Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why no pet penitentiaries?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a paper by one of my students:] According to Darwin’s theory, humans are separated from the animals only by a matter of degrees, not by categories. This is the working presupposition behind the evolutionary ethics of James Rachels. Thus, there can be no fundamental difference between “evil” committed by rhesus monkeys and that committed by the Great Apes –- Homo sapiens. This is where the reductio meets the ad absurdum. To argue that crimes committed by animals and those committed by humans are equivalent does not comport with reality and it does not jive with our experience. While we do have pet cemeteries, we do not have pet penitentiaries. No one incarcerates a Mantis religiosa for the copulatory consumption of her mate’s head, but Scott Peterson is justly sentenced for murdering his pregnant wife.

Comments
Josh Bozeman, I read the rest of your post so let me address a few points: {{"Punishment isn’t truly punishment if there’s no thought behind it…it’s just instincts kicking in and demanding an animal do A or B."}} This are merely assertions based on assumptions on your part. Why does punishment need to be defined in terms of planned thought? You're assuming that no animal has "thought" besides humans. First, "thought" must be defined properly in order to find this out. A wolf's instinct may be to punish its underlings, but experience may have taught him (or conditioned if you prefer) to go easy on a certain member of the pack because she is tougher than others and bites back. The instinct is not the act. The act is instinct filtered through experience. {{"A million yrs from now, they’ll be doing the same thing, acting in the same way, making the same mistakes, having no change in any of their social orders or systems of life in any sifnificant way."}} So you can predict the future? Amazing. So millions of years from now there will be no more war? There will be no more theft? All human instincts will be quelled and pure Vulcan logic will only remain? War, theft, murder: these things are the result of human instinct. They have not changed in "millions of years." {{"There’s no comparison between what humans do and what wolves do, or any other animal. Social orders in animals are built on necessity based on pure instinct. Clearly not so for humans. And what we do as people we do out of moral choices, decision making, planning out our lives, right and wrong…you can hardly argue ANY animal is sitting down thinking up moral absolutes, envisioning 10 yrs from now and how to make the world a better place, choosing what path their lives should go down (you don’t have alcholic apes who turn their lives around and spend the rest of their time acting as a force for good over evil.)"}} Of course, comparisons can be made for what wolves and what humans do. Preying on the weak, submitting to a leader, caring for young, feeling lonely, etc. are all things that both humans and wolves do. Then you start on about human social interaction not being based on necessity. Just go out into the wilderness for a week and try to get along without help. Good luck. Maybe if you lived 20,000 years ago you'd be able to do what your clan taught you to survive. But now, society has made thigns much easier. It's much easier for humans to live and procreate ( 6 billion with no end in sight!) The necessity as always is survival and procreation. Civilization makes this very very easy, relatively speaking. Morals: what's moral to Gorillas is to not anger the troop leader by having sex with the wrong troopmate. What's moral to Lions is that the males eat first. This is Right, not Wrong. Morals are also based on necessity. For humans not sharing is wrong. This is also wrong for Chimps. (http://www.equip.org/free/DC753.htm) Now the major difference between humans and other animals is the foresight thing. That's the main difference between humans and other animals. {{"If you do something because your instincts say you have to, that’s one thing…when you make a moral choice to do something that goes against your instincts and has no benefit to you or anyone you know, or anyone you’ve even met- that’s a totally different ball game."}} It's a slightly different ballgame and it has to do with foresight, too. Also, most human morals are morals because they have some apparent "benefit" to someone. The benefit may only be eternity in heaven versus hell, but I can't think of a moral that has no benefit or apparent benefit to someone. That's what makes them right or wrong. Right things are beneficial in some real or imagined way. Wrong things are detrimental in some real or imagined way. {{"Few even bat an eyelash when an animal helps its baby…but when a human risks his life to run into a burning building to save a kitten- people see something special, and rightfully so."}} Are you saying that running into a building to save a baby isn't instinctual? It has to be one of the most instictual things I can think of. Caring for the young of the species is an instinct that all mammals and most birds share, even some reptiles and fish. I don't see anything special about it. If a crocodile rushes to save its young when they squawk, what's so special about a human saving a baby?beervolcano
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
theres no evidence to support that the range of human behavior is instinctive. much of human behavior would definitely be anti-instinctive in many manners. running into a bldg on fire to save a kitten has no instinctive purpose whatsoever.Josh Bozeman
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Josh Bozeman, I didn't say altruistic acts are mere instinct in humans, but the drive to commit them is instinctive. Just like instinct drives you to be attracted to the opposite sex, but all the complex social interacting it takes to deal with that instinct cannot be accurately described as "mere" instinct. Also, I don't think there is any fine dividing line between an action that is considered instinctual and one that isn't, at least in humans.beervolcano
December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
You seemed to be saying that the Bible was supporting punishment against animals...you cannot punish someone if they're incapable of knowing that what is happeningis punishment, or have no knowledge of right and wrong. Punishment is meant to stop others from doing the same thing or stopping the punished person from doing the action again in the future. The Bible doesn't support the idea that animals are being punished, because there's no support for the idea that animals know right from wrong or have any idea that what's happening to them IS punishment or anything like punishment. The punishment is for the people not for animals- nowhere in the Bible will you find support for the idea that animals know much of anything, let alone ANYTHING in human terms. Man is the highest being- man has dominion over ALL the animals and the land itself. This is why animals aren't being punished- what good would it do? Animals, according to the bible don't have souls like men, they don't have a spiritual side, so any punishment would be pointless. Rituals are involved in why animals are killed in regards to various acts of men. Animal sacrifices were brought to the temple all the time, and they were killed for these purposes, not for punishment. SCOTUS ruled that you cannot put the mentally retarded to death for crimes they commit- why? Because they don't have the capacity as others to realize what the acts done to them are for (punishment), same with animals, tho I'm not in any way saying any animal is even close to the most retarded among us. The retarded are usually treated, not punished. Makes sense. You can call it punishment, but it's not punishment in human terms, for the necessary factors aren't tagging along with it (knowledge of right and wrong, realizing what you have done, realizing that the actions taken against you are in fact for punishment, etc.) Animals haven't got any of that knowledge. The fact remains that humans are in a category by themselves, because if we were higher up and nothing more- we should fairly punish ALL, or refuse to punish humans as we refuse to do so for animals. We make distinctions however, because we see that animals and humans aren't the same. You mention slavery- but exodus also says the punishment for taking someone and selling them into slavery is death...you can't pick a verse here and there and try to paint God as immoral. Even with the verse you quote, there's no context- biblical "slavery" was usually actually biblical "servitude" and most of it was purely voluntary. There are laws that command servants to be treated as a family member of the servant's own family. That an "owner" is to live by a strict code in regards to how he treats his servants. The verse you quote also makes it clear that murdering a servant, tho you do own him in a sense is not permitted. It warrants the same punishment as murdering anyone else. As for the oxen mentioned- this isn't punishment for the oxen. It's meant to punish those who refuse to control their animals and allow this lack of control to injure others. The punishment is for the man, but the oxen is also killed (not as a punishment, an oxen has no idea why it's being killed or that it's GOING to be killed, so punishment in thise sense is meaningless) because it's out of control, and logically you can't have out of control animals around population centers.Josh Bozeman
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Taciturnus, Re: When has grass ever slaughtered or enslaved anybody? Please to meet my associate, Mr. Crabgrass. He has caused many infidels to die of rage, heart attack and self-poisoning with infidel yard chemicals.pmob1
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Josh Bozeman disputes my claim that the Bible requires animals to be punished (animal punishment being the 'absurdum' in Dembski's student's essay): "I will assume you don’t study the bible, from what you said here and quoted in other posts here. The verses here aren’t about animal punishment, it’s more about rituals. It’s nothing to do with punishment for animals." He fails to offer any evidence in support of his 'rituals' interpretation. Let's look at the verses in question. 1. Exodus 19:12-13 demands that humans and animals who touch Mt. Sinai be stoned to death or shot with arrows: 12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: 13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." This verse, as it says, applies to "beast or man." Josh, are you really saying that the Bible commands the stoning of a human being, not as punishment, but as a mere ritual? 2. Exodus 21:28-32 demands the stoning of oxen who gore people: 28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. 30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. 31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. 32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. These verses come in the middle of a long chapter which is all about punishments and fines. Examples: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." And the famous "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..." Josh, how can you argue that the verses are referring to rituals, not punishments? 3. Leviticus 20:15-16 decrees that if a man or woman has sex with an animal, both the person and the animal must be killed: 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Like the oxen verses, this appears in the midst of a long list of punishments. Yet Josh insists that these are not punishments, but rather rituals. Incidentally, for those who think that the God of the Bible is a paragon of morality, check out this doozy from Exodus 21: 20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. (New King James Version)keiths
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
crandaddy writes: "Nor do I think it will ever be possible to prove His existence because if it were ever proven that God exists, we would be forced to serve Him out of rational obligation." Hi David, I don't think we'd be compelled to serve God simply by a proof of his existence. We always have the option of defying God, even if we believe in him. Abraham could have decided that God was evil for commanding him to sacrifice Isaac and refused the order. The Israelites were certainly convinced of God's existence after witnessing the Mt. Sinai extravaganza (see Exodus 20:18-19), yet they ended up worshipping the golden calf and Baal (at different times) in defiance of God's will. "Thus, it is a humbling experience for us to suspend our rationality and, to take a leap of faith into the unknown. God wants us to love Him first, innocently and humbly, and the insight into His nature follows from our communion with Him." The problem is in which direction to take the "leap of faith" when so many choices are open to us. Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and Mormons all take the leap. I know firsthand that many of them are quite sincere in their beliefs and feel that God (or the gods) have granted them special understanding because of their faith. Their tenets are mutually contradictory, so at least some of them must be wrong, yet they all feel a certainty born out of their communion with God (or the gods). I can only conclude that a leap of faith is not the best idea if truth is the goal.keiths
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
The "God shouldn't allow ‘x’ to happen..." is an common, but problematic, line of argument. It seems that it is only employed when the person making it doesn't like the outcome of ‘x’, whatever that is. On the other hand, when the outcome of a person's freewill is what he wants, or is something good or beneficial, people generally don’t object to the fact that our decisions (or someone else’s that might affect us) have this level of magnitude, that our wills matter, and that the stakes are high. I’ve never heard anyone say, "If god was loving and omnipotent, he wouldn't have allowed me to win the election,” or “He really should have intervened before I inherited all that money.” But all of us (myself included) complain when things go south. My question is, can we really have it both ways? Can we have meaning and significance, self-will and independence without at the least the risk of failure or pain? I don’t think so. What would it be like if god allowed freewill and its consequences ONLY when the outcome is what we want? Or perhaps god should take away (or at least restrict) our freedom such that only certain limited (positive) consequences are allowed? And this is what we’re asking for when we say god shouldn’t allow things: We’re asking him to put out his hand and prevent certain courses of action before the first step is even taken. But of course, people typically don’t frame the issue quite that way ("I wish god would restrict my freedom..."), because that’s not really what we want. What we all really want is complete independence and freedom WITH a guarantee that things will always turn out OK. And the fact that we ask for two things that are in conflict with each other is not god’s shortcoming; it is ours. $.02, -sbSteveB
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
keiths Your best resource for faith and/or understanding--whichever you think is needed--is God himself. Talk to God in private. Ask Him for help. Look and listen for the answer. Give God a chance to respond.Red Reader
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Keiths, The original point under discussion was whether moon-engraving or other cosmic events should convince a resolute skeptic that God exists. It may be that Christians think that God won't allow them to be deceived, but the point is whether a resolute skeptic is rationally compelled to believe it. I don't think he is, which means that for the skeptic the possibility is open that moon-engraving might have its cause in a being other than God. In fact, modern philosophy was launched when Descartes began to wonder whether everything he thought he knew was merely a deception foisted on him by a powerful but malevolent demon. The demand for a divine display of cosmic fireworks results because people get tired of philosophy. Why do we have to grapple with Aquinas' Five Ways when God could end the need for philosophy with a spectacular demonstration? Unfortunately, philosophy is inevitable because no immanent, individual material phenomenon carries self-evident and unmistakable transcendent meaning. The real danger of deception here is in thinking that there can be material phenomenon about which it is impossible to be deceived. Cheers, Dave t.taciturnus
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
One more thing... Keith, I see you have read four of C. S. Lewis' books, and if you can stand to read another, I highly recommend his autobiography, "Surprised by Joy". Of all his books, that one is my personal favorite.crandaddy
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
taciturnus writes: "Your point about scripture assumes that it’s purpose for being written was to provide proof to skeptics." Not necessarily, Dave; the apparent authenticity of scripture also serves to strengthen the faith of existing believers. "I’m not sure God would attempt to shield us from every possible deception. The Biblical God, certainly, did not shield Adam and Eve from deception in Eden, with unfortunate consequences for humanity." True, but for God to allow a sincere seeker to be deceived is problematic for most Christians. They would probably only be comfortable with deception if it were limited to cases where nothing was at stake.keiths
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT
This is an ID blog. I'm hesitant to venture into matters of faith, but I suppose I'll do it just this once... I don't think God is into the business of great "cosmic stunts" to try to coerce us into believing in Him. Nor do I think it will ever be possible to prove His existence because if it were ever proven that God exists, we would be forced to serve Him out of rational obligation. We humans have large egos. We tend to think that we can rationalize our way around everything. Thus, it is a humbling experience for us to suspend our rationality and, to take a leap of faith into the unknown. God wants us to love Him first, innocently and humbly, and the insight into His nature follows from our communion with Him. I think this is what Jesus meant when He told the desciples not to prevent the little children from comming to Him and said, "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein" Mark 10:15. God has provided His Word for all of the world to see, and His Holy Spirit is the still, small voice that speaks to the hearts of men and tells them it is the truth. Davidcrandaddy
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
Red Reader writes: "'Trusting God’s word' doesn’t mean picking it apart for contradictions." No, but before I can trust the Bible, I need to know that it IS God's word. How can I reliably determine that without testing it? I can't just assume that it's God's word if I care about the truth and don't want to make a potentially serious mistake. And don't forget that you yourself have rejected many faiths and many sacred scriptures. Atheist Stephen Roberts said to a believer, "I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours." While not entirely true (I don't know why you rejected Islam, for instance, and your reasons might be completely different from my reasons for rejecting Christianity), his primary point is well taken. "Do you do that with the people you know?" Of course not. But then again, the people I know don't claim to be channeling God's word (except for one, but he's been mentally ill for 20 years). If they did, I would be very skeptical. An extraordinary claim like that cannot be accepted unquestioningly, whether it comes from a person or a book. "When you are God, you can create a Universe and do things your way. Until then, you really are responsible for doing things God’s way." Perhaps, but what is God's way? How can I know without finding a trustworthy source of information? "Ask God to help you understand." I did that many times and quite sincerely when I began losing my faith as an adolescent. I tried to ignore my doubts and let the Holy Spirit do its work. I read Christian books. I talked to ministers, one of whom introduced me to C.S. Lewis. I read Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, and The Screwtape Letters. For a while, I managed to prop up my trust in the Bible (see my December 7, 3:22 pm post at https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/553 ). But the problems with Christianity remained, and I was forced to jettison my faith. "He gave you a brain. Don’t use your brain to question his credibility. Use it to understand what he is saying to you." It's not God's credibility I'm questioning, but the Bible's. And I AM using my brain to try to understand what he is saying, if he is there at all, by rejecting sources like the Bible that are clearly not from him. I have been accused by Christians of arrogance for believing that my human intellect is equal to the task of deciding whether the Bible is true. But what choice do I have? None of us is born already believing in the truth of the Bible. We have to decide to trust it. That decision is our responsibility, especially by the time we become adults. We can't push the responsibility onto someone else by saying "so-and-so believes the Bible and I trust him," because the obvious response is, "How did you know that so-and-so was correct?" We can't say "the Bible says it's the Word of God" because then we are assuming the truth of the claim we are testing. We can't say, "I know the Bible is true because the Holy Spirit makes me feel its truth", because we know that other religions have followers who feel just as sincerely and fervently that their beliefs are true. We have to use our intelligence. The responsibility is inescapable. Suppose we have souls, and that after our deaths God questions us about our beliefs. I will be able to say honestly that I used my intelligence, to the best of my ability, to seek the truth, and that I rejected the Bible because it did not appear to be God's word. What will you say if God asks why you accepted the Bible with its contradictions, its inaccuracies, and its unflattering portrait of him? Will you be able to honestly say that you tried your best to evaluate it before deciding to believe in it?keiths
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
Keiths, Yes, you may infer that about "taciturnus." The name is not original with me, however. 1. Your point about scripture assumes that it's purpose for being written was to provide proof to skeptics. I frankly doubt that it was. My own belief is that Scripture was written to instruct the already converted, not persuade skeptics. It rarely works for the latter task anyway. 2. I'm not sure God would attempt to shield us from every possible deception. The Biblical God, certainly, did not shield Adam and Eve from deception in Eden, with unfortunate consequences for humanity. Anyway, I agree with you that a God who shields us from any possible deception does not exist... and certainly shielding us from self-deception would be a very tricky and subtle business. I also wonder whether the possibility of self-deception is not an intrinsic part of freedom, and an intrinsic part of being a limited creature. Dave T.taciturnus
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
keiths "I think it’s safe to say that most of the PC promoters are not atheistic." I suggest that those who reject one faith MUST embrace another. And those who reject one morality must embrace another. PC is definitely not the "law of grace written on men's hearts" (new testament teaching). keiths, you have some shallow conceptions of God's word. I agree the scriptures are "God-breathed". But I differ with you after that. "Trusting God's word" doesn't mean picking it apart for contradictions. Do you do that with the people you know? If you do, how many of them want to be around you very long? This is my opinion: I don't think he "wants" us to understand his word; I think he _commands_ us to understand his word. In law, the principle is "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Same here. God's word is there for you. If you don't understand it, I hate to say this, it's not God's fault. You are accountable to him, not visa versa. When you are God, you can create a Universe and do things your way. Until then, you really are responsible for doing things God's way. If there are things you don't understand, there are plenty of people and places you can go to get help understanding. Formost among the help available to you is God himself. Ask God to help you understand. There resources are there. If you ignore them, that's no one's fault but your own. Next, you list six things that God ought or ought not to have done to meet your standards of acceptability for his word. Do you have any idea how thin the ice is under that sort of reasoning? Have you ever had a boss who didn't quite communicate with you according to your sensibilities? How long before he booted your rear into the street? If it is true God made you in His image, then you had better start using some ingenuity and TRY to understand what he is saying to you. He gave you a brain. Don't use your brain to question his credibility. Use it to understand what he is saying to you. keiths, it is not the Bible that is failing a test, it is you. You are not the judge of God's word. God's word is your judge. I hope you can get your arms around that, I really do.Red Reader
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
taciturnus writes: "All we know about moon-engraving is that we can’t do it ourselves. There may be aliens that can do it, or there may be spirits other than God that can do it... God would not write on the moon because he knows that it wouldn’t actually prove his existence, even if we were deceived into thinking it did." A few points: 1. If, as you say, God would refrain from moon-writing because it doesn't prove anything, then God would certainly refrain from scripture-writing which is even less persuasive. Perhaps this is what you believe, but it is far from what most Jews, Christians and Muslims believe. 2. An omnipotent God who wanted to shield us from deception would prevent any lesser being(s) from fooling us. If we see scriptural moon engraving, we may safely infer one of the following: a) God exists and he did it. b) God does not exist and a lesser being did it. As the "cosmic stunt" increases in difficulty, the likelihood of (b) decreases. Suppose that a powerful being arranged distant galaxy clusters to spell out his words from our perspective on Earth. You might be justified in assuming that God was behind it. Or you might decide, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, that any sufficiently powerful being is indistinguishable from God. Such a being might be worthy of worship, even if not quite transcendent. In any case, you'd probably want to stay on his good side. Side note: point #2 means that God would not allow someone to write false scriptures that were persuasive enough to fool people. Since we know that there are multiple mutually contradictory holy books in the world, each of which has its believers, we can conclude that the specified God does not exist.keiths
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Oops, just saw that pmob1 made the same point using ants instead of grass. Sorry for the repetition. taciturnus, May I infer, from the sheer bulk of your output on this and other threads, that your nom de blog was selected with tongue firmly in cheek?keiths
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
taciturnus writes: "When has grass ever slaughtered or enslaved anybody? Grass never kills for sport. Grass just finds unused soil and grows in it, not bothering anybody...Grass is obviously morally superior to elephants, and way morally superior to human beings." Morality is at least partly a question of intent as well as action. Who knows how many maniacally homicidal grass blades there are, waving impotently in the wind, who would kill and kill again if granted the ability?keiths
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
DaveScot, “that humans as a species have acted morally superior” You might have a point there. I think ants would do worse if they could.pmob1
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
keiths, I was just pulling your leg. When the biggest alt-store around here finally added a meat counter, the old guard called it the “Carnage Department” which was pretty funny. I used to go veg’ in the summer sometimes. Terrific clean out. Been too lazy in recent years. I must admit, I don’t have too many scruples in front of the BBQ but aspects of industrialization and bio-tech bother me. One issue that hasn’t come up in this thread yet is possible relation between the way we are machining animals and the way we are machining humans. About the time you start mass-producing farm fish and cooped-for-life chickens is about the time you start euthanizing millions of human fetuses at a crack, or creating genetic combos, designer babies, etc. Life becomes just another “resource.” Oddly, the most avid euthanizers are usually avid followers of the burgeoning Nature Religions. Point being, as pets (and Nature Show wild animals) are “humanized” and cuddlied up, human fetuses are exiled from the Garden. These are really weird people, for my money. No longer own a bike. Ride with friends occasionally. The way cars are, thinking about it scares me to death. (Fear stops the second I pop to first. Proves I'm still dumb enough to ride.)pmob1
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Here is why I do no accept moral subjectivity... 1) Start with something that is clearly objective: power. Whether you are taking Plato's dialog "Gorgias" or anything written by Nietzsche, the people arguing that morality does not exist, always argue that it is obvious that power does exist. The guy in the room who has a gun has more power than the one who doesn't (all else being equal). The guy who has more money has more power than the guy who has less. Even if I only have $1 more than you do, I objectively have the power to obtain one more can of Pepsi. 2) The line of reasoning then follows that if morality does not exist, and power does, our goal is obviously to maximize our power position. Make as much money as possible. Lift weights. Own lots of guns and dogs. Pay off dirty cops and politicians. Do whatever you can to secure as much power and security based on fear, intimidation, and bribes. All other people are a means to this end. There is no reason to help another person unless you can at least make money off it... or secure some other kind of favor. If the person who needs help is a bottom-dweller, urchin, cripple, orphan, or widow, it's hard to imagine that they could repay you in any way. When they are in need, just leave those people alone. This (as Callicles argues in Plato's "Gorgias") is the "morality of nature". The biggest lion rules by his strength and nothing else. Might makes right. Human civilization should be the same, he argues... the most fit man (the ubermensch, in Nietzsche's writings) deserves the most power. And the most fit of all should be so totally autonomous as to indulge every appetite and vice he wishes. The "justice" invented by governments is the way that the weak masses band together to muzzle and leash the ubermensch. And as such, it is a perversion of the "morality of nature"... ie, the state of no morality. So we start with this... the logical unfolding of the case for no true morality. These are the ultimate conclusions of recognizing that power is objective and morality is subjective. Next we examine the particulars. First, is there really a man who is more fit or deserving of power? Conan the barbarian might be strong, but surely a group of 100 men would always be stronger. Why should Conan rule and not any arbitrary group of 100? Or perhaps "fit" = "smart". But "smart" is relative to different careers. Homer was a great poet, but Archimedes was smarter in a scientific sense. A doctor is smart on medical topics, a sailor smart on the craftsmanship of boats. Who then is the most fit? This is the approach Socrates takes to dismantle the argument. But we can also look at it from another perspective. Denying morality means denying love. As I mentioned earlier, if power is objective and morality is not, each person should be treated as a means. Every face is therefore only a step on the ladder we climb to improving our own power. The problem is that if this is actually carried out, no society can function. If everyone promised to pay for their goods, but defaulted on their promises (which gives them more money - hence more power) the economy would collapse. If everyone stole to acquire more property, murdered anyone who opposed them, and sexually abused whenever they felt horny, no one could stand society. It could be said that Nazis operated in a way similar to this code of no morality - they certainly showed no respect to Jewish people - but on the other hand, they treated fellow Nazis with standard moral behavior. You can isolate a person (or segment) of the population for abuse and still function as a society, but everyone can't treat everyone else that way. That is impossible. The truth is that the Nazis were hypocritical in living by their code of no morality... they couldn't stick to it in a full and total sense. One step further, though, is that if we are going to treat all people as a means to gaining power, and we're going to lie, manipulate, torture, extort, and blackmail to the maximum extent... then wouldn't we also do so with ourselves? It is again hypocrisy to treat others in a way we don't treat ourselves. The reasoning is black and corrupt all the way to the core. The self-contradiction can never be plucked out. If we take the one principle of power maximization at any cost, and apply it everywhere... we have to also apply it to ourselves. Thus, we advocate one standard for how we treat ourselves and another one for how we treat others. On the other hand if we admit that we ought to love others, we have a principle that allows us to love ourselves. Or conversely, if we admit to loving ourselves, we are logically obligated to love others.David Bergan
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
"You’ll first have to convince me that humans as a species have acted morally superior to any species of animal I can point to. How are humans morally superior to, say, elephants? Do elephants engage in the wholesale slaughter of each other? Do they make slaves of other elephants? Do elephants kill for sport as human hunters do?" I have to agree with DaveScot here, but he doesn't go far enough. When I look at my front lawn I think: When has grass ever slaughtered or enslaved anybody? Grass never kills for sport. Grass just finds unused soil and grows in it, not bothering anybody. Elephants, however, trample innocent grass all the time. I understand they need to eat grass to live, but many times they trample right over grass they don't need when they could easily walk around on bare earth. It's almost like they trample grass for sport, the beasts. Grass is obviously morally superior to elephants, and way morally superior to human beings. Dave T.taciturnus
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Dave, one could argue that God has revealed himself in a very blatant and tangible (written on the moon) way, via the theophanies and miraculous events recorded in the scriptures. However, he chose in accordance with his purpose and plan, to end manifestations of this type with the closing of the Apostolic era. In a very true sense, the canon of scripture that is our Bible is your stars spelling out his word. He chose to enter time and space during a specific time in history and to reveal himself to a specific culture. It may be true that various groups and sects interpret his revelation differently, but this is what one would expect from a fallen race of people. However, the core essentials of the faith are universal throughout legitimate mainstream denominations. The Bible specifically states that there is liberty on the peripheral issues. And it's important to understand the meaning of "inspiration" as it pertains to scripture. God used the styles, personalities and unique perspectives of the individual writers, He didn't possess them and guide every stroke of their pens. When you take a close look at the 20,000 + manuscripts that make up the NT, you see an uncanny constancy with textual variants only appearing on insignificant grammatical issues (like one having the definite article "the" while another does not - and never affecting any doctrine). It has all the marks of God's miraculous preservation. You should take a look at some of the links I posted above.Bombadill
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I've written nothing and said nothing about the Bible, nor argued that any God exists. I've merely given an argument why an engraving on the moon would not prove anything about God. Do you still think a moon-engraving would be unmistakable evidence of God's presence? Why couldn't some lesser creature write on the moon and claim to be God? "Presumably an omnipotent God could figure out a way to do it." To do what? Convince you he exists? To do that, he would have to do something that no other possible being could do, so we could not possibly mistake something else for him. What act would that be? I, for one, would not be convinced by moon-writing. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
"[animals] thinking through the morality of various situations" You'll first have to convince me that humans as a species have acted morally superior to any species of animal I can point to. How are humans morally superior to, say, elephants? Do elephants engage in the wholesale slaughter of each other? Do they make slaves of other elephants? Do elephants kill for sport as human hunters do? Good luck.DaveScot
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
taciturnus "It wouldn’t prove what you think it would prove." Presumably an omnipotent God could figure out a way to do it. Instead we are given a God which suspiciously uses men and whatever recording instruments they have at the time of revelation to record and distribute His message. Morever, the message is received differently by different folks inspiring scores of different religious beliefs and even in the current most popular religion there are scores of sects which each interpret the hugely ambiguous and self-contradictory old and new testaments of the Holy Bible differently. Excuse me for thinking that no God in His right mind would choose to reveal Himself in that manner and thereby concluding it exceedingly likely that none of the organized revealed religions are true.DaveScot
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
I have struggled with the same questions and objections that you have, which consequently caused you to abandon your faith. I found that there are cogent answers though, to even the toughest difficulties. Hope those articles help. :)Bombadill
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
keiths, Regarding alleged Bible contradictions: http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/2003_09.htm http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/bibledef/bibdef6.html http://www.equip.org/free/CP1003.htm http://en.bibleinfo.com/print/?url=%2Fquestions%2Fquestion.html%3Fid%3D725 http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#contradictions Regarding the Bible's inerrancy: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eronrhodes/Inspiration.html http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20040215181018/http://www.equip.org/free/DA310.htm http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ottextcrit.html Manuscript Reliability: http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html http://www.probe.org/content/view/48/77/ General Issues regarding Translations, etc... http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=663 http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp006.asp http://www.ronrhodes.org/answerquestions.htmlBombadill
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
biblically speaking, there are issues of love involved with why god doesnt beam directly into your brain 'im here, im real, worship me'. its just like with people- part of love is trust, you trust that your spouse loves you, tho youve no idea whats going on inside the other persons head completely. you trust that god loves and has a plan for you, beaming directly into your head the "truth" would be a demand to be loved. god doesnt demand to be loved in a sense...because demands for love arent actually love. love is bourne out of a choice to show love to someone. same for god. free will allows man to freely accept and love god, to trust him, to put faith in his promises. (biblically speaking, evidence isnt really supposed to bring anyone to christ- the holy spirit is what first comes into you and convinces your heart...the evidence comes after this.) this also has to do with love and trust as the basis of true love. evidence on the level mentioned here would be tricky no matter what- people would still deny he exists even if he did write it in the stars- just as the iranian president, despite footage of the death camps of wwii, the hundreds and thousands of personal letters, videotaped testimonies, and reams of evidence denies that the holocaust ever happened. who knows- he could have been there himself and still chose to deny it took place. that reminds me of the weirdos who believe that the 9/11 hijackers, tho we have them on camera boarding their airliners...are alive and that the US govt flew planes into bldgs on sept 11! man will always choose to ignore the obvious. dont get me started on the moon landing never happened conspiracy people. :)Josh Bozeman
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply