Shark on Shark Rape. How Can We Stand By and Let This Happen?

[kurros]

You know it by you yourself being a human being and expericing personal will, which you can extend to others of your specie. It's not solely because you observe others behaving. That may be a reason, but not very conclusive one. The same applies to animal behavior - just because they show behavior, doesn't mean they possess personal will. It could be in support of that conclusion, but when coupled with something additional, for this premise on its own is not sufficient to arrive at "animals have personal will!" Because something showing behavior is also consistent with non-willfulness.

It is not any kind of stretch to extend our experience of personal will to other species. We share the vast majority of our evolutionary history with a lot of them. The evidence indicates that our brains are very similar, and we know what kinds of functions humans and animals lose when different parts of their brains are damaged, so we can correlate what parts of their brains do similar things to ours. Higher mammals have complex interpersonal relationships and social hierarchies, coordinated behaviour for hunting, even territorial "warfare".

I think in the 21st century that to deny that at least some other animals have a "will" is about as ridiculous as solipsism.

[Friendly Banjo Atheist]

Emuse,

Isn't that true for humans as well? For instance, the recent events in Germany and Sweden have led the authorities to issue brochures and 'sex eds' to basically teach refugees about indicators, behaviour and female willingness to sex. I remember a brochure which explained that body language and how a woman dresses should not be used as indicators. Some German schools have even issued policies telling their female students to cover their bodies in order to not send the wrong sexual indicators and body language to male refugees.

We can misinterpret non verbal signals.  For sure.  But some are pretty unambiguous.

This is where knowledge of Autism helps incidentally.  The difficulties that autistic people have in reading facial expressions also makes it incredibly hard for them to know how another person is thinking and feeling.  The claim that we don't accurately judge subjective states based on observations of outward behaviour is demonstrably false.

I don't think refugees are any more autistic than non-refugees.
Separating sexual behaviour from sexual willingness is a recent western phenomenon. Most cultures do not consider behaviour to be separate from willingness. If men and women dress and behave sexually, then this is a good indicator for their willingness to sex. This explains why the school has issued new policies regarding dress code to their students, because the school understands that different cultures have different understandings of human sexuality.

Trinity.  If a woman shows cleavage, this is a "good indicator" that her breasts are fair game for grabbing?  Yes?

[Emuse]

Emuse,

Isn't that true for humans as well? For instance, the recent events in Germany and Sweden have led the authorities to issue brochures and 'sex eds' to basically teach refugees about indicators, behaviour and female willingness to sex. I remember a brochure which explained that body language and how a woman dresses should not be used as indicators. Some German schools have even issued policies telling their female students to cover their bodies in order to not send the wrong sexual indicators and body language to male refugees.

We can misinterpret non verbal signals.  For sure.  But some are pretty unambiguous.

This is where knowledge of Autism helps incidentally.  The difficulties that autistic people have in reading facial expressions also makes it incredibly hard for them to know how another person is thinking and feeling.  The claim that we don't accurately judge subjective states based on observations of outward behaviour is demonstrably false.

I don't think refugees are any more autistic than non-refugees.
Separating sexual behaviour from sexual willingness is a recent western phenomenon. Most cultures do not consider behaviour to be separate from willingness. If men and women dress and behave sexually, then this is a good indicator for their willingness to sex. This explains why the school has issued new policies regarding dress code to their students, because the school understands that different cultures have different understandings of human sexuality.

Dressing in a particular way to show a willingness for sex is not to show a willingness for sex with anybody.  A person would have to be fairly socially inept to not know that.  The woman who dresses provocatively is either hoping to attract someone in particular or she wants to be able to choose from those who show an interest. We see this latter type of behaviour across different species too.  In order to get to the point of raping somebody, a man would have to ignore a whole host of other verbal and non verbal signals.  If a woman became aggressive, shouted at you and tried to push you away, you wouldn't get away with claiming not to know she wasn't interested even if she shouted at you in a foreign language whilst wearing a low top.  But this only further emphasises that we can accurately judge the subjective state of another from their outward behaviour.

If a woman doesn't want to deal with unwanted attention in certain situations then she needs to dress less provocatively in those situations, of course.  But this is about the woman ensuring that she is matching her behaviour with her subjective intent.

[TheBigOhMan]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

[Mae]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

I don't see any problem here at all. Yes, being a moral agent is needed for one to be morally blameworthy, so if a human is not a moral agent, they are not morally blameworthy for their actions. But it doesn't follow from that that therefore we have to let them torture others. If a bear walks into an elementary school, we don't say "the bear is not a moral agent, thus we must let him maul all the little kids". That's absurd. We can stop a being from harming others, even if they are not morally blameworthy for their actions.

[TheBigOhMan]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

I don't see any problem here at all. Yes, being a moral agent is needed for one to be morally blameworthy, so if a human is not a moral agent, they are not morally blameworthy for their actions. But it doesn't follow from that that therefore we have to let them torture others. If a bear walks into an elementary school, we don't say "the bear is not a moral agent, thus we must let him maul all the little kids". That's absurd. We can stop a being from harming others, even if they are not morally blameworthy for their actions.

Then why don't we stop bears from eating fishes, if technically bears don't require to eat fishes (since they are omnivores), and we more or less understand the fish is suffering? ¿Isn't that a double standard?

[Nunovalente]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

You stop the sociopath.

Every human has moral potential. Animals don't. Animals have no moral understanding. An animal that causes harm is more often than not, simply destroyed. No qualms.

Parental responsibility is to nurture and guide their child in moral understanding. Children and adults have moral responsibilities toward each other. Interestingly, many wicked people have been treated wickedly themselves. But often the evil manifest has far greater effects as evil has been passed on from another.
People are not born sociopathic. Dig into the background or childhood and you'll find some dysfunction or damage has been caused.

[Mae]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

I don't see any problem here at all. Yes, being a moral agent is needed for one to be morally blameworthy, so if a human is not a moral agent, they are not morally blameworthy for their actions. But it doesn't follow from that that therefore we have to let them torture others. If a bear walks into an elementary school, we don't say "the bear is not a moral agent, thus we must let him maul all the little kids". That's absurd. We can stop a being from harming others, even if they are not morally blameworthy for their actions.

Then why don't we stop bears from eating fishes, if technically bears don't require to eat fishes (since they are omnivores), and we more or less understand the fish is suffering? ¿Isn't that a double standard?

The number of humans who are not moral agents is a tiny fraction compared to the number of animals in the world. How would we stop all animals from harming each other?

[TheBigOhMan]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

I don't see any problem here at all. Yes, being a moral agent is needed for one to be morally blameworthy, so if a human is not a moral agent, they are not morally blameworthy for their actions. But it doesn't follow from that that therefore we have to let them torture others. If a bear walks into an elementary school, we don't say "the bear is not a moral agent, thus we must let him maul all the little kids". That's absurd. We can stop a being from harming others, even if they are not morally blameworthy for their actions.

Then why don't we stop bears from eating fishes, if technically bears don't require to eat fishes (since they are omnivores), and we more or less understand the fish is suffering? ¿Isn't that a double standard?

The number of humans who are not moral agents is a tiny fraction compared to the number of animals in the world. How would we stop all animals from harming each other?

Failing to achieve perfection in no way implies we shouldn't at least try to stop some suffering.

[Mae]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

I don't see any problem here at all. Yes, being a moral agent is needed for one to be morally blameworthy, so if a human is not a moral agent, they are not morally blameworthy for their actions. But it doesn't follow from that that therefore we have to let them torture others. If a bear walks into an elementary school, we don't say "the bear is not a moral agent, thus we must let him maul all the little kids". That's absurd. We can stop a being from harming others, even if they are not morally blameworthy for their actions.

Then why don't we stop bears from eating fishes, if technically bears don't require to eat fishes (since they are omnivores), and we more or less understand the fish is suffering? ¿Isn't that a double standard?

The number of humans who are not moral agents is a tiny fraction compared to the number of animals in the world. How would we stop all animals from harming each other?

Failing to achieve moral perfection in no way implies we shouldn't at least try to stop some evil.

Of course. Which is why we should stop exploiting over 50 billion land animals and 1 trillion sea animals every year. And if we can figure out how to stop animals from harming each other, that would be great. While we try to figure out how to do that though, let's stop harming animals ourselves.

[TheBigOhMan]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

I don't see any problem here at all. Yes, being a moral agent is needed for one to be morally blameworthy, so if a human is not a moral agent, they are not morally blameworthy for their actions. But it doesn't follow from that that therefore we have to let them torture others. If a bear walks into an elementary school, we don't say "the bear is not a moral agent, thus we must let him maul all the little kids". That's absurd. We can stop a being from harming others, even if they are not morally blameworthy for their actions.

Then why don't we stop bears from eating fishes, if technically bears don't require to eat fishes (since they are omnivores), and we more or less understand the fish is suffering? ¿Isn't that a double standard?

The number of humans who are not moral agents is a tiny fraction compared to the number of animals in the world. How would we stop all animals from harming each other?

Failing to achieve moral perfection in no way implies we shouldn't at least try to stop some evil.

Of course. Which is why we should stop exploiting over 50 billion land animals and 1 trillion sea animals every year. And if we can figure out how to stop animals from harming each other, that would be great. While we try to figure out how to do that though, let's stop harming animals ourselves.

That's easy, ¿what do we do with a sociopath that kills animals? we lock him so he can't do it anymore. ¿What can we do with bears? we lock them and feed it ourself, of course in a place as natural as his real enviroment.

[Mae]

I'm a spieciest. 

I'm a speciest also.  But why are you a speciest?

I, myself, am a speciest for the reasons I explained to Emuse in the previous post-- mankind was given a choice to have the knowledge of good and evil.  And that is what makes us special.  It's also why we sometimes project our knowledge of good and evil onto animals who have no such knowledge, and no such choice, to even have such knowledge

So I've given my reason for being a speciest.  Out of curiosity my friend, what's yours?

Also.  I think BSkeptic is onto something here.  But I think the key is to realize that animals have no choice to have any knowledge of good and evil.  It is the possibility of this choice that actually separates man from animal.

¿Should we try to stop a sociopath, with no awareness of good and evil, of torturing a cat? I've always had a difficult time answering that. In a way I would, since I think it's bad to torture cats, but on the other hand, the sociopath is just like the shark, lacking a moral compass, and if the shark cannot be morally blamed, neither can the sociopath and we should just leave him alone.

¿How does one solve this issue?

I don't see any problem here at all. Yes, being a moral agent is needed for one to be morally blameworthy, so if a human is not a moral agent, they are not morally blameworthy for their actions. But it doesn't follow from that that therefore we have to let them torture others. If a bear walks into an elementary school, we don't say "the bear is not a moral agent, thus we must let him maul all the little kids". That's absurd. We can stop a being from harming others, even if they are not morally blameworthy for their actions.

Then why don't we stop bears from eating fishes, if technically bears don't require to eat fishes (since they are omnivores), and we more or less understand the fish is suffering? ¿Isn't that a double standard?

The number of humans who are not moral agents is a tiny fraction compared to the number of animals in the world. How would we stop all animals from harming each other?

Failing to achieve moral perfection in no way implies we shouldn't at least try to stop some evil.

Of course. Which is why we should stop exploiting over 50 billion land animals and 1 trillion sea animals every year. And if we can figure out how to stop animals from harming each other, that would be great. While we try to figure out how to do that though, let's stop harming animals ourselves.

That's easy, ¿what do we do with a sociopath that kills animals? we lock him so he can't do it anymore. ¿What can we do with bears? we lock them and feed it ourself, of course in a place as natural as his real enviroment.

You think it would be easy to lock up every animal that harms others? We have very different understandings of what the word "easy" means. As I said, the number of humans who have no understanding of morality is a tiny fraction of the number of animals in the world.

[TheBigOhMan]

You think it would be easy to lock up every animal that harms others? We have very different understandings of what the word "easy" means. As I said, the number of humans who have no understanding of morality is a tiny fraction of the number of animals in the world.

Not everyone, again, failing to achieve perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but we should at least try to lock some of them, ¿would you agree with this?

[Mae]

You think it would be easy to lock up every animal that harms others? We have very different understandings of what the word "easy" means. As I said, the number of humans who have no understanding of morality is a tiny fraction of the number of animals in the world.

Not everyone, again, failing to achieve perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but we should at least try to lock some of them, ¿would you agree with this?

If you can figure out a way to stop animals from harming others, while still giving them good lives, I am all for it. Simply putting them in a cell obviously wouldn't work, for the animal would not have a good life. It doesn't require very deep thinking to realize we simply do not have a viable solution to animals harming each other. Let's try to figure out a way to do so, but our greater concern should be in us to stop exploiting animals ourselves.

Imagine I am a slave owner, and you try to tell me I should stop exploiting people. If I respond by saying "hey, there are other people in other countries who engage in slavery, and you can't figure out how to stop them. Therefore, I am going to continue to own slaves". Would anyone take this reasoning seriously? Of course not. If we are concerned with exploiting humans, the first thing to do is to stop exploiting humans ourselves. Next, we should work on stoping human exploitation elsewhere. Even if we can't help others (positive rights), we should at least not harm others (negative right).

[TheBigOhMan]

If you can figure out a way to stop animals from harming others, while still giving them good lives, I am all for it. Simply putting them in a cell obviously wouldn't work, for the animal would not have a good life.

¿Isn't preventing the death and suffering of countless fish justify a single "not too good life"? it certainly seems to me. locking a psychopath may not give him what he would consider a good life (since he would not be free to do what he likes), but we still think it's justified.

It doesn't require very deep thinking to realize we simply do not have a viable solution to animals harming each other. Let's try to figure out a way to do so, but our greater concern should be in us to stop exploiting animals ourselves.

People can hold many concerns at the same time, with varying degrees, and try to achieve them all at the same time. There are charities for almost everything after all.

Imagine I am a slave owner, and you try to tell me I should stop exploiting people. If I respond by saying "hey, there are other people in other countries who engage in slavery, and you can't figure out how to stop them. Therefore, I am going to continue to own slaves". Would anyone take this reasoning seriously? Of course not. If we are concerned with exploiting humans, the first thing to do is to stop exploiting humans ourselves. Next, we should work on stoping human exploitation elsewhere. Even if we can't help others (positive rights), we should at least not harm others (negative right).

We can stop exploiting people in our country while also at the same time try to stop exploiting people in other countries at the same time.