>everybody would save a loved one over a stranger
>we're fine eating pigs, but not dogs
>you can be naked in a shower, but not on a bus
It's actually extremely useful that we can make special exceptions for behaviors without having to justify why.
Inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
🇬🇷
@Dicer These kinds of things all feel like rationalizations though. Dolphins are useless to us but we still find it unconscionable to eat them. I've seen people cite dolphin intelligence, yet pigs are smarter than dogs, so brains can't be the deciding factor either.
Then people have to form these multi-dimensional analyses to try and form a consistent model of right from wrong, when really that has everything backwards. We make decisions on what's moral without running any complex computations, or waiting for the results of tests and studies. Somehow we just know.
Plato formed this model of human behavior where "reason" is like a driver and "emotion" is a horse being told where to go, but Jonathan Haidt is probably more correct saying it's the opposite. Emotion is the driver, and it tells reason where to go. We point logic in the direction our gut instinct wants to end up, and it finds a way to get us there.
We already determined by instinct that incest is wrong, then after the fact we go jumping through hoops to try and logically deduce why it must be wrong. It's a dumb little game of pretend we play that switches the driver with the horse. It's unnecessary.
Also I forgot your from a place where faminine never fell hard enough for people to eat their pets on a national scale.
People do eat dogs, but the fact it usually requires something like famines or extreme poverty points to a priority. When we have the freedom to, they're among the first things we spare. No well-adjusted person will gut their chihuahua because they just didn't feel like eating out that night.
@Type_Other @Dicer
Also, that naked example is retarded... Here is a steelman though
The nudity example is good because people will try and come up with reasons after the fact, like hygiene or something, yet still oppose it even after that is removed from the equation.
Like with incest people point to higher risk of birth defects, but when it's changed to remove that chance, they get stuck. "Is father-daughter incest still wrong if one of them has become infertile?" People stumble over themselves to rationalize into some kind of logical consistency instead of just conceding the fact: things can be wrong without needing an explanation.
@Type_Other @Dicer
I had to get out of bed, to respond correctly -_-
> Being social or capable of showing kindness to humans
I am not talking about either of these conditions though. I am talking about a life-saving aliance, where animals of each specias agree to protect each other across ages.
Cats and dogs do run to wake you up in case of a house fire. Pigs won't.
> The nudity example is good because people will try and come up with reasons after the fact, like hygiene or something
Sexual assaults. Clothing gives quite a clear line, that the person isn't 100% deranged. Come on man, just give that argument up. I gave you a steelman for a fucking reason.
> Like with incest people point to higher risk of birth defects
We are literally talking about an evolutionary strategy here. A heuristic, that eliminates the problem, while costing you "you'll have to fap instead of fucking an """infertile person"""" is a really good one, when you look at the cost and benefits. Also, we didn't evolve to trust some modern medical standarts.
Also also, my grandmother was declared infertile, after they cut half of her woumb.
Guess what? 3 kids later, she seems quite fertile to me.
If you wanna dig up stories of pigs or cows willfully saving humans they've grown attached to, they're out there, because this kind of thing is more of a gradient than a binary.
>Sexual assaults
If you mean somebody wandering around the street naked is probably a sexual deviant, sure, but calling it wrong is just agreeing "This is wrong because we agree it's wrong." The fact that it's icky is good enough.
>somebody deemed infertile might still be fertile
The scenario has baked into it that one of both of the parties is infertile. Imagine that however you want (like complete removal of ovaries) but even after that, most would still say that doesn't make it fine for a father to screw his daughter or something. People still oppose it, and invent new reasons as needed.
@Type_Other @Dicer
Are you just trolling?
There is no evolutionary base for removal of both overies. There is an evolutionary instinct to trust animals, that are willing to save us, and there is an evolutionary incentive to signal your intentions to the people around you.
Are you a christian by any chance?
@LukeAlmighty @Dicer If you only want to appeal to evolved responses, you'll come to the same conclusion I'm at. Indicators of sanity and the ability to cooperate (like following easy-to-follow societal standards) are also things we evolved to be on the lookout for and reward/punish.
@Type_Other @Dicer
No, I am seriously wondering, if you're just trolling an autistic guy at this point.
@Type_Other @Dicer
I am trying to get to the core of your quite weird claims you started with.
>>>
It's pretty weird we pretend consistency is some virtue.
>everybody would save a loved one over a stranger
>we're fine eating pigs, but not dogs
>you can be naked in a shower, but not on a bus
It's actually extremely useful that we can make special exceptions for behaviors without having to justify why. <<<
@Type_Other @Dicer
In that case, just use better examples next time. :D
Nobody starts with a framework (Bentham's utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperitive, Rawls's veil of ignorance, libertarians' non-aggression principle etc.) and uses it to decide right from wrong. Instead they seem to have already decided what's right and wrong, then (after that) try to retroactively invent a framework which matches the view they already held.
This becomes apparent given the special exceptions they tend to make. "Murder is always wrong."
>What if it's an evil tyrant though?
"Okay, well, hang on, uhm, that's different because yada yada"
They all do this, inventing exceptions as soon as someone pokes at the margins. It's obviously just invented after the fact, not something consulted beforehand.