| Topic: | Re:Re:Epistemology: f1, f2 and the 3rd AI debate* sub topic: potential ethical issues |
| Posted by: | Pete West |
| Date/Time: | 05/11/2003 09:45:29 |
|
Hello, nj (and whoever else is reading this). (1) My stance is firmly against each member of the following set of human actions (which unfortunately do indeed occur at an alarming rate): (1.1) animal torture (1.2) animal abuse (1.3) animal neglect (1.4) non-human torture (1.5) non-human abuse (1.6) non-human neglect (1.7) vegetable and mineral abuse and neglect (eg. clear cutting, factory farming) (1.8) elder torture (more generally, human torture) (1.9) elder abuse (more generally, human abuse) (1.10) elder neglect (more generally, human neglect) (2) I can imagine the case where, (2.1) an individual might accept without question the propositions/premises/presuppositions: "Torture is one of the most common actions humans, as a species, take against nonhumans. Murder, and breeding, are the other most common actions", "Torture and murder are of more significance, in a nonhuman's life, than any slop the human force-fed to the nonhuman, or any strokes the nonhuman got, or any hoops the nonhuman jumped through.". I can further imagine, (2.2) the generalizations, accepted in (2.1), becoming a feed-forward filter (member of the set f2) and then transforming sensory experience, to the extent that, (2.3) through the bias hatched in (2.1) and spreading its' bloody wings in (2.2), that that bias could become a model, through which human behavior is guided and (2.4) 'torture', 'abuse', or 'neglect' of one or more experimental researchers could become 'justified'. (3)Not ALL research involving non-humans involves 'torturing', 'abusing', 'neglecting', or 'breeding' them. In fact, many researchers demonstrate just the opposite practise. (3.1)Refer to the links provided by Ryan Nagy, MS in this thread for what appears to be a sparkling example of what I claim in (3). (4) When someone uses statistics or equivalently, exercises word choices such as: "...one of the most common...", "...the other most common...", "...of more significance...", 'most often', 'least often', 'tends to' and the like, they could be painting a distorted picture of things. This distorted picture could potentially be utilized as prapoganda in order to, (4.1) attempt to 'prove' a point. (4.2) attempt to push an agenda, which may or may not involve vested interest. (4.3) attempt to 'cause' general harm. (5) I stand against those practises, the practises (5.1) or (5.2) of or upon members of the set specified by (1.1)-(1.10). (5.1) denying or limiting choice (5.2) imposing personal content (one's set of beliefs and values about someone/something upon someone/something). Of course, I have contradicted and violated my position (5.2) by presenting this material to you. Oh well, ethics are, by their very nature, context-sensitive. Another way of putting this may be (6). (6) Ethical behavior might be rule-governed behavior, where every rule has its exception. Cheers, -Pete West BTW, in previous posts to you (nj) within this thread, I posted as 'Pet Waste'. This was done with the intention of demonstrating the sense of humility that I feel toward the special sub-set of non-humans, non-human animals (including 'my' three cats), not as a demonstration of irreverance toward them. Perhaps I was being a touch too subtle? |