]]>
While animals are certainly not automatons, they can behave as such when they are driven by innate mechanisms such as instinct. Learned behaviours are sometimes non-automatic but can be, such as in conditioned responses. While animals may act to gain positive reinforcements and avoid negative outcomes, to claim this may be because of "thinking" is probably, for just about all animals, untrue - some animals can plan, but can animals reason, that is, use a "what if" or "unless I" scenario? There is a large literature of "altruistic" behaviour and co-operation in animals, and while a lot of those behaviours are either because the recipients of a 'good deed' are related to you, or because you gain status (being 'friends' with a more dominant individual), not all seem to be. However, I don't think there is evidence animals have the utilitarian philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number, as you seem to suggest.
It is commendable that you would want to think about a model of ethics and well-being that includes non-humans; however, ethics is about what it is to do the right thing, and requires reasoning and a consideration of others, and a system of thinking (true empathy and realizing that another individual both shares things with you (if they are of the same species) but still has a mind of their own, let alone empathy with other species) are properties that animals do not display. That is, while humans can think about ethics in realtion to animals, the reverse is not possible. So I still would repeat my earlier suggestion, go and read some of those great thinkers who have grappled with the question first. To incorporate non-humans in an ethical framework, I recommend Peter Singer.
And in reply to another person here (animal-friendly?): Animals have no rights because they cannot reciprocate. But that does not mean humans cannot extend to them certain rights, such as to have their welfare considered when humans use them, or even when not (in the case of free-living animals).
Statistics: Posted by Cobie — Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:29 pm
]]>
Enkrateia for Pleasure
This post aims to present a proposition on Well-being, Ethics and Altruism and incite discussions on the subject. Please, comment!
Enkrateia comes from Greek and means "in power (of yourself)" as opposed to akrasia which means lack of power (over yourself), lack of self-control, to act in discordance with the best perceived option.
Animals, differently from any other being, are partially autonomous and not exclusively automatons: they think and act in order to have pleasure and avoid displeasure.
For a course of thoughts and actions to generate the ethical and the most pleasurable likely outcome, one should think and/or act in order to generate the most pleasurable likely outcome for yourself and/or each animal involved by the course.
However, one can, in order to avoid the displeasures of the course or have pleasures outside of it, incite other course whose outcome is not the most pleasurable likely for yourself and/or each animal involved.
Therefore, it is required Enkrateia to overcome the casual displeasures and absence of pleasures of the course whose outcome is the most pleasurable likely for yourself and/or each animal involved.
In this sense, it is suggested a central and determinant role of Enkrateia in the obtainment of Well-being, Ethics and Altruism.
Statistics: Posted by rcarvao — Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:54 pm
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Cobie — Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:46 pm
]]>
How a vegetable can feel? By which mechanism?
Ethics comes with the ability to foresee the outcome of your actions in others. So, If a lion can do it at some degree when he hunts, he is being unethical in that same degree, but if not, he is not being unethical, just aethical.
The same with the lifeboat survivors: if anyone that got into the ship could foresee that it is possible that the ship could sink, that one assumes his individual responsability for his own life and the others, unless they want it, have no obligation to help, or in this particular case, to die to help. So, I think it would be unethical to transfer and impose its own irresponsibility or risk taken on others.
Life its not perfect, any animal has its limitation but we are able to do the best of it. And if we are not including non-animals, non-sentient beings to the ethical account, maybe it is not that cruel to live.
Statistics: Posted by rcarvao — Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:45 am
]]>
Isn't it ethical for a sensitive person, upon understanding life, to kill themselves, rather that the torment of knowing that to live, many other life forms have to die? Or should they rationalize some way for their mind to tolerate their own behavior to survive? Don't they lose ethics in that case?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037428 ... b_prodpg_2
What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses
Humans are not all moral agents. Many have been raised or developed utter disregard for their own and others' lives, laws, and feelings. So many suicide bombers and shooters, and poachers ruining it for those who are moral. Some are just entirely immorally greedy or self-centered. Some are just mean and cruel, then when caught deny what they did. Many aren't much more than unintelligent herd animals going with the flow, incapable of deep learning and thinking ahead, and only taking on the morals of their herd or flock. Hence, the human gross overpopulation.
Those that are moral, intelligent, educated and ungreedy and living well with a low eco-footprint are a small minority. Most humans know good from bad and do good morally where society approves of law abiding and moral conduct. There are enough of the bad, however, to make it difficult for the good. Plus what many think of as good, is not, ecologically.
Statistics: Posted by Johhny Electriglide — Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:58 am
]]>
The connection can be with anything (objects ans subjects) but the subject that start the conection must regard the outcome, if capable to foresee it, to each subject,i.e. each sentient being,i.e. each being that generates neurotransmitters, by yourself conneted.
The ethic proposed is absolute: every outcome must be regarded individualy since any animal owns its own body and seeks for its best interest, regardless of the quantity of "positive" neurotransmitters generated in others subjects, e.g. the number or the size or the intelligence of the others animals. So, noone has the right to kill or consume or simply, to connect, to any other subject if it not its best interest.
It is clearer now?
Statistics: Posted by rcarvao — Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:54 am
]]>
So let's start again: Are animals entitled to rights? If so, which ones? Which animals? Or only to the right to have their welfare considered? Are your ethic practical (I can eat meat as long as the animal's welfare has been considered) or absolute (meat is only OK if it is road kill or a natural death after a life during which all my needs were considered?) ?
Statistics: Posted by Cobie — Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:40 am
]]>
The right is to connect yourself, if capable, to subjects and/or objects (materials, ideas, energies, etc.) that generate the most positive outcome of neurotransmitters to each subject by yourself connected.
Thanks for the attention, Rafael Carvão
Statistics: Posted by rcarvao — Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:05 am
]]>