Mass Killing of Dolphins (Kindly Watch This)

[brownprose]

then you terribly have a misconception of what Ethics is if you consider, granting that it is true, that the motivation and justification for human survival is not ethical. you misconstrue that ethics is those humane, cute stuff. The very principle that guides laissez-faire capitalism is the ethics of Selfishness best propounded by Ayn Rand which was inspired by the Austrian School of Economics. Being selfish, is a ethical justification. see.

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you what ethics per se and what ethic is in broad terms as you want it to be described or connect. and what's that Randian rambling that you're talking have to do with the whales and the dolphins?

Again spare us your philosophical annotations The_Child...the fight against the whale hunters will never be won by the amount of personalities you quote or by the philosophies you read. Show me facts that your philosophy is going to be that panacea to preserve the whaledom or dolphindom or at least change the minds of Danish or Japanish whale hunters. Just give one of your favorite philosophies that will override the thinking of environmentalists that this whale/dolphin killings is not an issue of the environment but merely an issue of wrong philosophy and i will rest my case.

and there is no such thing as primordial calling, and if there is such a thing as a primordial calling the very word primordial has already disqualified itself in the context of an issue as complicated as this issue. the primordial issue might be related to first level needs, but when you extend the primordial calling to the complexity of the late logic capitalism, the state we are now, it totally become stale - that is, unintelligible in our situation.

Who says so, you? So survival is not primordial and ethics is? Come on. I thought you know your philosophy The_Child. Since when did man know his ethics more than his survival instinct. Interesting but ridiculous. I'm sorry...

the second statement is a rash conclusion, who could you even prove even by theory that ethical issues are not considered in policy-making, again if such is so, people in manila as far as our country is concern should not bother offering diploma courses in Bio-Ethics, to say the least. So if it is not ETHICS PER SE, what in god's name do you consider Ethics to be? pure abstractions? which is of course the total opposite of ethics - ethics is practice for the most part.

Don't put your words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that at this point you can't invoke ethics as a strong argument to influence global policy to save the whales. And if we did, whose ethics is this going to be, yours? or that bearded man named Mr. Bungoton? Come on The_Child, you can't stick your nose to your philosophy books when this issue stares you at the belly, can you? Remember, utilitarianism?...this is how this fight is going to be fought.

am i joking? i leave it to your interpretation. but really, i do not see the humor in it. but then again, who am i to judge what humor must be.

excuse my honesty, i thought you were.

so whoever said im trying to solve the whale-hunting issue, all i am saying is that the issue is an ethical issue. I do not have a messianic complex of saving the whales and dolphins, and also, i am not a tree-hugger, or a whale-lover neither am i captain ahab.

You can fight it that way. But then again, it is just unfortunate that environmentalists are not going to fight the whale hunters by such complex issues between your and my ethics. Because it's lame. The fight, for the whales/dolphins, is to be reckoned by facts -- their impact to the very survival of the ecosystem not just the dolphins or the whales but to humans in the long term. And as I have said, this may sound "ethical" to you but this is not ethical per se.

a fair share alot. but philosopher does not help solve particular problems sir, rarely do they do that,
what they do sir, is to present a principle, formulation that reverberates not merely in particular issues but universal issues - such that philosophers fair share in this whale-hunting issue is the formulation of justification that motivates human beings to rethink our actions. Animal rights did not came out from a biologist practicing biology, it came from persons with a fetish for ideas who wrote down the justification for safeguarding animal rights. nada!

As you admit, yes philosophers do not offer practical answers. But I don't see their value at this point to provide practical answers to an impending/urgent problem. Let the facts of the case (impact to the environment) be known straight than reflect on the ethics of it.

The fetish for ideas you mentioned isn't only the monopoly of philosophers alone. The idea of the animal rights wouldn't have been won if such ideas weren't shared by people. But then again, no matter how voluminous the philosophical principles embedded in the animal rights policy...the point of contention between scientists and whale-hunters isn't really about animal rights alone as I have said... this is an issue of the environment.

oh yeh, philosophy is suppose to be scientific, and that science is suppose to be govern by philosophy. how? philosophy clarifies terms, the terms used in the sciences, are filtered by philosophy.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!

Can you experiment Metaphysics/Ontology, Ethics? The only part science CLEARLY AGREES with Philosophy is logic. Period.

so you cannot say or imply that russell frowns at philosophy, as merely something different and perhaps inferior to the sciences, exactly the opposite. thats why he is a philosopher above all, and then a mathematician. noteworthy; the similarities between philosophy and mathematics is its critical quality and precision and yet remains to be abstract. So i still dont get the value of the quote in this context.

You will find no value in Russell's wisdom when one refuses to find that distinction between science and philosophy. That is what that quote is supposed to mean.

remember that environmentalists are motivated to act not because they feel like it, but rather because they have rational justification for their actions - ethics.

Ethics maybe or just one of them. The larger calling or as i have said the "primordial justification" is survival. And that is the very statement they want to echo.

really i dont care if people mis-appreciate philosophy or literature or the humanities, that is a given i have long known. the point is not about mis-appreciation but rather of the leaving important notions behind in the issue.

And it will always be mis-appreciated when philosophy comes at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

We have to remember the limitations of science, what the empirical sciences gives are purely data, it is left to the human sciences to give meaning on these data.

Wow...that sweeps me for the second time. Just as when man learned to map accurately his very own anatomy down to the last strand of his own DNA now you're saying we just entrust these data to the very people in the human sciences (like the philosophers) who don't even have the slightest clue as to what a mitochondria means.

So what does science care if the dolphins go extinct? nothing. it is us, human being, who cares if they go extinct, why we care depends on the principles that we use: whether it is useful to us in the future or because we recognize the worth of every single dolphin to life.

Science wouldn't have been the first to come out in the open if it didn't care at all. Unfortunately you can't push that manner of care to people in the physical sciences as people would in the humanities. So its best you just leave them both alone.

p.s i still do not understand why you insist that policy-making frowns at ethics. really i dont, when people and foundations funds institutions to do just that, ethical oversight and research on contemporary issues. which among other things have very powerful political repercussions.

I DID NOT SAY that.

What I'm saying is ... at this point, to argue on the side of ethics/animal rights may not be the correct approach to win this battle against whale hunting. We all know that there is no difference killing a roach by the shoe and killing the whale by the spear...that's why global policy makers need to approach the issue on the environment to make a good case... and this is heart of the issue.

[brownprose]

Bro, I don't think there's any established evidence of a direct link between survival of whales and survival of humans. Ergo, it doesn't really follow that once you save whales, you're saving humanity.

In the same way if there is a direct connection/evidence that an amoeba has something to do with the survival of humans. But even if we assume that there's none, what about the survival of dolphins between dolphins and whales between other whales? Or what about whales between plankton or between dolphins to sharks?

If you ask Physicist Dr. Stephen W. Hawking, we'd be more likely to be wiped out by an asteroid/comet than be eliminated off the face of the planet because we didn't save any whales.
-RODION

Never mind the comet coz I'm sure it's gonna drop somehow. seriously, man or this planet is faced with all sorts of threats from both cosmic and terrestrial. but that shouldn't stop us from pursuing ways to remove those threats altogether specially those that we have control over like the environment.

[The_Child]

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you what ethics per se and what ethic is in broad terms as you want it to be described or connect. and what's that Randian rambling that you're talking have to do with the whales and the dolphins?

Again spare us your philosophical annotations The_Child...the fight against the whale hunters will never be won by the amount of personalities you quote or by the philosophies you read. Show me facts that your philosophy is going to be that panacea to preserve the whaledom or dolphindom or at least change the minds of Danish or Japanish whale hunters. Just give one of your favorite philosophies that will override the thinking of environmentalists that this whale/dolphin killings is not an issue of the environment but merely an issue of wrong philosophy and i will rest my case.



Who says so, you? So survival is not primordial and ethics is? Come on. I thought you know your philosophy The_Child. Since when did man know his ethics more than his survival instinct. Interesting but ridiculous. I'm sorry...



Don't put your words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that at this point you can't invoke ethics as a strong argument to influence global policy to save the whales. And if we did, whose ethics is this going to be, yours? or that bearded man named Mr. Bungoton? Come on The_Child, you can't stick your nose to your philosophy books when this issue stares you at the belly, can you? Remember, utilitarianism?...this is how this fight is going to be fought.

excuse my honesty, i thought you were.



You can fight it that way. But then again, it is just unfortunate that environmentalists are not going to fight the whale hunters by such complex issues between your and my ethics. Because it's lame. The fight, for the whales/dolphins, is to be reckoned by facts -- their impact to the very survival of the ecosystem not just the dolphins or the whales but to humans in the long term. And as I have said, this may sound "ethical" to you but this is not ethical per se.



As you admit, yes philosophers do not offer practical answers. But I don't see their value at this point to provide practical answers to an impending/urgent problem. Let the facts of the case (impact to the environment) be known straight than reflect on the ethics of it.

The fetish for ideas you mentioned isn't only the monopoly of philosophers alone. The idea of the animal rights wouldn't have been won if such ideas weren't shared by people. But then again, no matter how voluminous the philosophical principles embedded in the animal rights policy...the point of contention between scientists and whale-hunters isn't really about animal rights alone as I have said... this is an issue of the environment.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!

Can you experiment Metaphysics/Ontology, Ethics? The only part science CLEARLY AGREES with Philosophy is logic. Period.



You will find no value in Russell's wisdom when one refuses to find that distinction between science and philosophy. That is what that quote is supposed to mean.

Ethics maybe or just one of them. The larger calling or as i have said the "primordial justification" is survival. And that is the very statement they want to echo.

And it will always be mis-appreciated when philosophy comes at the wrong place and at the wrong time.



Wow...that sweeps me for the second time. Just as when man learned to map accurately his very own anatomy down to the last strand of his own DNA now you're saying we just entrust these data to the very people in the human sciences (like the philosophers) who don't even have the slightest clue as to what a mitochondria means.



Science wouldn't have been the first to come out in the open if it didn't care at all. Unfortunately you can't push that manner of care to people in the physical sciences as people would in the humanities. So its best you just leave them both alone.



I DID NOT SAY that.

What I'm saying is ... at this point, to argue on the side of ethics/animal rights may not be the correct approach to win this battle against whale hunting. We all know that there is no difference killing a roach by the shoe and killing the whale by the spear...that's why global policy makers need to approach the issue on the environment to make a good case... and this is heart of the issue.

forgive me for assuming that you are familiar with philosophy. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

1.) i merely mentioned Rand as an example that Survival is in itself a ethical justification.
2.) Second statement, again, mea culpa, mea culpa. i should not have assumed. But its basic really, every human action, more likely or not, is a result of man's worldview.
3.) i'm also sorry sir. mea culpa mea culpa. i was again assuming. by primordial i was referring to that it does not exist in our contemporary society. Granting it is, how is human survival connected with saving dolphins. everybody knows that we are different with animals not by degree but by kind.
4.) i cant invoke ethics? So, what is the entire world who are against whale hunting doing? dancing and singing hoping they could save the whales?
5.) sir, allow me to remind you, lest you forgot basic philosophy, utilitarianism is a philosophical issue. a perspective in ethics and social-political thought. there. see, you turning yourself around, arguing against philosophy but uses it unknowingly? i would have laughed at that joke but i think its more of a lapse than a joke.
6.) the problem with facts. people actually think they could eat facts. facts are only good when they matter to the one who sees them intelligible.
7.) "this may not be ethical" i do not know what you mean by ethical anymore sir. all i know is ethics is the justification for action, perceive to be moral. i really dont know what theyre teaching in school these days. it seems i might have dozed off when i took up metaethics, ethics, bioethics and environmental ethics. dont know, so really sir, what then for you is ETHICS per se? so we might clarify some misunderstanding.
8.) you really do not understand what i am talking about ,or how principles are formulated now. Im sorry sir, but i think you have this misconception that science is doing what maybe called "beyond the call of duty" but no sir, science does not do such things. Again, science is dependent upon the values of society or individuals. Science is dependent on the values of society. if we did not value old folks, we would have used them entirely to progress in scientific researches. look what we could do with all those useless dilapidated body? ja? thats utilitarian sir, like what hitler's scientists did during the holocaust, that is utilitarianism. The point being, utilitarianism isnt always the correct pathway.
This is the way the fight is going to be fought? for someone who does not even acknowledge the efficacy of possible alternatives to utilitarianism? great!!!
9.) again sir review your introduction to philosophy. as you would see that science stems from metaphysics, and that science doesnt necessarily go together with logic as there are as many forms of logic as there are thinkers. One statement, two mistakes, i believe sir. forgive me for being honest. i was enjoying your honesty too when you thought i was joking.
10.) dont insult us people from the humanities, we know what a mitochondria is. And if your that ignorant sir, the term quarks in the sciences actually was borrowed from James Joyce Finnegans' Wake. ask anybody here who reads joyce. but then again you could be joking, or just using the psychological technique of transference?
11.) reread Russell. after that? reread and reread and reread.
12.) primordial justification - dont you just love that word. It once existed it doesnt exist anymore in our current society. needs are created by society. primordial justification is ghost in the past. but then gain, if we follow your primordial justificaiton just what are the FACTS since you have a fetish for meaningless facts, between whale hunting and human survival?
13.) leave them alone. the place of philosophy is everywhere. you cant escape it, no matter which ever nook you are going to. particularly in his issue, its an ethical issue. Again, if you cant stomach that and cant give a decent counterreply why it is not, (you never had) then im sorry sir i dont know how to educate you. i dont have good skills in pedagogy.
14) you keep on referring me to philosophers and philosophy and some old crinkled yellow pages on philosophy but it was you who quoted Russell, although misquoted him, still quoted him anyways.


cheers!

p.s. it is not my problem if you do not understand the task of philosophy. that is not the case here, i was only pointing out that the killing of the dolphins is an ethical issue. that simple. and you want to argue that it is not, and by doing so, presented some hilarious attempt to convey familiarity with philosophy by insulting us about the mitochondria? hehehe. no sir, we know what a mitochondria. do you know what ethics is? just an honest query.

[brownprose]

[QUOTE=The_Child;3842949]forgive me for assuming that you are familiar with philosophy. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

1.) i merely mentioned Rand as an example that Survival is in itself a ethical justification.

I thought you are averse to the Randian ethics for its greed. But whatever that is you're leading, that is less of an issue to saving the whales. I have been very clear about my point that the ethical side of the killing is less of an issue -- and when i said that, I mean it is a lame argument to convince the whale hunters to abandon their trade. Why do we need to belabor everything and bring up these treatises/philosophies/personalities at length when we can just go straight to the issue.

2.) Second statement, again, mea culpa, mea culpa. i should not have assumed. But its basic really, every human action, more likely or not, is a result of man's worldview.


As I have said I don't wish to belabor a comprehensible issue in such a theoretical/philosophical fashion.

3.) i'm also sorry sir. mea culpa mea culpa. i was again assuming. by primordial i was referring to that it does not exist in our contemporary society. Granting it is, how is human survival connected with saving dolphins. everybody knows that we are different with animals not by degree but by kind.


The connection may not be direct. But of course, we may not appreciate the value of the whales to human survival at this point but we have to trust the judgment of the environmentalists that at some future time it may or it will.

4.) i cant invoke ethics? So, what is the entire world who are against whale hunting doing? dancing and singing hoping they could save the whales?

Read my post...I said we can't invoke ethics because it is a lame argument in defense of the whales and the dolphins.

5.) sir, allow me to remind you, lest you forgot basic philosophy, utilitarianism is a philosophical issue. a perspective in ethics and social-political thought. there. see, you turning yourself around, arguing against philosophy but uses it unknowingly? i would have laughed at that joke but i think its more of a lapse than a joke.


It is philosophy...and it is a practical one. I intentionally dissociate utilitarianism because you've indicated your bias for classical philosophy...and there simply is little room for that in the discussion of the whales and the dolphins. You can laugh at it if you will

6.) the problem with facts. people actually think they could eat facts. facts are only good when they matter to the one who sees them intelligible.

Get real The_Child...we all need to live with facts to be real. Intelligible or non-intelligible facts they are the same bananas! How do you wish to live our lives... in illusion?


7.) "this may not be ethical" i do not know what you mean by ethical anymore sir. all i know is ethics is the justification for action, perceive to be moral. i really dont know what theyre teaching in school these days. it seems i might have dozed off when i took up metaethics, ethics, bioethics and environmental ethics. dont know, so really sir, what then for you is ETHICS per se? so we might clarify some misunderstanding.

There are zillions of definition if you talk about ethics. Let's take the ethics in the realm of public administration for example. Ethics in the context of public administration/governance are means to regulate human activity as well as ensure the rights of persons and the state. Thus, laws define the "moral standards" of a society or a country since there is no absolute/universal definition of ethics...it is therefore relative.

Now comes this whales/dolphins...do you think it is moral to kill them for reasons of animal rights? For you or those against their killing... it maybe a case of ethics if you will. But for the Japanese or Danish whale hunters: "ethics my @ss" Do you see it now? In other words, this may be an issue of ethics but not ethics per se -- this isn't a case between who's got the better side of the definition.

8.) you really do not understand what i am talking about ,or how principles are formulated now. Im sorry sir, but i think you have this misconception that science is doing what maybe called "beyond the call of duty" but no sir, science does not do such things. Again, science is dependent upon the values of society or individuals. Science is dependent on the values of society. if we did not value old folks, we would have used them entirely to progress in scientific researches. look what we could do with all those useless dilapidated body? ja? thats utilitarian sir, like what hitler's scientists did during the holocaust, that is utilitarianism. The point being, utilitarianism isnt always the correct pathway.

This is the way the fight is going to be fought? for someone who does not even acknowledge the efficacy of possible alternatives to utilitarianism? great!!!


Wrong! Science is an amoral discipline! And it is USUALLY not dependent upon the values of the society. And let me repeat...It is USUALLY not dependent upon the values of society or individuals. Things like applied ethics in the sciences is only demanded by societies for reasons of public morals BUT NOT inherently a part of scientific inquiry. If it were, societies would have demanded that science should believe in God!

And yes, utilitarianism doesn't pretend to be correct at all times...but it isn't always wrong all the time either

9.) again sir review your introduction to philosophy. as you would see that science stems from metaphysics, and that science doesnt necessarily go together with logic as there are as many forms of logic as there are thinkers. One statement, two mistakes, i believe sir. forgive me for being honest. i was enjoying your honesty too when you thought i was joking.


Whuuuuuuat!!!? "Science and logic doesn't necessarily go together." And where in the world did you pick up such idea? And science stems from metaphysics you say? Read up: "The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields." Can you please tell me if metaphysics employ this method? Can you please tell me if the definition offered says that science and logic doesn't necessarily go together? Does the definition indicate defiance of logic for a scientific method to be valid?

10.) dont insult us people from the humanities, we know what a mitochondria is. And if your that ignorant sir, the term quarks in the sciences actually was borrowed from James Joyce Finnegans' Wake. ask anybody here who reads joyce. but then again you could be joking, or just using the psychological technique of transference?

Mea culpa...but i thought you just said that science doesn't know the meaning of their data well that you even have the galls to assume that everyone in the human sciences to know their meaning ?
You said: We have to remember the limitations of science, what the empirical sciences gives are purely data, it is left to the human sciences to give meaning on these data.


I think we both belong to the same field. And it surprises me to see such show of confidence as if human sciences are the only choices left for the world to live forever and ever...amen Your arrogance consumes you The_Child. How much do you really and honestly know about Genetics or any of the physical sciences that you can afford to dismiss science as meaningless and uncaring field of discipline?

11.) reread Russell. after that? reread and reread and reread.

why not...practice makes perfect

12.) primordial justification - dont you just love that word. It once existed it doesnt exist anymore in our current society. needs are created by society. primordial justification is ghost in the past. but then gain, if we follow your primordial justificaiton just what are the FACTS since you have a fetish for meaningless facts, between whale hunting and human survival?

Ghost in the past...who say's... you again? my fetish for survival is as real as your desperation to know the meaning of life.

If you want to know the facts -- suggest you read this book: Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems published by the University of California. Or read up this article CDNN Eco News :: Slaughter of Great Whales Leads to Ecosystem Decline

13.) leave them alone. the place of philosophy is everywhere. you cant escape it, no matter which ever nook you are going to. particularly in his issue, its an ethical issue. Again, if you cant stomach that and cant give a decent counterreply why it is not, (you never had) then im sorry sir i dont know how to educate you. i dont have good skills in pedagogy.

Why don't you tell the environmentalists that "hey...I got this philosophy of mine called Ethics (according to me) and its going to save the whales and the dolphins and the world!" btw, you don't need to educate me...coz you just did. And I learned that some people can afford to waste their sense of pragmatism.

14) you keep on referring me to philosophers and philosophy and some old crinkled yellow pages on philosophy but it was you who quoted Russell, although misquoted him, still quoted him anyways.

Why not...don't you read your own posts? You just claimed that people in human sciences know mitochondria and you just said it..."cant escape philosophy." About Russell, you can keep that illusion that I misquoted him.

cheers indeed! more beer please

p.s. it is not my problem if you do not understand the task of philosophy. that is not the case here, i was only pointing out that the killing of the dolphins is an ethical issue. that simple. and you want to argue that it is not, and by doing so, presented some hilarious attempt to convey familiarity with philosophy by insulting us about the mitochondria? hehehe. no sir, we know what a mitochondria. do you know what ethics is? just an honest query.

Not my probs either...There's no sense telling you what ethics is if you insist with YOUR definitions. So just live on and keep that definition to yourself. And about the mitochondria...I seriously doubt if all those people from the human sciences really know what a mitochondria means...I don't even know it myself and I belong to the human sciences...and it doesn't insult me

[The_Child]

there are many misconceptions here. again and again and again. i do not wnat to be redundant in readdressing these.

but for sake of emphasis:

1.) lets forget about Rand, since you do not even got the point why i mentioned her ethics in the first place.
2.) 'belabor' is a euphemism for? and then you go around quoting russell - performative contradiction, ja?

3.) trust, is that faith or is that from sound scientific principles? and of the entire environmentalist community, your are telling us that they share the same view. trust. thats scientific.

4.) i will laugh at it. because first, i never set a tone for any classical philosophical issues i do not know how you see me as a classicist and i take offense - i am a postmodernist. as prudence dictates that this is not a philo forum thus , i did not want to speak of things that are too technical such is why i merely pointed out that saving the whales is an ethical issue, that the life of one whale is worth saving not because it is useful but because of its inherent value as a living being. UTILITARIANISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN WILL ALWAYS BE AN ETHICAL ISSUE. i dont know why there is a need of separation.

5.) there are no zillion definitions of ethics, zillion is not even comprehensible. it is not a play of language or definition, thats why i ask you how you define your ethics so we could reach an understanding, but still 3 replies away no definition.
6.) science and logic? whuuuut? that my good sir, is CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY in its purest form. you are guilty of it not me. as to whether how metaphysics is science, refer to your intro to metaphysics. Note: modern science became only after bacon and friends made their stuffs.

7.) again, well among everything else this statement is the most reasonable to argue with, because this actually has some substance. Yes perhaps that Science is AMORAL. but i argue that the individual being is always a being that has presuppositions and biases as to the values and culture they belong to. The individual with these biases always carries these to his work. and science, merely is a means to an end. its starts with the individual that possesses some value actuates these through science, and the scientific product is appropriated back to the values of the individual.

8.) its not my arrogance good sir, perhaps yours when you outrightly dismiss an alternative of seeing things as something ethical, at first i only presented an alternative which you immediately lambasted like how a dogmatist acts with a heretic. When i dismiss science, let me rephrase it i didnt dismiss it at all, all i am saying is that meaning start from the person and culminates with the person. take away the individual, what does the human genome project mean? what does the big bang theory means without the individual who is trying to grasp something through science? without the individual, it means nothing. Science is merely a means, it gives us objective data and that is it. how it relates to us human beings how it gives us meaning, is beyond science.

9.) "hey i got this ethics of mine" when someone is doing something you think is immoral and if you could do something about it without having to sacrifice, wouldn't you do it? and if you do, would you tell him "hey i got this ethics of mine"? more likely you just do it. you overcomplicated it.

10.) you totally miss the point again good sir. but here, lemme ask you a question, what do you care if the ecosystem declines whats it with you if it declines? and then follow the 'whys' after and youd realize that it will come back to the question of values.

11.)there is no sense of telling what ehtics is? you never defined your ethics which i asked you to do so, so we could clarify statements, but no.. you inturn accuse me of being narrowminded to my own definition of ethics. Thats why i ask you, so we could reach an understadning what ethics is so i gave my definition no replies from you.


AH the MITOCHONDRIA. you might not feel insulted i dont know why. but if somebody universally insults an entire academic community which you belong, not just you, coz if it was just me i wouldnt have taken it as an insult because the complexity of the mitochondria is beyond me, but to address it against the entire community let me quote you here: "saying we just entrust these data to the very people in the human sciences (like the philosophers) who don't even have the slightest clue as to what a mitochondria means. "
see... it would have been ok if you take it out on me, but no, you had to make a universal claim that those peopel in the human sciences have not the SLIGHTEST clue of what a mitochondria is, now thats a terrible slap. dont you think so? Is the mitchondria that specialized? as far as i was taught, we were initiated with it back iin grade school emphasized in highschool. though not very specific with it, but we have a slight grasp of what it is.


so you see sir, you almost misconceived everything i said. and now you tell me i am arrogant because i am shoving these things up people's view, of course not. if you read earlier, i was merely proposing an alternative view and all of a sudden utilitarian dogmatists claim out from ex cathedra, hat no! that is wrong, unacceptable! under the pain of excommunication, you will retract that statement. ja?

mines was an alternative of looking at it. yours was a total lambast-ment of that alternative.


cheers!


n.b ethics in public governance? you might say its relative because you did not go to the root of it all, why is there even rights, why is there even justification for state intervention? why why why, and youd boiled down to a definition; towards a good action. what is good? that is another story.

[hobie]

Luoya oy ..pero I think sauna raman tu nga video, sa time nga wala pa international regulation that protects such animals

[jaide]

they better share these dolphins to us..ka nice ra ani nla tanawn ah..

[rodsky]

To Brownprose and The_Child

The problem with such intellectual debate is that it tends to alienate the common man, and thus since 70-80% of human population does in fact, fall under the category of "the common man", unless you illustrate your ideas and examples in such a way that everyone reading this thread can actually understand them better, both of you are merely adding letters and words to this thread that most people will probably just glance at, and cringe at all the various references and allusions to ideas, books and authors they haven't even encountered or read yet. If you argue that, well, "we're exchanging ideas that both of us can very well understand and it's the problem of the rest if they can keep up or not", then I see no reason why you can't use iStorya's private messaging feature for such lengthy debates.

Just my observation, and you don't need to argue/debate with me on this point hehe. If you wish to continue it, by all means, please go on.

-RODION

[Dorothea]

Bro, I don't think there's any established evidence of a direct link between survival of whales and survival of humans. Ergo, it doesn't really follow that once you save whales, you're saving humanity. If you ask Physicist Dr. Stephen W. Hawking, we'd be more likely to be wiped out by an asteroid/comet than be eliminated off the face of the planet because we didn't save any whales.

-RODION

Yes, that's true. Hapit na ta maigo ug asteroid, to be specific end of the year, sa 2012. Mao na'y giingon sa ancient Mayan prophecies, hasta ni Nostradamus. Nakit-an nako sa history channel. LOL

[Dorothea]

sakto c Rodsky. ayaw mo pada sa tv or even youtube. don't jump into the bandwagon effect. research first why people do those things. maybe it's their tradition or culture.

if Japanese are used to eating dolphins or whales, so be it. it's their culture and tradition. if Pinoys are used to eating dogs, so be it.

it is up to the international players like the UN to address those things.

of course, on a personal note, i love dolphins. i hate to see somebody killing one.

if one says, "Save the Dolphens, Save the Whales", of course i am for that but in the proper perspective. and i will also say "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World"...hehe

If cannibals eat humans, it's their culture, it's their tradition. So be it. Specieshismsmsms! Oy vey!

@rodsky: tumpak! pakpak ko nimo ani, the "common man" gets a splitting headache when he has to read a post that takes up a whole page. The_Child and brownprose are giving me mental indigestion.