Sadistic Seagull

[jtr1962]

That's funny jtr Well, I didn't come to this one for a break but I do find these types of discussions ridiculously interesting and not simply for the discussion itself, as if just to visit. Most of my pleasure comes from reading your thoughts, applying my own world view and then drawing out conclusions.

Indeed. It's really the fact that we have differing viewpoints (you're a theist and I'm not) which makes this discussion interesting. Unfortunately, not much time to address all of your points so I'll just address the few which stood out for me.

Here is an objective moral truth claim few would argue with "It is wrong to kill our sick and handicapped just because they're of no obvious use to society and only consume resources." Early 20th century American scientific establishments argued that Eugenics was a viable policy. The Nazi party also thought it was a good idea, but I say it's morally wrong regardless of their logical or even practical justifications. Therefore if a person is going to stand by the notion that morals evolved out of purpose and necessity they have to first reconcile problem of eugenics, which I don't think is possible. Either eugenics has to be embraced or we need remove the possibility morals evolved out culture.

I of course don't buy into the idea of killing the sick or handicapped directly, simply because they are of no obvious use to society. I do however believe that we shouldn't undertake extraordinary measures to keep them alive. If all you need do is feed them and house them then I'm OK with that. But if you need to spend many thousands of dollars on expensive medical procedures which will merely keep them alive without curing their condition, then in fact I see that as morally wrong. Those same resources might be used to return others, perhaps many others, to a state where they could indeed contribute to society. Same line of reasoning for those who choose to self destruct via drugs or smoking or alcohol or overeating. When the effects of these poisons start to kill them, I say just let nature take its course. Make them as comfortable as possible, but don't take any costly measures to prolong their lives. Now if medical resources were free and unlimited, I would obviously consider every life worth trying to save. In short, my moral judgement here dictates using limited medical resources in the way which benefits the people most likely to helped by them.

Ok let's look at "punishment" in the case of a speeding ticket. After being caught and ticketed, we wouldn't in normal circumstances say that the speeder is a "broken machine" that needs rehabilitating. We instead understand that in most cases the speeder knew the law and made the choice to transgress it to suit their own purposes. (I speak as an occasional speeder btw) Now, you may not agree with speeding tickets and could even argue that it's just another form of revenue today but if we track speeding tickets back to their beginnings they came about out of necessity to protect early motorists. The possibility of being punished by financial set-back is the type of persuasion the government uses to deter speeding. Another example would be lie about your taxes. When a person lies about their taxes we don't say they need rehabilitating. When it's determined that if they did indeed lie, they can be punished with interest, fines and even jail time.

The two cases you mention don't imply that the law breaker has a fundamental defect of character which must be fixed. In fact, I'd say these two instances imply that society itself is what needs fixing. If enough people speed it's because the speed limit was set too low in the first place, far lower than needed simply for safety. Most people will in fact keep to a reasonable speed for the conditions regardless of speed limit. If it's set at the 95th percentile then only those really posing a danger will need to be stopped. But you don't even need fines for that. Just have the car read the speed limits and govern itself to them. We certainly can do this if we wanted to nowadays. And in the second instance, an income tax is a poor means of getting revenue. It's far too easy and tempting to cheat. A sales tax is much harder to evade, especially if you're the buyer. And with only sellers to keep track of, enforcement is much easier. But in both cases, remember that these two laws have no basis in what you term absolute morality as laws against killing or stealing do. It can even be argued that taxes are effectively the government stealing from you if they're too high!

The phrase "all attempts" is an infinite so I'll take it that you just mean many attempts. In any case, how exactly does that work? A thief steals but instead of punishing them by temporarily suspending their freedom, we send them to a specialist in an attempt to fix them. They then commit another act of theft and in the spirit of making "all attempts to repair an obvious behavioral issue them" we send to a countless number of professionals who want to teach the thief something that they already know, that is, stealing is wrong. Since there are no serious ramifications to stealing thus far, no fines paid, no jail time spent, the thief thinks to him self, "I'm going to continue to play the odds. Since I could score big, but it's worth the risk of getting caught and have to talk to a behaviorist down at the police station." Finally one day, after a dozen times society says, no more! From that point on it's ok to "remove" or "destroy" them if everything else fails, but at the same time we're not going to acknowledge it as or use the term "punishment" even though that's exactly what it is. Boy, I can't imagine that working. Imagine if we apply that system's logic to a sociopathic murderer. We'd have to make many attempts to fix them before we "removed" or "destroyed" them. Eeek.

By fix I certainly didn't mean taking to behaviorists! That never worked even when it was in vogue. No, I mean something closer to what the sociopath Alex went through in "A Clockwork Orange". You basically use some means (probably technological rather than the conditioning shown in the film) to remove the free will to commit the crime again. If a thief makes a decision to steal again, he is prevented from acting upon that decision by a chip hardwired into his brain. Ditto for a murderer or a child molester. No idea how this would work in practice. Maybe the chip would physically paralyze the person until the thought passed. Or maybe it would immediately notify the authorities. Or perhaps there would be no chip, but instead he would be escorted by a robot sentry programmed to physically restrain him should he decide to be deviant again. Regardless of method, the idea is the same-remove the ability to commit the crime again by removing the ability to act upon his free will. And before you say how horrible this sounds, consider that the alternative at present is incarceration in a closet-sized cell, often with a horny AIDs infected cellmate, and at a cost to society of something like $1 million a year. At least with my way the deviant can enjoy society (and society can benefit from him). I don't care if he ever internalizes why what he did was wrong so long as he can never do it again.

Look at these ideas in a practical sense. If it's like you say it is and we're heading for mass specie's loss or extinction it's unlikely it won't even happen in your lifetime. If you're gone and nothing happens to you after you die and you don't have to give an account for your life, then nothing after your death matters. If you have no spirit and you simply cease to exist when you die, then why have an overriding concern for the continued existence of the earth? If you're gone you no longer need it. The "earth first" argument is at its core self defeating. In fact, my worldview explains the reasons why we should care of the earth better than any secular answer. I'm instructed to be a good steward and if I'm a poor steward I'll probably have to answer for that when I die. How does the naturalist justify his efforts in minimizing damage on earth? What incentive does a 70-year-old atheist have to recycle when he's not even going to exist soon, at which time nothing matters? Why should a young person who's dying soon from a disease still not empty his used motor oil in the vacant lot behind his house? The answer is that there is no reason if you're a secular humanist.

Hmm, I know any number of people who are a living contradiction to this, me included. From a pragmatic standpoint, sure, what you said makes sense. I'm 46. Chances are good I'll be gone in 60 years or less. But then again, I don't know that with any certainty. Interesting times we live in nowadays, unraveling the genetic code as it relates to the aging process. And because of this, it's entire plausible that if I can survive another 50 years, I may well be around for the next 50,000. And I certainly want to live forever should it become possible. And if I do die, I'll seriously consider having my body preserved for revival when we possess the technology to do so. In short, I care what happens in the distant future because I may well be around to live in it. Even if not, why not care? Is fear of punishment in the afterlife the only reason you act with consideration towards your fellow beings? I certainly hope not. I hope you've internalized the lessons put forth in the books you quote. What drives me isn't fear of punishment by a deity I don't even feel exists. It's empathy, the ability to put myself in the place of those I might wrong, even if they are not yet born, and then decide not to wrong them even if it might benefit me personally. Is this perhaps the thing which really separates us from other creatures? I think so. Empathy is power of the highest form. Imagine that you could destroy all the world with but a thought, and had every reason to do so, but choose not to knowing the effects it would have. This is the power I speak of. This is why Monocrom saved the sick seagull. It's why I feed stray cats. We can put ourselves in their place, feel their suffering as if it were our own, and say we won't let this happen.

 

[Patriot]

I would guess that some might include in their definition of intelligence, the ability to question and then find answers. Well animals can't talk to us but any of you who have spent time with animals will likely agree with me that animals do question. We sense this in their facial expressions and when they **** their head from one side to another as if changing their view a bit will enlighten them. In human terms, their questions might be such as:

"Is that food for me?"
"Can I get away with this?"
"Is that thing going to attack me?"
"Are you going to get off your butt and take me for a walk?"

I am convinced that animals ask questions and sometimes they get answers and sometimes they don't. I think they can enjoy frustration just like we do.

Good post McGizmo,

I got a good laugh out of those animal expression questions because they're exactly like that. I pictures dogs, myself when I read those and I sitting here chuckling again right now. Obviously I'm convinced also that animals ask these things, albeit usually in a reactive mode. I've always wondered what dogs sit there and think about when they're relaxed and they're not being bombarded by stimulating things. By that I mean that almost anything triggers responses in more active dogs. The neighbor's car door closing, a truck driving by, the refrigerator compressor cycling, images on the TV sometimes, somebody in the kitchen with food, a dog next door barking. All these sorts of things and that wasn't even touching on their whole world of smell, which really blows me away. When all those stimuli are not there and they're just "chillin" so to speak, I often wonder wants happening in that little head.

It's obvious to me that they form pictures or possibly movies in their mind since I've observed dogs dreaming both good and bad dreams. If you ever softly petting a dog while they're still sleeping and they don't immediately wake up, the petting seems to become part of the dream. At other times during what I'm guessing are bad dreams, they sometimes kick their legs or whimper in their sleep. I always wake them up and comfort them when that happens though. I can't bare to watch them so upset, even if it's just a dream. In any case, that tells me that there are some complex things happening because of the fact they're able to, at the very least draw pictures up there.

I think intelligent animals, we'll just stay on dogs for now, still seem to be mostly reactive to the environment around them, but they probably dip into the abstract realm in some capacity. I dog knows when dinner time is approaching and seems to be thinking about it in advance. I'm not sure exactly what that means but my first thought is, how far into the future do than anticipate. I highly doubt that while it's eating it's thinking about dinner the next evening but as soon as it licks the bowl clean they somethings look at you like, "can I have my late night jerky treat a bit early?" Dog owners know the look...lol. I know that animals behaviorist and scientific studies are likely years ahead of anything we've thought about but I wonder if by trying to figure out how far in advance animals think about things, that this could be a major clue to unlocking things we don't know.

Monocrom's story and resulting thread turned out to be so interesting because it steps right into the middle of animal soulishness, and human morality, which branches into some of the most complex topics that man ever ponders. It's a bit overwhelming in a way because one thought leads to another, leads to another...and so on.

 

[Patriot]

Well, my friend I'm going to have to shorted this one a bit but I'll try to cover the things which jump out at me the most if that's ok for tonight.

jtr1962;3005647]Indeed. It's really the fact that we have differing viewpoints (you're a theist and I'm not) which makes this discussion interesting. Unfortunately, not much time to address all of your points so I'll just address the few which stood out for me.

Yes, it obviously makes a huge difference because our starting points are naturally going to be much different. Still, it's pretty amazing that witting alone is able to convey a large amount vs, talking to someone in person or even on the phone. It's definitely been a good chat.

I of course don't buy into the idea of killing the sick or handicapped directly, simply because they are of no obvious use to society. I do however believe that we shouldn't undertake extraordinary measures to keep them alive. If all you need do is feed them and house them then I'm OK with that. But if you need to spend many thousands of dollars on expensive medical procedures which will merely keep them alive without curing their condition, then in fact I see that as morally wrong. Those same resources might be used to return others, perhaps many others, to a state where they could indeed contribute to society. Same line of reasoning for those who choose to self destruct via drugs or smoking or alcohol or overeating. When the effects of these poisons start to kill them, I say just let nature take its course. Make them as comfortable as possible, but don't take any costly measures to prolong their lives. Now if medical resources were free and unlimited, I would obviously consider every life worth trying to save. In short, my moral judgement here dictates using limited medical resources in the way which benefits the people most likely to helped by them.

Speaking of written communication and how it sometimes lacks, I wasn't so much wanting to dig into the subject of euthanasia since that's a separate thing from eugenics but understand how they can merge a bit. The class of people I'm talking about are the unborn, and the handicapped. These are people you are otherwise healthy but are either at stages of development, or they have deficiencies which leave them helpless or in need of assistance. Eugenics says these people should be terminated because they contaminate the gene pool and they place a burden on society. I can hardly type that without getting sick to my stomach. Some of the most vivid human experiences for me have been in the presents of a special needs child. Anyhow, that's what I meant when I included the word "sick" I really meant special needs humans. Rather than retype the short point, you can go back to that post with this updated context if you need too.

The two cases you mention don't imply that the law breaker has a fundamental defect of character which must be fixed. In fact, I'd say these two instances imply that society itself is what needs fixing. If enough people speed it's because the speed limit was set too low in the first place, far lower than needed simply for safety. Most people will in fact keep to a reasonable speed for the conditions regardless of speed limit. If it's set at the 95th percentile then only those really posing a danger will need to be stopped. But you don't even need fines for that. Just have the car read the speed limits and govern itself to them. We certainly can do this if we wanted to nowadays. And in the second instance, an income tax is a poor means of getting revenue. It's far too easy and tempting to cheat. A sales tax is much harder to evade, especially if you're the buyer. And with only sellers to keep track of, enforcement is much easier. But in both cases, remember that these two laws have no basis in what you term absolute morality as laws against killing or stealing do. It can even be argued that taxes are effectively the government stealing from you if they're too high!

Well, I pretty much agree with everything you said there. It doesn't change how I feel about people who willingly and repeatedly choose to make bad moral as in the case of crime. I does show that analogies often come up short because individual topics are so complex like taxes and other unjust laws imposed on us. Now that were on a side subject, I happen to agree with you on the speed limits and how high taxes are a form of crime. It's hard to convey these ideas of law and punishment because the government administers them. Governments themselves happen to be the biggest perpetrators of crime in the history of mankind so it's always going to be easy when a governmental analogy is used to slip under the first issue and point out foundational problems at the core.

By fix I certainly didn't mean taking to behaviorists! That never worked even when it was in vogue. No, I mean something closer to what the sociopath Alex went through in "A Clockwork Orange". You basically use some means (probably technological rather than the conditioning shown in the film) to remove the free will to commit the crime again. If a thief makes a decision to steal again, he is prevented from acting upon that decision by a chip hardwired into his brain. Ditto for a murderer or a child molester. No idea how this would work in practice. Maybe the chip would physically paralyze the person until the thought passed. Or maybe it would immediately notify the authorities. Or perhaps there would be no chip, but instead he would be escorted by a robot sentry programmed to physically restrain him should he decide to be deviant again. Regardless of method, the idea is the same-remove the ability to commit the crime again by removing the ability to act upon his free will. And before you say how horrible this sounds, consider that the alternative at present is incarceration in a closet-sized cell, often with a horny AIDs infected cellmate, and at a cost to society of something like $1 million a year. At least with my way the deviant can enjoy society (and society can benefit from him). I don't care if he ever internalizes why what he did was wrong so long as he can never do it again.

You know that I don't mean any offence to you but I kind of felt like we took a big tumbling leap into the realm of science fiction. The two problems I have with this approach is first, these ways and methods don't exist yet and maybe they never will. I appreciate scientific advancements, particularly in biology and the medical field, but they are limited. We're sitting here pondering the "morality chip" but we still don't have a cure for the common migraine. I know people who suffer from these and no modern medicine work for them. My point is, we have know idea how or when technology will could help us with sociopath so we have to deal with the here and now. My second objection is that even if the "morality chip" existed their would be no justification that would prevent it from being inserted into every human being on earth, essentially eliminating free will and creating a bunch of robots. Any expectation that this kind of dangerous technology would be restricted to hard-core criminals is wishful thinking at best and extraordinarily naive and worse.

Hmm, I know any number of people who are a living contradiction to this, me included. From a pragmatic standpoint, sure, what you said makes sense. I'm 46. Chances are good I'll be gone in 60 years or less. But then again, I don't know that with any certainty. Interesting times we live in nowadays, unraveling the genetic code as it relates to the aging process. And because of this, it's entire plausible that if I can survive another 50 years, I may well be around for the next 50,000. And I certainly want to live forever should it become possible. And if I do die, I'll seriously consider having my body preserved for revival when we possess the technology to do so. In short, I care what happens in the distant future because I may well be around to live in it. Even if not, why not care? Is fear of punishment in the afterlife the only reason you act with consideration towards your fellow beings? I certainly hope not. I hope you've internalized the lessons put forth in the books you quote. What drives me isn't fear of punishment by a deity I don't even feel exists.

Good, we're back to my favorite talking points...lol

I'm about 40 so 'm sort of relating to your frame of reference on this issue. Your first point is very consistent which surprised me to be honest, in a good way. Most people start trying to jump the fence and in a way borrow from Christian morality even though they claim it's false. Now, yell at me if I'm off base, but basically you're saying the only reason not to be ecologically reckless is because you hope for and or anticipate that at some time in the future, possibly soon, you'll be made to live much longer, if not be made immortal. Did I some that up alright? If so, I have to hand it to you. I've never run into that idea before while addressing this subject and it defends your point of view perfectly. There aren't any holes in it that I can see on the surface. I thought it was great that you said you certainly wanted to live forever and then what follows, is that you'd need a place to spend forever in. I'm impressed and there's no question that I'll be thinking about this for the next few weeks.

In addressing the "fear of punishment" thought, I was going to say that's a mischaracterization of how it works but since it deals less with character and more with other things I'll just say it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the Christians and God. You also said that you hope I've internalized the scripture quotes in the previous post. I have, and I also hope that you take the time to look them up in context. I would have linked them for you but the post was taking a long time to write already. Addressing the fundamental misunderstanding, my hope is for eternal life in a place that's good beyond imagination, which entails many things. Once I became of believer a few years ago, I was called to change my life from the "old way." I entered into a relationship with God, through Christ by grace. In a loving relationship we don't do things because we have to, we do things we want to out of love and for the prosperity of the relationship. All of this love is based on what Christ first did for me. I used the language in my previous post which said I'd "have to answer" for not being a good steward, because it's the only way that I knew to communicate with you that I have "higher orders" or that I'm responsible to something larger than just myself or the earth. If I was to use regular language without and explanation, you'd probably think I was out of my mind. In any case, I would be a good steward because I was told to be. Why do I try my best to do what I'm told? because I love the person who's telling me because He first demonstrated his love for me, because I trust the person who's telling me possesses all knowledge, because it in turn brings me joy and strengthens my faith in other areas in my life where I've been struggling. Fear is what I had before I entered into the relationship, not why I follow now. Jim Wallace at pleaseconvinceme.com helps to examine some of these thoughts in a short video that's not even linked on his website. I'll post it though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do9tg3zEJJs&feature=channel

What drives me isn't fear of punishment by a deity I don't even feel exists. It's empathy, the ability to put myself in the place of those I might wrong, even if they are not yet born, and then decide not to wrong them even if it might benefit me personally. Is this perhaps the thing which really separates us from other creatures? I think so. Empathy is power of the highest form.

I think that empathy is a wonderful quality and as a theist would say that because we're made in God's image, would also say that empathy is part of God's character. I'm just pointing out that what you're speaking of is a not made of matter but is a character trait that came from somewhere. It isn't just one character trait that separates us from other creatures but it is one of them and I think it's pretty neat that you recognize it as being special. I definitely don't agree that this character trait called empathy, also known as compassion or understanding, is the highest form of power. If that were the highest power then it has at least 10 sister "highest powers." God is the culmination of every perfect quality and without any bad ones. There are some logical reasons to at least consider that it's possible that an ultimate intelligence exists and that he'd want us to know him. I'll post as few links that support why I think this.
[FONT=&quot]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vi-FsaEb3Q&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjHschcUIQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpVVczuWqtc
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7520
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7511
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtlrbx_LBQg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjLXuBiHC20


I can't believe how expansive this topic got but I've enjoyed it. Thanks jtr


[/FONT]

 

[blasterman]

On the flip side, one of my adult cats(a male no less) came inside the house carrying a nearly newborn kitten, with a piece of umbilical cord still attached, and set it down in front of the food dish.
:buddies:

Was it possible that the kitten was the offspring of your male? [Obviously of course it's possible if he wasn't fixed]. The reason being is that male cats (from housecats to Lions) can be dangerous towards kittens that arent their genetic offspring. A male cat taking care of a kitten that isn't his is indeed odd. A fixed male cat will at most typically be indifferent a non related kitten. Glad things turned out well though.

My 10year old, 20lb orange tabby doesn't bring kittens home, but on several occasions he's waddled next door and started fights with the neighbor's pit-bull for no reason, and the dog is now terrified of the cat. 'Garfield' has no claws, front or rear......explain that one.

As for the seagull scenario here, you guys have to realize that birds are amongst the oldest and most specialized of all higher animals. Their behaviour towards each other has been shaped by over a 100million years of natural selection - modern mammal social habits are trivial in terms of evolutionary comparison.

Here in michigan seagulls, or 'sand buzzards' as we call them are a flat out nuisance. Not even smart or agile enough to out-run my big parafoil kites. Gulls have gotta be the lowest order of birds if there is one.

I've seen more extreme behaviour with wild birds, the most notable being mute swans drowning mallard ducklings in the same pond if they can nab them.

 

[Monocrom]

Saw something nice at work today. Was able to get closer than usual to momma cat and her two little ones. Very surprised the kittens didn't take off as they usually do. I was in our patrol vehicle, so maybe that played a role.

Mom was nursing them, and she was licking the face of one of her kittens. The kitten licked her back. Not sure if they were cleaning each other or showing a bit of mom & child affection. It was fascinating to watch. Her kittens are so adorable... When they're not running away from me.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

Y'all got too far into this for my brain, I've only skimmed since my last post. I was pretty much done once god and religion got brought up as a serious idea.

My cat was neutered ~4 years before he brought the kitten home. That's not to say he didn't try to mate with the mother anyway and had no clue he was shooting blanks, but we got him neutered before maturity so he wouldn't spray; I very much doubt he had any desire to mate.

:buddies:

 

[paxxus]

By human morals, Nature is a staggeringly evil and bloody place. I guess that's inevitable.

Take a group of "civilized" people, deprive them of food and shelter, and "human morals" quickly take 2nd place.

 

[Monocrom]

Take a group of "civilized" people, deprive them of food and shelter, and "human morals" quickly take 2nd place.

Or they realize they need each other, and some go off to find food while the others build a shelter.

 

[Monocrom]

UPDATE:

While considering jch79's idea, the ill seagull disappeared; and has been gone for a few days. I'm not sure what happened to it. Just this past Saturday, I thought I found him; near the old spot he used to hang out at. But when I walked towards him, he flew off. Either he got better and came back for a visit, or that was a different seagull. Thought it was him since there were no other seagulls around at all in that particular area.

However, I'm not 100% sure. I looked for him when he disappeared a few days ago. As a security guard, I have access to nearly every area of the client's site. He was no where to be found. Either he was euthanized or he actually did get better. Not sure. And, as with many things in life, I'll never know what really happened to him.

 

[jch79]

Thanks for the update, Monocrom! I'm sure he's either healed, or... well, not in pain.
:wave: john

 

[Patriot]

Either he was euthanized or he actually did get better. Not sure. And, as with many things in life, I'll never know what really happened to him.

Let's just say he got better thanks to you saving him Monocrom. :twothumbs

I was reminded of this story again last night when the program "Untamed and Uncut" came on. A large female bald eagle had an injured right wing and was earth bound. A large group of crows or ravens was trying to finish it off when some people saw what what happening. They chased away the crows and with great effort managed to safely capture the eagle by hand using a large towel to wrap it's talons. It was heart warming to watch because after the eagle's initial terror, it seemed to realize that no one meant it harm. It wasn't biting at any of the people who handled the bird and even let its wings be manually folded back so they could carry it more easily. The person who actually made the catch was not a bird handler or professional, just a regular guy who seemed pretty young. I wish I could say the story ended perfectly but evidently the eagle didn't survive. I lasted about two weeks at the animal hospital before expiring. I was thinking that at least it didn't suffer a slow death being picked at by crows, and I have no doubt that the eagle knew it was being cared for.

I tried to find a video but haven't found it yet. I think it's a new episode and hasn't been posted yet. When it shows up and post a link here. I think you guys would like to see this one.

 

[Monocrom]

Thanks, guys.

You both raised good points about the seagull.

Wish the Eagle had survived. But it's good that folks tried to save it.