Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

ie. a shameless bully.

That's not fair. :P Bullies signify anger and malice. I don't step on bugs because I'm angry or hate them looking for them.

I step on bugs mostly when (1) someone asks me to kill one for them or (2) they become bothersome to my immediate presence. Sometimes I'll stamp my feet on ants "just cuz" because it's interesting to experiment with their reactions. Half the guys I know wouldn't give it a second thought.

Besides, most girls love it when I squash a bug for them. Makes me feel like I'm doing my job! :D

No, bullying can be done simply because it's possible; malice is not needed. For instance, you don't step on larger animals with more ability to defend themselves, eg. a domerman.

True, but are bugs significant enough that we should think of them capable of being bullied?" At the end of the day, they're just bugs. :P

It's all relative. To them, they are not bugs. They are life forms trying to make their way through like us, but more simply. Since we need to kill to live every day of our lives, it makes sense not to kill more than is needed.

[Thrylix]

It's all relative. To them, they are not bugs. They are life forms trying to make their way through like us, but more simply. Since we need to kill to live every day of our lives, it makes sense not to kill more than is needed.

That's a fair viewpoint, but why does that make more sense? Not needing to do something, just on its own reasoning, doesn't signify that doing something is wrong. I have friends who act much the same way I do: we play tennis a lot and if they see an anthill on the court, they'll walk over and scuff it out and then crack a joke about it. Guys horse around.. always will.

I feel that people are more amenable to arguments of why something shouldn't be done rather than needn't be done.

[Sy Borg]

It's all relative. To them, they are not bugs. They are life forms trying to make their way through like us, but more simply. Since we need to kill to live every day of our lives, it makes sense not to kill more than is needed.

That's a fair viewpoint, but why does that make more sense? Not needing to do something, just on its own reasoning, doesn't signify that doing something is wrong. I have friends who act much the same way I do: we play tennis a lot and if they see an anthill on the court, they'll walk over and scuff it out and then crack a joke about it. Guys horse around.. always will.

I feel that people are more amenable to arguments of why something shouldn't be done rather than needn't be done.

The way I see it, the level of order that we see in multicellular life is extremely rare in the universe. In time, entropy will claim everything and everyone, who will eventually be reduced to dust.

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration. There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

[Sculptor1]

It's all relative. To them, they are not bugs. They are life forms trying to make their way through like us, but more simply. Since we need to kill to live every day of our lives, it makes sense not to kill more than is needed.

That's a fair viewpoint, but why does that make more sense? Not needing to do something, just on its own reasoning, doesn't signify that doing something is wrong. I have friends who act much the same way I do: we play tennis a lot and if they see an anthill on the court, they'll walk over and scuff it out and then crack a joke about it. Guys horse around.. always will.

I feel that people are more amenable to arguments of why something shouldn't be done rather than needn't be done.

The way I see it, the level of order that we see in multicellular life is extremely rare in the universe.

Multicellular life is extremely rare on EARTH.
I do not think we can speak for the rest of the universe.
Depends what you mean by "rare".

In time, entropy will claim everything and everyone, who will eventually be reduced to dust.

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration.

I think not.
The tide of entropy has little to do with what life does with the energy of the stars. If anything life tends to find statistically insignificant ways to temporarilly store that energy, but bears no relationship with the stars phutting out of existence to leave the eventual heat death of the universe. The sun will die at the same time regardless of whether of not there are humans, or ANY life on earth. IN the meantime life has found a way to store some of the energy in starch, and other carbs, living systems ,and fossil fuels, but that is of no account really.

There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

But cruelty and destruction is fun. So why not?
As far as "cadavers" goes; Living things are harder to eat, and they are soon going to die, so why not enjoy them first, afteral a short lived sheep (max 7 years in the wild) can contribute to extending the life of a human (70+).

[Sy Borg]

It's all relative. To them, they are not bugs. They are life forms trying to make their way through like us, but more simply. Since we need to kill to live every day of our lives, it makes sense not to kill more than is needed.

That's a fair viewpoint, but why does that make more sense? Not needing to do something, just on its own reasoning, doesn't signify that doing something is wrong. I have friends who act much the same way I do: we play tennis a lot and if they see an anthill on the court, they'll walk over and scuff it out and then crack a joke about it. Guys horse around.. always will.

I feel that people are more amenable to arguments of why something shouldn't be done rather than needn't be done.

The way I see it, the level of order that we see in multicellular life is extremely rare in the universe.

Multicellular life is extremely rare on EARTH.
I do not think we can speak for the rest of the universe.
Depends what you mean by "rare".

Almost all of reality is dark energy/space, dark matter and plasma. Even rock is rare, let along life or multicellular life. I was going for understatement for certainty's sake and because I am trying to be less hyperbolic in my old age :)

In time, entropy will claim everything and everyone, who will eventually be reduced to dust.

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration.

I think not.
The tide of entropy has little to do with what life does with the energy of the stars. If anything life tends to find statistically insignificant ways to temporarilly store that energy, but bears no relationship with the stars phutting out of existence to leave the eventual heat death of the universe. The sun will die at the same time regardless of whether of not there are humans, or ANY life on earth. IN the meantime life has found a way to store some of the energy in starch, and other carbs, living systems ,and fossil fuels, but that is of no account really.

Theoretically, none of it matters. But, experientially, life's storage of entropy matters. When certain levels of entropy are inflicted on you, it hurts, or worse. How much it hurts very small organisms is open to question, so risk management principles apply (if one chooses).

There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

But cruelty and destruction is fun. So why not?
As far as "cadavers" goes; Living things are harder to eat, and they are soon going to die, so why not enjoy them first, afteral a short lived sheep (max 7 years in the wild) can contribute to extending the life of a human (70+).

For a foodie, cadavers are interesting and fun. Medical researchers and necrophiliacs will find interest in dead bodies. And, come to think of it, carcasses are pretty interesting generally because you can closely inspect them without embarrassment or hostility. Still, There's a lot of interesting things that life does that inanimate bodies don't.

I suppose, when all is said and done, I am probably rationalising an innate wish not to harm or kill post hoc, largely driven by cultural conditioning and evolved social traits.

[Sculptor1]

That's a fair viewpoint, but why does that make more sense? Not needing to do something, just on its own reasoning, doesn't signify that doing something is wrong. I have friends who act much the same way I do: we play tennis a lot and if they see an anthill on the court, they'll walk over and scuff it out and then crack a joke about it. Guys horse around.. always will.

I feel that people are more amenable to arguments of why something shouldn't be done rather than needn't be done.

The way I see it, the level of order that we see in multicellular life is extremely rare in the universe.

Multicellular life is extremely rare on EARTH.
I do not think we can speak for the rest of the universe.
Depends what you mean by "rare".

Almost all of reality is dark energy/space, dark matter and plasma. Even rock is rare, let along life or multicellular life. I was going for understatement for certainty's sake and because I am trying to be less hyperbolic in my old age

In time, entropy will claim everything and everyone, who will eventually be reduced to dust.

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration.

I think not.
The tide of entropy has little to do with what life does with the energy of the stars. If anything life tends to find statistically insignificant ways to temporarilly store that energy, but bears no relationship with the stars phutting out of existence to leave the eventual heat death of the universe. The sun will die at the same time regardless of whether of not there are humans, or ANY life on earth. IN the meantime life has found a way to store some of the energy in starch, and other carbs, living systems ,and fossil fuels, but that is of no account really.

Theoretically, none of it matters. But, experientially, life's storage of entropy matters. When certain levels of entropy are inflicted on you, it hurts, or worse. How much it hurts very small organisms is open to question, so risk management principles apply (if one chooses).

There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

But cruelty and destruction is fun. So why not?
As far as "cadavers" goes; Living things are harder to eat, and they are soon going to die, so why not enjoy them first, afteral a short lived sheep (max 7 years in the wild) can contribute to extending the life of a human (70+).

For a foodie, cadavers are interesting and fun. Medical researchers and necrophiliacs will find interest in dead bodies. And, come to think of it, carcasses are pretty interesting generally because you can closely inspect them without embarrassment or hostility. Still, There's a lot of interesting things that life does that inanimate bodies don't.

I suppose, when all is said and done, I am probably rationalising an innate wish not to harm or kill post hoc, largely driven by cultural conditioning and evolved social traits.

A wise man once observed that life is finite but the universe infinite.
When you divide an infinite value by a finite one you get as close to zero as it is possible to get.

So the HHGTTG says:
Universe:
Size: Infinite
Life: None.

If the planets were teaming with life, or if there were none at all, the Universe would not notice.

[Sy Borg]

The way I see it, the level of order that we see in multicellular life is extremely rare in the universe.

Multicellular life is extremely rare on EARTH.
I do not think we can speak for the rest of the universe.
Depends what you mean by "rare".

Almost all of reality is dark energy/space, dark matter and plasma. Even rock is rare, let along life or multicellular life. I was going for understatement for certainty's sake and because I am trying to be less hyperbolic in my old age :)

In time, entropy will claim everything and everyone, who will eventually be reduced to dust.

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration.

I think not.
The tide of entropy has little to do with what life does with the energy of the stars. If anything life tends to find statistically insignificant ways to temporarilly store that energy, but bears no relationship with the stars phutting out of existence to leave the eventual heat death of the universe. The sun will die at the same time regardless of whether of not there are humans, or ANY life on earth. IN the meantime life has found a way to store some of the energy in starch, and other carbs, living systems ,and fossil fuels, but that is of no account really.

Theoretically, none of it matters. But, experientially, life's storage of entropy matters. When certain levels of entropy are inflicted on you, it hurts, or worse. How much it hurts very small organisms is open to question, so risk management principles apply (if one chooses).

There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

But cruelty and destruction is fun. So why not?
As far as "cadavers" goes; Living things are harder to eat, and they are soon going to die, so why not enjoy them first, afteral a short lived sheep (max 7 years in the wild) can contribute to extending the life of a human (70+).

For a foodie, cadavers are interesting and fun. Medical researchers and necrophiliacs will find interest in dead bodies. And, come to think of it, carcasses are pretty interesting generally because you can closely inspect them without embarrassment or hostility. Still, There's a lot of interesting things that life does that inanimate bodies don't.

I suppose, when all is said and done, I am probably rationalising an innate wish not to harm or kill post hoc, largely driven by cultural conditioning and evolved social traits.

A wise man once observed that life is finite but the universe infinite.
When you divide an infinite value by a finite one you get as close to zero as it is possible to get.

So the HHGTTG says:
Universe:
Size: Infinite
Life: None.

If the planets were teaming with life, or if there were none at all, the Universe would not notice.

As far as we know, the only parts of the universe that notice anything are the lives that sprout from planets, which is not much in context, but something.

[Thrylix]

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration. There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

Thriving, intact entities are more interesting to watch than dead ones, yes. But I'd say they are more interesting when subjected to chaos and panic.

[Sy Borg]

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration. There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

Thriving, intact entities are more interesting to watch than dead ones, yes. But I'd say they are more interesting when subjected to chaos and panic. :D

Maybe that's youth? As an oldie, chaos and panic are boring. Everyone does it, from Alfred Einstein to worms - and they all do behave pretty well the same as each other in that state. While the responses of happy and relaxed animals are more subtle than those in a state of dread, those responses are much more varied and sophisticated. I think you will find that you too are far more complex and unpredictable when you are not fleeing for your life. At that point, you need not even be human because your response will be roughly the same as every other animal.

I only noticed this dynamic after I had been being harsh with the dog for years. I mistakenly thought I was supposed to be the big, dominant human and thus had to maintain absolute dominance at all times or the dog would take over and become the dominant one. It was foolish in hindsight, treating an animals that had stemmed from 30,000 years of domestication as if they were wild. Duh!

I changed my approach some years ago as I saw the dog as, not a wild animal to be tamed, but simply a furry child, a family member. Duh again! As the dog became used to me being kind to her (it took some time to build trust), I noticed behaviours in her that I'd not seen before. She now had the courage to show her preferences. It was only then that I started to understand her personality and individuality, rather than seeing her as a generic, cringing wallflower.

Thus, I expect it was easy for the Nazis to dehumanise prisoners in concentration camps because, under stress, behaviours become more basic and generic.

[LuckyR]

Simple thoughts for simple minds.

[Thrylix]

Simple thoughts for simple minds.

Or simple purpose. Either way, the simplest of things are often just as rewarding for the most highly sophisticated minds.

But cruelty and destruction is fun. So why not?

Good question.

[Jake4020]

You'd have to dress them l the same forsure. Then send them on their way back to where ever cause we can't even handle different people here, and I'm sure there's alien stuff to do out there and beyond. Maybe send back a postcard from time to time.

[Thrylix]

Minimising the amount of entropy, that is, destruction meted out on other entities will at least slow the process of disintegration. There's plenty enough destruction and cruelty in the world. There's no logical reason to add to it IMO. Also, I find that thriving and intact entities are far more fun and interesting than cadavers and rubble.

Thriving, intact entities are more interesting to watch than dead ones, yes. But I'd say they are more interesting when subjected to chaos and panic.

Maybe that's youth? As an oldie, chaos and panic are boring. Everyone does it, from Alfred Einstein to worms - and they all do behave pretty well the same as each other in that state. While the responses of happy and relaxed animals are more subtle than those in a state of dread, those responses are much more varied and sophisticated. I think you will find that you too are far more complex and unpredictable when you are not fleeing for your life. At that point, you need not even be human because your response will be roughly the same as every other animal.

From observation men are drawn to power over others; there's a hardwired thrill gained from imposing one's will on others and it's expressed more openly when certain conditions met. For some men this is due to insecurity/anxiety about their place in the world maybe. But most guys just like to be in charge.

So on the one extreme end there is a small minority with raw insatiable hunger for power who pursue it desperately. These are megalomaniacs like Donald Trump. On the opposite end you have your repressed guys.

The rest of well-adjusted men, probably most (and this includes me), carry their urge to rule, dominate, and crush passively but still palpably; easy to elicit when conditions are met such as having a decided advantage physically over opposition or a guarantee of freedom from consequences for “acting naughty.” When low hanging fruit presents itself, they go for it. This is natural. The idea of God, one being with unlimited influence and status, is a pretty specific idea that man invented God because of the desire to be one, not because of a need to believe in some imagined life after death. Any fantasy could have filled that void without requiring God.

When all's said and done, you're probably less likely to be well adjusted if you don't find cruelty and destruction fun or appealing on some level. Unless you're a woman.

[Sy Borg]

Torturing animals is a sign of good adjustment in men? Not at all. It's a sign of immaturity, self-indulgence and a major failure of empathy.

Atavistic tendencies can be satisfied by playing or follow heavy contact sports like boxing and football. Or, these days it seems that many people satisfy their need to hurt others by attacking and belittling strangers online.

[Thrylix]

If I targeted or belittled someone, it definitely it was not intended; apologies.

Heavy contact sports as outlets for male aggression is ill-advised as we learn more about CTE. Boxing and football are two of the worst offenders. I'd rather step on ants. Do you genuinely believe that's "gateway" behavior towards a more serious offense? Plenty of people have less reservation about killing simpler beings relative to more complex beings, and don't "move on from the former to the latter."

I agree with you that torturing, as in inflicting prolonged physical pain, is not a sign of good adjustment. I would be leery of someone who set fire to a cat or shot squirrels with a BB gun. Not only is the act itself "out there" in degree, but it also shows a problematic lack of self-awareness/disregard for how others see them -- if done in plain sight anyway.

I'll take credit for being sometimes immature and self-indulgent.. however... bugs can't really be tortured. Most ants cannot see beyond 12 inches or so, and they respond to shadows and changes in light by switching direction erratically. This gives the appearance of being panicked or in distress, but they aren't. Empathizing with ants would be like empathizing with wind-up toys.