tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post4703319967165686318..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: Probabilistic ethicsmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-74940044247168718332008-03-11T14:32:00.000-07:002008-03-11T14:32:00.000-07:00There is a practical reason why we eat cows, sheep...There is a practical reason why we eat cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, deer, etc. These are all herbivores, while cats of all sorts, dogs and wolves, etc., are carnivores. The ratio of carnivores to their usual prey is pretty well fixed in nature; I believe it is something on the order of 1:10. Therefore we can raise and eat large numbers of herbivores, whereas raising carnivores for food would be very difficult. Of course, the animals we eat have generally been prescribed by religions, and whether we believe those religions or not, we are all affected by them psychologically. Thus, few of us eat horses, although they are herbivores; and depending on your religion, you may also avoid pigs. I have this suspicion that most of the laws of major religions simply codified what were considered practical matters at the time that the roots of these religions were established. Today some of these laws may seem nonsensical, and ethnic groups that developed without these practical and religious root beliefs don't feel bound by them. Nevertheless, we are all affected by the beliefs of the people around us.DeralterChemikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05418046984984036644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-76815463975487344042008-03-11T09:46:00.000-07:002008-03-11T09:46:00.000-07:00"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only pow..."There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." Ayn Rand.<BR/><BR/>Every citizen a criminal, every jackbooted State enforcer a saint - <A HREF="http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/homesec.jpg" REL="nofollow">Homeland Severity.</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-4386731125322884262008-03-10T14:09:00.000-07:002008-03-10T14:09:00.000-07:00Then of course there's mathematical morality (alth...Then of course there's <A HREF="http://cheng.staff.shef.ac.uk/morality/" REL="nofollow">mathematical morality</A> (although in this case it has nothing to do with ethics…)<BR/><BR/>In general I'd agree with your assessment. There's a couple of things that make it hard to implement in practice, though--most significantly the difficulty of pinning down reasonable probabilities for the possible outcomes of an action in all but a select few cases (such as a lottery).<BR/><BR/>On the topic of rationalization, some rather interesting questions are raised (for me, at least). I for one would be adverse to eating cats (well, if I had to I'd eat one if it was already dead through no fault of my own.) I don't mind that a cow gets killed so I can eat it (when I don't think about it too much), but I'd be much more reluctant to allow a cat to be killed so I can eat it. My rationalization would be that in some sense I perceive cats to be "smarter" or to have more "consciousness" than a cow, but that's probably more due to the way I've interacted with cats than any actual difference between the two. No one's yet figured out a completely acceptable measure of intelligence or consciousness, so I can't even fairly say that a cat is more conscious than a cow, or that that's a good reason not to eat one (especially if I were starving).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com