Crush videos feature small animals … being slowly crushed or impaled by a woman wearing stiletto heels. … The Supreme Court decided … the law prohibiting such videos was too broad. As written, for example, the law could be construed to prohibit a deer-hunting video, which, though some might find cruel, relates to a legal activity. …
I agree with your general point, but I do not, under any circumstances, tolerate animal cruelty or videos documenting it (that aren't for the purposes of condemnation, perhaps). Thus, I do not defend the "rights" of anyone dispensing such videos.
Hah...well, I sometimes make the wrong impression in what I write. Of course I also bow to a gradation of sympathy. Although the code I adopted is rather rational than one based on emotions and not strict. If I probe my emotions I can't find the stages you described. I'd rather save an adult than a child and a scientist than two others. Emotionally the destruction on knowledge, data and art often does bear greater sorrow than that of living beings. For example, for as long as I know about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria I perceive it as the biggest tragedy in human history. I've actually often offended people with my perception before I learned to play along in public. I never felt this greater obligation towards relatives than other people or icky beings in contrast to beautiful ones.
What I want to say is that no sense can be made of the claim that one “ought to feel such and such.”As I've written in several comments above, I agree, always did. For example, I wrote about it in the following links and I'd love to hear what you think:http://spacecollective.org/...http://xixidu.tumblr.com/po...
I fight for those things that I care about and try to make them happen. That involves both verbal and other forms of coercion. What I don’t do is try to pretend that I am advancing some sort of objective, perspective-neutral, true morality. (Although I might, if I thought it might advance the causes about which I have strong feelings.)Same. So I suppose we all agree. That also means that none of us believes into true tolerance.
Just one additional point:
...and you wonder why those who are don’t necessarily feel equally inspired by the treatment of animals raised for food...Many do, including me. I just can't stop it right now.
Corum: Lol with regards the statement in parenthesis. We seem to be more or less on the same page, generally speaking: that is, I have no quarrel with your viewpoint, and agree with it insofar as I've understood it (some of your more philosophical points were too far beyond me for me to intelligently discuss). Thanks for answering my questions.
You have characterized my position perfectly. Indeed, you have characterized it more elegantly and clearly than I have been doing through all my long-winded philosophizing.
I fight for those things that I care about and try to make them happen. That involves both verbal and other forms of coercion. What I don't do is try to pretend that I am advancing some sort of objective, perspective-neutral, true morality. (Although I might, if I thought it might advance the causes about which I have strong feelings.)
Corum: If I understand you rightly, what you've said so far is that, for some people, knowledge of the torture of animals in crush videos inspires, via emotion or sentiment, the desire to create (or lobby for the creation of) laws which require (force, coerce) those who create such videos to cease their activity. You yourself don't feel so moved or inspired, and you wonder why those who are don't necessarily feel equally inspired by the treatment of animals raised for food, which treatment could be (and sometimes is) also defined as torture - or at least, gives the appearance of being equally egregious to that meted out to animals involved in crush videos. Would you call that a fair summary of what you've stated thus far? If so, I at least have no quarrel with you, nor criticism to make beyond what I've said in earlier posts.
What I remain curious about is what motivates you as a political being. Does the above aptly describe your mode of action as you experience it? Concerning, that is, such matters as inspire you to action?
People living in the 17th century had a much higher chance of being killed by another person than a person living in the 20th century. And that's in spite of the fact that the 20th century included two world wars.
I have no such prescription. Behavior is only ever regulated by innumerable methods of coercion: soft and hard; physical and verbal. The idea that there is something inherently non-coercive about a certain kind of civil discourse--i.e. the liberal democratic ideal of policy making via rational interlocution--is, in my view, entirely mythical. Reason, in itself, only expresses abstract relations between propositions: it has no efficacy in the causal sense. To the extent, then, that language is efficacious (i.e. is able to get people to do things) it is so because of its non-rational characteristics (which include things like the social prestige that attaches to *appearing* to be rational).
I have no doubt that you are an especially compassionate person, with an exceptionally broad range of sympathy. The Humean point--and mine--is simply the empirical one that in human beings, sympathy tends to radiate outwards, on the basis of the capacity of the individual to identify with the object of sympathy. So:
1. I care about my own children more than about other peoples' children.
2. Same point as 1. re: my parents, other relatives, and friends.
3. I care more about people I know that I do about total strangers.
4. I care more about people, regardless of whether I know them or not, than I care about animals.
5. I care more about animals that bear some similarity to me--i.e. mammals--then I do about those that bear less--say, insects.
I would submit that these things are true of most people (admitting exceptions like yourself).
Now, those who are invested in a moral philosophy of one kind or another will want to say, "Yes, that may be how people actually feel, but it's not how they *ought* to feel." Indeed, this is how Peter Singer, Peter Unger, and other prominent Utilitarians speak.
What I want to say is that no sense can be made of the claim that one "ought to feel such and such." Certainly, there are some who would *rather* that most people not feel the way I have described--you, for example, wish that we wouldn't--but notice, this is just another feeling: albeit a contrary one.
Moral philosophers will then want to say that one can produce a rational argument or account on behalf of some "ought", but I have yet to see one that succeeds (the Utilitarians are still arguing with the Kantians, etc), and until I do, all I see are competing sets of wants. Unfortunately, yours--and the animal rights peoples'--comprise only a tiny minority of said wants.
Moral discourse is an attempt to cheat one's way out of this inconvenient fact. Rather than saying "I don't want what you people want" (say, eating animals) and then accepting the fact that there aren't enough people who don't want it to make the people that do want it stop, one pretends, instead, that there is some objective fact of wrongness, and then uses this pretense to try and trick those on the other side into acquiescing. This used to be bolstered by warnings of divine punishment for failure to acquiesce, but now, more often than not, involves the more temporal sanction of a kind of shunning from the "moral community," which is no less a fiction than the alleged moral fact on which it's based.
The impression is then given that the forces of morality have won over the forces of wickedness, on the grounds of dispassionate, universal reason, but of course, all that has really happened is that one group of people have managed to make other people acquiesce to their wants, in a particularly clever, because dishonest way. I have no problem with this, but I do think it is nice to be clear about what is really going on.
Added 5p: Note that the people who are actually the most tolerant are marginalized folks with strong opinions, like fundamentalist Islamists in the US, or politically-right profs in academia. By necessity, most such folks frequently tolerate bothersome behaviors by others.The U.S. must be located on another planet then. I doubt it though. To my knowledge and experience it's exactly vice versa. And I have/had to do with quite a few extreme people over here in Germany. It's rather the more marginalized they get the more extreme tendencies they express and outlive. Here we have honor killings, people demanding Sharia law, people killing artists, threatening newspapers and right/left wing groups actively trying to kill each other.
Some of those religious cranks who wanted to brainwash their children even got asylum in the U.S. lately because we wanted to imprison them for their intolerance...
To my knowledge this blog post was based on a case about the First Amendment. Obviously it was not about tolerance regarding the torture of little children for medical experiments etc.? And that quote is from a recent article, as linked at the top, that specifically talks about tolerance regarding freedom of speech. So I have no idea why you have no idea why this quote/article is related to this discussion/blog post...
Freedom of expression is a precious commodity, but it does not give academics or students the right to break the law[...]You can attack my religion (Orthodox Judaism). I will defend your right to do so. What you cannot do is to mount your attack in such a way as to incite violence against me. You can declare that Jewish emancipation was a mistake (some Jews on the sectarian-Orthodox fringes may actually agree with you!). What you cannot do is to mount a campaign to limit the proportion of Jews entering your university. Why? Because such a campaign would certainly fall foul of existing legislation protecting ethnic groups.
So where do you stand on videos of animal torture?
At least my view on it is that it should not be banned, but it should be used as evidence.
There's a lot of evidence (videos, pictures of autopsies, etc) that I thoroughly do not enjoy seeing, but which should definitely not be banned.
I agree with your general point, but I do not, under any circumstances, tolerate animal cruelty or videos documenting it (that aren't for the purposes of condemnation, perhaps). Thus, I do not defend the "rights" of anyone dispensing such videos.
Hah...well, I sometimes make the wrong impression in what I write. Of course I also bow to a gradation of sympathy. Although the code I adopted is rather rational than one based on emotions and not strict. If I probe my emotions I can't find the stages you described. I'd rather save an adult than a child and a scientist than two others. Emotionally the destruction on knowledge, data and art often does bear greater sorrow than that of living beings. For example, for as long as I know about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria I perceive it as the biggest tragedy in human history. I've actually often offended people with my perception before I learned to play along in public. I never felt this greater obligation towards relatives than other people or icky beings in contrast to beautiful ones.
What I want to say is that no sense can be made of the claim that one “ought to feel such and such.”As I've written in several comments above, I agree, always did. For example, I wrote about it in the following links and I'd love to hear what you think:http://spacecollective.org/...http://xixidu.tumblr.com/po...
I fight for those things that I care about and try to make them happen. That involves both verbal and other forms of coercion. What I don’t do is try to pretend that I am advancing some sort of objective, perspective-neutral, true morality. (Although I might, if I thought it might advance the causes about which I have strong feelings.)Same. So I suppose we all agree. That also means that none of us believes into true tolerance.
Just one additional point:
...and you wonder why those who are don’t necessarily feel equally inspired by the treatment of animals raised for food...Many do, including me. I just can't stop it right now.
Corum: Lol with regards the statement in parenthesis. We seem to be more or less on the same page, generally speaking: that is, I have no quarrel with your viewpoint, and agree with it insofar as I've understood it (some of your more philosophical points were too far beyond me for me to intelligently discuss). Thanks for answering my questions.
Zeb:
You have characterized my position perfectly. Indeed, you have characterized it more elegantly and clearly than I have been doing through all my long-winded philosophizing.
I fight for those things that I care about and try to make them happen. That involves both verbal and other forms of coercion. What I don't do is try to pretend that I am advancing some sort of objective, perspective-neutral, true morality. (Although I might, if I thought it might advance the causes about which I have strong feelings.)
--Corum
Corum: If I understand you rightly, what you've said so far is that, for some people, knowledge of the torture of animals in crush videos inspires, via emotion or sentiment, the desire to create (or lobby for the creation of) laws which require (force, coerce) those who create such videos to cease their activity. You yourself don't feel so moved or inspired, and you wonder why those who are don't necessarily feel equally inspired by the treatment of animals raised for food, which treatment could be (and sometimes is) also defined as torture - or at least, gives the appearance of being equally egregious to that meted out to animals involved in crush videos. Would you call that a fair summary of what you've stated thus far? If so, I at least have no quarrel with you, nor criticism to make beyond what I've said in earlier posts.
What I remain curious about is what motivates you as a political being. Does the above aptly describe your mode of action as you experience it? Concerning, that is, such matters as inspire you to action?
People living in the 17th century had a much higher chance of being killed by another person than a person living in the 20th century. And that's in spite of the fact that the 20th century included two world wars.
I'll call that progress.
Zeb:
I have no such prescription. Behavior is only ever regulated by innumerable methods of coercion: soft and hard; physical and verbal. The idea that there is something inherently non-coercive about a certain kind of civil discourse--i.e. the liberal democratic ideal of policy making via rational interlocution--is, in my view, entirely mythical. Reason, in itself, only expresses abstract relations between propositions: it has no efficacy in the causal sense. To the extent, then, that language is efficacious (i.e. is able to get people to do things) it is so because of its non-rational characteristics (which include things like the social prestige that attaches to *appearing* to be rational).
--Corum
XiXiDu:
I have no doubt that you are an especially compassionate person, with an exceptionally broad range of sympathy. The Humean point--and mine--is simply the empirical one that in human beings, sympathy tends to radiate outwards, on the basis of the capacity of the individual to identify with the object of sympathy. So:
1. I care about my own children more than about other peoples' children.
2. Same point as 1. re: my parents, other relatives, and friends.
3. I care more about people I know that I do about total strangers.
4. I care more about people, regardless of whether I know them or not, than I care about animals.
5. I care more about animals that bear some similarity to me--i.e. mammals--then I do about those that bear less--say, insects.
I would submit that these things are true of most people (admitting exceptions like yourself).
Now, those who are invested in a moral philosophy of one kind or another will want to say, "Yes, that may be how people actually feel, but it's not how they *ought* to feel." Indeed, this is how Peter Singer, Peter Unger, and other prominent Utilitarians speak.
What I want to say is that no sense can be made of the claim that one "ought to feel such and such." Certainly, there are some who would *rather* that most people not feel the way I have described--you, for example, wish that we wouldn't--but notice, this is just another feeling: albeit a contrary one.
Moral philosophers will then want to say that one can produce a rational argument or account on behalf of some "ought", but I have yet to see one that succeeds (the Utilitarians are still arguing with the Kantians, etc), and until I do, all I see are competing sets of wants. Unfortunately, yours--and the animal rights peoples'--comprise only a tiny minority of said wants.
Moral discourse is an attempt to cheat one's way out of this inconvenient fact. Rather than saying "I don't want what you people want" (say, eating animals) and then accepting the fact that there aren't enough people who don't want it to make the people that do want it stop, one pretends, instead, that there is some objective fact of wrongness, and then uses this pretense to try and trick those on the other side into acquiescing. This used to be bolstered by warnings of divine punishment for failure to acquiesce, but now, more often than not, involves the more temporal sanction of a kind of shunning from the "moral community," which is no less a fiction than the alleged moral fact on which it's based.
The impression is then given that the forces of morality have won over the forces of wickedness, on the grounds of dispassionate, universal reason, but of course, all that has really happened is that one group of people have managed to make other people acquiesce to their wants, in a particularly clever, because dishonest way. I have no problem with this, but I do think it is nice to be clear about what is really going on.
--Corum
No, it was the article you linked to that referred to people like me as "fascists."
--Corum
"'Tolerance' is where you tolerate things that actually bother you."
Should I tolerate more fascism, corporatism, and an expanding state? If not, perhaps tolerance should not be so fetishized.
I just noticed...
Added 5p: Note that the people who are actually the most tolerant are marginalized folks with strong opinions, like fundamentalist Islamists in the US, or politically-right profs in academia. By necessity, most such folks frequently tolerate bothersome behaviors by others.The U.S. must be located on another planet then. I doubt it though. To my knowledge and experience it's exactly vice versa. And I have/had to do with quite a few extreme people over here in Germany. It's rather the more marginalized they get the more extreme tendencies they express and outlive. Here we have honor killings, people demanding Sharia law, people killing artists, threatening newspapers and right/left wing groups actively trying to kill each other.
Some of those religious cranks who wanted to brainwash their children even got asylum in the U.S. lately because we wanted to imprison them for their intolerance...
@Corum
To my knowledge this blog post was based on a case about the First Amendment. Obviously it was not about tolerance regarding the torture of little children for medical experiments etc.? And that quote is from a recent article, as linked at the top, that specifically talks about tolerance regarding freedom of speech. So I have no idea why you have no idea why this quote/article is related to this discussion/blog post...
XiXiDu:
I have no idea what this quote--or the article it is from--has to do with our discussion.
--Corum
Free speech on campus rightly has limits
Freedom of expression is a precious commodity, but it does not give academics or students the right to break the law[...]You can attack my religion (Orthodox Judaism). I will defend your right to do so. What you cannot do is to mount your attack in such a way as to incite violence against me. You can declare that Jewish emancipation was a mistake (some Jews on the sectarian-Orthodox fringes may actually agree with you!). What you cannot do is to mount a campaign to limit the proportion of Jews entering your university. Why? Because such a campaign would certainly fall foul of existing legislation protecting ethnic groups.