RE: creepy crawly consent

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: creepy crawly consent

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: creepy crawly consent

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 4:19:44 PM

CitizenCane

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

With regard to brushing your teeth, let me break it down for you.

There are a gazillion different organisms, of a zillion different types, living throughout your gastrointestinal tract. ..... Brushing your teeth will cause the death, and birth, of millions (at least) of individual organisms, as will not doing so.

In short, at this level, your actions do not make any appreciable difference. You cannot deal with this level and live, because you do not have the faculties required for it, and you do not have the options either, since there is no better option. ...

Brushing your teeth regularly will also allow your body to sustain more life, and for longer, than it otherwise would.

It seems that your argument here is that maximizing the number of living entities is a good thing, regardless of their individual nature, a notion I find empty at best. This is merely an arbitrary assignment of 'good' to mean 'many'. In the first part of this quote, though, you suggest that there is no appreciable difference between killing one set of gazillions of lives and killing another set of gazillions of lives. In the body-count sense, this tells us that killing 32 people at Virginia Tech is meaningless in the face of the slaughter of brushing your teeth. I can't support this reasoning.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 61

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 4:25:44 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

If brushing your teeth made no appreciable difference, no one would do it. It kills organisms. That's the whole point of brushing your teeth.

It makes a difference in terms of the balance; and, yes, it kills lots of organisms, while letting others bloom. The point of brushing your teeth, however, is to prevent the buildup of plaque that will feed bacteria that will produce waste products that will destroy your teeth, as well as to prevent deposits near your gums from forming. Unless, of course, you use antibacterial mouthwash in addition; I don't do that, and my dentist doesn't reccomend it.

quote:

Anything I don't eat will cause the death of billions of organisms? Hello? The rock on the moon that I didn't eat killed billions of organisms? Maybe you mean to say that billions of organisms are going to die no matter what we do--but that's as good a reason to do whatever the fuck we want as it is not to shove crickets up our partners' vaginas.

Okay, as I've said before, English is not my native language. I may try to be precise, but I may not always succeed. If you prefer, I could try to make this argument in Lojban instead. It is more suited than English, or so I have heard.

Let's try again, a bit more verbosely:

Eating something will feed certain bacteria.
Waste products of some bacteria will kill other bacteria.
Not feeding a group of bacteria will cause them to starve.
Not eating anything, will cause the entire colony (and you) to die.

Ergo, there is no course of action you could follow that would avoid death.

You could follow a course of action that could limit death.
And, to the extent that you are able to, by my values, you should.
Bug there is a limit to the extent you can affect these things.
And there is a limit to the extent to which you can act for the benefit of others without defeating self-preservation.
And I hold self-preservation as a value.

Ergo, by my values, you should go as far as you can without defeating self-preservation.

quote:

Live by your own creed, enjoy, but don't be too surprised that others consider it outstandingly arbitrary.

Any morals are arbitrary.

I contend that mine are more arbitrary than most, for they were chosen.

But I have tried to move the arbitrary bits to where I think they belong: determination of values.

As opposed to where I think they don't belong: determination of compliance.

Was that clear enough?

P.S. I'm not surprised at all. Few things surprise me, and that part is outright expected.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 62

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 4:59:37 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

Gahhh! MY POINT is that 'consent' is a meaningless phrase when applied to crickets or buckets of polonium.

No more meaningless than when applied to humans, when you get down to it.

At least unless you pull unquantifiable things (e.g. souls) out of the hat, and then all bets are off, along with the basis for discussion.

If you contend otherwise, just pick a paradigm, and explain to me exactly what constitutes "human" and "consent", and how to determine it, along with what, exactly, differentiates "human" from every other being, and what constitutes "consent", then we can argue that.

quote:

You are suggesting that there is an 'implied consent' of creatures either initiating acts or doing things that 'come naturally to them' but I think this is entirely irrelevant.

Do you cede my notion of implied consent, though?

quote:

A stone does not 'naturally' square itself off and become part of a wall, but so what?

If you don't buy there being a difference between "alive" and not, then my argument would apply to inanimate objects, and refactoring the conclusions is left as an exercise for the reader until such time as I'm convinced there's no difference between life and no life.

quote:

And, as far as the 'stone is not alive' argument, a major aspect of what I'm trying to get across is that simple dichotomies applied to natural ranges create absurdities:

I agree with that point, entirely. It's part of why I do not go for the human/not-human distinction, which is more absurd to me than a difference between my notion of life and my notion of no life.

quote:

Everything, as Heraclitus said, moves, and drawing a line between 'living things' and 'self organizing systems', for instance, is a rather arbitrary process.

Ceded. Very definitely. "Human", as such, is even just an abstraction over cells. By extension, and employing some elements of memetics, the Gaia hypothesis has validity as an abstraction, regardless of any other aspects of it. Not commonly accepted, though.

I go for life as an emergent property of closed systems with continous process properties, along with abstractions over this, at a secular level. In that regard, most computer programs do not constitute life, as their properties are not emergent, and most of them do not possess continous process properties, though some do. In this regard, you could regard a virus as being a component in intermittent life, but not alive in itself. It gains the emergent property of life in interaction with other systems, and loses it in the absence of these interactions, somewhat like how life ceases without food.

quote:

A similar issue arises with ideas like 'sentience', 'suffering', and 'consent'. While I would suggest, and you would probably agree, that there are categories of things to which 'sentience' does not apply, it's not easy to be sure in every instance which category an entity fits into.

I've yet to see any sensible definition of sentience beyond the self-referentiality of a process that has the capacity to represent external reality in an internal manner. In that regard, it is beyond our technical capabilities to ascertain the sentience, or lack thereof, of anything but ourselves. We can establish our own self-referentiality, and our capacity to internally represent external reality can be externally verified; our self-referentiality is, however, not externally verifiable at this time.

Hence, sentience has not been a useful "peg" for constructing my ethics.

quote:

Rather than indulge in the whimsy of attributing analogs of 'consent' to non-sentients, I find it more practical to regard their capacity for suffering and try, within reason, to avoid causing it needlessly.

I agree that such is a more practical approach, and I cultivate habits that fall within the realm of what is not morally objectionable to me, while excising habits that fall outside that realm.

I do not agree that consent lacks an analog, though; it's not even an aspect of sentience, in my book. It's agreement, whether implicit or explicit, that something is acceptable. By careful application of knowledge of the beings involved, and erring clearly on the side of caution, one can determine when agreement is present, and the scope of that agreement.

I do act in ways that do not involve consent, though, whether for self-preservation, or in the best interests of the being in question as best as I can evaluate it in their framework / paradigm.

quote:

I find this works as well with human beings as crickets, since it's obvious that many of the former are as incapable of the latter of contemplating, let alone granting, consent in a meaningful way. They are, however, generally capable of suffering, and this is a sufficient guide.

In the absence of clear consent to suffer, I would also attempt to avoid suffering, yes.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to CitizenCane)

Post #: 63

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 5:06:30 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

It seems that your argument here is that maximizing the number of living entities is a good thing, regardless of their individual nature, a notion I find empty at best.

I fell short of explaining, then, as my argument was that self-preservation overrides the concern for other entities.

quote:

In the body-count sense, this tells us that killing 32 people at Virginia Tech is meaningless in the face of the slaughter of brushing your teeth. I can't support this reasoning.

I did not attempt to establish the "good of the many" argument, but self-preservation.

A better example, which you could probably not support either, is that killing 32 people at Virginia Tech is the same as killing 32 puppies. I could support that line of reasoning, however.

That said, I would strongly point out that such is in the sense of "both are abhorrent to me", not in the sense of "both are just fine".

I do not place a lower value on the lives of those students than anyone here.

I just place an equally high value on the lives of the aforementioned puppies.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to CitizenCane)

Post #: 64

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 5:52:26 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

I don't harm animals (including insects) except in the interests of self-preservation. That means I don't swat a fly, I chase it out. It's where I've drawn my line: taking life, any life, without informed consent (euthanasia etc.), except where it is a matter of self-preservation, mine or others. In short, "live and let live", in formal terms.

As has been pointed out, many creatures are killed in the process of producing just about any kind of food, from the turning of soil, in the cultivation and harvesting, in transporting foodstuff to the various places they pause before they reach your plate, etc, etc.

Let's think about dessert foods. I don't think dessert is necessary for survival (though I expect a few here may think so) and so eating it would only in the rarest sort of cases be a matter of self preservation, like those times when someone puts a gun to your head and demands you have a slice of bundt cake.

It seems to me that since I eat dessert, I'm responsible for the deaths of any number of creatures each time I do so, with--as it seems to me--no credible recourse to the sort of self preservation defense you posit.

So I'm wondering whether you eat dessert. And if so how is is justifiable under your dictum stated above.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 65

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 6:17:31 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

For that matter, if murdering my neighbor were to add 5-10 years to my life, does that mean Aswad's moral system would entitle me to do it? That was basically his explanation of why it's OK to kill countless organisms when you brush your teeth.

He's just making it up as he goes along, and at this point I really think we're wasting our time with this.

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 66

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 6:24:19 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

As has been pointed out, many creatures are killed in the process of producing just about any kind of food, from the turning of soil, in the cultivation and harvesting, in transporting foodstuff to the various places they pause before they reach your plate, etc, etc.

So far, these are byproducts of self-preservation on the scale neccessary to support our survival. As has been shown in the anarcho-primitivism debate, it is not viable to sustain our current population at this level by less invasive means.

It may well be the case that someone would argue, from that, that our population should be reduced, on which point my opinion breaks down to two points (a) I do not control birth rates, apart from refraining from procreating myself, and (b) I cannot kill off the excess population, and to do so would be a premeditated act that incurs culpability.

quote:

Let's think about dessert foods. I don't think dessert is necessary for survival (though I expect a few here may think so) and so eating it would only in the rarest sort of cases be a matter of self preservation, like those times when someone puts a gun to your head and demands you have a slice of bundt cake.

Self-preservation goes beyond survival.

In short, I take respect for life as far as I can manage, but no further.

quote:

It seems to me that since I eat dessert, I'm responsible for the deaths of any number of creatures each time I do so, with--as it seems to me--no credible recourse to the sort of self preservation defense you posit.

Most desserts I have indulged in, beyond fruit (which is food, just more tasty), are byproducts of the processes by which our society sustains its food requirements; e.g. wheat, gelatin, sugar, etc.

quote:

So I'm wondering whether you eat dessert. And if so how is is justifiable under your dictum stated above.

I do not take actions to add to the consumption of dessert.

If there are leftovers, I eat them, rather than let them spoil.

I eat fruit for its health benefits, as a tasty foodstuff.

I eat chocolate-laced wheat wafers or wheat buns if I have neglected to eat proper food and need the carbohydrates to function, or if I cannot bring myself to eat anything due to a lack of appetite when I actually need food.

But I do not, except in the interest of eating to sustain myself, eat anything that will add to the demand.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 67

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 7:28:08 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

A bit late in my day to post this, but here goes a rough gist of the components involved in what I tried to explain.

#1: Universality

If, by A's reckoning, it is acceptable that: A acts according to F(A, B) in situation X(A, B).
Then, by extension, it is acceptable to me that: C acts according to F(C, A) in situation X(C, A).
This for any value of C, with equal values for F and X.

#2: Consent

If, by A's reckoning, it is acceptable that: I act according to F(I, A) in situation X(I, A).
Then it is acceptable to me that I do so.
This for any value of A, F and X.

#3: Self-preservation

Let I be the set of my initial gestalt.
Let X be the set of the situation in question.
Let O be the set of functions G(I, X) that are possible, where G(I, X): I→I', discarding X→X'.
Let E be the set of functions determined ethical by other axioms, such that E⊆O
Let E' be the set of functions that satisfy ¬(G(I, X)-I=Ø)∨G(I,X)∈E, such that E'⊆E.

Any action G(I, X)∈E' is then acceptable to me.

It's not formally correct, as it wouldn't be at this hour, but it might be clearer than the previous attempts at explaining. Hell, I'm even giving Crisco a run for their money with some of the operators, but I don't feel like digging out my notes, and my mind just isn't up to recapping the original work I did on this in the space of a quick post. Suffice to say that a fair bit of "thinking it through" went into it, not just "thinking about it".

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 68

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 7:38:32 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Laughing...yeah, when words fail to impress, haul out some meaningless symbols and definitions like "Let I be the set of my initial gestalt."

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 69

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 8:45:57 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Laughing...yeah, when words fail to impress, haul out some meaningless symbols and definitions like "Let I be the set of my initial gestalt."

Thank you for laughing at my sincere efforts to explain things clearly and more formally, without posting a logic diagram.

The symbols involved are common mathematical operations from set theory and boolean logic, while "let symbol be blah" is a common way of stating prior conditions, though it sounds silly in English, hence my offer to phrase it in Lojban or somesuch instead. As admitted, the above wasn't formally correct, but to make it formally correct would probably make it a whole lot less accessible. Hence, a bit of Crisco. I think I inverted the logic of ¬(G(I, X)-I=Ø)∨G(I,X)∈E by accident, even. If you want me to patch it up, I'll fix it.

I couldn't care less if you find my argumentation convincing, let alone impressive, but I'm willing to back it up.

Now, stated again in plain English:

If it is ok to you for you to do it to me, is ok to me for me to do it to you, in the same conditions where it is ok to you for you to do it to me; this is my principle of universality. If it is ok to you for me to do it to you, it is ok for me to do it to you; this is my principle of consent. If for me to do it would lose part or all of me, it is not ok to me for me to do it, and if for me not to do it would lose part or all of me, it is not ok to me for me not to do it; this is my principle of self-preservation.

Hope that was clearer.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 70

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 9:50:08 PM

charmdpetKeira

Posts: 916
Joined: 6/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

No, seriously, du you think cruelty is that exclusively a male trait?

Exclusively no, but I do recall a few males in my lifetime, who delighted in watching ants burn up under the light of a magnifying glass. I do not recall seeing any girls doing this, or the famous, "Do you know what happens when you feed alkasalza (sp) to seagulls" and let’s not forget, frogs and fire crackers.

I do admit though I have not been far from “my little corner” of this planet, as of yet; just going on what I’ve seen and heard.

LOL I hold a watchful eye for those sneak attacking, six legged (they do have six legs.. right?), sons of monkeys. If you ever need me; I’ve got your back.. as long as we have lots of bee allergy shots.. family history; dontch ya know.

I don’t know how long that ant was in my cup, but it has been my experience, they are rather resilient little creatures. I’m still thinking I would be the looser in such a scenario.

Now, what if one went in there and I didn’t want it too, would it be alright if I killed it when I was trying to get it out?

I have seen ants, munching down a rodent, and or bird that was not yet dead.

Horse-flies? One of those things land on me, and it's a gonner. I know their intent, and I refuse to concent. Same goes for deer-flies.

Sincerely,

k

< Message edited by charmdpetKeira -- 6/4/2007 9:52:43 PM >

_____________________________

Life is tough, that does not mean it isn't fair.

There is no wrong choice, only consequence.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 71

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 10:21:12 PM

CitizenCane

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Well, among other things, I'd have to reject your principal of universality, Aswad, unless one takes your 'same conditions' phrase to such a level of detail as to render the whole principal meaningless (because I am generally willing to embrace meaningless statements). Any attention of to the detail of 'same conditions' basically renders this principal identical to your second principal, since 'okayness' is an element of any relevant set. There is also no indication of which of your principals has priority when there are conflicts. Discarding the meaningless first principal, we can easily picture a situation in which if I fail to eat your brains or other nutritious part of you, I will 'lose all of me'; and I can easily picture you feeling that this fails your personal 'okayness test'. Is there an ethical priority here, or is it simply a matter of which of us remembered to bring a steak knife?
I'm afraid that all this quasi-formal moral calculus adds up, in the end, to you simply doing whatever you feel most comfortable with at the time. I happen to believe that this is, in fact, the final sum of all systems of moral calculus. The real issue is what kinds of things we feel comfortable with. For my part, I would not feel comfortable killing 32 puppies, but if I had the opportunity to drive a truck over Mr. Cho in the middle of his rampage and it seemed to require passing over a box of puppies I would do it without hesitation. And this is despite the fact that, generally speaking, I prefer the company of dogs to people. They are better mannered, more empathetic, and usually less selfish- and in some cases smarter. I suppose it's my instinctive species-ist bigotry showing through, but if we don't embrace at least a few of our innate drives, what have we got? Not much of a sex life, for starters.

(in reply to charmdpetKeira)

Post #: 72

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 10:26:19 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

Exclusively no, but I do recall a few males in my lifetime, who delighted in watching ants burn up under the light of a magnifying glass. I do not recall seeing any girls doing this, or the famous, "Do you know what happens when you feed alkasalza (sp) to seagulls" and let’s not forget, frogs and fire crackers.

When I was a very young child, I can remember having done the magnifying glass bit at the prodding of another boy, without realizing how it was hurting the poor ants. Then my parents explained it to me, without punishing me for it, and I felt terribly sorry for the ants, and very contrite about having done so. Some of the other boys understood when I explained it to them, and stopped, some didn't see that it mattered.

At that age, the girls were mostly tormenting the boys by rock throwing and stuff like that, as they knew the boys had been raised not to hit back, hopefully not realizing how much that hurts or how dangerous it was. However, at that point, my parents had not explained to me that there was supposed to be a different standard for boys and girls, so I got even. Obviously, the girls' parents were mightily pissed, and talked to mine, who were about to start scolding me when I explained that the girls threw rocks at me first; like me, my parents didn't have a double standard there, so they went back to the original parents, and somehow all rocks were, in the future, directed at the other boys, while some of the girls stopped throwing them altogether.

The magic of childhood innocence, hmm?

The moral to the story is that the boys and girls picked different targets, that some had the capacity to understand that this was wrong, while some didn't, and some didn't care despite having that capacity. I didn't see much of a difference in gender.

Growing up, I observed that the girls turned to verbal and emotional violence, mostly directed at each other, while the boys stuck with physical violence, mostly directed at each other. Now, the current generation of girls are increasingly supplementing theirs with physical violence. I still remember hearing one girl, definitely not of age to have sex, commenting to another that if girl #2 didn't stop talking to girl #1's boyfriend (as possessively said as any boy of somewhat higher age), then girl #1 would cut girl #2's genitalia out with a knife, and brandishing it threateningly.

It always seemed to me that the same impulse was being directed in two different ways.

At first, there is a lack of comprehension; it bears the character of a cat playing with a mouse: cruel, yes, but with no further thought given to it. Later, some stop, while some don't, with the distinguishing factor being that some develop empathy, while other's don't. Social conditioning accounts for the differences, according to my observations. It may be that those who stay cruel have the capacity to understand what they are doing to the other party, and just don't care, or it may be that they don't understand to such an extent that they can relate.

Either way, any gender differences seem to be learned.

And, at the time, a surefire way to get into a physical confrontation with me (which I shunned for the most part, having a better comprehension than most of my peers of the risks involved, and not seeing why one would need to hurt someone that wasn't trying to hurt oneself) was to start bothering animals or humans with animal characteristics (innocence, comparative defenselessness) in my presence. I'll still intervene, but now I've got my temper under control, so the physical side doesn't come into it unless called for.

Anyway, as I've always said, what people forget about children is that, by any common definition of "evil", they are it. In its purest form.

quote:

LOL I hold a watchful eye for those sneak attacking, six legged (they do have six legs.. right?), sons of monkeys. If you ever need me; I’ve got your back.. as long as we have lots of bee allergy shots.. family history; dontch ya know.

Six legs sounds about right. No bee allergies for me, though I did lose a dog to that.

quote:

Now, what if one went in there and I didn’t want it too, would it be alright if I killed it when I was trying to get it out?

That'd be for you to decide. Personally, I wouldn't do that with premeditation if I could avoid it, but if it's biting, that does constitute an attack in its frame of reference. And the health implications come into play, of course. So it could be construed as self-preserving.

quote:

I have seen ants, munching down a rodent, and or bird that was not yet dead.

Quite possibly. I'll admit to not being terribly fascinated by insects, so I don't watch what they're doing most of the time.

quote:

Horse-flies? One of those things land on me, and it's a gonner. I know their intent, and I refuse to concent. Same goes for deer-flies.

I just try to chase them away, but if they bite, I'll usually respond instinctively. That, I chalk up as an accident.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to charmdpetKeira)

Post #: 73

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 10:30:12 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Let's put it this way:

It's OK for you to believe whatever you think is OK. It's not quite OK for me to believe that what you believe is anything other than "I'm OK with it; therefore it's OK for me." That's why it's also not quite OK for you to haul out mathematical symbols, which imply that you're saying something objective, when you're not. I'll point out that according to your own highly subjective (and inadequately conceived) principle of "self-preservation," if you thought you were going to lose a tooth by not killing your neighbor, you'd have to go and kill your neighbor. I'm not really OK with that. But otherwise, I'm OK with whatever you want to believe is OK.

And let's leave it at that. Good luck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

If it is ok to you for you to do it to me, is ok to me for me to do it to you, in the same conditions where it is ok to you for you to do it to me; this is my principle of universality. If it is ok to you for me to do it to you, it is ok for me to do it to you; this is my principle of consent. If for me to do it would lose part or all of me, it is not ok to me for me to do it, and if for me not to do it would lose part or all of me, it is not ok to me for me not to do it; this is my principle of self-preservation.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 74

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 10:53:54 PM

charmdpetKeira

Posts: 916
Joined: 6/2/2007
Status: offline

Aswad,

I assure you, there are a good number of boys who you could talk to, until you're blue in the face, and they are not going to care. This does not mean that I don’t think there are girls out there doing it too, just that it is more of a male thing. “King of the jungle” kind of thing perhaps, I do not claim to know.

I know a girl who lost her eye when a boy threw a rock at her. It is my understanding, she was also throwing rocks. Like I said in another thread, “It’s all fun and games till someone looses an eye.”

Now, there was this one boy, (second grade), I loved pulling on his ears, they taunted me. *smiles* Bright side: he seemed to like it. *shrugs* Oh yea, and the kid in seventh grade whose neck I used to write on the back of… him too. ;)

I agree, it is crazy, and getting more so. I don’t know about not meaning it these days. It’s kids gone wild out there. I blame it on the latch key effect. That, and many parents don’t pay attention to what’s going on.

I would agree that nurture and environment play a big part in a persons sense of moral values, I have to add though, that each is also born with their own personalities, that would dictate innate behaviors.

Example: as a youngster I was a tomboy, I loved doing most of what boys did; with exception of the insect murder. I did how ever enjoy watching them and certainly was not afraid of them (with the exception of bees).

Did I mention I have an older brother?

quote:

I just try to chase them away, but if they bite, I'll usually respond instinctively. That, I chalk up as an accident.

As a kid, I would try to run away; as an adult, I know it’s pointless, and life’s too short.

k

_____________________________

Life is tough, that does not mean it isn't fair.

There is no wrong choice, only consequence.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 75

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 10:57:53 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

Well, among other things, I'd have to reject your principal of universality, Aswad, unless one takes your 'same conditions' phrase to such a level of detail as to render the whole principal meaningless (because I am generally willing to embrace meaningless statements).

Same conditions can be elaborated on, but that would be a whole thread in its own right. Perhaps you'd care to read up on Kant's categorical imperative and Rawl's original position for some treatment of it. I'm not sure I'm up to covering it right now.

quote:

Any attention of to the detail of 'same conditions' basically renders this principal identical to your second principal, since 'okayness' is an element of any relevant set.

The universality principle is a little bit different, although my post made it sound like a subset of the second principle. There is a certain element of extrapolating consent by means of reciprocality and interchangeability of subject and object, which is what I covered. The universality principle proper is technically a different point, but this subset will do to a large extent.

I could of course attempt to properly formulate it, but a better course of action may be by example: If you held principle #1, but not principle #3, and it were okay by my standards to kill you if you appear to intend to kill me, then by principle #1, it would be okay for you to kill me if it appeared to you as if I intended to kill you. Similarly, if it were okay by person A to hit black people (for that reason alone), then it would be okay for a black person to hit person A.

To establish the causes and circumstances is, of course, not easy for those kinds of examples, but it applies to certain other debates. Again, though, to reiterate, that was not the universality principle proper, but more an application of a subset of it to this debate.

quote:

There is also no indication of which of your principals has priority when there are conflicts.

I have divided axioms into tiers, and formulated them in a manner that resolves their interrelationships. But I don't think a logic diagram of that would be appreciated enough for it to be worth my time to start digging through my stuff to recover the original logic diagrams that I used prior to internalizing this stuff.

quote:

Discarding the meaningless first principal, we can easily picture a situation in which if I fail to eat your brains or other nutritious part of you, I will 'lose all of me'; and I can easily picture you feeling that this fails your personal 'okayness test'. Is there an ethical priority here, or is it simply a matter of which of us remembered to bring a steak knife?

If you need to eat me in the interests of your self-preservation, you would not be doing anything wrong by my standards in doing so. I would, of course, apply my own interest of self-preservation in preventing you from doing so, if I could, but if you claimed to be going by my principles, I would not fault your adherence to them, regardless of whether you succeeded or not.

Although, of course, it would not endear you to me.

quote:

I'm afraid that all this quasi-formal moral calculus adds up, in the end, to you simply doing whatever you feel most comfortable with at the time. I happen to believe that this is, in fact, the final sum of all systems of moral calculus.

Again, trying to formulate myself online about stuff I spent years working out formally, is not something that's very easy. But I assure you that "quasi-formal" is not what applies to the original work.

However, yes, I did decide that there was no reason for me to formulate a system that would lead to impaired quality of life in the general case, or would lead to being quickly incarcerated, so I used inductive logic to go from certain desired properties to basic axioms, and then started playing about with those until I got something that clearly distinguishes cases on a basis that gives me consistent results.

It does not, however, add up to doing what I'm comfortable with.

There have been very many uncomfortable mental realignments throughout the process of acheiving internal consistency in that value system, including discarding the notion that certain things are "wrong" that I would prefer to see that way, and accepting the notion that certain things I would like to see as "right" are unethical.

It also does not add up to doing what I'd like to do, fortunately.

There are a lot of things I'd like to do that would be ethically wrong for me to do, and some of those would be to others, as well. The vast majority of these could be pursued without legal consequences, and some could be pursued without social consequences.

quote:

For my part, I would not feel comfortable killing 32 puppies, but if I had the opportunity to drive a truck over Mr. Cho in the middle of his rampage and it seemed to require passing over a box of puppies I would do it without hesitation.

Again, I do not judge your conformity to my values as the measure of your moral fiber.

If you did so, and it was right according to your value system, I'd say you were of high moral standards.

At the same time, however, I would not do so myself.

quote:

And this is despite the fact that, generally speaking, I prefer the company of dogs to people. They are better mannered, more empathetic, and usually less selfish- and in some cases smarter.

~nod~

quote:

I suppose it's my instinctive species-ist bigotry showing through, but if we don't embrace at least a few of our innate drives, what have we got? Not much of a sex life, for starters.

Indeed.

Hence, what I said about starting from induction, then resolving things.

I started out by first formalizing the preexisting moral code, then tearing down barriers and admitting to myself every instinct and desire I could uncover, integrating those into my personality, and then reformalizing the moral code in a format which could support the majority of those instincts and desires.

It's just a formal analog of the "holistic" approach of merging the id, ego and superego into a seamless whole.

The "species-ist" bigotry didn't work for me on the second pass, however, so I cut it.

There are conclusions derived from that that I like, and conclusions I don't like.

However, I find that arbitrariness in morals is unconscienable to me, hence formalism.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to CitizenCane)

Post #: 76

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 11:07:38 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

Forgot this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

For that matter, if murdering my neighbor were to add 5-10 years to my life, does that mean Aswad's moral system would entitle me to do it? That was basically his explanation of why it's OK to kill countless organisms when you brush your teeth.

Yes, my system would "entitle" you to do it. Entitle is a poor choice of words, though. There is no "right" to do it; it's just a matter of conforming to your own standard of ethics or not doing so.

Which is not to say that I would, just that I would not be contrite about it if I did.

Morals sometimes compel us to do things, which is called an imperative; I have not included self-preservation as an imperative.

Morals sometimes prohibit us from doing things; I do not have anything in mine to prohibit that course of action.

To reiterate, my empathy for that person, my concerns about incarceration, and my lack of a sufficiently strong drive toward self-preservation, would prevent me from making the choice to do it, even if I didn't see it as "wrong".

Just because something isn't "wrong" does not mean you have to do it.

quote:

He's just making it up as he goes along, and at this point I really think we're wasting our time with this.

Kind of insulting, but that's okay. If you feel like you're wasting your time, just stop doing so.

Noah asked me, via PM, to have a look at this, so I explained my position.

That position may be objectionable to you, and I may not succeed at conveying it.

However, it remains my position. If you'd like to change it, and are willing to go into the logic behind it in-depth, then I'd be more than happy to do the work to dig up, or rewrite, the notes on this, and to have you go through it, looking for errors. Any errors will be corrected, and the appropriate derived logic will be integrated. I am not, however, inclined to change the basic axioms.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 77

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 11:15:38 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

It's OK for you to believe whatever you think is OK. It's not quite OK for me to believe that what you believe is anything other than "I'm OK with it; therefore it's OK for me."

So far, we agree perfectly.

quote:

That's why it's also not quite OK for you to haul out mathematical symbols, which imply that you're saying something objective, when you're not.

The math symbols were an attempt to overcome shortcomings in my ability to convey what I meant.

They do not imply anything.

However, what I am saying, is that my basic axioms are arbitrary and subjective, while the logic used to derive a formal system from them is not. That logic, however, is one I don't need to consciously apply any more, so it's stuck in a drawer somewhere, and we've just moved house, so the drawer is in a box somewhere. Hence, what I posted was not the formal logic involved, but just an attempt to convey the message in a different way. Beyond the basic axioms, however, objective factors are the clear determinants in adhering to the derived system, because the derived system pegs every conclusion to the axioms and objective criterion.

quote:

I'll point out that according to your own highly subjective (and inadequately conceived) principle of "self-preservation," if you thought you were going to lose a tooth by not killing your neighbor, you'd have to go and kill your neighbor.

I would not count my teeth in my gestalt, so no. They are not a core part of my being, nor neccessary to preserving such. But if killing the neighbour were a requisite to continue being able to provide for myself and my family, for instance, it would be an ethical option to me.

quote:

I'm not really OK with that. But otherwise, I'm OK with whatever you want to believe is OK. And let's leave it at that. Good luck.

No problem. Thanks for the talk anyway. And good luck to you too.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 78

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 11:27:13 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

I assure you, there are a good number of boys who you could talk to, until you're blue in the face, and they are not going to care. This does not mean that I don’t think there are girls out there doing it too, just that it is more of a male thing. “King of the jungle” kind of thing perhaps, I do not claim to know.

Yeah, I know that. Lots of boys and girls who won't care. I was just saying that my observation is that the gender difference appears learned beyond a difference in methods and targets. The intent/impulse remains the same, though.

quote:

I know a girl who lost her eye when a boy threw a rock at her. It is my understanding, she was also throwing rocks. Like I said in another thread, “It’s all fun and games till someone looses an eye.”

Indeed. I got that part very early on, which is why I refrained from physical confrontations.

quote:

I agree, it is crazy, and getting more so. I don’t know about not meaning it these days. It’s kids gone wild out there. I blame it on the latch key effect. That, and many parents don’t pay attention to what’s going on.

Perhaps a bit of "girl power" gone wrong, too. Correlation studies seem to indicate that. Plus an ongoing movement for females to claim dominance in the same arenas as men, frequently by the same means. I mean, even suicides are evening out. Women used to tend toward reversible, nonviolent approaches, but now that curve is evening out at the same rate as drinking, smoking and other behaviour previously considered "male".

Maybe I'm just wierd, but I'd rather see men behave better than women behave worse.

quote:

I would agree that nurture and environment play a big part in a persons sense of moral values, I have to add though, that each is also born with their own personalities, that would dictate innate behaviors.

Personality is shaped through interactions, and there's a genetic component to it as well.

As for morals, those are generally learned up to a certain point, generally past midlife on average, and then they start to individuate again. There are large individual variations, however.

quote:

Example: as a youngster I was a tomboy, I loved doing most of what boys did; with exception of the insect murder. I did how ever enjoy watching them and certainly was not afraid of them (with the exception of bees).

My complement, perhaps. I hated most of what the boys did. OTOH, I also didn't like a lot of what the girls did.

Insects were fascinating to watch as a kid, but I've lost interest by now.

quote:

Did I mention I have an older brother?

No, I don't think you did.

quote:

As a kid, I would try to run away; as an adult, I know it’s pointless, and life’s too short.

I don't usually run away; I try to chase them away instead, unless they are persistent. I will generally swat them by instinct if they bite, though, which I'm fine with. Accidents happen.

Some have accused me of having too much empathy.

Apparently, they haven't been playing with me yet.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to charmdpetKeira)

Post #: 79

RE: creepy crawly consent - 6/4/2007 11:27:46 PM

CitizenCane

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

"However, I find that arbitrariness in morals is unconscienable to me, hence formalism."
Unfortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary.
As for your first principle, the more you delineate it, the more I reject it. It is fundamentally at odds with the notion of complementarity and makes no sense at all in the context of D/s (although, not having known you long, I admit of the possibility that you reject D/s). In a certain context, I would embrace your second principle because it conforms perfectly with the concept of complementarity, but Universality does not. To the degree that your first princple can be said to hold meaning, that meaning makes it incompatible with the second.
By way of example, consider someone who likes to be spanked, and some one who likes to spank, neither of whom relish the other's role. These are complementary roles/desires/actions, and fit neatly into the 'okayness' test for both parties. Both parties would fail the Universality test, however, so the party is over before it can start. I'm afraid that your first principle is simply a slightly windier reworking of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), while the second is more in keeping with the taoist maxim 'treat others as they would be treated'. Not the same, and not even compatible.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 80

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: creepy crawly consent

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125