What does it mean to be human?

[HeyYou]

I think the biggest thing about 'being human' would be not to inflict indiscriminate pain on any living being. Also depends on your definition of 'beating'.......

 

Some folks think it's necessary for training....... "Do this, else you will feel my wrath!"...... I personally do not subscribe to that theory, and it works fairly well. My dogs HATE getting baths..... but, once in there, they will sit/stand there, and behave. If I want them to move, all I have to do is tell 'em which way to go, and touch them in the right direction, and they move. Now, they give me looks like I just killed their best friend..... but, do what they are told. (and still love me when I let them out. :) )

 

Sometimes, I think they are a LOT smarter than they let on...... other times, I am quite sure they are MUCH smarter than me. :D

[Mongoose57]

What I meant by beating was inflicting unnecessary, traumatizing pain.

 

I guess my question is why shouldn't humans cause indiscriminate pain and where did that standard come from.

 

If someone thinks that it is ALWAYS wrong (humans shouldn't do it) to beat dogs, regardless of society's standards, then there must be some outside rule or verdict they are appealing to right?

 

Note that I totally don't think people should beat dogs!

[HeyYou]

Probably came from folks not liking having it happen the them..... so, they figgered that nothing else liked it either, so, don't do it. This could go WAY back into history.......

[Mongoose57]

Hmmm...but then you couldn't truly say that no one should do it because it was dehumanizing. Only that you didn't like people doing it.

 

The question is this: If beating puppies is dehumanizing, why is the person who enjoys it or who was raised that way also classified as doing something inhumane?

 

Here is another way to approach the question above: Why isn't a robot who looks human actually a human?

[HeyYou]

The very term "dehumanizing" is a construct, meant to describe a behavior that folks would like to discourage. Of course, that assumes that folks take pride in actually being human..... which isn't always the case. Some folks actually ENJOY the pain of others, whether they inflict it themselves, or not. Does this make them any less human? Or, is it simply a human trait coming to the fore, that others suppress? After all, power over another living things does have a certain amount of appeal to some folks.

[Daedthr]

@Mongoose57

 

What you were talking about in your earlier post is Relative vs Absolute Morality. Relative morality is the idea that whether or not an action is right or wrong is dependent on the situation, e.g. culture, consequence, beliefs, etc.

 

Absolute morality is the idea that an action is either inherently good or bad and this never changes, for whatever reason the absolutist believes.

 

 

Personally, I don't see relative morality as working, because if there are no absolute morals, then theoretically anything is could be good or evil depending on the culture you come from, you could even make up your own culture. Now, for every ethical issue there are going to be to human beings who take opposite views, and these views will be based on their situation (upbringing, beliefs, culture, financial circumstances). But both humans are of equal moral authority, one is not higher hierarchically than the other, and as relative morality justifies actions based on situation, then both their beliefs are equally justified by their different situations. So if two opposite beliefs are equally justified and equal in authority, than which is right or wrong? The answer is neither, for if two opposites are equally right or wrong, then neither is right or wrong, and as the principle applies to any ethical issue, morality ceases to exist as nothing is right or wrong.

 

Thus I'd consider myself an Absolutist on the basis that for morality to exist there must be something of a higher authority than humans defining what is right or wrong.

 

Your question was asking what this higher authority is, and to that there have been many answers. Often it will be a Supreme Being but there are others too, for instance a concepts of Duty, Goodwill and Reason (Look at Kantian Ethics), or perhaps what occurs in Nature, or whether or not an action fulfils it's purpose (though really this isn't absolute because one can commit an action for any purpose), like in Thomas Aquinas Natural Law (though the foundation for this is a God). There are plenty of explanations, but it might not be wise in asking for people's opinions on it because the majority will have to come down to a Supreme Being, and Religious debate is a no-no here.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Daedthr

[Mongoose57]

I wasn't really trying to go to the sole cause as much as I was trying to establish the fact that if a person judges someone with their argument or even claims that they know something that applies to the other person despite what they think, then the person must throw Relativism out.

 

If I am a relativist and someone hits me I cannot say "it is wrong for you to hit me" because when I do, I am now claiming that things are no longer relative.

 

Not interested in finding out what each individual thinks about the Sole Cause or whatever, just how people rationally deal with relativism.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Mongoose57

[Daedthr]

Ah I see. I suppose in response to your example the relativist might attempt to analyse the situation that they and the assailant are in to try and justify why it was wrong. But you they would still have to constantly answer the question "why?" and it would regress further and further until they have to either accept that morality does not exist under relativism, or define an absolute foundation for morality.

 

When rationalising relativism (hoho I like that alliteration), it always end up at the sole cause, because that is the most fundamental problem. Though there are others, such as can we fully evaluate the consequences of our actions?