Spinoff: Fate or self-determination

[marlena]

I'll use a quote from my very wise ancestors: It goes something like this:

 

Athena aside, move your hands as well.

 

I know, it loses a lot in the translation. Loosely translated it means, apart from the will of the gods, you need to do get moving to make/alter/determine your own fate. So, I guess it is both. Some things that happen to us, we have little control over. For example, a fatal automobile accident that was not our fault or being a Palestinian refugee or giving birth to an autistic child. Other things do depend on our choices, actions or inactions and the consequences that result from them.

[always_searching]

To expand on what I'm saying, the things that you list only matter to other human beings and not even to all human beings. Ask an African pygmy if he cares about Christ, and he'll ask "who?". Ask him about the universe and he'll say "what?". Does this mean that he should die before you and I?

 

For that matter, ask a dog what he values in life and he'll probably say "food and water". Ask a cat what he values in life and he'll probably say "food and water". Ask any living thing that you can possibly communicate with or not, and they'll say "food and water". You and I would say two of our base needs are "food and water". So now, what does the rest matter, if no one beyond a few human beings and not even all of them, give a crap about metaphysics or science? So how does that make us so special? That we care about things, no other living thing cares about and not even all of us care about these things?

 

Perhaps it's time to examine why it's so important to feel special, that there's a meaning for our lives where there appears to be no meaning for any other lives.

 

Sperm meet egg. Are you strong enough sperm, to wiggle your way into that egg?

 

Well, first of all, let me differentiate between a "human" and a "person." I believe all humans are persons, but not all persons are necessarily humans. I value all life, but I don't think someone has a "right to life" unless they are rational animals by their very nature. So, a human who can't talk about metaphysics or, to take your concern even further, is in a coma, an embryo, fetus, infant, or the severely mentally handicapped: they all have a right to life that animals--unless that animal has reason--just don't have.

 

I was using metaphysics, science, love, etc. as examples of what usually separates us rational animals from the rest of the sentient-being kingdom. Of course, there are instances were a person may not be able to exorcise that reason, yet those people still have a precedence over mere sentient-beings due to their very nature as rational animal.

 

I have to wonder: why do you stop at caring for the interests of sentient-beings i.e. animals? I mean, according to your argument, shouldn't we also consider the interests of the trees, the grass, viruses, bacteria, fungi, micro-organisms, etc.? They all have an interest in living too. Ask a tree what it wants, and it would say, "Water and light." What makes animals any more important than non-sentient beings like trees and grass? What makes a cat better than a slug, string of bacteria, etc.?

 

Not to suggest that I don't care for all living things, but I think there needs to be a definite distinction between those animals which have more importance based upon them due to their having a right to life i.e. persons, and those whose interests should be considered, but have no right to life i.e. sentient-beings.

 

You asked what importance metaphysics, science, love, etc. offers regarding survival: I would say that it's not just the body that needs to survive, but the mind and soul as well.

[Trialbyfire]

Well, first of all, let me differentiate between a "human" and a "person." I believe all humans are persons, but not all persons are necessarily humans. I value all life, but I don't think someone has a "right to life" unless they are rational animals by their very nature. So, a human who can't talk about metaphysics or, to take your concern even further, is in a coma, an embryo, fetus, infant, or the severely mentally handicapped: they all have a right to life that animals--unless that animal has reason--just don't have.

I'd like you to back this up with facts, why what you call "non-rational" life, doesn't have a "right to life". It would be like Hitler saying, Jews don't have a right to life.

I was using metaphysics, science, love, etc. as examples of what usually separates us rational animals from the rest of the sentient-being kingdom. Of course, there are instances were a person may not be able to exorcise that reason, yet those people still have a precedence over mere sentient-beings due to their very nature as rational animal.

Why?

I have to wonder: why do you stop at caring for the interests of sentient-beings i.e. animals? I mean, according to your argument, shouldn't we also consider the interests of the trees, the grass, viruses, bacteria, fungi, micro-organisms, etc.? They all have an interest in living too. Ask a tree what it wants, and it would say, "Water and light." What makes animals any more important than non-sentient beings like trees and grass? What makes a cat better than a slug, string of bacteria, etc.?

I'm not saying that the interests of anything should be considered. I'm saying that human beings are no more special, than any other form of life.

Not to suggest that I don't care for all living things, but I think there needs to be a definite distinction between those animals which have more importance based upon them due to their having a right to life i.e. persons, and those whose interests should be considered, but have no right to life i.e. sentient-beings.

This isn't worth responding to, until you can give me empirical, rational and logical evidence why rational life deserves to live, more than non-rational life.

You asked what importance metaphysics, science, love, etc. offers regarding survival: I would say that it's not just the body that needs to survive, but the mind and soul as well.

Only to a sub-component of the human race. The balance of the human race doesn't much care about the majority of the subjects, and neither do most other living things.

[Pedigree]

Which do you believe and why?

 

Self-determination + luck. You make the decision to do something and the rest is up to luck. You decide to drink and drive, and luck will decide if you make it home alive, for example.

[sweetjasmine]

For that matter, ask a dog what he values in life and he'll probably say "food and water". [...]

 

Yeah, the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing.

 

So, let me get this right: you believe there is moral worth to our actions, but that worth is what we create for ourselves?

 

From an observational perspective, yes, that's how it works. Morality is something that's defined by each culture/society. That's a fact of life, whether we think that's a good thing or not, or whether we think there is a universal set of morals that we should apply or not.

 

You're a moral relativist?

 

No, not exactly. I think it's immoral to cause harm unto other people without some mitigating circumstance (eg, self defense). Beyond that, yes, I'm a sort of moral relativist. Kind of. I think that there are some human rights which should be universal.

 

If so, you sound very much like a Utilitarian.

 

I wouldn't consider myself a Utilitarian. And before you ask, I think Peter Singer is full of sh-t.

 

I agree with you that the way we react to a given situation is what matters. We differ in that I believe that there is a purpose to event that leads to our reactions.

 

You really don't think that there are random events? Ever?

 

I don't think God willed the event, but I do believe He is omniscient, and, therefore, knew that it would happen and, yet, did not intervene for (what I would argue) is for a greater Good.

 

Given the nasty things human beings do to each other, if what you're saying is true, then god is a huge f-cking a-hole.

 

LOL, well, that's good news. Hegel's an interesting character...

 

That's one way to put it.

 

I just think it makes more sense to say that there is an ultimate reason for it than it being merely arbitrary.

 

I don't. It requires postulating the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being who's in control of the entire universe.

 

And terrible things aren't necessarily arbitrary. They're caused by actions, and human beings decide to take those actions.

 

Isn't it more comforting and rational to say that there is a reason for evil versus it's just there and there is no good that comes from it?

 

It's more comforting, but I don't see how it's more rational. It's also comforting to say a lot of other things, but that doesn't mean they're true, rational, or accurate.

 

I actually think it's incredibly dangerous to think that there's a reason for evil and that good will ultimately come from it because it's part of God's greater plan for good. If that's true, then would it ever make a difference if individuals attempted to intervene to stop others from doing evil acts? If it's all going to be for the greater good, should I or anyone else ever take it upon themselves to do anything? If God doesn't want the evil act to take place, He would intervene, so it's not up to you or me to take action.

 

The consequences of that line of thinking scare the living daylights out of me.

 

But if you consider this aspect of beyond our understanding: is it really so strange to say something happens for a reason, yet doesn't make sense?

 

Sure.

 

There are certain laws of science that are just true, that don't necessarily make sense--are way over our heads, yet we believe in them as well.

 

Yes, it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in string theory.

 

Gravity, for example.

 

I disagree. I don't think it takes faith to understand gravity.

 

Or the reasons why our planet's conditions allowed for life to be formed. I say it was God; scientists say it was the big bang and coincidence, but no one fully understands.

 

Uh oh, cosmology. If you're interested, I guess we could start a thread on that.

 

My point is just because something doesn't make sense to us doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

Sure, I agree.

 

Of course, I'm not a scientist, but I am trying to suggest that the coin's landing wasn't just this chaotic, random occurance in the sense that there is no reason for it to land on heads versus tails. There is reason for everything, even the most seemingly-arbitrary things.

 

What you're doing here is equating "reason" with "cause".

 

If the world were truly as chaotic as you're suggesting, then it is entirely possible that we could be waking up as anything--person or otherwise.

 

I'm not suggesting total chaos. There's order to the universe, but I don't stretch it as far as you do. To me, the existence of laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. don't automatically point to an omniscient god who exerts influence over life on earth.

 

I would argue that the order found in the universe is pretty easily attributed to God, even a pagan philosopher came up with this notion: Aristotle. Take a look at his Metaphysics. He didn't believe in the Christian "creator" God who cares about humanity, but he did believe there must be a (1) first mover, (2) first efficient-cause, etc.. Aquinas later takes this notion and applies it to the Christian God. Regardless, if there is order, it seems to imply a God.

 

Again, we should probably start another thread on this, but I'll just ask: if God created everything, who or what created God?

 

I am indeed.

 

So what is that One True Purpose of Existence, and how do I know you're right and everyone else is wrong?

 

And, you see, I couldn't look that HIV+ child in the eyes and tell them that they were born with the virus and are going to die from it for no reason, that they just had some really **** luck and that if they find it depressing as ****, well, yeah, too bad: cause that's just all there is to it. The concept is just alien to me.

 

I'd tell them that they had some really **** luck and that I was going to do everything in my power to extend their life and to make it as enjoyable as possible because it's up to people themselves to do what they can to make life more bearable for everyone.

[Trialbyfire]

Yeah, the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing.

Subconsciously or consciously, all life fights for survival..period. If human beings are such rational creatures, we'd realize we're not so special, in that our beliefs also centre around the need to survive, whether it's to dominate other species or dominate our entire environment. Forget all the frou-frou, fluffy, metaphysical attempts at rationalization of why we're "speshul". We're not. We're just at the top of the food chain.

[Eve]

I would say that currently both fate and destiny exist side by side within different people... but (I believe) there is a destiny for the human race as a whole. The real question for me is whether one is aware of what side they are on.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[always_searching]

I'd like you to back this up with facts, why what you call "non-rational" life, doesn't have a "right to life". It would be like Hitler saying, Jews don't have a right to life.

 

Oh, my, my, my...actaully, I am saying quite the opposite of Hitler: Jews have a right to life, because they are (by their nature) persons. Are you suggesting that a Jew isn't a person--that a Jew doesn't have any more of a right to life than a cat?

 

 

I'm not saying that the interests of anything should be considered. I'm saying that human beings are no more special, than any other form of life.

 

Right. And I'm asking why you stop with animals--what makes them any more special than any other life form? Should a tree have a right to life? Ought we not eat for fear of being unjust to the food-source (be it sentient i.e. animal or non-sentient i.e. plant-based)? Ought we not walk for fear of distroying micro-organisms? My question to you is why you stop with caring for the interests of sentient beings i.e. animals over other forms of life?

 

This isn't worth responding to, until you can give me empirical, rational and logical evidence why rational life deserves to live, more than non-rational life.

Only to a sub-component of the human race. The balance of the human race doesn't much care about the majority of the subjects, and neither do most other living things.

 

A right to life indicates perosnhood--having a soul. It is unjust to destroy the life of such a person. I'm not suggesting that we should arbitrarily destroy life, but if a person kills an animal in a humane way (causing it as little pain as possible) in order to survive, I would say there is nothing wrong with that, as an animal--by its nature as a non-rational sentient being--doesn't have a right to life. We aren't being unjust to a cow when we kill it for food, for example.

 

In order to explain the importance of rationality, I would have to recite hundreds of years of philosophy, theology, psychology, and science to you. So, I'll just suggest some philosophical reading for you: Aristotle's Ethics and Metaphysics for a non-Christian perspective. If you are open to Christian thinkers: Aquinas' Summa Theologica is probably the most exhaustive work on such matters--he cites Aristotle a great deal, so you may want to start there.

 

If you're interested in something more contemporary, let me know, and I'll compile a nice reading list for you. That being said, from our conversation, I doubt very much that any of my, Aristotle's, Aquinas', or other thinkers who hold to personhood as being an indicator for having rights will be able to convince you of this regardless of the reasoning behind it.

 

LOL, just as you have yet to give me sufficent reasons for the life of a cat to be of more importance than--or even of equal importance to--the life of a woman, man, Christian, Jew, etc. Personhood is substancial--the accidental qualities a person has (my being Christian, for example) has no bearing on his or her right to life. Being a person, however, does.

 

Again, that's certainly not to indicate that non-humans can't be persons. If an alien comes down and is able to communicate, has some kind of self-consciousness that can mentally transverse time i.e. has reason: then of course that being would have a right to life. Same thing with animals: the day a cat comes up to me, tells me about his past, present, future; his desires; his hobbies; his goal(s) in life; etc. is the day that I say a cat has a right to life. Until that day, I will respect the life of a cat and won't cause it any unnecessary pain, but I certainly would not put it's life on par with that of any human-being.

 

Since you bring up Hitler, you should not that he LOVED animals. Clearly, he thought dogs had more of a right to life than Jews. I wonder, by your argumentation, if you aren't headed in that same direction. I'm beginning to think that you value non-rational life moreso than rational life.

[GorillaTheater]

I'm beginning to think that you value non-rational life moreso than rational life.

 

I know I do. That's why I enjoy this site so much.

[sweetjasmine]

Right. And I'm asking why you stop with animals--what makes them any more special than any other life form?

 

Nothing.

 

Should a tree have a right to life? Ought we not eat for fear of being unjust to the food-source (be it sentient i.e. animal or non-sentient i.e. plant-based)? Ought we not walk for fear of distroying micro-organisms? My question to you is why you stop with caring for the interests of sentient beings i.e. animals over other forms of life?

 

I don't think TBF is saying anything about right to life.

 

A right to life indicates perosnhood--having a soul.

 

The existence of a soul can't be proven, so why should we base something as important right to life on something like that?

 

I'm beginning to think that you value non-rational life moreso than rational life.

 

I'm not seeing where she's arguing anything close to that. If I'm understanding her posts correctly, she's simply stating that there's nothing that makes humans particularly special, in the grand scheme of things, since humans are just another type of living critter, and the only reason we think we're special is because we're on top of the food chain.

 

I know I do. That's why I enjoy this site so much.

 

:lmao::lmao:

[Trialbyfire]

Not much more for me to say sweetjasmine, since you understand where I'm coming from and have stated it well.

 

We're nothing special, always_searching. We're just as much an accident of circumstances, as the rest of life on Earth. That's why, IMO, there's no greater meaning to human existence, except what we humans, want to believe. Believing in our "speshulness" or value, doesn't make it a universal truth or factual. It's an individual reality, through belief.

 

Having said all that, I don't value any species of life over another. I also don't think life is the ultimate specialness, for any species. We exist, so why not do the best we can, with what makes sense to us, as individuals? We need to eat, so as omnivores, most of us are willing to kill, or at minimum, have someone kill so we can eat meat. For that matter, vegans and vegetarians also kill vegetation. But then, animals kill to eat too. No big deal, as long as it's for food.

[always_searching]

From an observational perspective, yes, that's how it works. Morality is something that's defined by each culture/society. That's a fact of life, whether we think that's a good thing or not, or whether we think there is a universal set of morals that we should apply or not.

 

No, not exactly. I think it's immoral to cause harm unto other people without some mitigating circumstance (eg, self defense). Beyond that, yes, I'm a sort of moral relativist. Kind of. I think that there are some human rights which should be universal.

 

A cultural relativist?! *runs away*

 

 

I find there to be a number of problems with cultural relativism, but I do see the appeal--it's as appealing as any kind of relativism: As long as no one is hurting me or someone else, let him/her do whatever he/she wants. Great. Well, the problem lies in that each individual has his/her own view as to what "hurting someone else" means.

 

So, what you're suggesting is that you believe in one absolute: "Don't harm others" and there is one definitive idea of what the term "harm" means, but that every other action is relative. This just doesn't make since to me. If you want to argue for something like the Golden Rule viz. do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then you would have to conceed that some people may think that something you consider "harmful" is fine to do to someone, as they would allow the same thing to be done to them if they were in the same situation. For example, there are some tribes that perform female circumcisions--extremely painful and brutal affairs. Regardless, no one there thinks that female circumcision is "harmful;" if anything, it is beneficial for them. The men of said tribe say that they would have the same thing done to them if they were women, and the women there mostly accept it.

 

So, what do you say about this situation? You would have to make one of two claims (1) that female circumcision is morally wrong, which implies some sort of absolute, objective, moral value; thus, leading you away from your cultural/moral relativistic perspective. OR (2) that there is nothing wrong with female circumcision as it is indicitive of the culture.

 

In essence, you're either argeeing with me, or you really are a cultural relativist.

 

I wouldn't consider myself a Utilitarian. And before you ask, I think Peter Singer is full of sh-t.

 

Yet more good news!

 

 

You really don't think that there are random events? Ever?

 

I think there are events that have no importance as far as moral worth is concerned, but I don't think anything is merely random.

 

 

 

Given the nasty things human beings do to each other, if what you're saying is true, then god is a huge f-cking a-hole.

 

God gave us free will. Now, if determinism is true, especially occasionalism: I might have agree with you. However, even then I would say that there is a good reason for the evil things that human-beings do to each other, even though I might not understand what that reason could be.

 

That being said, again, God gave us free will. He is immutable (un-changeable) and, thus, won't take away our free will. So, yes, he allows us to do evil, and I'm sure He is quite disappointed with what we've done to ourselves and the rest of His creation.

 

 

And terrible things aren't necessarily arbitrary. They're caused by actions, and human beings decide to take those actions.

 

Yes, but according to you there is no moral weight to those actions except insofar as they affect an individual? The ability for me to just create my own moral worth seems arbitrary to me. Why even care about morality if I am the one who creates morality? Morality then losses all importance and, indeed, becomes arbitrary.

 

 

I actually think it's incredibly dangerous to think that there's a reason for evil and that good will ultimately come from it because it's part of God's greater plan for good. If that's true, then would it ever make a difference if individuals attempted to intervene to stop others from doing evil acts? If it's all going to be for the greater good, should I or anyone else ever take it upon themselves to do anything? If God doesn't want the evil act to take place, He would intervene, so it's not up to you or me to take action.

 

The consequences of that line of thinking scare the living daylights out of me.

 

Just because God directs good even out of evil actions doesn't mean we should go around committing evil actions, or that we don't have an obligation to intervene. I believe in objective morality, and that to be virtuous people, we need to be morally praiseworthy. No one should commit evil, as that would be morally blameworthy. Yet, God, in His infinite Goodness and Mercy, will foster some kind of good out of evil. To use a really corny analogy, it's like the beginning of Spring after a bleak and harsh Winter: no matter how damaging the frost, Spring comes and life begins again.

 

 

I disagree. I don't think it takes faith to understand gravity.

 

Well, for someone like me who is ignorant in the field of physics: it takes faith!

 

 

 

Uh oh, cosmology. If you're interested, I guess we could start a thread on that.

 

I'm in!

 

 

What you're doing here is equating "reason" with "cause".

 

Sort of: I think there is a reason for every efficient-cause.

 

 

I'm not suggesting total chaos. There's order to the universe, but I don't stretch it as far as you do. To me, the existence of laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. don't automatically point to an omniscient god who exerts influence over life on earth.

 

Where are you suggesting order comes from, if not from God? I mean, causally, go back to the first cause: what would you say that is? The Big Bang? What caused that? Or do you believe in the more Eastern idea of a cyclical existence that has always been and has always had order?

 

 

 

Again, we should probably start another thread on this, but I'll just ask: if God created everything, who or what created God?

 

God is the first cause. He is eternal--he had no cause. His essence is His existence. LOL, I'm just quoting everyone from Aristotle, to Aquinas, to Anselm, to Augustine, to Bonaventure, to Descartes, to all the neo-Platonists, etc. Any monotheist, despite religion, usually holds to this.

 

 

 

So what is that One True Purpose of Existence, and how do I know you're right and everyone else is wrong?

 

The One True Purpose of Existence is to be happy (Aristotle). I would go further as to say that happiness is found in God (most all medieval philosophers state this).

 

I know I'm right.

 

Course, I'll admit that I'm wrong if you tell me that you are deliberately directing your life so that you will be unhappy. Course, before I admit that I am wrong, I may inquire as to your mental health.

 

 

 

I'd tell them that they had some really **** luck and that I was going to do everything in my power to extend their life and to make it as enjoyable as possible because it's up to people themselves to do what they can to make life more bearable for everyone.

 

I agree that people need to be more proactive and do something to help each other out, yes. However, I don't believe in luck--good or bad. And, despite whether it is rational or not--though, I claim it is: I would tell them of the suffering of Christ and that He hasn't forgotten them; that they will be happy and rewarded in the next life, because all rationality aside: People need hope.

 

I have to say, I've really enjoyed our discussions!

[always_searching]

I know I do. That's why I enjoy this site so much.

 

Hmmm...interesting. I don't think you could converse very well with non-rational beings.

 

Their reason may be flawed, yes. But non-rational, really?

[always_searching]

Not much more for me to say sweetjasmine, since you understand where I'm coming from and have stated it well.

 

We're nothing special, always_searching. We're just as much an accident of circumstances, as the rest of life on Earth. That's why, IMO, there's no greater meaning to human existence, except what we humans, want to believe. Believing in our "speshulness" or value, doesn't make it a universal truth or factual. It's an individual reality, through belief.

 

Having said all that, I don't value any species of life over another. I also don't think life is the ultimate specialness, for any species. We exist, so why not do the best we can, with what makes sense to us, as individuals? We need to eat, so as omnivores, most of us are willing to kill, or at minimum, have someone kill so we can eat meat. For that matter, vegans and vegetarians also kill vegetation. But then, animals kill to eat too. No big deal, as long as it's for food.

 

Well, to each his/her own. I don't know how you can read metaphysics, poetry, listen to music, be in love, etc. without seeing some kind of "speshulness" in our existence as opposed to a mere non-rational animal.

 

However, if you don't see value in anything that your reason allows for you to appreciate, then that can be the existence you choose to live, but I'll take my lofty notions and spiritual needs over mere animalistic needs any day, a-thank-you-very-much.

 

[Trialbyfire]

Well, to each his/her own. I don't know how you can read metaphysics, poetry, listen to music, be in love, etc. without seeing some kind of "speshulness" in our existence as opposed to a mere non-rational animal.

 

However, if you don't see value in anything that your reason allows for you to appreciate, then that can be the existence you choose to live, but I'll take my lofty notions and spiritual needs over mere animalistic needs any day, a-thank-you-very-much.

 

I don't see your notions and needs as lofty, more a form of denial. A need to believe that human needs are the most valuable needs, where human beings are actually THE single most destructive species, ever to hit the face of the Earth, makes no rational sense to me. I could take your rational being theory and twist it around by ignoring the non-rational statement about potential for rational thought, gives it the same right to life, as other rational beings. If I ignore it, according to your logic, I have more right to life, than you do.

 

Also, sperm have potential towards rational thought, but trillions upon trillions of sperm are killed by the female body, on a minute by minute basis. Murderers!

 

Just jacking with you, since you're such an elitist and aren't willing to admit that your beliefs are solely your own and not a form of universal truth.

 

Damn, I love Occam's Razor!

[always_searching]

I don't see your notions and needs as lofty, more a form of denial. A need to believe that human needs are the most valuable needs, where human beings are actually THE single most destructive species, ever to hit the face of the Earth, makes no rational sense to me. I could take your rational being theory and twist it around by ignoring the non-rational statement about potential for rational thought, gives it the same right to life, as other rational beings. If I ignore it, according to your logic, I have more right to life, than you do.

 

Also, sperm have potential towards rational thought, but trillions upon trillions of sperm are killed by the female body, on a minute by minute basis. Murderers!

 

Just jacking with you, since you're such an elitist and aren't willing to admit that your beliefs are solely your own and not a form of universal truth.

 

Damn, I love Occam's Razor!

 

LOL, I'm glad to see we're having a mature debate without name calling...

 

While on the topic of elitism: I'm not willing to admit that my beliefs are my own, when a vast majority of philosophers/theologians believe and make arguments for the same thing.

 

Well, again, nothing I say is going to convince you. However, I have to state the irony in your love for Occam's Razor, and, yet, Occam was a Franciscan Friar who would hold to most all of what I have been saying, with the exception of universals.

 

As far as your potentiality argument is concerned: it would be valid if I held potentiality for reason as what gives one a right to life. I, however, would never claim such a thing. Only ACTUALLY rational beings--by their very nature--have a right to life. So, no to the sperm and ovam, but yes to the zygote.

 

I could take your rational being theory and twist it around by ignoring the non-rational statement about potential for rational thought, gives it the same right to life, as other rational beings. If I ignore it, according to your logic, I have more right to life, than you do.

 

Hmm...could you explain how your conclusion follows? I state that actually rational beings have a right to life, and I would contend that we're both actually rational and both have a right to life.

 

You're logic is interesting to say the least. And if my willingness to save your life over the life of any other non-rational being makes me an elitist: then, I guess I'm an elitist.

[Trialbyfire]

LOL, I'm glad to see we're having a mature debate without name calling...

 

While on the topic of elitism: I'm not willing to admit that my beliefs are my own, when a vast majority of philosophers/theologians believe and make arguments for the same thing.

How much has organized religion, played a role in human beings embracing these theories?

 

Well, again, nothing I say is going to convince you. However, I have to state the irony in your love for Occam's Razor, and, yet, Occam was a Franciscan Friar who would hold to most all of what I have been saying.

Yup, he was and I knew that he was. Not everything that theists spout, is irrational!

As far as your potentiality argument is concerned: it would be valid if I held potentiality for reason as what gives one a right to life. I, however, would never claim such a thing. Only ACTUALLY rational beings--by their very nature--have a right to life. So, no to the sperm and ovam, but yes to the zygote.

Take this argument and apply it to people in vegetative or retarded states. They aren't actually rational beings, as well as don't have the potential to be rational beings.

 

Hmm...could you explain how your conclusion follows? I state that actually rational beings have a right to life, and I would contend that we're both actually rational and both have a right to life.

I just dumped a portion of your theory and ran with it. It's arguable that for the sake of this discussion, they're my beliefs, therefore they ARE.

You're logic is interesting to say the least. And if my willingness to save your life over the life of any other non-rational being makes me an elitist: then, I guess I'm an elitist.

You're right, I am logic.

 

Yes, you are an elitist, in that it's important to you to believe that human beings are special. It's important to you that there's a meaning for human existence. I'm a non-elitist in that while life's not solely chaotic, people exist by chance but have the ability to mould their lives as they see fit, through personal choice.

[always_searching]

How much has organized religion, played a role in human beings embracing these theories?

 

Well, Aristotle wasn't religious. Many neo-Platonists weren't religious. Religion doesn't really have anything to do with it...

 

Yup, he was and I knew that he was. Not everything that theists spout, is irrational!

 

Well, I'm glad to hear that at least.

 

Take this argument and apply it to people in vegetative or retarded states. They aren't actually rational beings, as well as don't have the potential to be rational beings.

 

Just because those people aren't exercising their reason doesn't mean they aren't actually rational beings by their nature. Just as a sleeping person doesn't lose his/her reason because he/she is asleep--reason is still actualized by his/her very nature as "rational animal."

 

I just dumped a portion of your theory and ran with it. It's arguable that for the sake of this discussion, they're my beliefs, therefore they ARE.

You're right, I am logic.

 

Yeah, but I don't think this particular misuse of my previous argument had any sort of validity in the way it was presented.

 

LOL, give me a break: I'm bound to have some spelling errors in pages and pages of discussion. I could go through your posts and point out problems with spelling and grammar too, but I'm more concerned with content than how that content is presented.

 

Kind of you to point out, nonetheless.

 

Yes, you are an elitist, in that it's important to you to believe that human beings are special. It's important to you that there's a meaning for human existence. I'm a non-elitist in that while life's not solely chaotic, people exist by chance but have the ability to mould their lives as they see fit, through personal choice.

 

I don't think elitism has anything to do with it; I would call myself a personalist of sorts, but not an elitist. However, the terminology is really irrelivant. I see the point you're making, and insofar as I hold the dignaty of the human person higher than non-rational sentient beings: (again) it can be what ever you want to call it.

[Trialbyfire]

You've yet to explain why humans are so special, beyond stating they're rational life forms. Okay, here's an example of a rational life form. I guess this means that chimpanzees also have a right to life, along with human beings.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071005104104.htm

[sweetjasmine]

A cultural relativist?! *runs away*

 

 

Hm. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I meant that if we just observe the way people are, we see that morality is defined by each separate culture, and that one culture may consider it unethical to do something that's considered good in another culture. That's just the truth.

 

Well, the problem lies in that each individual has his/her own view as to what "hurting someone else" means.

 

Well, yeah.

 

So, what you're suggesting is that you believe in one absolute: "Don't harm others"

 

I'd be happy with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights being a starting point for "morality".

 

For example, there are some tribes that perform female circumcisions--extremely painful and brutal affairs. Regardless, no one there thinks that female circumcision is "harmful;" if anything, it is beneficial for them. The men of said tribe say that they would have the same thing done to them if they were women, and the women there mostly accept it.

 

So, what do you say about this situation? You would have to make one of two claims (1) that female circumcision is morally wrong, which implies some sort of absolute, objective, moral value; thus, leading you away from your cultural/moral relativistic perspective. OR (2) that there is nothing wrong with female circumcision as it is indicitive of the culture.

 

Female genital mutilation is harmful, and any argument that attempts to frame it as useful or necessary is a bunch of bullsh-t. It has some social benefits in the communities where mothers hold down their little girls while someone hacks off a piece of their body: a woman who has been mutilated is considered marrying material, and if she hasn't been mutilated, she'd probably be ostracized from society.

 

But that doesn't mean that FGM isn't harmful. There is absolutely no convincing argument that it's beneficial overall. I think there's something profoundly wrong with mutilating someone's genitals without their consent, with cutting off a piece of their body against their will, in order to deprive them of any sexual pleasure in the future. That's harmful in every sense of the word.

 

Let me flip it around, now. You say you're Catholic. Is it immoral for the Church to spread misinformation about condoms and contraception and to stand in the way of promoting the use of condoms in places like Africa where the HIV pandemic is taking hundreds of thousands of lives?

 

I think there are events that have no importance as far as moral worth is concerned, but I don't think anything is merely random.

 

How do you explain entropy?

 

So, yes, he allows us to do evil, and I'm sure He is quite disappointed with what we've done to ourselves and the rest of His creation.

 

Then why doesn't He do anything about it?

 

The ability for me to just create my own moral worth seems arbitrary to me.

 

And to me, passing on the ability to create my moral worth to one organized church (and not any of the thousands of others) seems arbitrary, and it seems like a cop-out.

 

Why even care about morality if I am the one who creates morality? Morality then losses all importance and, indeed, becomes arbitrary.

 

Just like everything else in life, it has whatever importance you give it.

 

Just because God directs good even out of evil actions doesn't mean we should go around committing evil actions, or that we don't have an obligation to intervene.

 

But if I sit and watch someone get beaten to death and don't call for an ambulance, I can say that if God hadn't wanted the person to die, he wouldn't have died. If God had wanted me to help, He would've moved me to call for an ambulance. But He didn't. So I'm not responsible for my inaction that led to the death of another person.

 

Yet, God, in His infinite Goodness and Mercy, will foster some kind of good out of evil.

 

When? Where? Am I leading a comfortable life because God has made good out of evil? Why do you and I get to sit in our comfortable first world homes with our high speed Internet access while others are made to sacrifice their lives for the greater good?

 

Where are you suggesting order comes from, if not from God? I mean, causally, go back to the first cause: what would you say that is? The Big Bang? What caused that? Or do you believe in the more Eastern idea of a cyclical existence that has always been and has always had order?

 

You might find this interesting: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/explore/show_06.html

 

The "first" cause we can talk about is the Big Bang. The theory predicted several things that were later discovered and detected, like cosmic background microwave radiation. As for what caused that, there have been some theories, but none of them have had anything that we could test, so far, so they're basically speculation at this point.

 

But having a god gives you the same exact problem: who or what created god(s)?

 

God is the first cause. He is eternal--he had no cause. His essence is His existence. LOL, I'm just quoting everyone from Aristotle, to Aquinas, to Anselm, to Augustine, to Bonaventure, to Descartes, to all the neo-Platonists, etc. Any monotheist, despite religion, usually holds to this.

 

How's that different than saying, "The Big Bang is the first cause, and the universe just is. Its essence is its existence"?

 

The One True Purpose of Existence is to be happy (Aristotle).

 

How is that any different from what I said at the very beginning of the thread about my own personal purpose for life?

 

I would go further as to say that happiness is found in God (most all medieval philosophers state this).

 

For you. That's not true for everyone.

 

I know I'm right.

 

Yeah? I know I'm right. What now?!

 

that they will be happy and rewarded in the next life

 

I've never been able to stomach that sort of platitude.

 

because all rationality aside: People need hope.

 

There's more than one way to get there.

[Trialbyfire]

In case no one noticed, chimpanzees make more rational choices, than human beings. I guess that not only means they have the right to life, but a greater right to life, than human beings.

[northstar1]

A cultural relativist?! *runs away*

 

 

 

 

 

Just because God directs good even out of evil actions doesn't mean we should go around committing evil actions, or that we don't have an obligation to intervene. I believe in objective morality, and that to be virtuous people, we need to be morally praiseworthy. No one should commit evil, as that would be morally blameworthy. Yet, God, in His infinite Goodness and Mercy, will foster some kind of good out of evil. To use a really corny analogy, it's like the beginning of Spring after a bleak and harsh Winter: no matter how damaging the frost, Spring comes and life begins again.

 

 

 

Yet the God in the Old Testament was both a jealous and vengeful God, who, when free will was shown, punished those who did not follow his words. Then again, he also killed hundreds via plague, scourage, war, etc. Hardly a God of Goodness and Mercy was it?

 

Why, if we were to follow in God's image, was he allowed to commit evil?