[ScottMayo]

From that, here are my conclusions - that survival of the species supercedes survival of the individual. Millions of years of evolution have programmed this in to almost all walks of life, and it is especially strong in social species that often have better survival chances via cooperation instead of mortal conflict.

So, we are biologically programmed to value human life above all. But of course, being creatures of volition, we can choose to ignore or go against that imperative. When we do, we feel "bad", and have twangs of concience. And if you follow it out with specific examples, most things that we feel "bad" about almost always have a component of harm done to another human being.

OK. In other words, murder isn't right or wrong in any absolute sense, but it is something that social and perhaps biological evolution has developed as a useful rule, so it has been written into us, and we interpret that as morality. That makes sense on the face of it - certainly, violent people who inflict harm on their own species tend to get caught and weeded out by their fellows, so there's a purely evolutionary pressure, plus some social ones, placed on anyone predisposed to murder. (There are some flaws to that line of reasoning, but I'll skip them here).

So. Ahead of you, on the street, you see a wino, whom, you note, just received 5$ as a gift. You've seen this drunk before and you know he isn't a contributing member of society, and in fact he's at least half mad, and gives the police occasional extra work when he gets loud. The $5 he got will certainly go to alcohol, you've seen that plenty of times before. He's past the age of reproduction, not that anyone would be interested anyway given how often he vomits, so his contributions to society and genetics are quite definitely over.

The street is now deserted, and you have a gun with a silencer in your pocket. You're dead accurate, especially at 10 feet, and the bullet in your gun cost you a lot less than $5 - so the transaction is positive one if you pull the trigger. There is zero, I repeat, zero chance you will get caught. or be at any risk, or harm anyone but the drunk, and he'll be dead before he will even feel any pain, especially as drunk as he is.

Evolutionary forces (as you have it) are telling you that it's "wrong" (no, not wrong, that's a moral term: let's say "incorrect") to pull the trigger. But you're not a blind package of programmed urges; you're a rational being, with free will, and can make decisions. The force behind social behaviour modification (eg, killing people irritates others and will get you in trouble) has no rational scope here, because no one is going to know. The force behind biological evolution (eg, it's unwise to reduce the variability of the species) definitely doesn't apply as he's done contributing to the gene pool (and a good thing too.) And you can use that $5 to develop a new and totally amazing improvement to speaker design (finally, a fantasy element in this scenario) and improve the world, musically.

Draw and pull, or take the drunk to a shelter, or walk away? Never mind how these things would make you feel - that's just blind cultural forces talking, and anyway, the world stands to gain greatly from your speaker improvement. What do you DO - and why?

[Tyson]

Never mind how these things would make you feel

But how it would make you feel is precisely the point.  The sense of right or wrong comes from the fact that you feel bad when you do harm to others.  And since we are volitional, we can ignore that sense of right and wrong if we choose to.  But if you do, you end up with a "guilty concience", and that is not the path to happiness.

In fact, I would posit that morality is more properly viewed as a guide to achieving happiness.  So, to answer the question in your example, I would not kill the guy, even if no one else ever found out, I would always know, and it would leave me with a guilty concience (exactly as it should, by biological necessity).  In your example you say that evolutionary forces have no bearing on the situation has a false underlying assumption.  You are assuming that these evolutionary forces (as you call them) are situational, and they absolutely are not.  They are general imperatives that are overarching and not able to be obviated due to specific situations.  As an example, the fact that a person is married with kids does not kill the desire for sex, and it does not cancel the fact that you find other people attractive or desirable.  Because the drive for sex is overarching and is not obviated by the fact that you've already procreated.

By the same rule, the valuation of life is overarching and is not obviated by the fact that I may personally gain from harming another person.  I'd still end up with a guilty concience no matter how much I try to rationalize it.  This is one of the things that keeps the psychological profession in business.  However, there are some people that in fact can act without this basic foundation of morality (the valuation of life).  Those people are called sociopaths.[/quote]

[Tyson]

Or to carry out the sex example a little further, as I tell my wife, "I have no control over whether I find another woman attractive, that is biologically programmed in to me to find certain things attractive.  But I have absolute control over whether or not I do anything about it (ie, have an affair)."  Conversely, I have no choice about the fact that I will feel bad if I murder someone, but I have absolute control over whether I try to kill them or not.  The point I am belaboring is that there are certain biological impreratives that we can ignore, but we cannot escape, because they are a part of our very nature.

[Tyson]

Also, wanted to say "Thank You" for keeping this discussion levelheaded and non-inflamatory.  With deeply held values being discussed and/or challenged, it's all too easy (and common) for things to get out of hand and personal.  It's very nice to be able to keep this discussion on a civil level.

[ScottMayo]

Never mind how these things would make you feel

But how it would make you feel is precisely the point. The sense of right or wrong comes from the fact that you feel bad when you do harm to others. And since we are volitional, we can ignore that sense of right and wrong if we choose to. But if you do, you end up with a "guilty concience", and that is not the path to happiness.

Um... ok. If you're asserting that Right is what "feels good", then I have to ask what we do about murderers who kill people because it's fun.

I don't know this from personal experience, but I know of believable accounts in which people who seemed otherwise sane (using the term loosely) were convicted of murder because they told their pals what a huge kick they got from strangling people. And there were quite a number of Nazis who felt quite strongly that turning on the gas was not only acceptable, but a rather nifty thing to do.

The problem with "goodness is what makes me happy" is that lots of people get off on greed, some get off on rape and murder, and a whole bunch of people seem to get off on tribalism and hate. And if you call them crazy, you'll have to be prepared to define crazy, because if crazy is what's abnormal, then you have to explain why there is so much of this sort of fundamentally bad behaviour in the world.

And the flaw with the evolutionary argument, which I skipped over before but will bring up now, is that a tendency towards violence doesn't just have evolutionary minuses - it has some distinct plusses. Biologically, "survival of the fittest" doesn't exclude those who kill - in fact it sometimes favors them very strongly. If I kill you, then your eliminated future offspring won't be competing with mine. The same thing happens socially - I have observed that the "strongman" who uses deceit, violence and cruelty to attain a social standing is frequently *rewarded* by society - he gets the girl, he gets followers, sometimes he gets wide political power and approval. (Not in America, of course.)

At any rate, I categorically deny that how we feel, especially mediated by evolutionary pressures, is a universal guide to what we call morality. It doesn't explain people who lay down their lives to help others, it doesn't cover the case of people who enjoy doing harm, and I fail to see how evolution would favor an outcome that loses you a reproductive advantage - which Playing Fair can do.

[Tyson]

I see that you are addressing an argument, but I don't think it's addressing the argument I am putting forth.  You seem to be arguing against a generalized "morality from evolution" argument, mixed in with "the good is whatever I feel is good".  I'm advocating neither of those.

Here is my argument in simplified terms.

1.  The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life.  I think this is not a particularly controversial point.  If you feel differently, please address this point specifically.

2.  This inherent (instinctual) valuation of human life is biologically programmed in to us.

3.  Being volitional, we can ignore and act against even this most basic foundation of morality.

This is merely the foundation, not the end-all-be-all of morality.  But you can see how starting from this foundation, everything else follows.

[John Casler]

 I'm not arguing (here) that this means God acted, or that it requires you to believe in magical fairies. I'm just pointing out that supernatural means "not within nature" and that the origin of the universe did not happen within what we call nature - since what we call the natural order didn't exist at that point. So we know definitively of one supernatural event. Most of us have heard rumor of others.    

Hi Scott,

Why do you say that the Universe did not happen within nature?  

Anthing that happens in infinity does so within nature since it can be no other way.

Just because "we" have no way of theorizing or accuratley explaining where something originated or where it is going, does not put it outside nature.

In ancient times, an eclipse was a "SuperNatural" event, but it didn't take long to offer a reasonable and natural explanation.

I think the origin and life cycle of the Universe might take several billion years of study to begin to understand, but I doubt it to be SuperNatural.

I might wonder why someone would categorize any event  as "SuperNatural" simply because we haven't the information to explain or understand it.

[ScottMayo]

Hi Scott,

Why do you say that the Universe did not happen within nature?  

Anthing that happens in infinity does so within nature since it can be no other way.

I don't know what you mean by infinity. I know what it means mathemetically, but it's not a term I can apply to the universe.

I do know that both physicists and philosophers define "nature" as the realm of things that happen within time and space, which is identical (by definition) to saying "things that happen within the universe." Things outside of time and space (like the origin of time and space itself) are by definition outside of the universe, outside of nature. This isn't some sort of debate point - it's simply what the words mean. If you want to talk about some sort of meta-nature which encompasses both nature AND whatever came before, you need a new word. Maybe that's what you're doing with the word 'infinity', though if so I'd ask you to find a different word. Infinity is already badly overused.

At any rate, if you believe in some sort of infinite realm which transcends time and space, you are seriously into some sort of unverifiable faith-based claim. I don't exactly object - I have a few of those myself. But I at least claim my beliefs have some shred of basis and I'm willing to discuss them; what basis do you propose for this "infinity" you talk about? Because I'm pretty sure you haven't seen it.

On the other hand, if you're saying the the universe itself has always existed (no origin) and will always exist, I think there's a significant problem with that. That idea is quite firmly in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a property of the universe and one of the observable, provable aspects of the reality that you say makes up your religion. It would be a little unfair to violate your own religion along the path to defending it.

Amusing anecdote: a teacher I once knew (not one of mine, though) who taught theology at Boston college once told me: "We have to stop calling God infinite. We have no idea what 'infinity' means. What we ought to be saying is that God is *sufficient* for any situation. We at least know what we're saying, in that case!"

At any rate, remember Douglas Adams' argument: if the universe is truely infinite, than all possibilities, however infinitesmal, are realised in it. In this infinite universe-thingy of yours, there is the non-zero possibility of God - so He must exist. Trust me, you *don't* want to fall prey to that amusing little argument. It's a lot better to agree with the current scientific premise, that the universe is unbounded but entirely finite.

[ScottMayo]

The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life.  I think this is not a particularly controversial point.  If you feel differently, please address this  ...

Oh boy. Yes, I contest that. First of all, plenty of people think that cruelty to animals is immoral (I do myself) - and that has no bearing on the value of human life. (Some people think cruelty to plants is immoral, too, but I draw a line there, usually with a weed whacker.) Morality isn't just about humans.

Secondly, if we take your point literally, then death is fundamentally immoral because it ends the bulk of the value of a human life. After all, in your view, someday everyone will be dead and no one will remember humanity ever even existed, and where is the value then? But death is a natural phonema: It's going to be hard to proceed if you decide that natural phenomena can be judged as immoral.

Thirdly, I agree that the phrase "value of human life" is not a nonsense phrase. But that's because I have a framework which gives humans value; to wit, we are created by God and loved by Him, and that assigns value to us. In the absence of God, can you explain where you got this idea what humans have value, or meaning? Because in the absence of something like God, this whole universe was a result of some blind, meaningless event and has since been developing in a meaningless fashion according to meaningless laws of physics, just particles bumping into particles, and there's no value or meaning in *that*.

Terms like "meaning" and "value" cannot be pulled like rabbits out of hats. You need to explain why you think they apply - and using a word like 'inherent' isn't going cover it.

[Tyson]

Ah, now we are getting to the good stuff, the fundamentals that underly our different thoughts.  I'll try to addess your points one at a time.

First of all, plenty of people think that cruelty to animals is immoral (I do myself) - and that has no bearing on the value of human life. (Some people think cruelty to plants is immoral, too, but I draw a line there, usually with a weed whacker.) Morality isn't just about humans.

Our first fundamental disagreement.  Morality is specifically and exclusively about humans.  Animals and plants are not volitional creatures, and therefore are outside of the realm of morality.  Morality only applies when it is possible to make choices (ie, you have free will).  In fact it is free will specifically that makes morality both necessary and unavoidable.  But it only applies to humans.  Anything else is simply anthropomorphism.

then death is fundamentally immoral because it ends the bulk of the value of a human life

No, it is the very fact that we are mortal that makes morality possible.  If we could not die (and by extenstion, could not be harmed), then value's of any kind would be impossible.  The fact that you "can" end someones life is the very condition that gives rise to the idea that it is "wrong" to do so.  To put it conversely, if I could never harm you in any way, the concept of right or wrong would simply be irrelevant because they wouldn't apply.

I agree that the phrase "value of human life" is not a nonsense phrase. But that's because I have a framework which gives humans value; to wit, we are created by God and loved by Him, and that assigns value to us.

OK, now we are getting down to brass tacks.  This is I am guessing the true root of your objection to my argument.  I have of course heard this particular argument many, many times, and rather than respond to it directly right away (I will a bit later), I'd like to step back from the discussion for a moment.

What I'd like to reference right now is the "insurmountable gulf" I mentioned before, because we are now staring directly at that chasm.  In your context, the only thing that holds weight, the only thing that "feels right" and "seems plausible" is a religious explanation for morality.  

On the other hand, from my context, the only thing that holds weight or feels right is a nature based origin for morality.

More to the point, if you were to momentarily drop the idea that god exists and examine my argument from a strictly "natural" point of view, you would see that it is immenently logical and reasonable.  On the other hand, if I were to momentarily accept the idea of a god, then of course it would only follow that goodness and morality comes from him.

But, since we are both stuck in our respective contextual world view's, there is really nothing I can say that will make you even consider a natural basis for morality, and since I don't believe a god even exists, there's nothing you can say about him being the source of goodness that will have any persuasive power with me.

Now, to address your point directly - If we hold human life as the standard of value, then we can extrapolate that the core of good is "that which furthers or enhances human life".  And the core of evil is "that which harms or ends it".  Now, you have to be careful of context here, and not drop the fact that morality is only applicable when their is choice.  So, the fact that it is possible to die is not evil, but the choice (and subsequent action) to end human life is evil.  I hope that's pretty clear.

Because in the absence of something like God, this whole universe was a result of some blind, meaningless event and has since been developing in a meaningless fashion according to meaningless laws of physics, just particles bumping into particles, and there's no value or meaning in *that*.

Hmm, that's a pretty gigantic assertion.  Besides this plays precisely in to what I was posting about earlier when I said that seeking meaning and/or purpose in the universe is invalid.  And it is invalid precisely because the universe is meaningless and random.  How could it be otherwise? (ah, another gaping chasm between us, because of course your answer will be "god", and I will say "prove it", and you will say "here is reason x, y, and z", and I will say "those can all be accounted for in the natural world and are not compelling", and you will say "yes they are compelling, and the natural world explanations are ridiculious", and I will say "no, the natural world explanations are logical and make sense to me", and so on and so forth ad nauseum.  Quite simply, there's no bridging that gulf between us).

So there you have it, clearly visible - the fundamental and unbridgable gap between us.  Oh sure we can continue debating about this point or that point, but it will always come back to this particular thing - that you believe in god and that gives value and meaning to everything, and I do not believe in god, so only human life in itself has value.  And because religion has trumped all other possible moralities for you, you can never really answer the question "what is good, what is bad?" outside of that context.

Is that a bad thing?  Maybe, maybe not, it depends on your context  But one thing I am certain of, and that is that you are certain that you are right :p  And so am I, so we're even

[ScottMayo]

Tyson wrote:
The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life.

and then you go on to say

Animals and plants are not volitional creatures, and therefore are outside of the realm of morality

as if these two things were connected. They are completely unrelated. Let's look at that first sentence again, word by word.

"The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life."

By using all, you say that morality has no root, no basis, in anything but the value of human life. Therefore if the question relates to the value of human life, it is a moral question, otherwise it's not. That's exactly what you said. I found that unbelievable, myself, and was surprised you wrote it, but it is what you wrote, so I went with it.


"The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life."

By using value, you refer to the quality of an object that makes it desired by something which, itself, is capable of asserting a value. (Magnets may act as if they value iron, because they appear to desire it in a measurable fashion, but we don't call that value.)  The simplest (but not only) test of value is "if I destroy it, does that matter?" If I crush an ordinary marble that I own, but do not care about, the act doesn't have a value-property, because the marble doesn't have value.


"The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life."

You didn't even tie it to human existance or experience - you just said life. That argument makes sense if you're making a materialist's pure appeal to blind, biological, evolutionary forces, because those come into play only on life/death questions - evolution doesn't care if we're happy or have interesting experiences, in fact a little misery might spur some extra reproduction, and that's all that matters on the evolutionary level.

"The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life."

We're engaging in something like Descartes "radical doubt" questions here. Nobody gets to claim anything is inherent without pointing to some evidence. As far as I know you haven't advanced a single argument that allows you to claim anything has value at all, let alone inherent value, which is something of a contradiction in terms to begin with. We both secretly agree that humans have value, of course, it's just that neither one of us has demonstrated the reasons yet and until we do we shouldn't be setting it up as an axiom.

So nothing you said has anything to do with whether animals have volition, or animals at all. My point was that cruelty (which involves suffering in the recipient, which arguably decreases the recipient's perceived self-value, if there is such a thing) isn't wrong according to your statement, because no human life is diminished in value, and you said that's the only way morality can apply.

Now I suspect that's not what you meant - I get the impression that you aren't expecting me to deconstruct your sentences with this kind of rigour - but it's part of my nature to do so and believe me, inquiries into truth and falsehood have to be conducted with finicky precision, or they quickly turn to vague battles of contentless words, used only for their connotations, not their meanings. And I won't do that, having seen far too much of it.

So in the interest of not talking past each other, I have to ask that you agonize over your sentences.  

I agree that the phrase "value of human life" is not a nonsense phrase. But that's because I have a framework which gives humans value; to wit, we are created by God and loved by Him, and that assigns value to us.

OK, now we are getting down to brass tacks. This is I am guessing the true root of your objection to my argument. I have of course heard this particular argument many, many times...

I wasn't advancing an argument. I was explaining that when I use a phrase like "value of human life", I do have a personal framework that makes it a valid phrase for me, but I'm not defending that framework yet or even explaining it. I'm only contrasting this to you, who have not yet advanced any claim of a framework that makes it meaningful, so I'm questioning if you have one. I'm sure you do, everyone does except for serial killers. But the "why?" matters.

What I have absolutely not done is claimed that my framework should be yours and given reasons why - in other words, I'm not advancing any arguments yet. I can't. I'm still trying to map out what we agree on, because without that there can be no common framework of discussion and we just end up slinging around contentless words.

You say we're getting down to brass tacks. I hope not. We're not at that stage.

I'm sorry if it feels like you're debating a robot, and at this point it might well. Grinding down into presuppositions is a loveless and sometimes dull process, but there's no other way.

In your context, the only thing that holds weight, the only thing that "feels right" and "seems plausible" is a religious explanation for morality

Absolutely and uncategorically false. All sorts of things "feel right" to me, and I've learned to ignore them when it comes to discussions, and I try to discount them when it comes to living. Feelings are all very nice but they aren't the basis of moral discussion; if they were, boinking my neighbor's wife could certainly become a moral act for me because I could certainly convince myself that it feels right. (Evolution would side with that feeling: more reproduction is all that matters, after all; it has NO other way to operate.)

The reason that I have settled on a religious basis for morality is that I find I agree with Francis Schaeffer: every other approach has collapsed and every philosopher who has tried it, while claiming to appeal only to reason and axioms, has failed. They all seem very logical but when you dig into the presuppositions they always make at least one little "mystic leap", something they claim is true that they can't lay a rational claim to, and don't try. You know when this happens because the definitions suddenly become vague and the connotation words start flowing. You did it yourself, by trying to sneak the word "inherent" into a sentence where, I promise you, it had absolutely no business being.

I trust Schaeffer's assessment: and so I'm going to find your own mystic leap. It's there somewhere. Of course you can shortcut the process by stating up front that you views are not fully consistant with your axioms and you accept that and that works for you. A lot of people do this and they are a lot harder to reason with, because they feel free to abandon reason as soon as they are cornered. At the risk of throwing a friendly stone at John, that's probably where he is going to end up. It's all very well to say your religion is reality, but when you start claiming infinity is your reality, a significant and unashamed mystic leap has occured.

By the way, I'll be up-front about this - I didn't become a Christian on the basis of a logical assessment of the facts, a refusal to take mystic leaps and a flaming refusal to balk at the conclusions. There are people who have done it that way, but I bet it's rare, and I don't expect to lead you to Jesus at the end of a logical tether. Even if that's possible, purely rational thinking doesn't come entirely naturally to people, which is why there are so few really good mathematicans and philosophers in the world. I got there via some personal experiences, and only then did I go back and start deconstructing everything in sight.

[ScottMayo]

Speaking of careful wording... I had a good laugh just now. CNN likes to post little opinion polls ("quickvotes") on pertinent questions.

Today's is "Can looting be defended by necessity?"

From which I conclude that someone at CNN doesn't understand framing questions very well.   Once you *grant* that something is necessary, of course you can defend it!

I think what they meant to ask is "Is it ever reasonable to justify looting as a necessary action?" But since they didn't ask it that way, the question's pretty meaningless - and so are the results.

Good ol' CNN. My favorite source of occasionally questionable information.

[Tyson]

It's actually refreshing to see someone take this as seriously and precisely as you do, it is what makes communication worthwhile.  I'm glad of it, because truly a said what I mean and I mean what I said  So, on that level, let us continue.....

By using all, you say that morality has no root, no basis, in anything but the value of human life.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  Since humans are the only beings capable of choice, then they are the only ones that even need morality.

By using value, you refer to the quality of an object that makes it desired by something which, itself, is capable of asserting a value.

It would be closer to say that human life is the standard of value.  In other words, human life is not only the highest value, but it is also the very thing that makes values possible.  In the absence of human life, nothing is valuable or non-valuable.  Lets put it this way, if you were not alive, what would you value?  Nothing.  Because you would not exist.  Therefore your life is a necessary condition for any and all other values.  If this is not evidence for you, then I'm not sure what your standards of evidence are (maybe you could specify).

But that begs the question of "What is a value" anyway?  I would say that value is strictly defined as that which furthers (or enhances) human life.  This is why eating healthy food is a value, while eating poison is not.  This is why having a comfortable bed is a value, but sleeping on rocks is not.  This is why having shelter (a home) is a value, while living on the streets is not.  (btw, this would also qualify as evidence, at least in my book).  

Since we've looked at it from the bottom up so far (human life is what makes possible all values), lets look at it from the top down now - Since ALL values are in some way or another obtained or kept in order to further or enhance human life, it certainly follows that human life is the ultimate value (I use the term "ultimate" as interchangable with the "final cause" definition of Aristotle).

So, lets take another close look at my sentence in this light:

The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life.

I just demonstrated why this is so above.  Without human life, there are no values possible.

The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life.

Since morality is relevant only to those entities capable of choice, all morality is necessarily homocentric.  It only applies to humans.

The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life.

Since human life is the final goal of all other values (the "final cause"), then it is inherently valuable.

The basis and foundation of all morality is the inherent value of human life.

Notice I specify human life, and not just life.  Because it is only in the context of choice (a volitional creature) that has something to lose (ie, is mortal), that any of this applies.  Without mortality, there are no values.  Without choice, there is no morality.  That is why dogs don't need a moral code, but people do.  That's why rocks don't value anything, but people do.



There's lots of other things I "could" respond to in your post, but I think they are tertiary issues, and I'd like to stay focused on the central idea above.  So don't think I'm ignoring half of what you wrote, I certainly read it carefully, but just don't want to get sidetracked.

[ScottMayo]

By using all, you say that morality has no root, no basis, in anything but the value of human life.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Since humans are the only beings capable of choice, then they are the only ones that even need morality.

There's a distinction I am not getting across. Let's say I walk over to a dog and kick it as hard as I can. Let's also that that for whatever reason, I enjoy this. The dog doesn't, but it's mine, so no one else is affected.

As far as the "value" of my life is concerned, I perceive a net gain - I had a good time. The dog sees it differently, at some level, but that, I decide, is the dog's problem, not mine.

Was kicking the dog a moral action?

I say no. It might be somewhat less nasty than kicking a human, but that's about as far as I could possibly go. It's still the infliction of pain on something that clearly doesn't deserve it, and I can go on to root this moral judgement in my views of justice, of fairness, of the fact that the dog was not created by me and is not truely mine, and down into other ideas that fit nicely in my framework. But by what you just said, the ONLY relevant actor is the human, and since I assert that the human took pleasure in this - and some people do - and pleasure is commonly asserted to be a good thing, then nothing's wrong. In fact, let's give everyone a puppy and teach them (the humans) kenpo. Great stress relief.

So is kicking the puppy ok, or not?

Secondly, posit the existance of an intelligent alien - about as smart as humans. I don't think they exist, but I don't know either way. If I shoot one, is that action devoid of moral dimension, just because it wasn't a human being shot?

Thirdly, there are various classes of humans which very clearly think and perceive existance far differently (and nowhere near as well) than most do: the profoundly retarded or deeply insane. In terms of quality of life and sentience and ther ability to choose, such people have little in common with you. Are they human by your standards, capable of valuing and having value? Or can we shoot them?

Hitler had an answer; if yours is different, and I rather hope it is, I want to know why.

It would be closer to say that human life is the standard of value. In other words, human life is not only the highest value, but it is also the very thing that makes values possible.

Dogs have values too: they clearly prefer not to be kicked, and if you kick them enough they can turn on you, which is perhaps a form of choice. It doesn't have quite the complexity of the human response, but it's maybe not all that different. What it is about human perception that is so special?

Or to go in the opposite direction, you claim that humans can "value" things, and that's the basis of al lmorality. Based on what you say so far, I choose to refute this. I choose to assert that humans thinking things are "good" or "bad", "valuable" or "pointless", has exactly the same amount of meaning (ie, absolutely none) as the fact that a magnet appears to value (pulls closer) iron. This is because, in the materialistic view, absolutely everything *including your likes and dislikes, values, experiences and thoughts* is a pre-scripted outcome of blind physical laws, of particles colliding. There isn't a "you" in a meaningful sense - you're just some atoms that assume a certain form and have some predetermined reactions. Because what you think of as feelings and emotions are just atoms doing what they do, meaninglessly and blindly and without choice, none of your choices have meaning and nothing you value actually matters, no matter how the blind atoms dancing in your head make you think otherwise.

How do you answer the objection? How does a lot of atoms locked in a dance, ever *mean* anything? You have not yet shown why anything has meaning.

Notice I specify human life, and not just life. Because it is only in the context of choice (a volitional creature) that has something to lose (ie, is mortal), that any of this applies. Without mortality, there are no values. Without choice, there is no morality. That is why dogs don't need a moral code, but people do. That's why rocks don't value anything, but people do.

You are *very* near to making human survival the only critical quality, the only relevant value. In fact, you might be there.

A person comes down the street at you (say, the drunk that you took to a shelter in the earlier scenario). He seems annoyed. It's possible he intends to kill you. Since survival is the ONLY relevant quality (death means an end to your values), then, clearly, you should kill him before he can kill you.

How do you answer this? I know how Nietzsche answered it, but I'm hoping your answer is different.

[Aether Audio]

Go Scott Go!!!  

You're about as "right on" as in any way I could ever put it.  Apparently you have a lot more energy/patience/time than I do too.  I commend you and encourage you to keep up the "GOOD WORKS."   (for whatever that's worth from a dope like me)

Bless you my friend,
-Bob

PS. Tyson - I think he's got you on that last one - you mean "puppy kicker" you.  Just kidding.

[doug s.]

i have found reading the recent additions to this thread wery interesting.  and, for me anyways, so many assumptions being made that are either false, or simply unknowable:

-belief in god must come from outside the rational.  
-human beings are the only beings that have morality.  
-the universe is finite
-the universe is infinite
-god is "good", in the standard religious good-evil paradigm
-religious teachings - *any* of them - have anything to do with god

simply stated, i am a believer in god.  but, this belief has absolutely *nothing* to do with the teachings of *any* religious "prophets".  mohammed, jesus, paul, peter, moses, buddha, krishna - take them all & lump them.  they may be wise souls, with good intent, but any relationship to god that they may have is strictly coincidental, & certainly no closer or further from god than any one of us.  arguing about which religion is the right one is like arguing about who has the best imaginary friend.

my belief comes from observations of the rational.  things like the fact that a molecule under a microscope, a city at night viewed from an airplane, or a planetary solar system all look similar, have something to do with it.  there is *something* out there responsible.  what is it?  why?  when did it begin?  *did* it begin?  how high is up?  i don't know.  it's not troubling to me, tho.  neither is it troubling to me that i don't know what's gonna become of me after i die.  tho, personally, i find the idea that any conscious connection to my present being, after i die, to be completely ludicrous.  

other things i know are that *every* species *must* consume some life form in order to survive.  also, every species experiences catastrophic population drop when their carrying capacity has been exceeded. (this phenomenon is known as the “j”-curve.)  when carrying capacity has been exceeded, the social moral norms of the society – whatever they may be – start to be violated, more & more severely, with the increased stress of increased overpopulation.  perhaps, this explains “crazies” we now see more frequently – folks that actually gain pleasure from committing what most would consider abhorrent acts.  (one does *not* need to have a standard religious dogma in order to feel guilt, as tyson correctly points out.)  this makes sense to me, as i believe the carrying capacity of human beings has been exceeded on this earth .

i also know that different societies have different ideas about right & wrong.  one custom while perfectly acceptable in once culture, may be in fact considered evil in another.  in our own society, some folks consider the death penalty to be wrong, others not.  some folk are so concerned with not even using fetal tissue to help medical research, that they refuse to “take a life in order to save a life”, yet they think the death penalty is fine.  some folk think abortion is ok, because fetuses aren’t human beings, others think abortion is not ok because fetuses can become human beings.  and on & on.  

studying other species also adds to the mix of what could be, & why.  praying mantis & black widow females eat their mates immediately after mating.  in fact, w/the praying mantis, the male will start mating behaviour if its head is removed, even if nothing else is around – that is how conditioned they are to this behaviour.  in one species of mice, a pregnant female will spontaneously abort its fetus if it has sex w/any mouse other than the one that fertilized it – a built-in safety mechanism against over-population for this normally monogamous species.  they become promiscuous when overpopulation stress occurs.  plants are also to be included.  many species of flowers’ reproductive organs – especially orchids – look startling like female insects so they can attract male insects to fertilize them.

can something like intelligent design explain these things?  i think not - it seems that evolution is far more likely – there is a trail left by the fossil record that is hard to argue with.  but, *something* is out there – the yin-yang of everything within our purview – be it at the micro or macro level – is also hard to argue with.

so, while i believe in god, i cannot accept organized religion & the attempts of any of its adherents to spread “the word” about *their* prophets as being *the way* to enlightenment.  these people base their beliefs upon fear of the unknown, & desire to control human activity.  all of this is counter productive, and ultimately leads to pain, suffering & death for those who otherwise would lead normal lives.  but, perhaps this behaviour is yust one more way of nature (god?) controlling overpopulation.  osama bin laden?  ariel sharon? benjamin netanyahu? george bush?  pat robertson?  all part of the dysfunctional society in which we all live today.

ymmv,

doug s. – oh lord save us from your followers!  

[Tyson]

So is kicking the puppy ok, or not?

Sure it's OK.  Is cutting the grass OK?  Is stepping on a bug OK?  Is killing a garden snake OK?  Is killing a dog OK?  Is killing a chicken OK?  Is killing a cow OK?  How about a buffalo?  How about fish?  The point I am making is that you can't have it both ways - either killing animals is OK (and killing is far worse than kicking because it ends life), or it is not OK.  If you say it is OK, then really nothing done to animals is immoral.  If you say it is not OK, then you morally cannot accept, purchase, use, or condone anything which comes from an animal (clothing, food, drugs from experimental research, etc...)

Secondly, posit the existance of an intelligent alien - about as smart as humans. I don't think they exist, but I don't know either way. If I shoot one, is that action devoid of moral dimension, just because it wasn't a human being shot?

The definition of human (as I am using it) is the "Rational Animal".  IE, a mortal being with volition.  Right now humans are the only species we know of that has these qualities.  But if there were aliens that also fit this category, they would certainly be placed in the same moral category as humans.

Thirdly, there are various classes of humans which very clearly think and perceive existance far differently (and nowhere near as well) than most do: the profoundly retarded or deeply insane. In terms of quality of life and sentience and ther ability to choose, such people have little in common with you. Are they human by your standards, capable of valuing and having value? Or can we shoot them?

Hitler had an answer; if yours is different, and I rather hope it is, I want to know why.

The fact that you are super smart or super stupid, fully healthy, or very retarded has no bearing at all on whether or not you are a human being.  You are born in to the species and as such you get the same rights and moral protections as everyone else.  Unless Scott you are proposing that these people are "not human"?  I'm not, but if you are, we got other problems.....

Or to go in the opposite direction, you claim that humans can "value" things, and that's the basis of all morality.

That is clearly not what I said.  I said that the concept of value is only viable in the context of a mortal creature that has volition.  Humans qualify, that is why they not only "do" value things, but also "have to" value things.  They have no choice about the fact that some things serve to enhance or enable their lives.  But free will is a funny thing.  Even though you can show at a metaphysical level that something is bad for you (ie, smoking will kill you), since people have free will, they are free to engage in destructive behavior.  

So, is smoking "wrong"?  Yes, it violates the sanctity of life, so clearly it is wrong.  But you are a being of free will, so you are truly capable of self destruction.  By the same principle, you are also capable of taking the lives of other people.  Also clearly wrong, but still doable.  

I choose to assert that humans thinking things are "good" or "bad", "valuable" or "pointless", has exactly the same amount of meaning (ie, absolutely none) as the fact that a magnet appears to value (pulls closer) iron.

Please provide evidence that the magnet is a mortal creature with volition.  Until you do, this example is meaningless.

This is because, in the materialistic view, absolutely everything *including your likes and dislikes, values, experiences and thoughts* is a pre-scripted outcome of blind physical laws, of particles colliding. There isn't a "you" in a meaningful sense - you're just some atoms that assume a certain form and have some predetermined reactions. Because what you think of as feelings and emotions are just atoms doing what they do, meaninglessly and blindly and without choice, none of your choices have meaning and nothing you value actually matters, no matter how the blind atoms dancing in your head make you think otherwise.

Well then, it's a good thing I'm not advocating a materialistic view!  You seem to keep wanting me to be a materialist, perhaps because materialism is self defeating, and it would be a lot easier for you to tear down my position.  But I'm not a materialist, so arguing against materialism is irrelevant.

You are *very* near to making human survival the only critical quality, the only relevant value. In fact, you might be there.

Might be?  Hell, I've been trying to advance this specific point for the past 2 pages!  I'm not sure how I could have said it any clearer.  So yes, I AM saying that human life is the ONLY fundamental value.  Although, I have a feeling you are going to equivocate on the word "survival", which I have clearly used life, not survival, in my definition.  And once you equivocate on the word survival you will go off on a tangent about the invalidity of evolution as a moral guage.  And you would be right to do that to an extent, if that were what I was advocating.  But that's not what I'm advocating, so it's a pointless discussion.

A person comes down the street at you (say, the drunk that you took to a shelter in the earlier scenario). He seems annoyed. It's possible he intends to kill you. Since survival is the ONLY relevant quality (death means an end to your values), then, clearly, you should kill him before he can kill you.

Not sure if this is a facetious example or not, but I will take it seriously and answer it seriously.  If I am walking down the street and I am about to be harmed by another person, I will certainly defend myself.  And I will defend my life with force.  In this context (and ONLY in this context) is the use of force between people morally acceptable.  To state is specifically it is only in the defence of your own life that the use of force is OK.  This is because someone else is initiating force against you.  But, a very clear line seperates using force to defend your life and using force (violence) for personal gain.  In defence, force is only used to ward off or stop the initiator of violence against you.  In using force for gain, you yourself are initiating force against others, and thus they are now justified in answering you with force (violence).  I hope that's clear:  Force for defence=OK, Force for any other purpose=NOT OK.  

How do you answer this? I know how Nietzsche answered it, but I'm hoping your answer is different.

Nietzsche saw humanity as violent brutes in mortal conflict with each other, and thus the initiation of force was not only condoned, but encouraged.  That is absolutely 180 degrees different than my position.

[doug s.]

tyson,

i think there's a difference between harming an animal for fun, & harming one to sustain yourself.  most rational beings feel guilty to harm another living creature for thrills.  even tho no beings can survive w/o harming other living creatures.

vegans, perhaps, come close, by trying to consume only the products of plants & animals, like fruits & milk, etc., but not the plants & animals themselves...  but, as long as vegans are participating members of society - ie: have a job, buy clothes, live in a commercial dwelling, etc., then they cannot escape the fact that they kill others to survive.

also, it is wery ethnocentrically biased & arrogant to believe that human beings are the only species on this planet that exercise volition.  in fact, scientists know this to be patently false.  as to how far up or down the ladder of "intelligence" one has to go to find where volition begins or ends, is anyone's guess.  no one knows for sure.

doug s.

[Tyson]

i think there's a difference between harming an animal for fun, & harming one to sustain yourself. most rational beings feel guilty to harm another living creature for thrills. even tho no beings can survive w/o harming other living creatures.

Sure there's a difference, a difference in motivation.  But no difference in result (the animal still dies).  However, the fact that someone enjoys inflicting violence on to other living creatures (ie, they do it for "fun" or for "kicks"), tells us something very useful about that person, namely that they enjoy violence.  And it's simply an escalation of existing behavior for that person to inflict harm on other humans.  But until and unless they start inflicting harm on humans, they are not engaging in immoral behavior.

also, it is wery ethnocentrically biased & arrogant to believe that human beings are the only species on this planet that exercise volition. in fact, scientists know this to be patently false. as to how far up or down the ladder of "intelligence" one has to go to find where volition begins or ends, is anyone's guess. no one knows for sure.

Perhaps so.  My definition is specifically a "rational animal", and to my knowledge only humans qualify.  It may be that some other high level animal also qualifies (chimps, perhaps, or dolphins, maybe), but that would be a question of fact, not a quesiton of principle.  The Principle being that it is immoral to inflict harm on rational animals, so the question then becomes "does species XX or YY qualify as a rational animal?"  If yes, then it's immoral to harm them.  If no, then do what you will to them.

[John Casler]

I think we can encapsulate it into four words:

Friend, ...Foe,... Family, or Food,...  

That is how we make moral decisions.  That is how we decide who or what shall live, die, or be incarcerated/seperated from us.

This has happened since the dawn of man and even before.  Some of it is even animalistic trickle down.

Until the advent of religion, where people were killed and or tortured and wars were fought, for not beleiving the same way, these three criteria set the code of conduct toward other humans.

If you don't threaten my exisitance, my territory, of satisfy my hunger, I'll pretty much leave you alone, or even cooperate with you to become socially stronger.

(I edited this to add family)