If you were a psychopath...

Can vegetables become psychologically distressed? Can you prove it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course just about as many people would argue that a cow is as smart as a human.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Eh? Shouldnt you be the one atempting prove that, since its the entire basis of your argument (not mine) that they can experience distress. 0_o

 

Even small insects have self consciousness (not as complex as a mammals granted) by they do have it, and can demonstrate as such by their intentions of self-preservation/survival in most instances.
At its root (as others have said) your criteria for compassionate treatment is essentially no different from inverts as youre both invoking self-awareness in a form recognisable to you before compassion can be granted.
Whereas invert recognises his experience as being uniquely human, you recognise your experience as human as well as distinctly mammal in addition to this.
Same criteria, just different degrees of seperation.

 

You mean that they can't experience psychological distress?(I'm talking about the people who we call vegetales)

 

I thought it was for theory of mind?

 

This is my point too. Why should self-awareness of the victim be a factor in deciding the morality of killing? Anyone who's ever tried to swat a fly (and, most likely, missed) knows that flies have just as great an instinct for self-preservation as the most evolved of species. I just don't see how a capacity for suffering or an awareness of impending doom can be employed to make any useful distinction here. Yes, it's easy to say that it's more immoral to kill a human than a fly because we assume that the human will suffer more, have more awareness of his impending death, etc. But: the argument becomes ludicrous when comparing other species. For instance, would it be more immoral to kill a cat or a dog? A pig or a cow? A healthy horse, or a man in a coma? A smart, self-aware young rat or a 100-year-old (and extremely stupid) giant tortoise?

Would anyone care to take a stab at ranking those species from most self-aware to least self-aware? Or can we agree that the whole argument is a dead-end, and that distinctions based on it are too arbitrary to be of any use? I'd argue that it's the consciousness level of the killer, not the victim, that's of prime importance. It's not the victim's capacity for suffering that matters - it's our own awareness of it. This makes it perfectly 'moral' for a cat to torture a mouse, but not for us to do the same.

But that way lies a moral minefield. Can we just say that, as far as we're concerned, killing anything, anytime, for any reason other than preservation of us and ours... is wrong?

I suppose I could kill up to a horse, depending on boredom levels. You?

 

No, we can't! In fact, the killing of many types of animals is central to our entire culture - we eat pork, beef, horse, chicken, and many, many other animals that must be killed in order to eat.

We kill insects and roaches that infest our homes and cities. We kill mice and rats that invade our homes and cities. If we didn't kill many wild animals, they'd also invade out homes and cities.

How can we just deny such a great part of our culture? How can we say it's wrong to kill when, in the case of the rats, it's almost essential to our way of life in cities? It makes little or no sense to do that.

Baron Max

 

This is the preservation of us and ours that I mentioned. I think we're justified in removing threats to our health.

Killing the sources of these is - for humans - unnecessary and unjustifiable. We can survive without eating them. We only continue eating them because they taste nice. I know this to be true - I only continue eating them because they taste nice.

 

Yep, there you go ...YOU want to justify killing SOME things, yet you deny that same right for others. That ain't nice, is it?

But really, if you're so hot on the non-killing issue, don't humans have the intelligence to learn to live peacefully with the rats, mice, mosquitoes, roaches, etc? I don't see how you can justify killing something just because you can't get along with them, do you? Can we make that same justification for some people, too? Why not?

See? That's the problem with absolutes like ..."Killing is wrong." And then we come to the problem of "justification" ..you can justify killing some things, yet you won't allow me to justify killing a cow so I can have a steak.

First, there's more to living than just "surviving". But second, I've found that anyone can justify anything ...even if others don't agree.

These arguments/discussions become nothing more than "I'm right, you're wrong!"

Baron Max

 

I said from the start that we're justified in removing any threats to our own lives and the lives of our nearest and dearest.

Yes. In an 'us or them' situation, absolutely.

Everything you say from here demonstrates why an absolute is necessary.

I totally agree. That's why we have to say that (unless there's an immediate threat to our own lives or those of our loved ones): killing is wrong.

 

Some very good points redarmy11, although the horse comment earlier was abit worrying.

 

and here we have evidence of a mind creating a link that does not exist. I stated a fact (as I saw it) I did not attach an emotional value to the fact. You attached the emotional value yourself. Interesting........perhaps take the words from the page and try to understand them as they are written without trying to read 'between the lines'. If you can't see it, it's not there.

 

deleted

 

er, it's in the quote I posted.." and here is where the romance begins. etc etc etc'

never mind

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

deleted

 

as I said, copy and paste the bit which implies a romantic view. All you have done is copied and pasted my words and reinforced your misinterpretation of those words. I want the exact words that imply 'romantic' view not a matter of fact description of pshcopath psyche.

meanwhile re your additionally imagined 'my avoidance of your points'.

I have this to say and only this on that point

If a person came along and tried to persuade you that the grass beneath your feet was infact the deep blue sea, would you try to persuade them they were wrong...ongoingly...ongoingly...ongoingly or would you simply accept (after the obligatory first rational attempt) that they just were not 'getting it' and move on. Life after all is for living not wasting on fruitless endeavour.

I have no romantic view of the alleged psychopath psyche. I just tell it as it is. I will not say that a dispicable murderer with the physical strength of 4 men is in reality as weak as a doormouse if the reality is that he does (by a freak of nature or steroids or lots of weight lifting) have the strenbgth of 4 men.

The psychopath does not exist, only a label we attach to people who do things we cannot understand, things which fill us with fear, things which we cannot find a mental health problem cause for. So we create a 'monster' and we call it the 'psychopath' could just as easily be called the 'boggie man'. Oh and the boggie man doesn't exist either incase you were wondering.

These 'monsters' have varying degree's of conscience. They have varying degree's of desire to exist within the rules and outside them. To them the 'unit' is what is important not the whole (whole being society). They may extend this to the family units, friends etc or NOT as the case may be. As a result they can live within the rules they create for themselves and disregard our rules.

I am not proud of those that live outside the rules, they are a nusiance.
I spent years trying to understand them, wondering why they had no conscience with regards to what they did, but in the end, I recognise it is simply an exagerrated form of what we all possess. Lack of consideration, selfishness, etc. Before you say we are largely not like this, simply consider the state of our world today.

This world would be peacful if we were not like this, but we are on the whole selfish , power seeking, aggressive, individuals, looking out for our own.

Not me of course, I am a passifist, tree hugging vegetarian who loves babies and small children. My ambition is to bring world peace (after I've won Miss World).

 

tut tut,

no I did not read behind the lines, I read and copied THE actual lines.
Bowser (or other) wrote earlier (you are not Bowser are you) that I had a romantic view of psychopaths. Bowser copied a line fo mine to demonstrate my romantic view. But the line he copied contained no romance just cold hard fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is my final attempt at telling you the grass is green today.

 

actually I saw an opportunity to make a joke, perhaps my ommission of :bugeye: smily face made this opportunity for a 'joke' go right over your head. It went right over his too.

Ouch

did I make a comment AGAINNNNNNNNN alleging myself to be superior to another human being...............

I am a gnat