Stating The Obvious 007 thru 015: Utilitarianism Is Statism
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I’m taking some time away from the podcast to work on the podcast. And stuff that makes money. While I’m gone I’m releasing some of the very first editions of Stating The Obvious. This is from 2005. This is a 9 part series (all wrapped into one file) in which I fucking destroy Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism was created as a methodology for the government to rule the people. Utilitarianism is by it’s very nature of birth statist. Of all the ethical systems in existence this one is the most fucked up and the most embraced by the common people.
Here are the original show notes:
The greatest evil ever foisted upon Mankind is Utilitarianism. This is the moral philosophy of the communist, socialist, liberal/progressive, animal rights wacko, hippie tree hugger, journalist, lawyer and all the other people that I hate. Join me for this series as I destroy Utilitarianism and explain exactly why it is evil and fucked up.
27 MAR 05: (time 43:40): Philosophy: Utilitarianism: Overview — What is Utilitarianism all about? What exactly is Utilitarianism? It’s interesting that in my philosophy class we talked about Utilitarianism without ever talking about what it really means, or the historical context in which it was founded, or its purpose according to its creator.
27 MAR 05: (time 55:21): Philosophy: Utilitarianism in action — Euthanasia: Does Utilitarianism give you a “right” to euthanasia? Are you the master of your own body? I submit that in fact it does not and you are not.
05 APR 05: (time 15:34): Philosophy: Utilitarianism in action — Slavery: Is slavery wrong under Utilitarianism? Not a chance in hell.
05 APR 05: (time 23:20): Philosophy: Utilitarianism in action — Abortion: Abortion and Utilitarianism. Do you have a “right” to abortion? Nope. Which ever way the wind blows is all you’ve got, yet Femi-Nazis are Utilitarians. Go figure.
05 APR 05: (time 33:25): Philosophy: Utilitarianism — Why the left wing clings to it so desperately: If Utilitarianism is so fucked up why does the left wing (and the right wing in many cases) cling to it so desperately? Also a few side issues about the professor and TA for my Appreciation of Philosophy class.
05 APR 05: (time 60:14): Philosophy: Utilitarianism — Animal Rights part 1: Animal Rights Wackos. Do you have a PETA poster hanging on your door? Then you would be a “useful idiot”.
05 APR 05: (time 38:20): Philosophy: Utilitarianism — Animal Rights part 2: Animal Rights Wackos. Do they really care about animals or is it all about power?
05 APR 05: (time 45:25): Philosophy: Utilitarianism in the Real World: The movie Extreme Measures and why Utilitarianism really doesn’t work regardless of how much stupid people wish it would work.
06 APR 05: (time 61:56): Philosophy: Utilitarianism — Animal Sciences responds to the PETA point of view: Two students from Animal Sciences came to my class to debate against the PETA point of view in regards to the farming & livestock industry. It was a good debate with many interesting points made and some common ground discovered.
Utilitarianism: The Ethics of Elitism
Overview: What does Utilitarianism (U) actually mean?
1. originally conceived as a way to assist governments in making ethical decisions
a. conceived as a top down moral theory. those who are “better than you” will decide what is right & wrong, what is best for you.
b. do we really need the government making moral decisions? of course we do, after all, our government is composed of morally outstanding human beings, right?
c. ethics is morality right? and aren’t the type of people who are U also the same people who say things like “you can’t legislate morality”. but i guess it’s ok when “they” legislate morality, it’s only wrong when “you” legislate morality.
2. the object of morality is the promotion of the greatest happiness of the maximum number of members of society
a. you can’t make everyone happy all the time. how do we decide who’s happiness is more important? wait for it . . .
3. happiness is a favourable balance of pleasure over pain
a. ok, I can live with this.
4. actions which increase pleasure are good, actions which increase pain are bad: thus, the end justifies the means
a. motive and actions do not have moral value
b. only the consequences have moral value
5. happiness: the measurement of & the time frame
a. how do we measure this happiness? U says it can be done, but where is the scale? where is the chart?
b. what is the time scale on this happiness? instant? a week? a month? a year? a lifetime? that which causes happiness now may cause pain later, the inverse also holds true.
6. if we are suppose to create happiness and decrease pain, what about the paedophile? his happiness comes from having sex with young children. the argument is that the children will experience greater pain because of this experience, but can we be sure of that? is this true in all cases? how much of this pain is real and how much is caused by society? if people accept sex with small children as normal and healthy (ex: NAMBLA) and the children are raised to accept this as normal and healthy, would it really cause more pain? or might it actually cause more happiness? need I say it again, in U there is not motivation, nor action, which is morally right or wrong, only the outcome has moral polarity.
following page numbers reference Great Traditions in Ethics, 11th edition, Chapter 13:
7. the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” p.163
a. if the end justifies the means, and in U it does, that means that no action is wrong, only results/outcomes are wrong. this is important, follow me here as we will be coming back to this: neither action nor motive are morally right or wrong, only the result can be said to have moral polarity.
b. how exactly does one quantify and qualify happiness? while all U claim this can be done, I’ve yet to see an actual list.
c. Jeremy Bentham created U with the aim to develop an argument for how governments should form legislation, this involved his calculus of felicity (CoF), the idea that you can scientifically calculate happiness. you take how many people are affected, how much pleasure they will experience, how much pain they will experience and arrive at a scientific conclusion. the bullshit level here is beyond measure. again, where is the list? where is the rating system? where is the equation? i smell a lot of shit, but I’m seeing very little action.
8. there are superior and inferior pleasures. the greater pleasures are those which employee the higher faculties. p.164 this is his hierarchy of pleasures. again, you will note he didn’t bother to leave us with an actual list.
9. better a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. p.165
a. there are not only levels of happiness, but level of beings capable on enjoying or not enjoying the various levels. when it comes to making the decisions about what is right or wrong for society I wonder who will be making those decisions? the people who are “better” than the rest of us maybe? no elitism here.
10. the standard is not the agents own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether. p.166
a. now we see the suppression of the self, and part of why U is clung to so desperately by the left. you must not do what is best for you, you must do what is best for everyone.
b. who is going to decide what is best for everyone? those who can enjoy and appreciate the higher pleasures, the elitist, those who are better than you.
c. how do they enforce their will, the government. and if all this is so amazingly obvious, why do they need to enforce it to begin with? if this made any sense shouldn’t everyone figure it out? do you have to be told that air is good? no, you can figure it out on your own.
d. what does this “system” remind us of? Communism. ask me again why the left clings to U so desperately. but there is another reason, and it’s coming. wait for it . . .
11. Mill is certainly not wrong all the time: definition of happiness. p166-167
Utilitarianism in action:
Example 1: Euthanasia
1. Rachels, p96 “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
a. this sound nice, but doesn’t actually work with the basic idea of U. yes, Mill wrote these words, but it’s still a contradiction of his entire idea of U. his writing it can’t change that.
b. if a person wished to be euthanized does this conform with the GHP? maybe: is the happiness caused by his death going to be greater than, in quality and quality, the happiness caused by his continued life? are you sure?
c. his death causes happiness for him, but that doesn’t count. once he is dead he can not feel happiness. his death does however eliminate pain.
d. for his family his death will eliminate some pain, but a different pain will replace it, and this may cause some happiness.
e. but if he is kept alive, it will cost lots of money, and that money will go to the hospital. what about the doctors and nurses and janitors and others who will benefit from that money? what about the fact that more money keeps the hospital in business, and allows it to buy new equipment, and hire more people? then what about the fact that all of these things allow the hospital to help other people who are sick, and cure them, and make them happy? what if the hospital goes out of business? then it can’t cure & help people. how much pain does this cause for a great number and how does that compare to the happiness of the few? how much is all that happiness worth? we could look this up on the scale only Mill didn’t bother to write this hierarchy of happiness down for us. and why did he not write it down? because he knew he was full of shit even as he wrote this crap.
2. in class a question was posed by a student, what if someone wants to kill themselves for something that is not an incurable, unbearable situation. we came up with the example of Chad having bad arthritis and wanting to off himself. Speer stated that the decisions as to who was allowed to kill themselves would be made by a committee. Chad, wanting to be euthanised, would put in a request to the committee, they would make a decision and Chad would have to abide by it. you don’t have a “right” to euthanasia, you have a right to “ask” for euthanasia.
a. elitism: you are too stupid to decide for yourself, we will decide for you
b. Communism: a committee (the government, appointed by the government or controlled by the government) will decide what the value of your life is and by what standard is this measured?
c. if the committee decides you have to keep living, you have to keep living. so much for “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
d. who gets to be on this committee? who watches the watchmen? this committee gets to decide life and death for specific individuals. can this committee (government) be trusted? what about the money trail? what about the potential for corruption?
3. on a somewhat related note: doctors and euthanasia.
a. Speer has an obsession with the AMA and the difference between active and passive euthanasia. the difference is one involves letting a person die because their body can not sustain life functions, the other involves causing a person to die due to introducing something to their body which shuts down life functions. there is a biological/medical/scientific difference here. now, is there a moral difference between the two? that is debatable.
b. why the insistence that doctors euthanize people? are people really too stupid to kill themselves? if you are that stupid you should die anyhow. contact me and I’ll help you. yes, some people are incapacitated and are not physically capable of killing themselves. in these cases assistance must be given to them, but again, you don’t have to have 12 years of medical school to kill someone.
c. why doctors should not be involved in the actual deed itself: doctors are suppose to protect life and health and i believe they have an obligation to do so, one might even say a moral duty (i know that sound odd coming from me). it’s a matter of principles
d. ever notice that the people who want doctors to kill people are almost always also in favour of government controlled health care? the government controls the doctor, the doctor controls you life. nope, no communism or elitism here, just “happiness” (as defined by the government of course, using the GHP, which Mills didn’t actually bother to write down). of course giving the government control of health care makes it easier for the government to sterilise, euthanized and eliminate people. in the USSR dissidents use to have “heart attacks” late at night, or be sent to mental institutions. in an U world, dissidents could be euthanized.
4. euthanasia is an action performed, or not performed, for an ends. U states that morality is in the ends, not the means nor the motive. thus, can we say that euthanasia is morally correct and permitable under U? no it is not. it is only permitable if the end creates greater happiness, less pain. but who decided the happiness/pain ratio? who decides who gets to decide? how is the happiness/pain ration measured? can we say that euthanasia is morally acceptable under U? no, and in this case U fails as a moral theory.
5. in another interesting moment, we discussed in class the person having to pull the plug, how the action would affect that person, etc. Speer said “If I were asked to pull the plug that would cause me problems, so the government should step in.” lets take a close look at what this tells us about the sort of “person” who is a U. the government should step in perform the action which Speer wants performed because to perform that action would cause him “problems”, yet at the same time Speer claims this action is morally correct.
a. if an action is morally correct, why would performing it cause “problems”? the only time I have a “problem” with an action I perform is when I know it is ethically wrong. this is a good indication that U know they are wrong.
b. U need others (the gov) to do their dirty work for them because they can not live with the consequences. this can only come from being an ethical coward. I would make this parallel. having served in the military (unlike tree hugging hippies) and having been trained to kill other humans I believe the following: in a combat situation, when I kill another person, I need to look that man in the eye as he is dying are realise that I have done something which is morally wrong on some level. I need to take that knowledge with me for the rest of my life and live with it, as I have a responsibility to this human being that I killed to take that action and his death into the future that it has meaning, so that I remember stepping outside the lines of ethics and remembering that will serve to keep me in the lines of ethics. to put it more simply, I have to live with the consequences of my actions. this is exactly what U seek to avoid. the consequences of their actions, this is all the more amazing since U is totally based on consequences. this is another indication that U know they are wrong.
** after recording the audio I figured it out all in one sentence: Utilitarians want to be able to kill people without having to take the consequences. as I said in the audio: they are cowards.
6. in fact, Speer advances that in the case of euthanasia, what should be done is “what the patient wants”, yet that’s not what U is. U is doing that which creates the most happiness for the most people while minimising pain. doing “what the patient wants” sounds an awful lot like Ethical Egoism
7. the only moral theory which supports the right of a person to have free and total control over their own life is Ethical Egoism (EE). if you believe a person has the right (the word right in these notes references moral rights, not political rights) to euthanasia, EE is the only moral theory (of what I call the Trinity: Utilitarianism (U), Ethical Egoism (EE) and Kantian Ethics (K)) which supports this right without exception. Kant tell us we have a duty to stay alive, U tells us we have a duty to create happiness (which might mean staying alive or dying), EE tells us we have a duty to do what we want to do. as a moral theory, U fails.
Example 2: Slavery
1. Speer asked the question “According to U what is wrong with slavery?” The correct answer is nothing, so long as the slavery increases the overall amount of happiness.
2. slavery is an action. U tell us that morality lies in the outcome, not the motivation, not the action. therefore, if slavery creates a greater amount of happiness, then there is nothing morally wrong with it.
3. how can slavery create happiness you ask? of course you do, because i have to explain everything. it’s the burden of being always right.
4. as an example, look at Brave New World, a perfect U society. all the people in that society are happy, but they are also slaves. according to U there is nothing wrong with this.
5. we always think of slavery in context of black people in the south, but slavery has existed all around the world in all cultures and in some of these cultures slaves were treated pretty good. maybe not great by your standards, but in many cases pretty damn good by the standards of their time and place. this creates happiness.
6. also where is the line between freedom and slavery. it’s not hard to argue that we are slaves, yet happy being slaves. look at the facts:
a. we must ask permission from the government to get married
b. we must have an ID number from the government to get a job
c. the government takes a portion of our income without our permission, and determines what amount that portion will be
d. the government has conducted scientific and medical experiments on human without their permission and sometimes without their knowledge
e. the government or your employer can force you to urinate in a jar and test it for “illegal” substances
f. your employer and your government can spy on you and access personal information about you at will, without your permission
g. you can be imprisoned or fined for having sex with another consenting adult under numerous conditions
h. the list could go on . . .
is this “slavery”? depend on who you ask. had you told John Adams and Thomas Jefferson this is the society they were founding, they would have killed themselves, yet many of us are quite “happy”.
7. What is wrong with slavery according to U? Nothing, providing it creates greater happiness than pain. in fact, U is about subjecting the individual to the will & the happiness of the majority. U is about the destruction of the individual, the individuals choice and the individuals freedom, for the betterment of society as determined by the elite masters. in other words, slavery. As a moral system U fails.
Example 3: Abortion
(why, because it pisses people off to talk about it)
1. need i mention again that U only finds moral value in results, not actions. abortion is an action, thus under U is morally neutral.
2. the outcome of abortions is: no baby. the outcome of no abortion is: baby. which is morally right? under U, the government will tell us which is morally right, according to the GHP
3. thus, in a country like China, the government will tell you that having only one child is the right thing to do, and women may be forced to have abortions against their will, or put in a position of choosing an abortion when they would rather not if they had complete free choice in the decision. since this is gone for the greater good, under U it is morally right.
4. likewise, take for example Roumania, which under a communist (Utilitarian) government, implemented force pregnancy in order to rebuild the population. since this was done for the greater good, under U it is morally right.
5. under U is everyone equal? U support a woman’s right to abortion. they do not support a man’s right to abortion (explain male abortion). why is this?
a. if you get a dog, who is responsible for who? the human is responsible for the dog. why? the human is morally and intellectually superior. this position of superiority confers responsibility, you have a higher level of responsibility to the dog
b. women can have the baby or not have the baby, men on the other hand are expected to support the child no matter their desire. why are men held to this higher moral standard? because evidently men are superior intellectually and morally. and, given that superiority, men are capable of engaging higher faculties than women, thus the happiness of men counts for more. unless of course U want to support the right of male abortion. men must be superior to women, otherwise how can you justify holding them to a higher standard as U do?
6. is abortion morally right under U? of course not. abortion is morally neutral, as it is an action, not and ends. access to abortion is determined by the governments application of the GHP. if you think abortion is murder, or if you think abortion is a “right”, ether way, as a moral theory U fails.
Why do some cling so desperately to Utilitarianism if it is a failure as a moral theory?
3. did i mention stupidity?
4. justification of giving more power to the government
5. don’t forget stupidity
6. and, this is just a theory, i could be wrong (that’s a joke, “i could be wrong”, that’s a joke get it?) but how about stupidity?
Speer as a teacher, ram ratings reviews, “objective”? preaching vs. teaching
Chad’s bar story and email (reproduced below)
I’m not sure we made any explicitly, just presenting the information. some have taken a bit of exception in the class and claimed that it was one sided.
just wanna make sure everyone gets the chance to hear every possible view. i can sorta kinda imagine what folks would mean by another side. I’m just not sure the arguments are actually arguments.
The main reason so many cling to Utilitarianism: Animal Rights
1. just as Christians start with “homos burn in hell” and then go looking for “facts” to support that belief, so do animal rights wackos (ARW) start with “animals have rights” and then go looking for “facts” to support that belief. this always leads them to U as this is the one moral theory (that I am aware of — if there is another let me in on it) which specifically assigns the same moral value to animals as it does to human (or does it, as we shall investigate in a moment). once having accepted U for this reason, the ARW has to stick with U, even tho it fails to support the other moral beliefs ARW claim to have, such as the right to abortion, euthanasia and the wrongness of slavery.
2. do animals have rights, other than the right to be eaten by me? in the context of this discussion, who cares. if they do have rights, U still doesn’t work, so their rights must come from some other source.
3. under U are animals “equal” to humans? sorry, but no. according to who? Mill, that’s who. Mill writes:
If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. [A] Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.
[B] A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, [C] he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence.
Whoever supposes that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness- that the [D] superior being, in anything like equal circumstances, is not happier than the inferior — confounds the two very different ideas, of happiness, and content. It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. [E] It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.
complete text at: http://www.msu.org/ethics/content_ethics/texts/mill/mill_text3.htm
Lets look at where this leads us. keep in mind that U is based on the GHP: the objective is, the greatest quality and quantity of happiness for the greatest number of beings while also reducing the quality and quantity of pain to the minimum amount.
[A] some pleasures are better than other pleasures and this can be determined objectively according to Mill.
[B] being of higher faculties (intelligence) are capable of greater pleasure and greater pain than being of lower faculties.
[C] there are lower grades of existence, what might these be? lawyers? Democrats? tree huggers? Christians? or animals?
[D] there are superior beings. who might these be? obvious i am one, but generally speaking, might this mean people?
[E] an unhappy person is still “better” than a happy pig. better that is in the context of the quality of pleasure he is able to experience as compared to a pig.
thus: if the aim of U is to create the greatest happiness, and as we have seen humans are capable of greater and better happiness than animals, our satisfaction must count for more under the GHP. if our satisfaction counts for more, morally speaking, than that of animals, then animals can not be morally equal to humans under the beliefs of U.
PETA, Greenpeace and Animal Rights Wackos: What’s Really Going On Here?
it was no surprise that i would have to sit thru the same movies that I’ve seen before. animal rights wackos (ARW) don’t change their propaganda very often. hell, the still use photos from animal research labs that were taken in the 1950s.
i also find it interesting that we get films about animal rights, but nothing else. is animal rights the only ethical question that anyone has ever made a film about?
Speer kicked off the film fest with:
1. i don’t have the knowledge to judge how accurate and widespread the practises in this film are. i also don’t know and don’t care how old the film is. i will not deny for a moment that livestock animals are often treated inhumanly. nor will i defend this practise.
i want to eat animals, but i want them to be healthy and running around in a pasture. why?
a. it’s better for the animal mentally and physically and thus the animal is better meat.
b. to know the animal was happy makes me happy as i like animals way more than i like people.
2. Speer noted that the federal government lets unhealthy meat thru the inspection process. yes, they do. they also let terrorist fly air planes into building in spite of having the most powerful intelligence gathering network on Earth, and the most powerful military. so hey, lets put the fed gov in charge of health care. that will solve all of our problems. let’s ask the fed gov for permission when we want to be euthanized. they couldn’t possibly fuck that up.
3. if animal life is worth the same as human life, why doesn’t PETA use some of that money to help animals?
a. buy the animals and put ’em out to pasture
b. if you could buy the freedom of a Jew in a concentration camp wouldn’t you do it?
c. some German citizens risked their lives and families to save one Jew by hiding him, yet PETA will not spend some money to save one animal. evidently animals are not really equal
d. antibiotic free animals: signing a paper vs an oversight organisation. why doesn’t PETA fund such an organisation, since they have all this money? why doesn’t PETA found an oversight organisation to certify that animals have been treated humanely and not been given unnecessary drugs?
4. the real agenda: power
a, the leadership of PETA vs the rank and file members
5. what the fuck is a “vegetarian starter kit”? are people really so stupid they need a “kit” to avoid eating meat?
The Pig Picture by the Humane Farming Association (HFA)
1. my knowledge of the HFA is that they are not opposed to eating meat, they simply want the animals to be treated as well as possible and live lives as close as possible to that which they would naturally live. i can not object to this, and i fully agree with this position.
2. learned helplessness — pigs vs welfare recipients
3. antibiotics in animals — why it’s a bad idea
4. Utah exempts the pig farm from law suits. wait until the gov controls health care. wait until the gov controls euthanasia. wait until we get a U gov and the gov decided ethical and unethical.
Greenpeace: Low production values, bad sound balance and killing baby seals. I think the film is called Bitter Harvest
1. this film only reminds me of how embarrassed i am that i use to support these idiots.
2. first off, i thought Canada was a land of mild & honey. isn’t this where all the “progressives” were going to go if King George II got reelected. note to my neighbour, Kerry lost. you can take down the sign any day now. Canada has socialised medicine. I though we were suppose to be more like Canada. or wait, isn’t it Europe that we are suppose to be more like. with their autobahn and no minimum drinking age and nuclear power. and don’t forget their wars and ethnic cleansings and empires. yes! let’s be more like these countries. and seal flippers are tasty? WTF? Speer quote “the Europeans are way ahead of us.”
3. seals are in harmony with nature because they shit in the ocean? so if we dumped out shit in the ocean it would be good? over fishing, fish farming, cultivating the ocean, etc.
4. spraying the pups with green dye. all those pups got killed because you idiots defeated their natural defences against predators. Greenpeace doesn’t seem to understand much about how nature works.
5. back to the GHP: Mill says that only those who know both sides of an issue, or those who know both pleasures in a given circumstance can say which of those pleasures is the greatest. thus:
a. only an omnivore can judge between eating and not eating meat
b. only one who has clubbed a seal can decide between clubbing or not clubbing.
c. only those who have worn a seal pup fur coat can decide between coat or no coat.
The Kosher Slaughter House Film by PETA (who else)
1. what is Kosher? i got this from http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
The mammals and birds that may be eaten must be slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law. (Deut. 12:21). We may not eat animals that died of natural causes (Deut. 14:21) or that were killed by other animals. In addition, the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter. These restrictions do not apply to fish; only to the flocks and herds (Num. 11:22).
Ritual slaughter is known as shechitah, and the person who performs the slaughter is called a shochet, both from the Hebrew root Shin-Chet-Tav, meaning to destroy or kill. The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognised as the most humane method of slaughter possible.
Another advantage of shechitah is that ensures rapid, complete draining of the blood, which is also necessary to render the meat kosher.
The shochet is not simply a butcher; he must be a pious man, well-trained in Jewish law, particularly as it relates to kashrut. In smaller, more remote communities, the rabbi and the shochet were often the same person.
this is just too silly.
the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter. and how in the hell do you figure that out? do you expect me to believe that every cow slaughtered in this factory got a complete physical exam, blood work and CAT scan?
This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognised as the most humane method of slaughter possible. now if you think that cutting the throat of a large animal is painless and causes unconsciousness with two seconds then you are just fucking stupid. take a damed anatomy class or something. there is no way in hell an animal will die painlessly within two seconds from having it’s throat cut.
2. PETA vs the Jews. the battle of the PC: animal rights vs the holocaust.
3. according to the GHP, the goal of U is the greatest happiness. if there were no Jews, then these animals would not be killed in this painful way, therefore, under U should Hitler have been allowed to finish the job?
4. one flopping cow after another. gosh, you think the next cow is going to flop around?
5. do i think this in inhuman and unethical? you bet your ass. does this mean U is not a stupid philosophy? it does not.
1. “no wonder we have killed 20 million people since WWII”
a. why since WWII? oh yea, we don’t count WWII as “progressives” supported WWII as a holy war to save the Jews so they could kill cows by slitting their throats
b. i don’t know about Speer, but I ain’t killed no one. I’d like to kill some people. Speer voted for King William I who killed a bunch of people and bombed an aspirin factory however.
2. Speer recommended books:
a. Dominion — Matt Scully (former speech writer for Bush)
b. Fast Food Nation — Eric Schaeffer
c. Eternal Treblinka — Paterson
So what’s the point?
1. when you don’t have logic, you use emotion to manipulate people. just as the Every Sperm is Sacred Wackos (ESSW) use shock tactics on the LSC plaza, so does PETA and company.
In The End:
1. it’s all about bad logic. conclusions have to follow from facts. this is what the ARW are trying to get away with:
a. killing animals for food is wrong (for the time i will give it to them, in order to make my point)
b. U says that the happiness of animals is as important as the happiness of people (it doesn’t really say that, as i have explained, but give it to them)
c. thus, U must be a valid ethical theory, and further is the *only* valid moral theory
let’s try another:
a. SHP are unethical and make animals unhappy
b. U give equal weight to the happiness of animals
c. U is a valid moral theory
problem is, this doesn’t work. lets look at another example.
a. a nation needs a strong economy
b. Hitler’s National Socialism advocated a strong economy
c. thus, Hitler’s National Socialism is the one and only valid economic policy
2. follow the logic:
a. man is just an animal, no better than animals
b. animals kill other animals for food
c. but man should not kill other animals for food, why not?
d. we have reason and morals which animals don’t have
e. so we are superior to animals
f. so how can we be equal to animals? how can the happiness of animals be equal to man’s happiness?
animals don’t have a moral obligation to not eat each other. if you say we do have a moral obligation to not eat animals then you must say that we are morally superior to animals. we can’t be equal to them, they can’t be equal to us. if we are not morally superior to animals, then we can happily eat them.
3. is U the only moral theory under which SHP can be called unethical? and if so, and if U are so damn smart, why don’t they come up with an ethical theory which includes animal and works in the real world?
application: the movie Extreme Measures:
I ended up not talking about the movie as much as I had intended to, simply because I had too much reality based material to spend much time on a work of fiction.
1. how do you decide who to use for the experiments
2. he had to motivate people by preying on the weak, people with crippled family & guilt
3. could you get volunteers? if the test subjects are “heroes” then I’m sure you could
4. the argument “no one cares about these people”
a. “these people” cared about each other, their own society. no value in our society, but what about the value in their society?
b. difference between not caring and actively harming
5. what to do with the data, real example: the Nazi experiments on Jews
6. bringing it home: what about animal experimentation?
a. does experimenting on animals apply to people?
b. what about the delay of going to animals first? the FDA 5000 lives a year scenario
c. why can’t we experiment on people instead of animals? Geneva Convention and others
James Rachels, who is obviously a U, leaves us with this words of bullshit:
Could it be, for example, that future generations will look back in disgust at the way affluent people in the 21st century enjoyed their comfortable lives while third-world children died of easily preventable diseases? Or at the way we slaughtered and ate helpless animals? If so, they might note that utilitarian philosophers of the day were criticised as simple-minded for advancing a moral theory that straightforwardly condemned such things.
full text at:
well Jimmy-boy, you could be right. or, you could be attempting to move people with emotion because you know U is flawed. if you care about third-world children so much, then help them. gosh, how much could John Kerry help third-world children by selling his yacht, his jet airplane and three of his four mansions then using that money to feed those children, yet this doesn’t happen, but it’s ok because Kerry is a Democrat, and Rachels (I’ll bet money) votes straight party Democrat like a complete idiot. U is not about helping children in third-world countries, otherwise U would do that. U is about forcing other people to help children in third-world countries. U is about increasing government power. U is about legislating morality. U is about slavery. U is about the destruction of individual freedom for the greater good.
U is about forcing others to do what you think is right, U is about legislating morality. U is about doing what you want to do while pretending you are doing what is best for everyone. EE is about doing what you want to do and being honest about it.
as to eating the poor little animals:
plants get eaten, animals get eaten. we all get eaten. even the lion and the tiger and the human are eventually food for the worms and the insects. that’s life. and death.
how do you know the animal doesn’t want to be eaten? HHGTTG
what about plants? bio teacher who hated vegetarians even more than he hated Republicans
note he references eating animals, but not experimenting on animals. I wonder why not? ARW actually love animal experimentation as it gives them ammunition to ban everything under the sun for causing cancer.
ultimately, U fails because it can simply never happen. a workable moral theory has to be possible to implement.
1. U is about creating the greatest amount of happiness and minimising the amount of pain in the world.
2. to do this you must calculate the Calculus of Felicity (CoF) for each possible action. the CoF can be found at http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/util.htm along with lots of stuff about U, Bentham and Mill.
3. to calculate the CoF you must be amazingly intelligent and all knowing to figure out how and to what degree any given outcome is going to affect every human and animal involved.
4. you must then have the power to enforce which ever course of action is determined to be ethically correct.
U can only exist:
a. if we find out the point system for the CoF and run the CoF for every conceivable outcome/action combination.
b. if we have an all powerful and all knowing government — god?
weakness of U listed on http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/util.htm
1. The concept of happiness is not clear. Very vague: equated either with pleasures or with the public good.
2. Measurements and units of happiness are arbitrary and subjective.
3. The social (altruistic) component could be too demanding if pursued strictly.
4. Disregard for motives and intrinsic values could lead to immoral and unjust consequences.
The Eating Animals Debate:
what gives moral status to human? whatever it is, do animals have it? why or why not? why do we not eat humans? what about space aliens?
morals are universal, rights are local –> Speer can’t tell the difference
interesting how Speer expected the girls to speak for others, such as Temple Grandin, but he didn’t want anyone to speak for him.
the most injuries happen in the meat packing industry — yes but, what does that have to do with killing the animals? it’s because of the number of knifes and crushing/moving equipment that is around.
vegetarians kill, the combine kills animals as it harvests
Speer knows what others think, he is fucking amazing.
of course I do the same thing, but it’s OK when I do it . .
should CSU not teach confinement farming? this exist, so people need to know about it, so yes because it’s the current practise.
humane killing –> don’t know what’s coming, instantly unconscious – no stress leading up to death. a failure is any sign of distress in the animal, a “moo” or a tail swish
“moving, moving, moving.” Speer wants everything now.
humans – dogs – pigs = omnivore
“equipped to have babies” = “equipped to eat meat” — Speer
“a child every 6 seconds” — Speer. shouldn’t the little fucker be dead by now if he dies every 6 seconds? feeding the world, not a production problem, it’s a distribution problem.
“I’m not as responsible for the acid rain.” — Speer. so if I only have one slave, not a hundred, then it’s ok?
Speer doesn’t understand economics or a market driven economy.
“we want our species to thrive” — Sara. but we don’t all want that, some people want to destroy the human species.
Speer is obsessed with retarded children and getting women pregnant.
how do we get from humans like the company of other humans to while people only like white people, and if they do is it wrong? and if it’s wrong what do you do about it? forced association?
is one animal life worth one human life?
what attribute gives humans moral status?
if PETA cares why not set up an organisation to monitor organic meat and humane treatment of animals?
is it ok to engineer cigarette butt picker-uppers? — don’t we already engineer cubical dwellers in public schools and colleges?
what about “mentally infirmed” (retard) burgers?
slaves are the most economical way to do things? who told him this shit?
un-natural pet breeding.
points brought up in the debate:
moral distinction between humans and non-human animals
right to life vs. quality of life
exploitation of resources for profit vs. stewardship
are we in the food chain and does it matter
alternative food sources
steroids and antibiotics
natural rights vs. institutional rights
do humans require animals as food
pets vs. livestock
genetic engineering vs. selective breeding
Temple Grandin, from CSU, making many great advances in animal science according to my friend Sara. I have not yet researched her work, so I can not agree or disagree.
You may now worship my greatness.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Ethical Egoism: I keep trying to prove it’s wrong, but it always comes up right.
Existentialism: Sartre and Nietzsche — Calling like it is. Fucking deal with it.
Stating The Obvious (STO) & Cynical Libertarian Society (CLS) Legal Disclaimer: These opinions are right. If you disagree with me, you are an idiot. Any response to the opinions presented in STO, in any form to include private email or written correspondence, public or private internet forums, spoken word or any form not specifically mentioned here is the property of CLS/STO and may be used by CLS/STO in any manner desired by any authorised representative of CLS/STO. This includes unlimited reproduction in speech, print and/or digital media to include editions of STO, notes on the STO website and postings on internet forums. By responding to any edition of STO, either in the form of written notes or the audio presentation you waive all copyright and ownership of your response. This is legally binding now, in the past and in the future. This transfer of rights can not be revoked. You agree to these conditions by responding in any way to STO in whatever form it may take. Don’t like it? Move on.
Stating The Obvious 007 thru 015: Utilitarianism Is Statism — No Comments
HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>