Is truth worth it?

Ray wrote:

Pfh. Racial criteria? Nice tactic of using negative connotations Dok.

What, are you saying it ISN'T racial criteria? WHy then would you choose a human life over another, if not soley because one is human and the other is not in this scenario?

Quote:

You're basing your decision on your personal feeling, I'm basing mine on what I think I ought to do.

One and the same.

Quote:

Who's to say I don't care about people anyway? So what if I don't know them, does that mean I don't care about the person, or that I ought to not care about the person?

If you care about everything and everyone equally, I feel bad for your family/friends/loved ones.

Quote:

Maybe I did jump the gun a bit in my decision, I probably do need to think about this more, but I intend to not base my decision on whether or not I know the person. If I think that it's wrong to sacrifice the animal, it would be because of something else.

So again, you are saying the life of a stranger is worth more than the life of a loved pet to you. What would be the 'other reason' if not purely racial criteria?

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

The "biological imperatives" you talk of, if it means a natural law to survive (if that is what you are saying), do not exist because there exist counterexamples in the form of those who choose to not survive.

Firstly by "biological imperatives" I do not explicitly and implicitly and expressly and directly mean "a natural law to survive" it is vastly more subtle and wide ranging than such a myopic perspective.

Secondly to argue that "there exist counterexamples in the form of those who choose to not survive" in no way demonstrates "biological imperatives" do not exist. That would be the equivalent of the suicidal man not getting hungry; an overt absurdity.

Ray wrote:

It's troubling to set up biological laws, because biological behaviours arose from physical laws, which depending on how matter interact, may change biological properties.

I have no idea who you think is setting "up biological laws" or what you mean by "biological laws" nor what relevance you place on them in this context but I see no congruency whatsoever to support your claims that

a) "there are no such things as biological imperatives".

b) said biological imperatives cannot be the impetus for the basis of "moral systems".

Further I have no idea why you consider "biological behaviours arose from physical laws" to be germane or congruent, but said claim is only true in the most indirect and borderline sophistic manner. For example the process of defecation requires physical laws, but defection does not take place because of physical laws per se, except in the most indirect and borderline sophistic manner. The direct fact is that defecation take place because the body needs to rid itself of waste.

Ray wrote:

Moral systems cannot be formed solely because of a person's need to socialize.

Do you presuppose that this claim of yours is germane? If so you would be quite incorrect, as the biological imperative goes much, much deeper than one "person's need to socialize", that simplistic individualistic impetus trivializes the depth and breath of the biological imperative.

Ray wrote:

For those who have changed, or accepted change proposed to, a set of unfair norms, they may not be doing it out of any need, but are doing it for the sole reason that they find something to be wrong.

Ray, think very clearly and fully about the interactions, interdependence, complexity, socialization and naturalism of the wolf as examples of the biological imperative vis-à-vis the impetus for "moral systems". Do some reading up on how dolphins and Chimpanzees function morally in the group settings. Consider the care of the young and the protection of the family in all the higher animals vis-à-vis biological imperatives and "moral systems".

Remember, humans are not separate and apart from other animals irrelative of man's hubris and man's egoism, thus the artifice of philosophical / theological moral structures are underpinned by the impetus of the biological imperative.

0 Replies

Quote:

Further I have no idea why you consider "biological behaviours arose from physical laws" to be germane or congruent, but said claim is only true in the most indirect and borderline sophistic manner. For example the process of defecation requires physical laws, but defection does not take place because of physical laws per se, except in the most indirect and borderline sophistic manner. The direct fact is that defecation take place because the body needs to rid itself of waste.

The claim that "defecation takes place because the body needs to rid itself of waste" is anthromorphic. You are assuming an innate function to it. Yes, it has become something which we can interpret as necessary for the body to do in order to survive, but all of these are due to physical properties and interactions.

Quote:

said biological imperatives cannot be the impetus for the basis of "moral systems".

And I still do not hear your argument as to how moral systems are simply and exclusively the result of "biological imperatives" nor am I getting a clear definition of it from you.

Quote:

think very clearly and fully about the interactions, interdependence, complexity, socialization and naturalism of the wolf as examples of the biological imperative vis-à-vis the impetus for "moral systems". Do some reading up on how dolphins and Chimpanzees function morally in the group settings. Consider the care of the young and the protection of the family in all the higher animals vis-à-vis biological imperatives and "moral systems".

Remember, humans are not separate and apart from other animals irrelative of man's hubris and man's egoism, thus the artifice of philosophical / theological moral structures are underpinned by the impetus of the biological imperative.

I'm aware of the usefulness of the group for survival, but this does not necessarily mean that moral systems is a direct result of this. Keep in mind that most moral progress occurs after this group is developed, and when survival may not be an issue in the formation of such progress. To what survival advantage is it, for example, for moral philosophers to promote their ethical beliefs?

To say that all of our actions are dictated by survival is an over-simplification of the state of the human condition.

Quote:

Remember, humans are not separate and apart from other animals irrelative of man's hubris and man's egoism, thus the artifice of philosophical / theological moral structures are underpinned by the impetus of the biological imperative.

So you are suggesting that there is no significance difference between a human and a protist? Are you suggesting that humans are like ants? And to what evidence do you have to make such a suggestion?

Of course, humans are in the taxonomic kingdom animalia, but this does not indicate that there is no significance difference between humans and some other animals.

Quote:

What, are you saying it ISN'T racial criteria? WHy then would you choose a human life over another, if not soley because one is human and the other is not in this scenario?

It isn't a racial criteria because it is not simply a life over another life, it is a sentient life over a non-sentient one. If you are basing your decision only on the fact that they are living, then you have not considered that life in and of itself does not possess a phenomenal existence, but that it is a precursor to a phenomenal existence. If you cannot see the difference between say a bacteria, and a human being, then I have nothing else I would like to say to you.

And for the record, I think it's better off if you had said criteria based on
"specie" rather than "racial criteria." You're putting some connotations when you use "racial" that I believe is better off avoided.

Quote:

One and the same.

Not quite.

Quote:

If you care about everything and everyone equally, I feel bad for your family/friends/loved ones.

Well don't because I care for them too Rolling Eyes

Nice remarks btw, trying to make this personal now?

Quote:

So again, you are saying the life of a stranger is worth more than the life of a loved pet to you. What would be the 'other reason' if not purely racial criteria?

Maybe you should read my posts again. All you see is "racial" criteria, I'm sick of you jumping to conclusions. So long Dok.

0 Replies

Hi Ray,

Thank you for your very thoughtful posts. I'll have to think some more about all this before I can reply in kind.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Ray wrote:
Pfh. Racial criteria? Nice tactic of using negative connotations Dok.

What, are you saying it ISN'T racial criteria? WHy then would you choose a human life over another, if not soley because one is human and the other is not in this scenario?

Quote:

You're basing your decision on your personal feeling, I'm basing mine on what I think I ought to do.

One and the same.

Quote:

Who's to say I don't care about people anyway? So what if I don't know them, does that mean I don't care about the person, or that I ought to not care about the person?

If you care about everything and everyone equally, I feel bad for your family/friends/loved ones.

Quote:

Maybe I did jump the gun a bit in my decision, I probably do need to think about this more, but I intend to not base my decision on whether or not I know the person. If I think that it's wrong to sacrifice the animal, it would be because of something else.

So again, you are saying the life of a stranger is worth more than the life of a loved pet to you. What would be the 'other reason' if not purely racial criteria?

Hi DS,

Just to clarify your position then, if you are caught in a flood and you manage to grab onto a tree as you are swept along; you look around and you are sharing the tree with the neighbor's dog, and the neighbor comes by in a boat and can only save one of you -- is it wrong if he saves the dog because he likes him better?

0 Replies

Chumly,

Sorry if I sounded hostile, I get too caught up sometimes.

0 Replies

ray wrote:

It isn't a racial criteria because it is not simply a life over another life, it is a sentient life over a non-sentient one. If you are basing your decision only on the fact that they are living, then you have not considered that life in and of itself does not possess a phenomenal existence, but that it is a precursor to a phenomenal existence. If you cannot see the difference between say a bacteria, and a human being, then I have nothing else I would like to say to you.

Quote:

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.

1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Cats, dogs, mice, turtles and snakes are all sentient.

Perhaps you mean self aware? If so, we do not have mutual exclusivity to self awareness on this planet. Dolphins, Elephants, and gorillas can all recognize themselves.

What makes a human life worth more than that of an elephant, then?

Your measuring stick still seems really arbitrary.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi DS,

Just to clarify your position then, if you are caught in a flood and you manage to grab onto a tree as you are swept along; you look around and you are sharing the tree with the neighbor's dog, and the neighbor comes by in a boat and can only save one of you -- is it wrong if he saves the dog because he likes him better?

As my life would be at stake I wouldn't be too happy about it, but I wouldn't see it as objectively 'wrong'. The neighbor is under no obligation to save me..all legal considerations aside.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Chumly,

Sorry if I sounded hostile, I get too caught up sometimes.

No apologies needed!

I would never take your posts in that manner, you are welcome to get zippy if you wanna, I do myself at times. You certainly do not fall prey to argumentum ad hominem and eschewing the conventions of logical argument etc.

Unfortunately, as can be easily seen, there are others who repetitively and overtly fling out argumentum ad hominem, while at the same time eschewing the conventions of logical argument. Dialoging with them is pretty tough sledding, but even then I find I can learn things, such as how to most effectively stay the course.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

ray wrote:

It isn't a racial criteria because it is not simply a life over another life, it is a sentient life over a non-sentient one. If you are basing your decision only on the fact that they are living, then you have not considered that life in and of itself does not possess a phenomenal existence, but that it is a precursor to a phenomenal existence. If you cannot see the difference between say a bacteria, and a human being, then I have nothing else I would like to say to you.

Quote:

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.

1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Cats, dogs, mice, turtles and snakes are all sentient.

Perhaps you mean self aware? If so, we do not have mutual exclusivity to self awareness on this planet. Dolphins, Elephants, and gorillas can all recognize themselves.

What makes a human life worth more than that of an elephant, then?

Your measuring stick still seems really arbitrary.

Animals are only aware; the thing that makes us human is that we're aware that we're aware.

0 Replies

Quote:

Animals are only aware; the thing that makes us human is that we're aware that we're aware.

To borrow a page from 'the creationts guide to debate' (tm), prove elephants, gorillas and dolphins are not 'aware that they are aware'
There is much evidence sugesting otherwise.

0 Replies

Show me this evidence.

0 Replies

You first. I asked first, you answer first.
It's the rule.
To re-iterate,
What evidence have you to show humans are the only creature on earth that is aware that it is aware as per your original claim?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

It's the rule.

Funny Doc!

0 Replies

You know what?
Apon further rumination of the subject, I have come to realize this vain is wholly irrelevant anyway.
Even if concrete irrefutable proof were produced that humanity was the only species on earth that was aware that is it aware, what would that prove?
Spiders are the only species on earth that spin and live in webs, does that grant them special considerations in regards to the value of their lives?
How does the distinction of being aware that one is aware correlate to a higher value of life?

0 Replies

Quote:

Cats, dogs, mice, turtles and snakes are all sentient.

Perhaps you mean self aware? If so, we do not have mutual exclusivity to self awareness on this planet. Dolphins, Elephants, and gorillas can all recognize themselves.

What makes a human life worth more than that of an elephant, then?

Your measuring stick still seems really arbitrary.

I meant self-aware.

I do suspect that dolphins and the apes have some form of sentiency, and even though I don't have a concrete evidence I wouldn't advocate them being killed and eaten.

I don't know about elephants' sentiency.

I don't consider my measuring stick to be arbitrary.

Quote:

You know what?
Apon further rumination of the subject, I have come to realize this vain is wholly irrelevant anyway.
Even if concrete irrefutable proof were produced that humanity was the only species on earth that was aware that is it aware, what would that prove?
Spiders are the only species on earth that spin and live in webs, does that grant them special considerations in regards to the value of their lives?
How does the distinction of being aware that one is aware correlate to a higher value of life?

The value of existence can only arise if we are aware of our awareness or if we are capable of being rational (I find the former to be a direct result of the latter). Without this awareness we are simply acting out of instinctualized behaviours and our existence cannot really "matter." It is, I think, what determines a value in itself. This is what I believe and what I think. When I imagine myself living without any forms of capacity for rationality, I can only imagine acting, only responding to stimulus, and living without values.

There are other philosophers who developed their arguments thoroughly, in particular Kant and perhaps Rousseau and Locke also.

We're not going to agree on this, so I'll just leave it at that and take my leave.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

You know what?
Apon further rumination of the subject, I have come to realize this vain is wholly irrelevant anyway.
Even if concrete irrefutable proof were produced that humanity was the only species on earth that was aware that is it aware, what would that prove?
Spiders are the only species on earth that spin and live in webs, does that grant them special considerations in regards to the value of their lives?
How does the distinction of being aware that one is aware correlate to a higher value of life?

OK, just for the **** of it, you could argue that self-awareness is an essential requisite towards godliness, and that godliness is deserving of special consideration due to the potential for godliness to be able to create life in a conscious direct manner (as opposed to the randomized non-designed evolutionary forces).

Then again, you could simply say that asserting one is better than algae (because self-awareness = godliness = life creation) is nothing more than egoism, unless or until one successfully can argue that a creator of life has the superior right to destroy the created life.

So can the creator have special considerations beyond the created?
Does man in his present form have the right to destroy what he creates?
Does man in the future have the right to destroy life he creates?

Some might well argue that man is closing in (for all intents and purposes) on the technologies needed to create life.

If all life is of equal value, and no life is of any higher value than any other, then it's equally moral / immoral to kill your brother as it is to kill a dog.

0 Replies

Quote:

If all life is of equal value, and no life is of any higher value than any other, then it's equally moral / immoral to kill your brother as it is to kill a dog.

Which is why any 'morality' apart from subjective and personal morality is extraneous. We form value in our own minds, and assign it where we see fit. There is no objective value standard or rulebook by which this must be done.

0 Replies

To me the point of ethics is to find the objective standard. Like it or not, our views of right or wrong are almost always thought of by us in a universal/objective sense. I think that that is why we distinguish it from desires or aesthetics values. Besides if one insists that it's all subjective and relative, then what is the point of arguing about it.

Is there or can there be an objective morality? I think so. I'm not talking about simple value attachments, but the values that are sound in an objective or universal way.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

To me the point of ethics is to find the objective standard. Like it or not, our views of right or wrong are almost always thought of by us in a universal/objective sense. I think that that is why we distinguish it from desires or aesthetics values. Besides if one insists that it's all subjective and relative, then what is the point of arguing about it.

Is there or can there be an objective morality? I think so. I'm not talking about simple value attachments, but the values that are sound in an objective or universal way.

The best you will ever do is an objective morality set you are comfortable with that exists only for you. Subjective objectivity. Smile

Personally, I don't see the problem with that. I myself have a highly developed sense of ethics, and see no reason why they should be more or less valuable based on the amount of people that share them.

0 Replies

Is truth worth it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know