Killed Anything Today?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I don't think any philosopher intends to adapt that into a political philosophy that justifies discrimination against others.

True: but I think the question has to be why they don't. After all, if "intelligence" is really the right explanation of why human beings have rights, then more of it should argue for more rights. That's just the most simple kind of logic.

But somehow, we know that's not right. And our intuition that it's not points to our need of a better explanation for rights...and to the fact that "intelligence" is not the real reason for rights at all.

I think it's a lot more complicated than merely implementing an ethical philosophy word for word, even when that philosophy seems very righteous. Part of the reason is probably that governments usually suck at doing most things, or they could potentially abuse that power. There are some things I believe to be immoral, but that I don't want made illegal.

But I think if the underlying principle of why intelligence is value is involved in some utilitarian argument, I don't think it necessarily demands more rights for some.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Even if it is true that IQ is the base for the value of someones life, I don't think any philosopher intends to adapt that into a political philosophy that justifies discrimination against others. What works in philosophy does not always work in politics.

In politics it is the vote that counts, and intelligence isn't a factor, and according to the last election life doesn't matter either, as many dead people voted for Hillary.

How many dead people do you think voted for hilary clinton?

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

Morality and politics are for those who believe they know what is right for others. I don't have that much certainty. An incredible amount of information I knew when younger is now useless, much of it found by researchers to be misconceptions. Even in the early 2000s I remember being shocked at how wrong my parents' old 1960s Encyclopaedia Britannica was on many topics.

I think politicians are all bluff merchants - they don't have much clue about the nuances of the complex beast of society, so they tend to follow their "tribal" affiliations and use post hoc rationalisations to justify their positions

I have enough belief to be going on with to last me the rest of my life. I know how I want to vote in a free election. I know what causes I support. I know how I should behave in most of the situations I expect to encounter. I know what sort of advisers to go to when I want information or discussion. I know who to trust and who to distrust. I might change my mind, but as I said I know enough to act upon when I have to act.

[Immanuel Can]

I think it's a lot more complicated than merely implementing an ethical philosophy word for word, even when that philosophy seems very righteous. Part of the reason is probably that governments usually suck at doing most things, or they could potentially abuse that power. There are some things I believe to be immoral, but that I don't want made illegal.

Agreed. For example, I don't want Atheism to be illegal. I want Atheists to be free to speak, and me to be free to question them about it. Likewise, I want them to be free to question me. But do I think Atheism is immoral (in addition to its being irrational)? Sure. At least amoral, and at least destructive to real morality and thus contributory to immorality. But I want it to be allowed, on the primary principle of freedom of conscience.

But I think if the underlying principle of why intelligence is value is involved in some utilitarian argument, I don't think it necessarily demands more rights for some.

Well, we'd need to say why it doesn't. Because presuming the "intelligence" criterion, it really looks like it does.

Here's a personal test. Ask yourself this. If, say we take IQ as a measurement of intelligence (though I'm aware of the problems: it's just an example of some index people use), would you want your child to be a 65 if he or she could be a 120? That's pretty clear, isn't it? You'd want your child to be the more intelligent. But why, if a 65 and a 120 are "equal"?

To continue, if we have a chance to preserve the life or comfort of a 120 at the expense of the life or discomfort of a 65 -- AND we've already decide that "intelligence" is the key thing that gives us all claim to rights in the first place -- then it's hard to explain why the 65 shouldn't get the short end of that stick. And conversely, if we want to tell people that the 65 deserves "just as much" as the 120, they're going to ask, "Why?" We need an answer. What makes the 65 the "equal" in value of the 120?

The 120 is likely more fit to survive, more useful to society, less requiring of resources, more capable of contributing value, more able to learn, more socially integrated...and so on, and so on, and so on. How do we tell these people "we're all equal," if IQ is the basis of our human dignity and rights?

[Harbal]

But do I think Atheism is immoral (in addition to its being irrational)

You just never give up or miss an opportunity, do you, IC?

[thedoc]

How many dead people do you think voted for hilary clinton?

I haven't seen any firm numbers and I'm sure the liberal media wouldn't report them if they had any.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I think it's a lot more complicated than merely implementing an ethical philosophy word for word, even when that philosophy seems very righteous. Part of the reason is probably that governments usually suck at doing most things, or they could potentially abuse that power. There are some things I believe to be immoral, but that I don't want made illegal.

Agreed. For example, I don't want Atheism to be illegal. I want Atheists to be free to speak, and me to be free to question them about it. Likewise, I want them to be free to question me. But do I think Atheism is immoral (in addition to its being irrational)? Sure. At least amoral, and at least destructive to real morality and thus contributory to immorality. But I want it to be allowed, on the primary principle of freedom of conscience.

I was originally thinking along the lines of socialist philosophies vs socialist policies. The idea that the collective should take care of everyone is generally a pretty agreeably concept, but very dis-favorably viewed when it comes to legally demanding it. It's not to say all socialist policies are doomed to fail, because the point is I actually like the idea of a single-payer system, but that's not to say I think it would work out here in america. I don't think it would as it does in canada and parts of the UK. There are more things to consider than whether an idea seems righteous.

Here's a personal test. Ask yourself this. If, say we take IQ as a measurement of intelligence (though I'm aware of the problems: it's just an example of some index people use), would you want your child to be a 65 if he or she could be a 120? That's pretty clear, isn't it? You'd want your child to be the more intelligent. But why, if a 65 and a 120 are "equal"?

To continue, if we have a chance to preserve the life or comfort of a 120 at the expense of the life or discomfort of a 65 -- AND we've already decide that "intelligence" is the key thing that gives us all claim to rights in the first place -- then it's hard to explain why the 65 shouldn't get the short end of that stick. And conversely, if we want to tell people that the 65 deserves "just as much" as the 120, they're going to ask, "Why?" We need an answer. What makes the 65 the "equal" in value of the 120?

The 120 is likely more fit to survive, more useful to society, less requiring of resources, more capable of contributing value, more able to learn, more socially integrated...and so on, and so on, and so on. How do we tell these people "we're all equal," if IQ is the basis of our human dignity and rights?

I think it's more complicated than that because there are things that negate intelligence of the person. For example, is it moral to kill someone in their sleep or if they're not consciously aware of it? This wouldn't negate the intelligence of the people who would be hurt by the death of their loved one. I find that the response of cultural damage is a pretty acceptable one, and is one that I adhere to. The reason why I don't think it's necessarily more immoral to kill someone of a higher intelligence is because it doesn't necessarily cause the more harm, even if we accept the principle that intelligent people are more aware of harm.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

How many dead people do you think voted for hilary clinton?

I haven't seen any firm numbers and I'm sure the liberal media wouldn't report them if they had any.

So 'many dead people' voted for hilary clinton but you don't have any firm numbers on it?

[thedoc]

How many dead people do you think voted for hilary clinton?

I haven't seen any firm numbers and I'm sure the liberal media wouldn't report them if they had any.

So 'many dead people' voted for hilary clinton but you don't have any firm numbers on it?

Are you implying that you would rather put another criminal in office?
As if Bill and Obama weren't bad enough.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I haven't seen any firm numbers and I'm sure the liberal media wouldn't report them if they had any.

So 'many dead people' voted for hilary clinton but you don't have any firm numbers on it?

Are you implying that you would rather put another criminal in office?
As if Bill and Obama weren't bad enough.

I'm asking you about what your source is that leads you to believe that there are 'many dead people' that voted for hilary clinton; I have no idea how you got that from what I just said.

[Greta]

True: but I think the question has to be why they don't. After all, if "intelligence" is really the right explanation of why human beings have rights, then more of it should argue for more rights. That's just the most simple kind of logic.

I think this highlights how Immanual's logic tends to be abstracted rather than reality-based. To follow his thinking, since food is healthy, more food must be better.

No, I was not arguing in the way you're parodying. You've misunderstood.

I was not arguing that Intelligence was "good for you" at all (though perhaps it often is). Some intelligent people are toxically "smart," and can't manage life. We all know such folks. Rather, I was pointing out what proponents of the "intelligence" criterion for rights are obligated to believe if they are rational: namely, that if rights depend on "intelligence," then people who have more intelligence have a better claim to rights.

I was also saying that intuitively we all sense that that was incorrect. Intelligence is NOT the right criterion for rights.

Hope this helps.

Immanuel, I was aware that you were not touting for the value of intelligence, but got mixed up pointing out the strawman. I do find that theists have a bizarrely low opinion of non believers - with profound underestimation of others' minds and sensibilities.

I'll let you in on a little secret - atheists are almost exactly like you and you like them. The difference is a small belief-based line in the sand that is ultimately meaningless in the face of much larger realities to which we are subject. We, as part of the body of humanity on the body of biology built on the bones of geology, actually think and feel almost identically, like microbes and ants, yet our solipsism blinds us to this obvious fact.

I also think your focus on intelligence is off beam anyway. Intelligence does not confer any rights whatsoever and can be a significant social disadvantage. It is the knowledge and achievement that came from applied intelligence that confers value, and thus influence. Many of here are smart, and it means nothing. Our forum activities are much less valued and valuable than the manual labour of a lad with an IQ of 85, for instance.

[Immanuel Can]

You just never give up or miss an opportunity, do you, IC?

Nope.

[thedoc]

So 'many dead people' voted for hilary clinton but you don't have any firm numbers on it?

Are you implying that you would rather put another criminal in office?
As if Bill and Obama weren't bad enough.

I'm asking you about what your source is that leads you to believe that there are 'many dead people' that voted for hilary clinton; I have no idea how you got that from what I just said.

I have heard a number of news accounts and reports of voter fraud involving dead people voting for Hillary, I didn't keep a record of those accounts or a source. I was satisfied at the time and didn't pursue it further.

[Immanuel Can]

We, as part of the body of humanity on the body of biology built on the bones of geology, actually think and feel almost identically, like microbes and ants, yet our solipsism blinds us to this obvious fact.

I have no idea what conclusion you're trying to draw here, so I can't really formulate a reaction. It just looks to me like fulminating about an "IS," (bones, geology, whatnot) and hoping to get an "OUGHT" to jump out of it...like "we ought not to be solipsistic," or something. But there's no logical connection to suggest how that's supposed to happen, if that's it.

I really cannot tell. Sorry.

[Immanuel Can]

The idea that the collective should take care of everyone is generally a pretty agreeably concept, but very dis-favorably viewed when it comes to legally demanding it. It's not to say all socialist policies are doomed to fail, because the point is I actually like the idea of a single-payer system, but that's not to say I think it would work out here in america. I don't think it would as it does in canada and parts of the UK. There are more things to consider than whether an idea seems righteous.

I think you're more right than you even seem to feel comfortable to say. Social planning in small doses does seem occasionally to do some good. But there has not been a single Socialist country in this world that has not produced misery, corruption, injustice, rights abuses, folly, weakness and economic decline. So I think you can be even more confident than you are about its inadequacies.

But all things being equal, save intelligence, why would a person of low intelligence be counted as the equal of one of high intelligence, fi intelligence matters to these things?

You see, it really doesn't matter what criterion we use -- intelligence, ability to feel pain or pleasure, health, wealth, talents, strength, youth, language, culture, self-control, experience...and on and on. These things are ALL parcelled out to the human race unequally. So on what basis do we select ANYTHING, and then declare that "all men are created equal." Equal in what sense? It's certainly not "self-evident" that they are.

Now, please understand that personally, I believe in equality of value. But my reasons will not do for secularists, I recognize, and they won't accept them. So, setting aside all that a Theist could say, on what basis do we have to continue to believe in equality? I see no secular criterion that will justify that conclusion, and a host that will argue for inequality being inherent.

But if you know of one they can advance, I'd love to hear about it.