My Big Toe Forum

Discussion and Explanation of the Writings of Tom Campbell: The Paradigm Changes Here
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:23 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 337 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 523 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1290
A CONTINUATION OF MORAL CODE PART I

[Before assuming that this entire ethical code is either too trivial or too complex to effectively apply, allow me to examine the results of applying this moral code to several ethical matters with which Western society is currently struggling.]

Implications of Adultery
Although many moral codes created by many prominent philosophers claim adultery to be an action that is immoral under all circumstances. This clearly is not the consequent of the moral code we have just contrived. While it is true that to wound ones marriage partner (emotionally) is an uncaring act it is not true that all cases of adultery would injure one's marriage partner. For example if one adheres to "the lifestyle" otherwise known as swinging or wife swapping (also in some polygamous arrangements) in which partners commit "adultery" with each others permission, no entity is wounded during the exchange and it is possible for all parties involved to act purely out of caring to all other parties involved making the intent to commit adultery moral in some situations yet immoral in other situations where the actor committing adultery is in no way caring for the emotional, or physical well being of their spouse. Thus, reinforcing that actions themselves are not moral or immoral but only the intentions of the actors can be credited with such values.

Prayer in Schools
This issue is slightly trickier then adultery or polygamy but as you will see the ethical code clearly defines the differences between right and wrong in this situation as well. Since it is the guardian (parents are one example) who undertakes the moral duty to raise the child the guardian has the ability to make decisions for the child since the child is not yet a fully capable or rational being. Assuming that the teacher is also a fully rational being it is also the teacher's moral duty to make decisions for the children entrusted to his or her care. Now if the guardian and the teacher disagree through caring as to which religious decisions if any should be made for the child the guardians decisions supersede the decisions made by the teacher because the guardian has a greater moral duty to the child then the teacher. (as stated above moral duty is created by contending with the consequences of one's actions, so that to have and or adopt a child accords the guardian with the direct duty to both provide for the child and to make the decisions of the child until the child is of a level of rationality that they can provide and make such decisions for themselves.) And thus the teacher or school board making a decision to expose a child to religion can be construed as the school usurping a decision belonging to the guardian who is a rational being. Without very special circumstances (e.g., a necessary decision impacting the child's immediate health or safety) a teacher or school administrator forcibly making another rational being decisions (such as the child's guardian) clearly represents an immoral act. Thus schools that are private such as catholic schools would not have a moral dilemma regarding prayer in schools; the teacher is then teaching values agreed upon by the guardian when the guardian has sent the child to such a school; yet, at a public school it would be most moral for a teacher to leave religious teachings (which are personal) exclusively to the guardians of the children whom they teach, to avoid making personal decisions for the guardians of the children. Furthermore if religion is being taught in public schools with the intent of encouraging the child toward religious concepts then it would not be caring towards the value of other (quite different) religious and non-religious concepts and cultures as well as disrespectful to the guardians legal and moral responsibility. Even if a school's motivation is purely out of caring to save the souls of the children then it is still immoral because it would be making the decisions of the children's guardians regarding the children's religious exposure and affiliations. This brings us to the related controversy of teachers wearing religious symbols in the classroom. Now commanding that a teacher not wear a symbol of religious affiliation would be making the decisions of the teacher for the teacher (unless they agreed to such a dress code in their occupational contract in which case it would be their decision to agree or not before they were hired.) Assuming that the teacher did not discuss the symbol with his or her charges but instead left such decisions regarding religious explanations to the guardian, then the teacher would not be acting out of the opposite of caring and neither would the teacher be making a decision reserved for a rational being with greater duty. Of course all the above hypothetical situations depend solely on the intentions of the teacher when he or she wears the symbol of their faith, does wearing the item in any way attribute to her caring for others and does wearing or discussing it make a decision for another rational being.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, and polygamy
An issue of homosexuality, bisexuality or polygamy becomes quite easy to decipher ethically given the ethical code we have now created. If the entities in a relationship of any form, size, sexual, or non-sexual, act purely out of an intent of caring for the others in the relationship and is not entered into out of selfish reasons then it is not immoral regardless of the form in which such actions take place. Relationships between entities are complex in their own right however sexual orientation is an amoral decision that in no way compromises or assists ones moral integrity. Other moral quandaries regarding relationships can be assessed using the afore mentioned rules of this ethical code.

Killing other sentient entities for food and other useful materials
The question of what can and what cannot be morally consumed is another tricky subject for if we were merely to decide that creatures with a profound degree of irrationality gave up their right to life a) it would not be caring towards them and b) it would logically allow the consumption of small children who are often quite irrational. So to continue this line of thinking it is important that we refer to the differences between life, life forms, entities, and rational being. Since under this moral code one does not have a moral responsibility to objects or life forms that are not sentient, it would make sense that inanimate objects, plant life, and animals (e.g., bacteria) lacking a nervous system required to perceive the self or interact with other entities are consumable since one cannot act immorally towards them. However the morality concerning the consumption of other entities is much more delicate. Since the moral code characterizes entities depending upon their degree of rationality and sentient capacity (the quality and awareness of their consciousness) one cannot arbitrarily assert that some lack of rationality would allow the first fundamental rule of caring to no longer be in affect, nor can one draw a distinct line that would divide the animal kingdom into irrationally edible entities without endangering the lives of the irrational young or mentally defective members of any group, not to mention the quandary apparent in western society in which many consider dogs and dolphins to be at a point of rationality worthy of non-consumablity while considering other enmities to be unprotected. Therefore one must at the very least invoke the second rule of the moral code i.e. don't be negligent, which implies that one is to tread carefully through areas where empirical information and experience (allowing for distinct lines) may be lacking. So in an effort to err on the side of caution a being attempting to act with caring can assume all sentient creatures to be entities that must be intended to be cared for and therefore not slain for the sole benefit of the slayer. Thus vegetarianism is validated by this ethical code but it is important to remember that actions themselves are neither moral nor immoral. So that the act of eating meat is not immoral but the intention of contributing to the uncaring treatment of other entities would be immoral. For example if a meat producing entity was to die of natural or unfortunate means which were not the intention of a moral individual it would be moral to consume the meat available without an uncaring intention for the entity producing the meat since it is no longer a life form (obviously since it is dead) and therefore does not require caring treatment. However one must also be careful not to allow oneself to indirectly act immorally through others. Thus the act of buying meat at a grocery story while similar to the finding a dead piece of meat that is not protected from consumption since it is not longer a life form, the act of paying for said meat indirectly contributes to the death and uncaring behaviors of one entity towards another. Thus buying meat would contribute to the harm of an entity thus making one negligent and or uncaring if one were to hire someone else to kill an animal for them or cause another animal to be killed to replace the meat just purchased. On the other hand, a tiger or a man that kills another sentient entity is not necessarily acting immorally. However a tiger or man who kills when killing is unnecessary is acting immorally. Thus the decisions space of an omnivore is more expansive morally then the decision space available to a carnivore since it is unnecessary for an omnivore to survive through the consumption of meat. The circumstances under which killing a fellow sentient entity can be moral are discussed below.

Self-preservation, self-defense, and the defense of others -- which includes some Wars.
Since there are specific situations that allow one entity to kill another entity morally, pacifism and absolute non-violence is not necessarily a moral outcome of this code. For if someone were to attack another with the intent to harm and kill then they have proved themselves immoral and thus irrational enough to have decisions made for them which could eventually lead to the decision as to whether or not they continue to live. If it is outside the skill level of the rescuer to avoid the casualties of those responsible for violence then they might be forced to act in ways that risk the life of the attacker. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore rule one and cease the intention to act caringly towards even the "enemy," Thus we rely on the concept of relative decision space to determine a moral level of restraint. One who is trained in respects to the violent arts (marksmanship or martial) would be more able to execute an intent of caring in which the aggressor could be restrained or immobilized without killing him; however one with a more limited decision space would have less available options in such a struggle. Without the option to prevent, capture or subdue instead of kill (except perhaps in a hostage situation where the time required to subdue might result in the deaths of innocents) one is left only with the option of killing the aggressor in the most caring way possible which would no doubt imply swiftness and the minimization of pain, etc. Remember this hypothetical situation was built upon a condition where preventing, capturing, or subduing the aggressor was impossible. This result applies to all sentient entities including vermin. It tells you when you can morally kill as opposed to relocating a raccoon. For example, if a hive of wasps made their home on one's front porch, one should first attempt peaceful cohabitation, if however the wasps are aggressive and continue to sting one and one's guests and since moving them is impossible and subduing them would obviously cut them off from any food source effectively killing them slowly, one's options are reduced to one. Without the knowledge ability or decision space required to apprehend or implant an alternate method a moral person is able to dispose of the wasps in as caring a method as can be contrived.

Drug use (legal and illegal)
Many drug uses directly inhibit ones ability to reason making one for a period of time less rational and thus less able to produce the most moral of decisions that would have been available to them had they been utilizing the full potential of their rationality. Thus drug use falls under the category of negligent behavior in situations where the objective is the "high" sensation whether this is illegal drug use or nicotine and alcohol use. Theoretically on a desert island where no one else could be affected it would become an amoral choice however within society contact with others while intoxicated would be probable and to intentionally make one irrational would be obvious negligence.

Prostitution
Prostitution, oddly enough, is quite simple, if both participants act caringly towards one another during the transaction then they are both moral in completing an exchange of cash for sex. i.e. the customer was caring in his or her interaction and the supplier was also caring in his or her interaction. In this case there would be no immoral properties inherent in the act of prostitution. However if the society under which it is accomplished held irrational ideas of guilt or worthlessness to such a profession and its patrons then special care would need to be taken to ensure that neither party in the exchange suffered legal, mental, or emotional repercussions (such as low self esteem) from the traditions of an irrational society. In western societies where such stigma's influence human behavior heavily it might be impossible to create such an environment of caring however there is nothing in the action itself that that voids the ability of its participants to hold caring intents. In ancient Greece for instance some positions of paid companionship were a religious custom and the priestesses were held in high social regard within the society. Other such environments can be found in the literary works of Robert Heinlein and Joss Whedon

Economics
One might assert (incorrectly) that this code necessitates socialism since it could arguably be in the best interest of another if one were to give that other economical assistance, however it has been shown that welfare is not always in the best long term interest of its recipient and that the arbitrary (political) redistribution of wealth may not be in the best interests of a motivated productive society. Also, it is perfectly acceptable that free trade taking part between individuals (capitalism) can also be done with both parties caring for the well being of the other. Fair trade that seeks to create a win-win situation is the engine of sustainable capitalism mush more than exploitation. The preference of socialism or capitalism is not a moral choice because morality depends upon the intent motivating the action, not the action itself. In the face of such different avenues for choosing to act out ones caring intent, it is best to examine both so that one can non-negligently decide which system is more conducive to the creation of a caring intent. Both systems can be initially motivated by a mixture of moral and immoral intents. However, in a peaceful world, after both types of economies mature, grow, and stabilize, and after moral and practical learning re-invents each system iteratively, I would suspect that both would migrate to a socially aware and compassionate capitalism that would take care of both business and people to create an optimized society.

Limits of the Practical application of morality through law
The practical application of this moral code is problematic in that intentions are not always known and laws can only dictate the appropriateness of actions thus a system of laws is a tool that cannot perfectly apply the moral code to a society however they can be helpful in attempting to mold a society as closely to the moral code as can be contrived through rational processes. Thus laws that encourage individuals to realize an optimal caring intent and inhibit individuals from realizing non-caring intents are beneficial to all members of the society. The purpose of moral law, as defined by the code, is to generate and maintain a moral society dedicated, by definition, to the optimization of individual interactions with everyone and everything. Laws that prevent someone from attempting to realize a caring intent are obstructive to the overall morality of ones society. Thus laws have the potential to be a practical evolving societal application of the moral code. Because law can never truly represent the moral code precisely due to the difficulty in ascertaining the truth of intentions, one must dictate laws according to the interpretation of action, which we have seen can never be attributed with absolute certainty to being moral or immoral. So, just laws (i.e. laws that were created in an attempt to mirror this moral code) become an imperfect but steadily improving application of morality within a society whose members are generally making an effort to be moral.
Definitions
A morality code defines the rules by which rational creatures should choose to interact with other entities.

Entity - life-form with sentience and free will

Life form - A living organism that must be capable of existing independently as a self sufficient viable entity in its own right, assuming that it has ample food, shelter, water, space, etc.

Sentient entity - a life form with an intelligence structure capable of being self aware and interacting directly with other sentient entities (example: dog, pig, human, cow, monkey - not: tree, bacteria, sunflower, yeast, amoeba). In other words, an entity with sufficient moral decision space to morally interact with other sentient entities. Self awareness merely describes a nervous system capable of receiving input and formulating output thus allowing the creature to comprehend something happening to it and react accordingly.

Intent - both the theoretical action that one attempts to realize as well as the motivations and reasons for which one attempts to perform such an action

An action in the overall best interests of others - this implies that the intent of the action is not just to act in the person's immediate interests i.e. produce some result they might desire in one particular moment which might not actually be in the person's best interests once likely potential future implications have been calculated. The overall best interests of others implies the long-term maintaining or improvement of the physical, mental, and emotional, wellbeing of all others who are affected directly or indirectly by the action and its results

Moral duty - The result of a caring intents effort to correct mistakes created by caring intention leading to unintentional results that turned out to be not in the overall best interests of others. Also, the intender's responsibility to deal with the repercussions of actions that were not mistakes, whatever the case may be. Additionally, one's obligation to become as moral and rational as possible and to not be negligent.

A rational being is a sentient entity that has achieved sufficient reason and maturity to develop a consistent caring intention toward others.


Assumptions
1. An ethical code that hopes to assert any meaningful truths must be objective and apply equally to all sentient entities.

2. Morality only applies when one sentient entity interacts with another

3. Any action is either executed with the intent of caring for the overall welfare of others or it is not

4. Significant decisions involving interaction with others are either primarily motivated by caring or not primarily motivated by caring. Insignificant decisions involving no interaction with others are irrelevant to morality.

5. Caring decisions are more moral then un-caring decisions

6. Only rational beings are capable of comprehending the differences between right and wrong through reason. Only life forms that are sentient entities can be rational beings.

7. It is rational to be moral and is irrational to be immoral. A rational society/individual must be in the process of becoming a more moral society/individual.

Code

1: to act purely out of the intention of caring for all others involved in any given interaction or situation.

2: to act caring in a negligent manner is truly not to act with the intent of caring at all.

3: Intentions are the basis on which the ethical core is founded because one cannot ensure more then a positive intent when one attempts to perform an action.

4: one rational entity can not morally assert oneself to make the decisions of another fully rational being. Moral entities may be in a position of responsibility for making the decisions of another if the decision space (moral/rational capacity of the consciousness) of that other is inadequate to make caring decisions for itself. All other rules still apply.

5: any entity that intends to act immorally is not a fully rational being and thus their decisions can be made for them in proportion the severity of the moral transgression.

Diagram

Rational beings --> sentient entities (more rational --> less rational) --> life form --> inanimate object


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:05 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:44 am
Posts: 260
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 1
Location: relative
Tom, thanks for posting!

What a fascinating chap you've generated. The apple doesn't fall far, mate.

Please tell Kristopher his text became an invaluable contribution to my personal record-thought matrix the blip I finished it. I may well assume that anyone else who encounters this will enjoy its accessibility and precision. This was a really nice kicker to the evening as I've been digesting the Foucault/Chomsky debate on human nature at the book store all day. I sincerely hope he doesn't shy from publication--he's certainly worthy of it, not to mention the nigh useless to invaluable literature scale could always use a tick of adjustment.

Thanks again.
Think amore.
EE

_________________
"It's just data."


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:30 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10120
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 1
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Kristopher Campbell's Moral Code

"A creature is defined to be sentient if it has a nervous system capable of comprehending the self and the ability to choose between one or more options."

This is deep ;). Foundational.


"For example, a man without limbs would not have the ability to give CPR to an accident victim so the decision to do so would be outside his decision space. Furthermore a dog does not have the awareness required to perform acts of social grace, such things being beyond it's decision space thus it is not required to make moral decisions in this field however since biting and not biting are with awareness and ability of a dog it is able to make moral choices in that arena."

Just for discussion sake, what about the dog that recently pulled his or her dog companion off the freeway after it was hit by two cars, I believe in Australia? I understand the exception to the rule thingie, and again, just for discussion sake I ask.

"Of course, an intention can not be both caring and not caring."

What if it, the action the intent motivated, would affect others in both caring and uncaring ways per each other and their specific being? Again, I am going for discussion rather than disagreement. Ok well, this one is answered. Here's another, can negligence through ignorance, or moronicity be of moral intent?


Very good Kristopher. Way to educate, Tom; way to take it in and synthesis it with your experience Kristopher.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:57 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10120
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 1
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Tom and/or Kristopher,

Is this work a thesis or capstone, published? One that can be scholarly cited perhaps? If you've access to journal database here is an interesting article that might interest you.

Radford, M. (2006). Spirituality and education; inner and outer realities. International
Journal of Children's Spirituality, 11(3), 385-396. Retrieved December 16, 2008,
doi:10.1080/13644360601014130


Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1290
Bette,

Kristopher started writing this moral code a few years back at 19 or 20 as a sophomore in college -- worked on it off and on (more off than on) -- and just cleaned it up before I posted it. He produced it just for his own edification -- because the ethical and moral systems he studied in class were all deeply flawed -- he figured he could do better. Passed it around his Philosophy Dept. and got a few head nods and encouragements to enter a contest and present a paper -- but nothing that I would call a citable publication.

Tom C


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:39 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10120
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 1
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Ok, thank you as always Tom. It is good work, and will find its time.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:40 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:55 am
Posts: 1
Bette,

There are two different types of ignorance, negligent ignorance and non negligent ignorance. If a person is non-negligently ignorant, i.e. they have not had adequate learning opportunities or sufficient decision space, then their caring intentions may be moral. Otherwise the code would require omniscience. However, if they are negligently ignorant, i.e. they have had adequate learning opportunities regarding the situation pertaining to a moral decision, then their actions are immoral. Thus negligence is dependent upon intent as well as the skills, abilities, and data available to the individual.

~Kristopher C.~


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:33 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10120
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 1
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Hi Kristopher,

Thank you for your reply. I think it is not learning from lessons that is the base of my question. Denseness on purpose perhaps when the cause and effect is obvious but ignored. But then that's judgement, isn't it? What is obvious to one apart from a situation may not be so clear to one in it. I just tend to think people are a lot smarter than they lead others to believe in order to be absolved of some responsibility to be, well, more responsible for themselves and theirs. I really like the way you think, and write. I am working on my thesis for my MS in psychology now, perhaps you'd be willing to look at some of my writing too sometime.
Thank you again. Good job picking your family ;).

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:47 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 238
Thank you Kristopher, and Tom for posting this. It personally has a lot of potential in conjuction with Ted's writings on Free Will.

Tom, does the Big Cheese have this or some similar moral code he operates by?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:04 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 10120
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 1
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
I don't know if my memory thing is bad or good, but, I was able to read this as if it were the first time seeing it. Then I saw my responses, and was surprised (a little) that I had already been here and done that ;). With no intent on taking anything away from this code, all that was going through my mind this time was a Reader's Digest Condensed version, "Be Nice, please and thank you". Of course most requires a bit more instruction which is so well put forth above. Thanks again, it was fun the second time too.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1290
Tom


Shinoki: Tom, does the Big Cheese have this or some similar moral code he operates by?

Tom: Yes, I would think so. This moral code is based on the nature of consciousness thus defining minimum entropy interaction between sentient beings. It is not based on the nature of humans or any particular type of sentient being. Its fundamentals should apply to all life-forms in all places -- including the Big Cheese.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:38 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:11 am
Posts: 802
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Bringing it back

So now that I have read this im really confused on if I can hunt anymore or not becuase I do not see how eating plants is better than eating both plants and animals.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:25 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 555
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 1
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Lumpy,

It basically boils down to this: would it be okay (in your mind) for some advanced extraterrestrial with sophisticated killing technology (gun) to hunt you down for sport? If you answered, "yes" then by all means- continue hunting and give it no more thought. If you answered, "no" then it's time to realize that the animals we hunt for sport are sentient beings that feel fear and have an aversion to, well... you and me killing them. Hey, trust me- I know it's hard to hear that. Most of my family still does some hunting for sport when deer-hunting season comes around. I still go out with my grandfather for the bonding experience, but I bring a camera these days- not a gun. (And basically, he doesn't plan on using his anyway.) On the other hand, if you are hunting for survival purposes then there is a natural basis for the kill and thus it is not a violation. The balance of life is maintained- the animal dies for a greater good. When we kill animals because it's "fun" to go out and do so, or because we humans have over-populated to the point that we now feel the need to regulate the population of specific species for our convenience- we are clearly placing ourselves in a position of superiority and violating the natural rights of the life forms around us.

Anyway, I'm certainly not judging you or anyone else. Like I said- I'm not just some outside observer/3rd party "spokeperson" for animal rights throwing a tantrum. Most of family still does this (hunt), but that doesn't make it right. Do I think any less of them for it? No. Because I know they have a basic respect and admiration for the animals-- they just don't see the situation in the same way that I do. But hey- regardless of actions taken or not taken- it's the intent that really counts. If you're going to hunt no matter what- at least thank the animal you've taken and respect the sacrifice. Take a moment to consider the family that the creature may have just left. Send out your love to the consciousness of the animal you killed and to all those closely connected with it who are now at a loss because of your actions. Remember that if you kill a mother deer (for example) who had small fawns that those fawns (depending on age) will probably not survive for long without a mother. Your choice to kill potentially takes 2 or 3 lives instead of just one.

It's nothing to feel guilty about though either, and that's not what I'm trying to do. What's done is done, but the future is yet unwritten. There are many chances and opportunities for us to improve the quality of our consciousness, the tricky part is noticing and taking full advantage of those opportunities. This may be one of them.

Take care,

-cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:11 am
Posts: 802
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Quote:
Lumpy,

It basically boils down to this: would it be okay (in your mind) for some advanced extraterrestrial with sophisticated killing technology (gun) to hunt you down for sport? If you answered, "yes" then by all means- continue hunting and give it no more thought. If you answered, "no" then it's time to realize that the animals we hunt for sport are sentient beings that feel fear and have an aversion to, well... you and me killing them. Hey, trust me- I know it's hard to hear that. Most of my family still does some hunting for sport when deer-hunting season comes around. I still go out with my grandfather for the bonding experience, but I bring a camera these days- not a gun. (And basically, he doesn't plan on using his anyway.) On the other hand, if you are hunting for survival purposes then there is a natural basis for the kill and thus it is not a violation. The balance of life is maintained- the animal dies for a greater good. When we kill animals because it's "fun" to go out and do so, or because we humans have over-populated to the point that we now feel the need to regulate the population of specific species for our convenience- we are clearly placing ourselves in a position of superiority and violating the natural rights of the life forms around us.

Anyway, I'm certainly not judging you or anyone else. Like I said- I'm not just some outside observer/3rd party "spokeperson" for animal rights throwing a tantrum. Most of family still does this (hunt), but that doesn't make it right. Do I think any less of them for it? No. Because I know they have a basic respect and admiration for the animals-- they just don't see the situation in the same way that I do. But hey- regardless of actions taken or not taken- it's the intent that really counts. If you're going to hunt no matter what- at least thank the animal you've taken and respect the sacrifice. Take a moment to consider the family that the creature may have just left. Send out your love to the consciousness of the animal you killed and to all those closely connected with it who are now at a loss because of your actions. Remember that if you kill a mother deer (for example) who had small fawns that those fawns (depending on age) will probably not survive for long without a mother. Your choice to kill potentially takes 2 or 3 lives instead of just one.

It's nothing to feel guilty about though either, and that's not what I'm trying to do. What's done is done, but the future is yet unwritten. There are many chances and opportunities for us to improve the quality of our consciousness, the tricky part is noticing and taking full advantage of those opportunities. This may be one of them.

Take care,

-cole
Yes but plants are FWAU's too right? So either way I don't get why one would be better to kill for food.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Moral Code Part II
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 12395
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Lumpy,

Plants are not FWAUs. They are alive in the sense of growing 'things', but they have no nervous system. As has been explained before, in a virtual reality, the brain, as and if 'observed', represents a feedback from the state and nature of the 'mind' as the virtual being, the FWAU as a subset of the IUOC. Tom his discussed this before and has specifically done so in explaining changes in animal brains, chimpanzees as I remember, who had undergone some kind of moral or social development as reported from scientific research. As you go on down the chain of development, you eventually no longer have a brain as such, but you do have a neural net of sorts with some kind of free will response available to react to the environment.

I am not a biologist, but I remember nothing to the effect that plants have anything that can be thought of as a neural system and a quick scan on the Internet seems to confirm my memory. The kind of response they have is sun seeking for flower heads where differential growth of the cells of a stalk produces a rotation to follow the sun for maximum insolation. I am aware that there has been experimentation where plants are said to responded to human thought, but also there are legitimate appearing claims that this is refuted. It seems to be an unfruitful argument to get into. Looking at it logically, if we are not to eat plants or animals because they are declared to be sentient and animated by IUOCs, then what are we supposed to live on. Our mother's milk or some other creature's milk or perhaps fungi? I believe that the evidence for what is true exists within your own mouth in the form of your dentition. You are an omnivore, not an herbivore. Make your own decision based upon your own perception of morality, but this is the bottom line under the PMR rule set.

Ted


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 337 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 523 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited