This world is not ours

[Occhidiangela]

or if we conjugate the verb, a "first mating"?  I never did grasp grammar  :P
[right][snapback]75977[/snapback][/right]

Oh no, conjugal bliss between the Cap'n and the First Mate? I'd say Mrs Doc and Mrs Occhi would have a few issues with that . . . as would aye. ;) Not my cup of tea.

Occhi

[Tal]

http://www.standoffish.net/random/propertymaaan.mp3

[Occhidiangela]

Obligatory Correction Of Grammar-Related Post:

It doesn't infer, it implies.  An inference is something drawn from an implication.
[right][snapback]75988[/snapback][/right]

He shoots, he scores!! Well nitted, lfd :D (Have you been taking lessons from Rhydd?)

Occhi

[Archon_Wing]

Obligatory Correction Of Grammar-Related Post:

It doesn't infer, it implies.  An inference is something drawn from an implication.
[right][snapback]75988[/snapback][/right]

Yet another reason why Lurkers are snobby elitist jerks, and probaly smell bad too. :wub:

[Swiss Mercenary]

Was I the only one who deliberately avoided this thread...

Due to how similar the title sounded to one of the mutant blurbs from System Shock 2? :unsure:

I hates you, DeeBye, for being the motivation for me to play that game... I hates you...

[Guest]

Such dizzying logic.  "Throw her into the pond!"    :whistling:

What ? It's obvious for me but not for Mithrandir . He states that animals are aware of ownership of land . It's wrong because they are not even aware of their existence so they don't know what ownership is .

Fact or assertion?  Show your work.  You assertion does not follow, since Rights and Morals are human constructs, not natural occurences.  They have been conceived and created in the mind of man.  You are wandering in the land of circular logic.

About my quote :"We didn't create this Earth, thus we have no moral right."
It is a philosophical deduction .
"we didn't create this Earth" is a fact . " thus ownership of land is not morally right " is a logical deduction .
Saying that Rights and Morality can only be a human construct is philosophically wrong . Kant proved that morality is one universal value which exists above human constructs . For instance "justice " and "freedom" are universal values that exist and can exist regardless of Man .
Kant demonstrated that Nature and Morality are somehow linked and depend on each other . I'll quote him if you 're still not convinced .

As to your family model, you seem to ignore that in a family unit, tribe or clan, someone leads it: a father, a mother, a grandmother, a chieftan, or a council of elders. 

Indeed , if you look at evolution of life , all past and current species are a big family . All current animal species come from a SINGLE specie at the beginning of the world . That means that animal species are brothers , including Man . Thus Man is equal to all animals and not superior . This is especially the belief of native americans that all animal species are brothers . I won't expand on that (that's a lot of work to do it ).

Your either or finale is unsupported.  It is also a false choice.  I will go a step farther and point out to you that in human context, one can indeed own something and belong to it.  Try a King.  He rules/owns the Kingdom, and he belongs to it.

Do you see the trap you set for yourself?  When you anthropomorhpise the non human, you set limits to how far your analogy can go, and you also, when you use little care in crafting your analogy, create castles made of sand.  One wave and they are washed away.
Man belongs to Himself, as a living entity. 
So, Man makes the rules?  Nature makes the rules?  Or do they both make rules within their own limitations, within their own frames of reference? 

False analogy . The king owns it because he has wanted to do so when becoming a king . Man owns Earth because he has wanted to do so and he has done it . Just because you own something doesn't imply that you have the right to own it . That's where lies the difference between your analogy and my assertion . As for belonging to Earth , Man does belong to it because he appeared among other animals on Earth . He has become an element of a whole, which is Nature .

Who put nature in charge?  Nature put itself in charge?  Ok, Man put himself in charge.  Who will win?  (Now there's a question worth pondering.)  How does nature stay in charge if challenged?  Since you are already anthropomorhpsing Nature, how does nature withstand a challenge to authority?  Hopefully by relying on something better than your line of argument.

?
Yes, Luke, feel the Force.  (A a cheap shot to go with your low budget philosophy.)

What else is Nature like?  An uncontrolled biology experiment. 

Let me quote this :

Spiritually the American Indian approached life differently than the whites. Where White people were materially motivated by the promise of wealth and personal gain, Native Americans saw their role as one of stewardship of Mother Earth’s wealth for the tribe. To the Indian every tree, rock, and stream was a living being. The Earth was a living breathing entity, with the American Indian as a merely a branch on that great tree supporting all of life.

This is exactly what I think . You may argue that native americans are wrong for believing what they believe . What they believe makes sense .

[Guest]

You bring up concepts such as selfishness and vanity. But is not morality a human concept too? If we see everything as fabrications of humanity then any discussion is effectively pointless.  I doubt nature cares about the actions of humans-- the natural order of things is to have living things take what they can. Of course, nature has its limits, physical limitations as well as disasters.

It is through our distorted lens that we see. It may be screwed up, but there's no other alternative.

Now I have a question:
If a post gets deleted in a forum, does it make a sound?
[right][snapback]75968[/snapback][/right]

If you think that Morality is not universal and thus is only human , then you need to read Kant.

[Hammerskjold]

Ok now I'm curious. This isn't meant as a flame or anything, but have you ever owned any pets? Anything like cats or dogs? Have you ever spent some time observing nature, in the raw so to speak. I don't mean some African safari, I mean something as simple as going to the park.

Because I gotta tell ya, some animals might not know what 'ownership' means in the human sense, but they sure know what territory is. Just ask any mother raccoon living below someone's porch.

[Occhidiangela]

EDIT. I gooned up the tags. Sorry.

What ? It's obvious for me but not for Mithrandir . He states that animals are aware of ownership of land . It's wrong because they are not even aware of their existence so they don't know what ownership is .

What evidence do you have to support your assertion of what animals are and are not aware of? As it stands now, in this thread, you are using an unsupported assertion.

About my quote :"We didn't create this Earth, thus we have no moral right." It is a philosophical deduction.

Leaping to a conclusion from a premise does not make for philosophy. You left out a number of steps between premise and conclusion. Oh, and what initial conditions and assumptions are you working from? How about you provide the intermediate steps, and try not to pass off sloppy work as deductive reasoning? I'll be more receptive to that than the hot air you have provided so far.

"we didn't create this Earth" is a fact .

Agreed.

" thus ownership of land is not morally right " is a logical deduction .

Until you provide your assumptions, and the connecting train of thought, it is a leap from a premise to a conclusion, again, not a logical deduction. Show your work. "The sun is hot, thus trees do not own soil." Hey, I can make the same pointless structures you can.

Saying that Rights and Morality can only be a human construct is philosophically wrong .

But it is practically correct. Rights and Morality have only been shown to be germane to human endeavour, and human constructs, to include the constructs that dictate a certain set of rights that animals accrue by their having a pulse.

Who made up the concept of rights? Man. Kant, IIRC, was a nineteenth century philosopher. Under what common assumption did the "great" thinkers operate? Prime Causation? An assumption of a Higher order, be it sentient or otherwise?

Kant proved that morality is one universal value which exists above human constructs .

Proved? Or is that his theory? Unlike you, Kant usually began by laying out his assumptions and conditions first, and then constructing an argument. Try it sometime, it makes for more interesting reasoning.

For instance "justice " and "freedom" are universal values that exist and can exist regardless of Man .

If there is no man to experience and benifit from justice or freedom, of what use is either? None. Justice and freedom are words that try to capture an idea, an idea of man, described in words made by Man.

Or do you ascribe to Nature sentience? Are you anthropomorhpizing Nature? Do you assert, then, the existence of a Creator? Of a God? At this point, I am unclear on where you stand in that regard.

Kant demonstrated that Nature and Morality are somehow linked and depend on each other . I'll quote him if you 're still not convinced .

You bought his line of BS, OK. Do you assume I will as well if you simply inundate me with it? I note that you point to "Morality and Nature" being somehow linked. Somehow linked. There is a fascinating precision of expression and thought. What little I know about Game Theory, and I wish I understood it better, is that Morality is an element of various survival strategies undertaken by social animals, of which Man is a subset.

Indeed , if you look at evolution of life , all past and current species are a big family .

That is playing fast and loose with terms, the term being "family." So, am I right in understanding that anything with DNA is part of our extended family? Families have feuds, and so by your analogy do disparate cousins in DNA. Oh dear, we appear to be back to conflict again, don't we, as a natural condition of Nature, one big dysfunctional family. Conflict, not harmony, appears to be THE natural condition. The evidence is all around you in the physical world.

All current animal species come from a SINGLE specie at the beginning of the world .

Assumption, not fact. It is a theory, unproven, although there is a lot of evidence pro, far less convincing evidence (and much rhetoric) con.

That means that animal species are brothers , including Man .

No, it means that maybe, all are distant cousins in DNA. So what?

Thus Man is equal to all animals and not superior .

Unfounded assertion. In any extended family, some are better than others, each relation has a different set of talents and gifts. That is a feature that comes with variety. Some in any family group tend to dominate, some tend to be dominated. Or haven't you bothered to get out of your freaking Ivory Tower and experience the world?

This is especially the belief of native americans that all animal species are brothers .

A belief. A religion. You use religion to support your logical argument. Got it. A fruit of a poisoned tree is poison.

I won't expand on that (that's a lot of work to do it ).

OK.

False analogy . The king owns it because he has wanted to do so when becoming a king .

There you go again, not only mistaking how a King becomes a king with your assumption, but presuming to know all causation for the condition of King. Do you understand the Divine Right of Kings as a concept? Do you understand how some Kings believed "The King and The Land Are One?" You take a narrow slice of a view of a King, you plaster it all over all Kings. Way to cherry pick.

Man owns Earth because he has wanted to do so and he has done it . Just because you own something doesn't imply that you have the right to own it .

By whose standard? When you exercise volition and will, you do indeed own something within the context of the human condition, until someone else can induce you to agree that you don't have the right, or unless your right is overturned. Note the concept of Agency operating here. As others have pointed out, the issue of ownership does not occur in a vacuum, which is where your logic exists.

That's where lies the difference between your analogy and my assertion . As for belonging to Earth , Man does belong to it because he appeared among other animals on Earth . He has become an element of a whole, which is Nature .

You have asserted a great deal, supported little. You are also being inconsistent with your original assertion.

Which is it? Did Nature create man, or did man "appear among other animals on Earth?" Was Man created as part of a whole, or did he evolve from the whole into his current part, or is he the "greatest among equals?" Again, on that last point, given evolution as a process of progressive change, consider that Man has evolved into the position of leader, of the greatest among equals. That condition is supported by the concept of evolution as a progressive process. Science shows us that equilibrium, a philosophical cousin to equality, is not a dynamic condition. Life is inherently dynamic.

Since you can't make up your mind as to what you are asserting, rest assured you won't change mine with your half baked, unsupported argument.

You may argue that native americans are wrong for believing what they believe . What they believe makes sense .

It makes sense to you. Fine. :D It does not follow that it must make sense to me. FWIW, it is a belief with which I am familiar.

Real belief is also an act of will, a choice to Believe. Oh dear, where did Will sneak back into all this ethereal blather?

Occhi

[Yrrek]

Occhi has brought enlightenment upon these humble fora!

This is Yrrek, signing off.

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi has brought enlightenment upon these humble fora!

This is Yrrek, signing off.
[right][snapback]76091[/snapback][/right]

Thank you, but you are far too kind.


Checking my post count, I'd suggest I have brought my fair share of BS to these forums. For Enlightenment, see a philosopher. A real one.

I suppose I might be a bit like Emmanuel Kant, in that I am very rarely stable. And like Socrates, I can be "a lovely little thinker, but a bugger when I'm pissed."

(Pissed in the British/Australian sense.)

Occhi

[Guest]

If you think that Morality is not universal and thus is only human , then you need to read Kant.
[right][snapback]76087[/snapback][/right]

You have confused what Kant logically proved with what he believed. Unless of course you mentioned this you think Kants beliefs have some particular and unusual standing which makes his opinion more right than the poster you attemped to rebute.

[Minionman]

Saying that Rights and Morality can only be a human construct is philosophically wrong . Kant proved that morality is one universal value which exists above human constructs . For instance "justice " and "freedom" are universal values that exist and can exist regardless of Man .
Kant demonstrated that Nature and Morality are somehow linked and depend on each other . I'll quote him if you 're still not convinced .

Just because one philosopher says it doesn't mean it has to be true. Ther's no way to actually know whether one type of morals system is the "right" one or not, the same way peopel can't actually know whether afterlife, gods, ghosts, etc. exist or not. I personally act on the idea that Ican think for myself based on what Isee around me, and what I see around me doesn't agree with a lot of these ideas.

Indeed , if you look at evolution of life , all past and current species are a big family . All current animal species come from a SINGLE specie at the beginning of the world . That means that animal species are brothers , including Man . Thus Man is equal to all animals and not superior .
[right][snapback]76085[/snapback][/right]

Not neccesarily. It really depends one how you are using "superior" and "equal". some life forms have gone extinct, so right now I'd say they are inferior because they aren't around anymore. I could also say that because people live longer than just about anything else, can get more resources then just abotu anything else, have very little natural threats (tsunamis and diseases do kill off millions, but that doesn't nearly make people extinct), so they are superior to a lot of species. Just because everythign started the same doesn't mean it ends up the same over time, and some things will probably work out better than others.

[ICanChangTheWorLd]

that is odd idea, I never thought about that, yeah! I think the world is not belongs to someone or somebody, maybe belongs to the God, I do not know. I am not a Sage.

[Archon_Wing]

If you think that Morality is not universal and thus is only human , then you need to read Kant.
[right][snapback]76087[/snapback][/right]

No, you should read Kant

[Yrrek]

"a lovely little thinker, but a bugger when I'm pissed."
[right][snapback]76092[/snapback][/right]

Ha, who said that little tid bit? I like that. :)

[Occhidiangela]

Ha, who said that little tid bit? I like that.  :)
[right][snapback]76100[/snapback][/right]

Monte Python. The Philosophy Song. Let Google do the rest.

"Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant . . . "

Occhi

[Rinnhart]

Oh god, he's a furry.

Cast off the constraints of civilization! Run naked and free with your animal brothers!

[Occhidiangela]

I am not  a Sage.
[right][snapback]76097[/snapback][/right]

True, in spades. :shuriken:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Oh god, he's a furry.

Cast off the constraints of civilization! Run naked and free with your animal brothers!
[right][snapback]76103[/snapback][/right]

So, is the specimen spam and furry, signifying nothing? :unsure:

Occhi