To begin with, I believe in ethical, moral objectivity. I
believe there's no particular problem in proving this/make a good case for
it.
1. That the ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no
obvious allowance of moral wrongdoing in it.
2. "...ethical claims are
objective if it is possible for agents who make them to do so correctly or
incorrectly. Objectivity in this sense implies the possibility of moral
error.(3)" That is to say that moral mistakes exist, not that moral errors are
committed ethically.
3. "...ethical claims are objective if they are
'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and properties in the world that
exist independently of the contingent practice of making those claims and the
relevant attitudes of those who make them' (p. 6)(1).(4)"
4. "...ethical
claims are objective if reasonable agents competent with the concepts that
constitute them would converge in 'favorable circumstances of rational inquiry'
(p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion, that there are objective moral
duties in relation to the object in question.
From the book review of
(1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical
Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118,
Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423.
It's also worth mentioning the
book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review
mentions.
I see the description of an Ethical Objective system as an
(mathematical) intersection of the above 4 points. The Ethical Objective system
should thus satisfy the most strict and strongest requirements for such a
system. It's worth noting that it should be humanly possible to fit into it with
a least one member, one human being, and that it should live up to general
requirements of plausibility and reasonability.
One more thing: I think
it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to separate
right from wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system of ethics
in question. If the case is otherwise, they fall into a different group and are
not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit the number of
people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is the nature of
the current diversity of humanity.
I've made some additions to the book
review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual instance that
I like to address.
The framework for every Ethical Objective System can
be as extensive as every legal framework as I see it, without imposing
particular problems.
The further work to the Ethical Objectivity is this.
The obstacle one meets is concerning depth. I think the human cognition decides
the depth of the ethical system's reach, absolutely and objectively, of the
Ethical Objectivity discussed. If the human being can't have knowledge about a
deeper fact of nature then one can't also say that the human being can commit
any mistakes in that relation. It's therefore of no use to point to a phenomenon
that lies outside the normal or possible human cognition because a sufficient
ethically objective system isn't constructed at all to take care of those
phenomena's ethical content. No matter what, the ethically objective system will
therefore relate to our common life-world, the life-world that one can actually
say something objective about. It's therefore the case that all hypothetical
micro- and macro-phenomena are outside the domain that actually can have some
influence on the human being's ethical and moral life. It's therefore not
decisive to have absolute knowledge to have an efficient ethical objective
system as long as one does one's duties for the best in this actual effective
ethical objective system in what concerns information and possibilities. In that
kind of view, one can plausibly say that doctors in ancient history may have
been acting ethically objective in some cases, if not all, of course, despite a
very limited knowledge about the human body. It's clear that science will form
an outer frame for our life-worlds wherein this Ethical Objective System
functions as in the question of preventive measures concerning Global Climate
Changes and also about our limitations in size of total world population that
should or can exist without collapsing into chaos and extinction of being
examples of conscious beings capable of knowledge, possibly effecting one's own
salvation.
Consequently, let's look at abortion again. What if two
parties agree on the fact that guilt may not apply for abortion because there
are factors that speak strongly for and against as well as the indeterminate
status of the fetus to be removed, both on brain function and emotional
function(1) when the procedure is carried out? Thus, abortion for these two
parties remains a private, informed and "esoteric" decision, yet respected by
either party in companionship without guilt!
Hypothetically speaking,
it's plausible to say that being a human without an ethical system in the 21st
century and aligning oneself with the ancient humans and humanoids like the
Cro-Magnons, seems just crazy! It's laying such a waste to a whole heritage,
legacy of philosophical civility! The ancient humans before civilization can be
said to be driven by evolutionary, biological instincts! Nihilism, relativism or
other destructive ethical approaches are historically insensitive, possibly
rationally insensitive, absurd or out of touch.
As much as Paul
Bloomfield makes the argument of having and maintaining good physical health,
I'd like to add the following:
It should be possible to determine Integrity,
Mental Health and Physical Health by keeping one's ethics. People may fool
themselves, but I think that the most sensitive factor of these three, being
Integrity, is very much affected by both bad attitude/mindset and bad actions,
altogether being bad morals and possibly bad ethics.
Through the arsenal
of diagnostics like various lie-detectors, (f)MRI-scans, interviews, somatic
examinations and what have you it should be possible to make good judgment on
the status of these 3 factors, Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health. Any
reasonable doubt can therefore be removed for what kind of companion one is
socialising with. Any person with substantial deviation in either Integrity,
Mental Health and Physical Health from the characteristics that are condoned by
exactly this Ethical Objectivity can thus be excluded from the desirable group
of people that comply with Ethical Objectivity. The days of the Arguments of
Companions in Guilt are consequently numbered!
It should be a fundamental
belief that morality/ethics is to respect rationality in others, also the
potential of such in others, eg. children. This doesn't capture ecology very
well, but I can think of it as intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals
alike a natural life (for various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural.
Thus, as this is a facet of being rational as a person, every person should
respect people with ecological views and the ecological view therefore becomes
the only ethical view in this respect, a general starting point.
Rationality
in this sense is nothing mysterious. It's just the capacity to score well/great
on IQ-tests, having a fine, intelligent flow of thoughts and doing a good or
great working performance, whatever this may be, being in the stream so to
speak!
Although I've written about rationality above I like to write the
following to make it perfectly clear. There are (at least) two kinds of
Rationality that it's fair to speak of. One is the rationality according to
function, being the way you apply your mind to whatever problems, practical or
intellectual. The other one is rationality as in being of good mental health,
being well-developed. It should be clear that rationality is the top premise of
this Ethically Objective system that I ascribe and develop from a Neo-Kantian
position.
This is a writing for removing any religious notion to the word
Rationality and thus the system of Rationality may seem reasonable to everyone.
I'm in doubt whether I. Kant has meant any religiousness at all with his
"kingdom of ideas". People have interpreted it this way, but I can't see that
there's a single factual instance of this in his text. Quite the opposite, I
think he thinks that the common person is able to make clever thoughts, to take
part in the "kingdom of ideas". I find this a much more charitable reading of
him and it makes him look better too!
Repugnance and appeal to
emotions/feelings/aestheticism are not any good way to get there even though I
support every argument that makes a good foundation for Ethical
Objectivity.
It should be noted that people of good moral attitude and
behaviour seem better able to create and maintain, by keeping the duties, social
relationships both in symmetric and asymmetric terms.
I'm with Dr. Sam
Harris when he argue by objectivity of flourishing and happiness, potentially by
and in everyone, on TED Talks that some/all moral questions or some/all outside
spectrums of some/all moral spectrums can be answered by science. Now, I don't
know if this is consensus within a group of scientists and philosophers alike
and if this is documented by scientific articles. He does mention psychology and
neuro-science as two (obvious) angles to answer this scientifically. It must be
admitted by myself, whether or not Dr. Sam Harris agrees, however, that
flourishing and happiness are still normative, unscientific, ethical objectives.
One can indeed be relatively poor and still be generally happy and one can work
too much and thus flourish beyond one's happiness. It's also a question to what
ends we are supposed to be flourishing and happy. Where does this flourishing
and happiness lead to if there's no destination in sight? Isn't then life only a
matter of taste and artistry in life? What about doing extreme sports and other
activities where one does risk one's own life? The question is not so much a
matter of this risk-taking person's life, but this person's social connections,
possibly causing grief in these people by the risk-taking. Thus, it's yet to see
to what extent one can fully argue that the objectives of flourishing and
happiness can be scientific. Indeed, this scientific notion has implicitly some
kind of normative destiny to it that Dr. Sam Harris is in debt to
answer.
It's admirable of Dr. Sam Harris of denoting this "scientific",
given the normative objectives, and at the same time quenching the lunatics who
promote death and destruction. It's certainly worth a thorough scientific study
of what underlying causes there are for people's misfortunes when it's so
commonly known that most or all people like to be happy, flourishing or
both.
(1)Remark concerning abortion by The Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists (RCOG):
By The Royal College of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists (RCOG),
"Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and
Recommendations for Practice".
From this
link:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
Fetal
Awareness
* The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the
connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed
* Evidence examined by
the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of
the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious
* The Working
Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it
feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit
* More research is needed
into the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24
weeks.
The full report:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf
Article,
this particular webpage, is published: 25/06/2010 (summary and
more).
Game over! You lose, relativists and subjectivists! I'd say there
is no objection by the subjectivists and relativists that can overcome Ethical
Objectivity (now)! I've been meditating this for quite a while and I'm now at
peace by the preceding sentences. There is simply no chance to refute Ethical
Objectivity anymore.
The argument is not finished by these words and
remains to be made a paper of academic quality, if not a book.
By Terje Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea, 2009 - 2010, 2012 - and still ongoing.
By Terje
Lea, 11th November, 2009, 9th December, 2009, 11th December, 2009, 6th March,
2010, 24th March, 2010, 26th March, 2010, 12th April, 2010, 22nd April, 2010,
25th April, 2010, 26th April, 2010, 4th May, 2010, 10th May, 2010, 9th June,
2010, 28th June, 2010 and 24th October, 2010. Minor change of title,
18.11.2010. Now controlled under my new name, Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea.
Over Animal Ethics and to PETA Too - This time it is the pigs...
ReplyDeleteOver PETA again and domestic animals, being a part of the animal ethics and applied ethics
This time it is over the pigs. The suggestion is one of multi-modal-approach, that the covers/shelters to wind and rain out on the grass fields must be in place, or at least is in place normatively as by recommendation and that one arranges for the animals to have special birth-bins with half-concrete (but enough still) and half-grass mat as with the cows and oxes formerly explained. Ordinary bins as with the cows and oxes (although they are called "stalls") should also be arranged for, but pigs are less complicated because they are not milked! Then the rest is up to you. Some even play music for the animals. This also concerns food and so on. Cleanliness level should be as high as vet standards demand and general animal standards outside this is also (largely/sufficiently) described by vet standards! Good luck to you, the farmers, the agronomists!
Note: For whatever the shelters, the bins, the stalls, animals do not walk about sharp edges very well and get easily cut up! This is also a notice, but probably already well into the vet's recommendations!
Note2: Just published to Facebook as message under profile and note also. Today, 2012-09-21 CEST.
(Time stamp: Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 20:45:00)
Labels: agronomist, animal ethics, animals, applied ethics, domestic animals, Ethics, farming, PETA, pigs
7 comments:
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 20:53
I have formerly written about the cows and oxes mostly for replacing the concrete flooring for grass mats that can have some kind of standard and standardly grown so as to be handled by a tractor (agricultural machine) with a special "lance device" or something for transporting the grass mat and putting it into place effectively! Let me try to identify it! (The concrete flooring has been known to be hurtful to cows and oxes knees and other leg bones, what do I know!)
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 20:55
Indeed, as far as the vets' knowledge go, their recommendations on animal handling is usually the part of animal ethicists' theory too, as much as I've mentioned the frameworks of law as part of Objective Ethics where they are known to be based on Christianity up through history and other religions elsewhere. As you then know, the whole thing is fairly obvious!
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 21:10
Let there be no doubt also that there will not be any holes in an Objective Ethical System and that this remains my goal in working with both ethics and applied ethics, ALL issues are to be covered insofar as they represent (ethical/moral) significance!
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 21:28
Over animal ethics, I've also formerly written about electrocution of fur animals and I think they should be (sedated) and decapitated instead as the chickens get when chickens are butchered for food (also for KFC). There are issues with cages of hens that are producing eggs (and new chickens). There are the usual issues on considering people fit for animal handling whatsoever, that /can/ they have domestic animals? Let me think about some other until next time... Cheers!
L.F.O.-L.21 September 2012 21:32
ReplyDeleteOne example has dealt with people secretly creating great animal distress with some animal fur farms just to team up with broadcaster and accuse them after to something the fur farmers could never have prevented themselves because these disturbed animal activists could bring "specialists/vet" and create the necessary awfulness to put the whole thing out of business. This concerns at least one possible farm in Farsund "kommune", probably to little surprise NOW!
L.F.O.-L.30 September 2012 00:21
My writing on grass mats for cows seems to have been removed in some way. It's suspected the date for it lies around 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST and may be considered important for the agricultural industry in both the animal ethics way and for the very production itself, that when the animals "live" as they should then the production is also optimal.
Well, well, I'll search on, and in the meanwhile you can read from the above, as always in line with mu Objective Ethics under Philosophy Notes. Bye for now!
L.F.O.-L.30 September 2012 07:54
The grass mats text for cows now identified:
Funnily enough and over PETA, I got an idea for the milk cow today: to build the cow stalls directly on the grass/dirt field and so to avoid stress to the animals legs and well-being while being able to set on the milking mechanisms to the cows and over to the tank on the concrete floor! Good? (Also the cows will be able to go more directly and "happily" straight on to the field,
increasing their out-door time, the natural way of living by habitat!)
Url: http://www.peta.org/ !
And for maintaining the stalls (layer) one has the customs of the football fields to renew the layer on the fields, especially the goalkeeper's area!
Note on time-stamps (from Facebook):
3 February at 07:13 (CET?) - 3 February at 07:21 (CET?)
I do not live under circumstances that allow me a better presentation, given this country, Norway, and its use of torture (-threats) against the population, singled individuals or not, and by torture clinics, possibly also operated by med. doctors "in plain daylight"!!!
ReplyDeleteEcology: I hope [PlanetDiary, fx.] can see the importance of Overpopulation and how to deal with it. Thus: I'm also thinking about composing a "standard" letter that WWF (or Greenpeace or IPCC) can use to promote family planning of 1 or 2 kids so that they can help move the political climate into place in order to combat overpopulation and deprivation of habitat from the animals, in effect reducing the overall carbon footprint and create more wilderness for animals to "enjoy"/thrive in! Care to join, please? (For their slow pace, I must say they should already have had a foot in the ass...) PS: Please also put an enduring note on "An Inconvenient Problem" by Al Gore as a matter of Global _Warming_ (i.e., freak nature and more deserts). on [PlanetDiary's, fx.] timeline.
ReplyDeleteMore to go:
ReplyDeleteConcerning the fight against the fur/leather industry (good leather exempted and _you know why_), I just object to the notion that it will /help/ to stress the animals of these fur-farmers only to present /that/ media report later that displays these animals in this ugly, stressed condition (Soviet Union *NRK* or other)!! I think you get it. No, to the opposite, the fighting against the fur-industry is to be led in other ways such as ensuring a better slaughtering method (not electrocution by "ughh"...) and perhaps conditions for them as animals as they are brought up (they probably need "a bit of cheerful circumstances" in order to "deliver" that fur! Alright! Let's do it!
(8 June at 01:23 (CEST?))
Under Applied Ethics of course and respects to all (other) Animal Ethics philosophers in the World!
(8 June at 01:23 (CEST?))
Url: http://www.peta.org.uk/ !
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its affiliates are dedicated to the protection of animals worldwide..
(8 June at 01:24 (CEST?)
Over the slaughtering methods: and alternatively, chopping of the animals' heads, as death is secured within a second and has convention with chickens (as meat production, KFriedC) and is no worse than the legal making of Halal meat production, with or without sedatives of approved kinds... They have duties to implement if not in already!
(2 seconds ago - "appx. time: 16:40, date: 2012/08/12 CEST."?)
Human being are now certainly not electrcuted (because it is now defined to be an unusual/abominable way to kill people).
Applied ethics is more than animal ethics, I can assure you. Here: Applied ethics! Warning: Only for the experts! The question for the Pugwash movement, from "not one legal system": if now the World is _so_ hideous, when are you/we to stop fighting a nuclear holocaust? How much "closet behaviour" are we as human beings supposed to accept when we know about modern day "cannibals" and eaters of 0-year-olds, the "candies" (also as in "bun-making"/"soul-locking then tormenting") as /they/ may call them, in their eyes?
ReplyDeleteThis is a serious extreme in applied ethics and one that, among others, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been here to prevent in the first place, and I think _all_ ethical questions should be asked given that they fulfill academic (read:only for academics) standards!!! This consideration stands on the very end of applied ethics and is a definite extreme!
The above also *CLEARLY* (if you... "#¤%#¤%"¤%"¤#%&¤&%"%&"%&) underscores the importance of pro-suicide legislation and the death penalty as capital punishment!
ReplyDeleteI note immaturity for the UN's ITU for failing to find common ground in terms of freedom of expression. The freedom of expression should be rooted in a best legal framwork basis and it seems that they fail to describe this at this point in time.
ReplyDeleteI could have noted something over ICANN and the influences this time, but the international community isn't up for the responsibility together.
Notes on hate crime vs. the conventions of politeness should easily be included as matter of /downloaded/ email or other to the very client/browser REGARDLESS, and they are not so many and "even" China should be able to comply and be included. They need to sanction /inside/ their own domains and by this, the problem with "spam-mail" should become very limited as before, when the 2 or so servers /inside/ USA got busted some time ago, being responsible for 90 % of this nonsense.
ITU, please re-define and reschedule meeting.
A document from the UN also furthers that of banning mines/landmines. Clusterbombs/bomblets, well, well...
ReplyDeleteLink: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=APLC/MSP.12/2012/MISC.7&Lang=E - Mid-term review of implementation of the victim assistance
provisions of the Cartagena Action Plan 2010-2014 as general plan, IT does hold, the document, the further removal of mines "here and there" and that there is progress in the work to ban mines/land-mines, cluster-bombs/bomblets!
Given the "de facto" military superiority of UN (Security Council), the applied ethics are clear: all these types of mines are to be BANNED!
From all the way since my Investigations of Integrity started by the ethics.html-file 14 years ago, I now add this as well, to the line of "Integrity - Mental Health - Physical Health":
ReplyDeleteThe thought is that by acquiring knowledge and achieving competence the 6. element is scored, that Integrity says that one should be pro-active and that, given the ethics is complied with, reasonably [discussion in and by itself], then the social classes are forever protected because it is known that anybody "can do it".
This is mainly theoretical and do not account for the latest findings such as police corruption or other corruption and how widespread the carnivore human nature is in preventing the best of human nature to unfold, such as the freedom to be (entirely) pro-active, to seek to solve problems in society and so on!
[Some deluded people may think this running project is a description of a film. IT IS NOT!]