Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: a stoic theory of justice

Expand Messages
  • charlesbricebroadway
    Rick, Salad is murder. LWH, CBB ... I have ... nature, and ... right to ... position... ... category, and ... human ... principles and ... share the ...
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Rick,

      Salad is murder.

      LWH,
      CBB



      --- In stoics@y..., "R&F Bamford" <bamford@v...> wrote:
      > Charles,
      >
      > I agree with most of what you say, at least in principle. The part
      I have
      > the most trouble with is were you spoke of the contract with
      nature, and
      > specifically your example of a bear and a human having the equal
      right to
      > kill each other. This I cannot agree with. Let me explain my
      position...
      >
      > A bear (or any animal) and a human being are not in the same
      category, and
      > they should not be expected to follow the same rules of conduct. A
      human
      > has abilities that a bear cannot even fathom, such as reason,
      principles and
      > (hopefully) compassion. We cannot expect a bear and a human to
      share the
      > same standards of conduct any more than we could expect a human
      toddler and
      > a full grown adult to share the same standards of conduct. A
      hungry bear
      > will kill a human for food, and a human toddler will throw a temper
      tantrum
      > to get its way. They do this because it is in their simple
      natures, for
      > they do not have the capacity to know any other way. Does this
      mean that a
      > mature human being, with reason and compassion at his command, has
      the right
      > to act the same way? I would argue not. Just as an adult human
      would be
      > mistaken to lower himself to the level of a child's conduct, he is
      also
      > mistaken to lower himself to the level of an animal's conduct. A
      child and
      > a bear are not 'wrong' to act as they do, for that is all they are
      capable
      > of. But a mature human has the capacity to be much more, and to
      fail to
      > actualize that capacity, by using the excuse that another party is
      incapable
      > of following suit, is an error in judgment. Your past arguments in
      favor of
      > capitalism suggest to me you would agree that it is an error in
      judgment to
      > stoop to the lowest common denominator when one is capable of
      greatness.
      >
      > Humans are not the same as bears, or other animals. Yes, we are an
      integral
      > part of the same nature as animals, but in another respect, we have
      also
      > moved beyond that. We can now manipulate nature to do our biding.
      Animals
      > live only on instinct and, for some, the simplest of cognition.
      Humans have
      > traveled to the moon, split atoms, and fused them back together
      again into
      > elements that do not exist in nature. While we are and always will
      be
      > physically part of nature, we have developed the ability to
      mentally divorce
      > ourselves from nature, and examine it objectively. Like it or not,
      we are
      > not only the dominate species on this planet, we are head and
      shoulders
      > above the rest. We have developed awesome power, which no horn,
      tooth or
      > claw can match. By default, we have become the unintentional wards
      of the
      > Earth and its other inhabitants, for our presence has an affect
      upon them
      > all, usually not to their advantage, and they are helpless before
      it.
      >
      > With the benefits of our awesome power comes the responsibility to
      use it
      > wisely. Can a species with the capability to turn the Earth into a
      nuclear
      > cinder still rely on the 'tit for tat, might makes right' law of
      the jungle?
      > This is very dangerous, and we must grow beyond it. The situation
      will only
      > get worse, as we develop more compact and more easily attainable
      weapons of
      > mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical or biological. I don't
      think it
      > will be long before a weapon that could wipe us all out is
      developed that is
      > capable of being handled and delivered by a single terrorist or
      small group
      > of terrorists. Films like "12 Monkeys" comes to mind. The way
      things are
      > going, there is little doubt such capability will be developed, and
      sooner
      > than we think. And if you don't think someone would be willing to
      use it,
      > just read your history books, up to and including 9/11.
      >
      > If we humans are to ultimately survive our own technology, we must
      evolve
      > beyond the 'natural' law of the jungle, and replace it with reason
      and
      > compassion, which support each other well. Our power has far
      surpassed that
      > of animals, and if that power is not to destroy us, our WAYS must
      also far
      > surpass that of animals. It is time for humanity to grow up, and
      become the
      > responsible adult. It cannot afford to play the role of the child,
      or of
      > the bear, any longer.
      >
      > LWH,
      >
      > -Rick
    • R&F Bamford
      Charles said... ... Charles, I propose some experiments... 1. Take a carrot and cow. Chop the tip off the end of the carrot. Then chop a leg off the cow.
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 1, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Charles said...
        >>> Rick, Salad is murder.<<<

        Charles,

        I propose some experiments...

        1. Take a carrot and cow. Chop the tip off the end of the carrot. Then
        chop a leg off the cow. Make careful note of how the two react to this.

        2. Take a potato and pig. Toss them both into a raging river. Compare and
        contrast the reactions of the two.

        Technically, you are correct of course. As animals, we must, by definition,
        destroy life in order to survive, for we are pathetically unskilled at
        photosynthesis. It would be ideal if we humans could tread the Earth
        without disturbing so much as a blade of grass. But this, of course, is
        absolutely impossible.

        Still, I see no reason why enlightened sentient beings of reason, compassion
        and empathy cannot lift themselves from the savage cradle of their origins,
        and make small adjustments in their lifestyles so as to minimize the
        suffering of sentient beings who are not so enlightened.

        Part of the definition of being 'civilized' is the humane and ethical
        treatment of others. (feel free to look it up.) No doubt, most human beings
        will restrict the definition of 'others' to their fellow humans. This is
        the pinnacle of myopic selfishness and species prejudice. I have yet to see
        any rational reason why humane and ethical treatment cannot and should not
        be extended to any and all sentient beings who are capable of recognizing
        that they are being treated otherwise.

        I cannot make my position any plainer. It is possible that our viewpoints
        are so far removed from each other that we are incapable of seeing eye to
        eye on the matter, not unlike the split along theist/nontheists viewpoints
        we encountered some months ago. So be it. I realize my viewpoint is a
        minority one, and that I can only do what is in my power to change that,
        which is attempts at persuasion and living by example.

        I must now take my leave, as I am going away for the weekend.

        Live with honor AND compassion,

        -Rick
      • charlesbricebroadway
        Rick, If I chop the leg off of the cow, do I get to eat it? Can I also bake the potato instead of throwing it in the river? LWH, CBB ... carrot. Then ...
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 1, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Rick,

          If I chop the leg off of the cow, do I get to eat it? Can I also bake
          the potato instead of throwing it in the river?

          LWH,
          CBB

          --- In stoics@y..., "R&F Bamford" <bamford@v...> wrote:
          > Charles said...
          > >>> Rick, Salad is murder.<<<
          >
          > Charles,
          >
          > I propose some experiments...
          >
          > 1. Take a carrot and cow. Chop the tip off the end of the
          carrot. Then
          > chop a leg off the cow. Make careful note of how the two react to
          this.
          >
          > 2. Take a potato and pig. Toss them both into a raging river.
          Compare and
          > contrast the reactions of the two.
          >
          > Technically, you are correct of course. As animals, we must, by
          definition,
          > destroy life in order to survive, for we are pathetically unskilled
          at
          > photosynthesis. It would be ideal if we humans could tread the
          Earth
          > without disturbing so much as a blade of grass. But this, of
          course, is
          > absolutely impossible.
          >
          > Still, I see no reason why enlightened sentient beings of reason,
          compassion
          > and empathy cannot lift themselves from the savage cradle of their
          origins,
          > and make small adjustments in their lifestyles so as to minimize the
          > suffering of sentient beings who are not so enlightened.
          >
          > Part of the definition of being 'civilized' is the humane and
          ethical
          > treatment of others. (feel free to look it up.) No doubt, most
          human beings
          > will restrict the definition of 'others' to their fellow humans.
          This is
          > the pinnacle of myopic selfishness and species prejudice. I have
          yet to see
          > any rational reason why humane and ethical treatment cannot and
          should not
          > be extended to any and all sentient beings who are capable of
          recognizing
          > that they are being treated otherwise.
          >
          > I cannot make my position any plainer. It is possible that our
          viewpoints
          > are so far removed from each other that we are incapable of seeing
          eye to
          > eye on the matter, not unlike the split along theist/nontheists
          viewpoints
          > we encountered some months ago. So be it. I realize my viewpoint
          is a
          > minority one, and that I can only do what is in my power to change
          that,
          > which is attempts at persuasion and living by example.
          >
          > I must now take my leave, as I am going away for the weekend.
          >
          > Live with honor AND compassion,
          >
          > -Rick
        • Kenneth Sibley
          ... must evolve ... reason and ... It is interesting how natural selection now seems to favor restraint. Those species that do not learn to control their own
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 1, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In stoics@y..., "R&F Bamford" <bamford@v...> wrote:

            > If we humans are to ultimately survive our own technology, we
            must evolve
            > beyond the 'natural' law of the jungle, and replace it with
            reason and
            > compassion, which support each other well.

            It is interesting how natural selection now seems to favor
            restraint. Those species that do not learn to control their own
            destructive power will not survive. The very traits that previously
            conferred survival benefit now appear to endanger our survival.

            Kenneth
          • james j granger
            Rick, greatest comeback I ever heard. I salute you. With admiration, jgOn Fri, 01 Nov 2002 23:19:30 -0000 charlesbricebroadway
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 2, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Rick, greatest comeback I ever heard. I salute you. With admiration, jg

              On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 23:19:30 -0000 "charlesbricebroadway"
              <charlesbricebroadway@...> writes:
              > Rick,
              >
              > If I chop the leg off of the cow, do I get to eat it? Can I also
              > bake
              > the potato instead of throwing it in the river?
              >
              > LWH,
              > CBB
              >
              > --- In stoics@y..., "R&F Bamford" <bamford@v...> wrote:
              > > Charles said...
              > > >>> Rick, Salad is murder.<<<
              > >
              > > Charles,
              > >
              > > I propose some experiments...
              > >
              > > 1. Take a carrot and cow. Chop the tip off the end of the
              > carrot. Then
              > > chop a leg off the cow. Make careful note of how the two react to
              >
              > this.
              > >
              > > 2. Take a potato and pig. Toss them both into a raging river.
              > Compare and
              > > contrast the reactions of the two.
              > >
              > > Technically, you are correct of course. As animals, we must, by
              > definition,
              > > destroy life in order to survive, for we are pathetically
              > unskilled
              > at
              > > photosynthesis. It would be ideal if we humans could tread the
              > Earth
              > > without disturbing so much as a blade of grass. But this, of
              > course, is
              > > absolutely impossible.
              > >
              > > Still, I see no reason why enlightened sentient beings of reason,
              > compassion
              > > and empathy cannot lift themselves from the savage cradle of their
              >
              > origins,
              > > and make small adjustments in their lifestyles so as to minimize
              > the
              > > suffering of sentient beings who are not so enlightened.
              > >
              > > Part of the definition of being 'civilized' is the humane and
              > ethical
              > > treatment of others. (feel free to look it up.) No doubt, most
              > human beings
              > > will restrict the definition of 'others' to their fellow humans.
              > This is
              > > the pinnacle of myopic selfishness and species prejudice. I have
              > yet to see
              > > any rational reason why humane and ethical treatment cannot and
              > should not
              > > be extended to any and all sentient beings who are capable of
              > recognizing
              > > that they are being treated otherwise.
              > >
              > > I cannot make my position any plainer. It is possible that our
              > viewpoints
              > > are so far removed from each other that we are incapable of seeing
              >
              > eye to
              > > eye on the matter, not unlike the split along theist/nontheists
              > viewpoints
              > > we encountered some months ago. So be it. I realize my viewpoint
              >
              > is a
              > > minority one, and that I can only do what is in my power to change
              >
              > that,
              > > which is attempts at persuasion and living by example.
              > >
              > > I must now take my leave, as I am going away for the weekend.
              > >
              > > Live with honor AND compassion,
              > >
              > > -Rick
              >
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >


              ________________________________________________________________
              Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
              Only $9.95 per month!
              Visit www.juno.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.