An odd swiss initiative

Scary that I am agreeing with you DTE. ;)
Start with a very hot shower to remove the ick. Take two aspirin and perhaps a generous dose of alcohol, get some rest, and you'll feel normal again tomorrow morning. :)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
If it were learned behavior, you wouldn't see it in animals. They don't get socially indoctrinated. But some animals are social, right? If it were cognitive social behavior, you wouldn't see it in "dumb" animals like insects. Yet, we do. Instinct.

Animals have no desire to see others suffer at all, why would you think that?

But animals are even less informed than human beings - so obviously they're bound to follow their instincts to protect, breed, survive, etc. and they haven't got the slightest chance of appreciating the consequences.

I'm not saying human beings don't have those instincts - I'm saying we don't have an instinctual desire to hurt other people without reason or to watch people suffer. That's why it's possible to avoid it.

If hurting, killing or having more money or material wealth were instincts in themselves - then it wouldn't be possible. At least, I don't think it would be.

Which is why we come back to knowledge and understanding.
 
Dont know about desires but i.e cats like to "play" with their mouse-victims before eating them. For the mouse its torture but for the cat it seems like its having fun.

The cat has no idea what suffering means. It's playing with it like it's an actual toy - and there's no way it can comprehend the concept of pain and suffering.
 
The cat has no idea what suffering means. It's playing with it like it's an actual toy - and there's no way it can comprehend the concept of pain and suffering.
So cat has no empathy:
Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
A cat isn't a human being - so what it has or doesn't have would likely be a different concept.

Obviously, none of this can be established with 100% certainty - and we don't know if cats are actually smarter than us.

But, ultimately, I'd like to claim that a cat doesn't have the same empathic response when playing with a mouse as a normal human being would have when torturing a smaller animal.

Do you think it does?
 
A cat isn't a human being - so what it has or doesn't have would likely be a different concept.

Obviously, none of this can be established with 100% certainty - and we don't know if cats are actually smarter than us.

But, ultimately, I'd like to claim that a cat doesn't have the same empathic response when playing with a mouse as a normal human being would have when torturing a smaller animal.

Do you think it does?
Children are not born with empathy. They learn it (or dont learn) when they grow up.

Cats have limited ability to learn when compared to humans and I doubt anyone teached the cat about empathy towards mice.

Just like any other skill that children learn (like reading or playing a musical instrument), the skill of empathy requires practice and can be trained. Skills not practiced decline and abilities can be lost.

http://parentingtheatriskchild.com/Empathy.html
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
Children are not born with empathy. They learn it (or dont learn) when they grow up.

Cats have limited ability to learn when compared to humans and I doubt anyone teached the cat about empathy towards mice.

Even if empathy was something you could teach - it makes no difference here.

Having no empathy doesn't mean you have an actual desire to inflict pain and suffering. It simply means you don't feel an emotional response when you witness or inflict suffering or any other powerful emotion.

What I'm saying is that we're not born with the desire to hurt others - or to possess more wealth than others. Those things are based on ignorance about what brings actual joy and satisfaction.

Essentially, it means if people understood more about themselves and they didn't feel they had to inflict pain or possess more items to be content, they wouldn't do it.
 
Last edited:
Milton Friedman et al. did have an idea of what he and other monetarists (if that's the right term?) called 'negative income tax'. Which basically is this: you don't pay income tax untill you yearn say 7500 DKK, or about 1500 US dollars. This is one of doing it, another way of doing it is this:

If you're unemployed, you get a basic (minimal) income that enables you to get by. If you work a few hours, there will be no deductions in your basic income - as I understand it. The basic income pr. month could range from say 500 US dollars to 1500 US dollars. The point of this being that this will free people from having to be controlled by the state all the time; it will also help people to get a low level entry job, since they don't have to fear that every penny they earn will be deducted penny for penny in say their social welfare (money).

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned Denmark; we have sort of touch of this negative income tax system. If you are a resident of Denmark you'll need/have to pay your taxes. If you earn less than 42.000 DK (=7.000 US dollars), you are, as In understand exempt from paying taxes. This is because each person in DK who pay tax, (the person, not DK ;) ) has personal deduction for this amount.(the 7.000 US dollars).

My personal opinion on this matter is that basic income is a great idea; it solves the byrocracy of officials having to control everyone and everything; it also solves the problem/challenge with people on welfare ir unemployment benefint not being able to do what they want. Since the state etc. requires them to this anddo that. With a basic income all this goes away...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,147
Location
Denmark, Europe
Back
Top Bottom