lives is considered a priority of our morality. > Appeals to 'religious tradition' need not apply! Damn right! > Because we all know the great Ubizmo doesn't exist anyway beyond the fever > swamp mentality of the unliberated 'religious believers' and of course > remember, the LAW is what people SAY it is in any given time or place, and who > are YOU to push YOUR morals down anyone else's throat . . . if you find the > above question answerable beyond "not here, you don't" but "it shouldn't > happen anywhere", I'd like to know . . . WHY??? Because some people realize that if you make "certain" human lives dispensable, your life could be the next one in the dispensable pile. Honestly, Ken, why are your gross and inept questions always so easy to answer? > Note: > I could have just as easily asked where do morals come from . . . yawn! Me, too! Goodnight, indeed. Hasn't that been answered? They come from the requirements of a society to hold itself together and survive. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/08/85)
> I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I think > that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is necessary for > our survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for killing human beings). > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura Unless you're a vegetarian, Laura, remind me never to share a life raft with you. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "If a machine had broken down, it would have been replaced immediately, but who can replace a man?"-the penner (Aldiss)
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (04/08/85)
In article <1521@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: >My question this time is . . . "Why should it not be a CHILD instead of a >monkey??? Yuch. Because I don't even find it attractive with monkeys. See "INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM" for illustration. "You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss $3 goodbye!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/09/85)
>I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I >think that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is >necessary for survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for >killing human beings). >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura Unless you're a vegetarian, Laura, remind me never to share a life raft with you. -- Jeff Sonntag Interestingly, I have just gotten to ``life raft situations'' in the magnum opus I keep warning you gang about. I'm a vegetarian, but I think that Jeff would be better off on a life raft with someone else. If it becomes necessary for me to kill him in order to survive, I will find the action moral... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/09/85)
In article <5426@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I think >that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is necessary for >our survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for killing human beings). > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura So, they ate the brains. Food is necessary for survival. The monkey's death is justified and moral. Why do you contradict yourself in the above paragraph? -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (04/10/85)
> Interestingly, I have just gotten to ``life raft situations'' in the > magnum opus I keep warning you gang about. I'm a vegetarian, but I > think that Jeff would be better off on a life raft with someone else. > If it becomes necessary for me to kill him in order to survive, I > will find the action moral... > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura If the other person on the raft is more likely to survive than you, are you willing to sacrifice yourself, Laura? Or is this just "Oh, I thought of eating you first."? Marie desJardins marie@harvard
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/10/85)
Richard, I don't see the contradiction. It is necessary to eat, yes, but it is not necessary to eat monkeys brains. If the gourmets had been starving in the jungle and come across a monkey, my position on the morality of eating monkeys brains would be different. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (04/11/85)
-- > Since we had such fun with the Hitler quote about nature being cruel, > I should send over my answer, I thought we might try again with the > following: > ... [deep-fried monkey brains] ... > My question this time is . . . "Why should it not be a CHILD instead > of a monkey??? ... > Note: > I could have just as easily asked where do morals come from. > Yawn. > Ken Arndt Let's see... If Ken Arndt fell under the table, would he make a sound? Would it be spelled correctly? You asked once before where morals came from, you lovable Leo Buscaglia clone you, but all you do is snipe at poor souls (and rich Rosens) while they agonize--or paint--over the delaminations in their moral fiberglass. You give the distinct impression that the acid test of a morality (amorality?) is in its answers. Well that's boring. No moral code worth its pillar of salt is lacking vast cracks and crevasses. I'll go further than that--a moral code with easy answers to hard questions is at least suspect, if not downright dangerous. Good questions should be savored, like good wine. Or are you intimating that the proof of the pudding (simian or otherwise) is in the eating? If so, please pass the salt. OK, OK--you really want an answer (yawn, indeed)? The answer is: Because monkey brains have fewer calories! (Less filling! Tastes great!) -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 10 Apr 85 [21 Germinal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
smuga@ahuta.UUCP (j.smuga) (04/11/85)
But so few of us are fond of eating brains. Once my grandma took a friend along food shopping. Both women wanted to buy some chicken, so they went to Grandma's kosher butcher, and after Grandma had selected her (live) hen, the butcher turned to the other woman, who quavered "Oh, please, don't kill one just for *me*." She wasn't opposed to killing; she just didn't want to take personal responsibility for it. Ken's example is disgusting, but does it offend our moral sense, or only our sensibilities?
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (04/12/85)
> Because human society decided (quite rationally) that human beings' lives are > not things to be toyed with, that each human being has rights to life, and > that (more often than not) human beings are not food. The value of human > beings' lives is considered a priority of our morality. This is not a very sound historical statement on the basis for morality. First of all there have been numerous societies that loved toying with human lives (our favorite Nazi's, and many 'uncivilized' tribes). Many groups parcticed human sacrifice and many groups believe that human life is simply not that sacred. Depending upon the group in power, the value of human life (and whose life is to be considered human) is not a clear cut, absolute answer. > >> Here was Ken's question, something like why couldn't the monkey be a >> human child.? > > Because some people realize that if you make "certain" human lives dispensable > your life could be the next one in the dispensable pile. Honestly, Ken, why > are your gross and inept questions always so easy to answer? > That sure hasn't bothered almost any country or society that I can think of in all of history. Our beloved U.S. had no problem killing the slaves just as if they were property, Russia killed off quite a few wealthy peasants because they were in the way and our favorite friend, Hitler showed that we do pick out "certain" people to get rid of. And the problem that you propose (your life being the next one) is exactly the problem that ensues. Look at the French Revolution. That is exactly what happened, they started killing groups of people and little by little it turned into a massacre of everyone killing everyone else. And this is the civilized west. Look at many of the South American countries today. There are enough executions and murders there alone to refute your premise that you don't kill people out of some ambiguous societally developed value of human life. > > Hasn't that been answered? (Where do morals come from) They come from the > requirements of a society to hold itself together and survive. > -- Very few societies will claim that their morality comes from the need for survival (we don't, Russia doesn't, who does?) Most societies feel that they have some 'higher' moral basis that guides their policies and international dealings (i.e. the need for world wide communism, or democracy) and if one looks at these moralities that are supposed to ensure survival, why are there so many wars (are they all for survival??) and why do we stockpile weapons? In order to survive?? That seems a little presumptuous to say that every single country fighting a war is soing so because they are in danger of survival. Someone has to start them, no? Before you comment on how easy a question is to answer, you might think about coming up with an answer that isn't this obviously wrong. I don't mean to make this sound like a flame, but what you proposed as an easy explanation of Ken's problem has *absolutely* no basis in history and if you're trying just to stick with modern society, it doesn't work especially well even there. Forgive the flame, but if you want to stick with your answer, you'll need to do alot of explaining. Rick (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP)
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/12/85)
If the other person on the raft is more likely to survive than you, are you willing to sacrifice yourself, Laura? Or is this just "Oh, I thought of eating you first."? Marie desJardins marie@harvard I'm an ethical egoist. Sacrifice is a dirty word to ethical egoists. However, you may not use the word to mean what I mean. Stuck on a life raft I have to decide whether it is necessary for me to eat Jeff to survive. He has to make the same decision. Assuming that neither of us are responsible for the fact that we are in such dire straights (ie if I blew up the ocean liner we had been on), and assuming that I am not going to die anyway (killing Jeff is no good if I am dying of gangrene, rather than, say starving to death), and assuming that Jeff is not one of those extremely rare people whose life I value as I value my own life - then I am morally obliged to kill Jeff. He is likely to be morally obliged to kill me. Whether I could actually do it is another story. I suspect that I would believe that it was not necessary for me to kill Jeff until it was too late -- I would be too weak to do the deed. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (04/13/85)
>In article <5426@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I think >that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is necessary for >our survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for killing human beings). Suppose you were threatened by white-slavers who intended to rape you and your children (if you don't have children, then pretend) and to sell you all to some murderous pimp in a corrupt foreign country or into slavery for some foreign harem. Would you not kill to protect your family's freedom? Frank Silbermann
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/15/85)
To Frank Silbermann: Yes, I would kill to protect those I love, if I thought that it was necessary. I don't see that this has anything to do with killing monkeys for gourmet dinners, though. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/15/85)
In article <5455@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >Richard, >I don't see the contradiction. It is necessary to eat, yes, but it is not >necessary to eat monkeys brains. If the gourmets had been starving in the >jungle and come across a monkey, my position on the morality of eating >monkeys brains would be different. > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura I don't really see the difference between eating monkey brains, steak, dog, or cat. Why is there a difference? -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/16/85)
> Jeff to survive. He has to make the same decision. Assuming that > neither of us are responsible for the fact that we are in such > dire straights (ie if I blew up the ocean liner we had been on), > and assuming that I am not going to die anyway (killing Jeff is no > good if I am dying of gangrene, rather than, say starving to death), > and assuming that Jeff is not one of those extremely rare people whose > life I value as I value my own life - then I am morally obliged to > kill Jeff. He is likely to be morally obliged to kill me. Actually, I hope I'd starve to death before murdering anyone. But if it were somehow certain the both of us couldn't survive, I might propose that we dice for survival. > > Whether I could actually do it is another story. I suspect that I > would believe that it was not necessary for me to kill Jeff until > it was too late -- I would be too weak to do the deed. If I have a choice, I think I'll still get on a different raft, Laura. No offense. > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "In the long run, we'll all be dead."-John Maynard Keynes
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (04/16/85)
[] Very simply the "Golden Rule" says: "Love your neighbor as yourself"; it doesn't say love your neighbor BETTER than yourself. Therefore, if it is a choice between two people on a life raft, save yourself first!
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (mike upmalis) (04/16/85)
In article <13@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >>In article <5426@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >>I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I think >>that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is necessary for >>our survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for killing human beings). > >Suppose you were threatened by white-slavers who intended to rape >you and your children (if you don't have children, then pretend) >and to sell you all to some murderous pimp in a corrupt foreign country >or into slavery for some foreign harem. > >Would you not kill to protect your family's freedom? > > Frank Silbermann Suppose some vile evil television networkis trying to destroy the minds of your children/wife with cartoons/soap operas/sit comms. Would you not blow up the network to protect your family's freedom? Suppose a group ov vikings... Suppose some evil martians.... Suppose some members of the PTL club.... Next time I see some white slavers, I'll tell them to avoid you Frank.. (Hmm, what about the white slavers freedom to earn a living?) -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>
liang@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (04/16/85)
> Dear Ken, > that one is a lot easier than your first question. The quick answer is > that you could use a child as easily as the monkey. Immorality is not > a smooth scale function -- one you hit the treshhold you are doing > something immoral -- period. Killing 5 men is not 5 times as immoral > as killing 1 man. > > I do not think that killing that monkey can ever be justified. I think > that it is only moral to kill animals when their death is necessary for > our survival (surprise! the same criteria I use for killing human beings). > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura are you a vegetarian then? -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (04/17/85)
In article <5466@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > > If the other person on the raft is more likely to survive than > you, are you willing to sacrifice yourself, Laura? Or is this > just "Oh, I thought of eating you first."? > > Marie desJardins marie@harvard But... I'd rather eat Marie, and then have Laura for lunch, and then pickle Ken Ardnt and Rich Rosen and serve them as Sweet & Sour Hams.... "You can't go in there!" "Yes I can. This is America. I can go anywhere I want to." Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/21/85)
In article <5466@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > >...Stuck on a >life raft I have to decide whether it is necessary for me to eat >Jeff to survive... > Which goes to show that you can't base a philosophy on consequences, since there is no way to decide whether or not it is necessary to eat Jeff to survive. -- Scott
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (04/22/85)
In article <utzoo.5486> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > >Yes, I would kill to protect those I love, if I thought that it was necessary. >I don't see that this has anything to do with killing monkeys for gourmet >dinners, though. > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura Originally, you gave a general rule for deciding when you would kill -- You would kill to save your own life. You said that this rule applied equally to killing animals or people. I only wanted to point out that your rule was incomplete. You would also kill to maintain freedom and diginity for you and for your loved ones. But freedom and dignity is a quality-of-lifestyle issue. Some people don't consider these worth killing for. Others do. It's a moral issue. The question Ken Arndt posed was: In the absence of religion, how does one choose one's moral values? Without an absolute standard promoted by a Higher Authority, morality becomes nothing more than custom. And recent history shows that mankind can become accustomed to some pretty odious practices. Frank Silbermann
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/22/85)
I'll go for the ultimate standard, yes, but not for the ``Higher Authority'' -- if you mean those capitals as I interpret them. But I am writing all this now... back to the grind... Laura ps it sounds to me that you want to know where ``necessary for survival'' ends. If someone is going to use the amount of force on me that it would take to kidnap me, the question may be moot -- it may be necessary for my continued existence to kill them because things might escallate that badly. Besides -- can you recognise the White Slavers on the streets?