One true philosophy or not

john42t · December 11, 2011

My dog has emotions too. Are its emotions "automatic results of value-judgemnts integrated by its subconscious? Is the dog's mind 'subconsciously judging itself' when the animal expresses joy at being fed and taken for a walk?
As for man's emotional and cognitive mechanisms being tabula rasa at birth, research contradicts this:
Example: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10531533

"At birth" is probably to read as "at the start", whenever exactly that is.

As to the dog, yes. You're strict but fair to your dog, feed it well and show that you appreciate it. The dog judges you to be a highly valuable pillar in his life. The subconscious will emit the corresponding feelings of trust and love when you are there or the dog contemplates you (which I believe they are capable of).

If your behavior to the dog is unpredictable, your punishments and rewards handed out irrationally and the dog is often starving or locked up alone for a long time, the dog's subconscious will be programmed with resentment for you (and probably also distrust of other humans).

It's no different from what happens in the human case. The only difference is that the value judgements of human beings are much more complex, as man's reliance on reason is so much greater.

I have a funny example for this in cats: My girlfriend's mother's cat vet advised her to pick her up a few days after an unpleasent treatment, rather than right away. That way, the cat wouldn't link that treatment to her owner and the object of resentment would remain the vet alone.

If the cat was more rational, she would know who she really ought to be angry with!

Without any mind, no matter how simple, the cat could neither love nor hate. The very minimum is the identification - who-hooo, Randroid alert - of anything that could be the subject of love and hate.

Man, dogs, cats and chimps all have the same "depth" of emotion/feelings. It is just that humans make a better job of determining what they are - with reason.

Xray · December 11, 2011

It's like saying: Let's assume that there is a God who will punish you unless you sacrifice your son, would it then not be rational to comply?
The answer is yes. But meaningless.

It is not meaningless in societies where belief in a punishing god is still prevalent. Suppose you and I had been born into some rigid theocracy, we would in all likelihood believe it too and act accordingly.

I can't say how often I feel grateful for having been born into a society allowing people to be free from religious constraints.

I would interest me whether one can at least agree on certain ethical principles universally valid for our current civilized society?
I'm looking for statements to which it is difficult to object, like "It is of high ethical value not to inflict unnecessary suffering onto others". Would such 'pathocentric ethics' serve at least as a fundament?
This is the core of our differences. I severely reject such a fundament and the fact that they have been universal to most societies is the reason why it took mankind so long to get where we are.

But avoiding unnecessary suffering has not been universal to most societies. Just think of how long e. g. slavery was widespread (and still exists in some societies in the third world).

This core premise, the "do-gooder" premise if you will, is what I fear more than any religious nuttery.

Why do you fear it? What 'evil' can result from an ethics which holds the avoidance of unnecessary suffering as a high value?

As for religious nuttery, isn't this far more dangerous?

john42t · December 11, 2011