How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Are Humans Animals?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Are Humans Animals?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


75 posted 02-28-2008 12:16 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

BobK...

I see little in thread that would have much to do with environmentalism directly (even from the start).  Though regardless of ontological views, I think most of us here would be for environmental responsibility.

Stephen  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


76 posted 02-28-2008 12:21 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
Why is cannibalism a moral atrocity?

It isn’t.


I mentioned not only cannibalism per se, but the intentional killing of humans for food.  You wouldn't consider that a moral atrocity?  Would it be morally different than killing an an animal for food, other than the detached recognition that it wouldn't be an "evolutionary stable strategy"?


Stephen
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


77 posted 02-28-2008 10:24 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Stephen,

           I owe you more words, but for now these are what I  have to offer.  I'm not certain that a multi-tiered system is actually compatible with an ecological viewpoint.  Two-tiers is hierarchical, ecological is an interactive self-governing system, like a thermostat, that functions as a series of feed-back loops.  Man as in dominion who may do as he will may be accepted theology, but not I think such good ecology.

     I notice, however, that you use the term "environmental responsibility," which seems to fit with the stewardship model more than the ecological model.  Perhaps we are talking apples and elephants here?

     My thesis is that we are part of the system we are discussing, and our current model is suicidal.  Until we start regarding ourselves as animals among other animals and act for the preservation of the system of which we are all apart, then the whole system will fly apart.  Almost everything that's special about us, that may add to our special distinction from other animals, will probably go down the tubes with that.  Along with much that distinguishes the elephant, the whale and the tiger from each other and from us.  We are especially attached to our own distinctions.  We tend to frame this in a language of self regard, as proof of our splendor.

     We are preaching to the choir.  We have a long line of our own dead who may be our greatest skeptics, the victims of our own wars, our own religious conflicts.
Even we, the temporary survivors aren't on the same page.  

     Are Humans human?  

     Killing animals for food is a waste of resources.  It takes three pounds of corn to raise a pound of pig, and twelve to raise a pound of beef to the point of slaughter.
Why not simply skip the middle step?  Or cut way way down on it?

     Cannibalism is an atrocity because it kills a sentient being.  The fact that the being is human makes the identification simpler and the impact more powerful and the understanding of one's own nature more piercing and difficult to escape.  It makes the distinction between eating the flesh of one's brother and one's self more difficult to avoid.

     It is also an error which frequently contains its own punishment.  If we are talking about human's eating humans, this is the primary pathway for the spread of kuru, the prion disease that appears in cattle as Mad Cow Disease and in sheep as—I believe—scabies.

All my best, affectionately, BobK.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


78 posted 02-28-2008 11:33 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephanos


I see that this discussion again bogs down upon your tendency toward monism.  If you cannot think that living things and non-living things are "separate" in a striking and absolute way, then it probably won't be profitable for us to discuss any absolute and momentous differences between animals and humans.  For you all things are one, including absurdities, and I cannot accept this.  Although if you are going to be totally consistent, you need to stop suggesting that someone else may be wrong or mistaken, for wrong and right in your world has to be essentially the same.


If a knot and loop are in an elastic, there are two different things: the knot and the loop, but they are still the same thing: the elastic.  The different things are not removed by being the same thing. If a little elastic can do this much, just think how much more the Universe may do and still be the same thing! My belief is that it does do it.  But you suggest that if it did, if right and wrong were the same thing, they couldn't still be right and wrong.   But that is not true.  Different things are the same thing because the same thing is different things.  Differences/Different things were never NOT the same thing.  We and all other things are the same Universe everyday, but the same universe is full of differences and different things.   This is not at all a paradox.  It is just the way things work.  

No, it is the opposite, I think humans do better things because they are superior, because of their nature.


Why then do they do worse things too, Stephanos?  Other animals don't use weapons of mass destruction. Nor pollute the world with hazardous waste, at least not on any such level as humans do.

But if we do worse because we are worse, then you would also say a student that fails at school fails because he is an inferior human, and the student that succeeds does so because is a superior human?  Those at University are superior humans, but those that can't make it to university are inferior?  



Again, why would killing humans to eat them be morally atrocious?


You seem to belittle my point Stephanos.  I said "We try to preserve humans most because we are humans and therefore we are more important to ourselves than any other animal."   What is small or insufficiant about that?    


"Most important" by whose standards?  Who is determining the importance (or unimportance) of humans in your scenario?


Again, you seem to belittle and trivilize my points about Instinct and Civilization.  What is small and insufficient about those things?  Are you unable to accept my answers just because they don't include the phrases "Imago Dei" and "Superior"?


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


79 posted 02-28-2008 12:47 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
the intentional killing of humans for food. You wouldn't consider that a moral atrocity?


No, I wouldn’t consider killing humans for food a universal moral atrocity.

quote:
Would it be morally different than killing an animal for food


No, my guess is it would be exactly the same.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


80 posted 02-28-2008 12:49 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Bob,


Kaput.

     Essorant, you're good with languages; is that related to caput mortuum?  Residue?  Like Czar and Kaiser both coming from Caesar?  


Maybe partially.  Etymonline says it is probably a " misunderstanding of the phrase capot machen, a partial translation of Fr. faire capot, a phrase meaning "lose all the tricks in piquet," an obsolete card game, from Fr. capot, lit. "cover, bonnet." ".  It would be logical to think capot "cover, bonnet" is related to cap and cape that come from Latin caput "head".  We went from having heads to wearing heads to being worn out by them  

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


81 posted 02-28-2008 05:09 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

quote:
If a knot and loop are in an elastic, there are two different things: the knot and the loop, but they are still the same thing: the elastic.

It is an unacceptable concept about the universe. The inner earth is hot and Sun is hot too. They are different, right?
quote:
The different things are not removed by being the same thing. If a little elastic can do this much, just think how much more the Universe may do and still be the same thing!

The wrong deduction based on the wrong concept. We don't know what a true universe  is today and how do you define here
1. same thing
2. different thing
3. the elastic thread(   ...we make it longer, Ron could make it shorter.
4, the loop and knot.

quote:
My belief is that it does do it.  But you suggest that if it did, if right and wrong were the same thing, they couldn't still be right and wrong.   But that is not true.

Your belief!!!  
quote:
Different things are the same thing because the same thing is different things.  Differences/Different things were never NOT the same thing.

If Different thing=x
   same thing=y
then here you said
X=y because y=x but x never equals y.  
quote:
We and all other things are the same Universe everyday, but the same universe is full of differences and different things.   This is not at all a paradox.  It is just the way things work.

May  ask what is "we" , human only or human+animal?
what is same universe?

quote:
Why then do they do worse things too, Stephanos?  Other animals don't use weapons of mass destruction. Nor pollute the world with hazardous waste, at least not on any such level as humans do.

So, human is different from animal.      

quote:
But if we do worse because we are worse, then you would also say a student that fails at school fails because he is an inferior human, and the student that succeeds does so because is a superior human?  Those at University are superior humans, but those that can't make it to university are inferior?

assumption.  

quote:
  I said "We try to preserve humans most because we are humans and therefore we are more important to ourselves than any other animal."

One more prove that human is different from animal!!         

quote:
my points about Instinct and Civilization.

told ya. Human is different from animal      

quote:
Stephen   the intentional killing of humans for food. You wouldn't consider that a moral atrocity?
Grinch   No, I wouldn’t consider killing humans for food a universal moral atrocity.

Do you want tell why? Grinch?  

quote:
Stephen   Would it be morally different than killing an animal for food
Grinch   No, my guess is it would be exactly the same.

What do you think man eating plant which is life too?

[This message has been edited by TomMark (02-28-2008 09:24 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


82 posted 02-28-2008 09:16 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
No, I wouldn’t consider killing humans for food a universal moral atrocity.


So you feel that killing humans for the purpose of food would be okay in some settings?  Which setting / culture might that be?

quote:
Me: Would it be morally different than killing an animal for food?


Grinch: No, my guess is it would be exactly the same.


So which is it, are you not morally offended at serial killers who eat their victims, or are you morally offended at hunters who eat their quarry?  Which common (safe to say universal) human estimate do you consider mistaken, the general derision of murderous cannibals, or the general acceptance of hunters?


Stephen
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


83 posted 02-28-2008 09:39 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ess:  
quote:
Why then do they do worse things too, Stephanos?  Other animals don't use weapons of mass destruction. Nor pollute the world with hazardous waste, at least not on any such level as humans do.


If you think I am inductively making this distinction based on the virtue of observed actions, then you've misunderstood me.  I said earlier that both and animals and humans do "good" and "bad" things.  But the kinds of bad things humans do are of a different caliber than the bad things animals do ... The same holds true for good things.  When man is corrupt, he is corrupt in a titanic way.  That's why we're able to wipe out millions with the touch of a button.  That's why our misguided progress sometimes harms the environment and ourselves profoundly.  Compare this villiany with the scandals of the most ferocious carnivores, and you'll get a sense of what I mean.  We can be evil, in a totally different way and degree than animals because we are fallen gods, as it were.  

I just want you to understand I am offering an ontological argument of kind, not just degree.  I'm not artificially creating a different category for humans based upon how much better behaved we are than animals.  The things that make us uniquely human, are much more different from the rest of the herd, than any difference is between species within the herd.  It's the square and the cube again, if you follow.  If that is true then good and bad behavior will both take on new dimensions.  And I think we have ample evidence for this.

quote:
You seem to belittle my point Stephanos.  I said "We try to preserve humans most because we are humans and therefore we are more important to ourselves than any other animal."   What is small or insufficiant about that?


Again, you are only describing what I've asked you to explain.  Why are we more imporant to ourselves, if we are no different than the larger herd in any significant way?  What you are saying amounts to "we are selfish".  But is there a better reason?  What if I extended that selfishness even further and decided that school children might be good quarry for hunting?  Same principle, no?  Is there anything deeper or more striking than mere self interest, foundational to our deep rooted feelings about these things?


And Essorant, no, I'm not belittling, I'm challenging and exporing what you've said.      


Stephen            
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


84 posted 02-29-2008 12:22 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

BobK:  
quote:
I notice, however, that you use the term "environmental responsibility," which seems to fit with the stewardship model more than the ecological model.  Perhaps we are talking apples and elephants here?

     My thesis is that we are part of the system we are discussing, and our current model is suicidal.  Until we start regarding ourselves as animals among other animals and act for the preservation of the system of which we are all apart, then the whole system will fly apart.


Yes, if you think by dominion, I mean "do whatever we want and don't worry about it", then we are talking about two very different things.       With proper authority (of any kind) comes care and responsibility.  So, yes, the stewardship model is the best.  The "ecological" model you suggest raises some questions in my mind.  Firstly, you speak sentences and phrases which allude to responsibility, such as "Until we start regarding ... and act for the preservation ...".  In a truly ecological model, in which we are but part of the system, wouldn't we simply be what we are with no recourse?  Alligators can't cease to act like alligators.  Ants can't behave differently than ants.  And Leopards don't change their spots.  But because we are moral / rational/ responsible beings (evidence to me of our special status), we can change our approach, or at least protest what others do and persuade for reform.  If you don't want to call this a special task divinely given, you still have to recognize our species as totally unique and above the rest in one sense, that we may act in harmony or discord by a reflective act of will.


If you're describing a truly ecoglogical model, why not say that everything we do (like it or not) is a part of that ecosystem?  I know why ... because we can make a moral and rational distinction between what is harmful and irresponsible, and what is helpful and responsible.  Stewardship must enter the picture for you as well.  I don't understand urging man to realize he's just an animal, and to therfore quit his non-animal behaviors.  If we really are nothing more (or different) than the animals, that would be like trying to get a fish to realize that he's wet.  In a word, unnecessary.  Unless of course our behavior is a clue that we are very different from the rest, even if our fallen crown mocks us ... it is meant for our heads.  And rumor has it that things will be set right in this regard.  


quote:
We are preaching to the choir.  We have a long line of our own dead who may be our greatest skeptics, the victims of our own wars, our own religious conflicts.


You'll not find me disagreeing with you here.  The taller they are, the harder they fall.  The greater the being in stature, the worse the possible ruin and travesty of what it was meant to be.  Which would be worse a botching of Beethoven's 6th, or a child singing out of key on "Mary had a little Lamb"?  One is cute, the other would have you wanting a refund at the concert hall.  As I explained to Essorant, the mere scope of our misguided deeds, is a testimony to our place of honor, even if it is just in the recognition of the terrible repercussions of having abandoned our proper post.  


quote:
Cannibalism is an atrocity because it kills a sentient being.  The fact that the being is human makes the identification simpler and the impact more powerful and the understanding of one's own nature more piercing and difficult to escape.  It makes the distinction between eating the flesh of one's brother and one's self more difficult to avoid.

     It is also an error which frequently contains its own punishment.


Well at least you are placing some special honor upon sentience, which is qualitatively human.  And you are probably rightly using the word "punishment" in regard to such choices, though it may be more metaphorical for you.


interesting talk,

Stephen  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


85 posted 02-29-2008 12:40 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Killing animals for food is a waste of resources.  It takes three pounds of corn to raise a pound of pig, and twelve to raise a pound of beef to the point of slaughter.
Why not simply skip the middle step?  Or cut way way down on it?

Oh Bob, I almost forgot to address this.

For now, I'll say that I don't think the argument is as straightforward as you make it to be.  Meat is nutritionally different than corn.  And a cow would also be able to provide milk and cheese all along before the slaughter.  Yes its possible to eat vegan and get the protein needed for survival in legumes and other plants, but I don't know how feasible or desirable that would be for everyone ... much less necessary.

But I will certainly listen more about this proposal.  Though would miss my ham sandwiches dearly.  

Stephen  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


86 posted 02-29-2008 01:31 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
So which is it, are you not morally offended at serial killers who eat their victims, or are you morally offended at hunters who eat their quarry? Which common (safe to say universal) human estimate do you consider mistaken, the general derision of murderous cannibals, or the general acceptance of hunters?



At the risk of repeating myself I do not believe that cannibalism is a universal moral atrocity. As to the question regarding whether cannibalism is somehow morally different in the eyes of a cannibal than killing other species I can only guess but that guess would be no there is no difference in their eyes.

If you’re asking if cannibalism offends me as an individual then the answer is no, I find it abhorrent but the fact that some people don’t simply proves that we live by different standards, I dare say that if I was born into a culture where cannibalism was the accepted norm my standards would probably match theirs. I definitely don’t think either is mistaken we simply live by a different set of rules.

Do I personally accept the slaughter of other species of animals for food - yes  and probably with the same ease that a cannibal accepts the slaughter of humans, yet some people find both equally abhorrent. I can only conclude that there are many different standards, none of them universal and none of them fitting the description of mistaken.

So when you say:

Why is cannibalism a moral atrocity?

The best answer I can give is - It isn’t - it doesn‘t answer your question but there‘s a reason for that.

Your question is flawed, it begs the question with the presumption that cannibalism is a moral atrocity when to some people it clearly isn’t. You may as well have asked me “when was the last time you beat your wife” because your question is just as unanswerable with a direct reply if I’ve never beaten my wife (which happens to be the case). My answer can’t be “Last Tuesday” or “January 4th” the best I could offer is “I haven’t”.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


87 posted 02-29-2008 02:19 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

quote:
If you’re asking if cannibalism offends me as an individual then the answer is no, I find it abhorrent but the fact that some people don’t simply proves that we live by different standards, I dare say that if I was born into a culture where cannibalism was the accepted norm my standards would probably match theirs. I definitely don’t think either is mistaken we simply live by a different set of rules.

Mind you many when human ate human, the victims  were the captives in the fight between tribes. Very rarely human eats the person of their own community (how gruesome to write this!!!!)
So was it cultural that Jews were tortured around in WW2?
Was it cultural that Hitler kill many?
Was it cultural that Hitler and many his followers consider the people should be blue eyed?
Was it cultural that black people were slaves?
Is human being's greediness cultural?

Do we all celebrate our cultures? And respect other people's cultures?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


88 posted 02-29-2008 09:06 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
Do I personally accept the slaughter of other species of animals for food - yes  and probably with the same ease that a cannibal accepts the slaughter of humans, yet some people find both equally abhorrent. I can only conclude that there are many different standards, none of them universal and none of them fitting the description of mistaken.
  

Well, you did say that you find murder and cannablism "abhorrent", but then backtrack to say that your own abhorrence holds no real insight, other than conditioning.  I would of course suggest that your gut holds, in this case, more insight than your head ... And that it is really possible for certain cultures to be more "right" than others about certain moral views or practices.  This way of seeing things need not be ethnocentric, since I am quite sure that Western Culture has its own blind spots.  I truly don't understand why you would admit the possibility of error in virtually all areas of life excepting the moral sphere.  When something usually applies in a rather wide way (such as the simple possibility of being wrong), its exclusion or denial in a controversial area seems artificial.  Of course you believe all lines of demarcation are artificial, so there you have it.


quote:
Your question is flawed, it begs the question with the presumption that cannibalism is a moral atrocity when to some people it clearly isn’t.


My question can't be flawed, it is the unavoidable inquiry springing from my cultural upbringing and surroundings.  

Seriously, to most it is a question of atrocity.  Either this represents true moral knowledge of which a few are not privy, or have lost through neglect ... or your own abhorrent feelings about it are irrational, being born wholly from conditioning.

quote:
You may as well have asked me “when was the last time you beat your wife” because your question is just as unanswerable with a direct reply if I’ve never beaten my wife (which happens to be the case). My answer can’t be “Last Tuesday” or “January 4th” the best I could offer is “I haven’t”.


Yeah, Grinch.  I guess the only difference is that in your mouth, the moral argument still rings since the thrust of your reply depends on the despicable nature of wife beating.  The point is, if I am to take your view seriously, beating your wife would be little different than beating an egg.  


Stephen  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


89 posted 03-01-2008 12:52 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


Again, you are only describing what I've asked you to explain.  Why are we more imporant to ourselves, if we are no different than the larger herd in any significant way?  What you are saying amounts to "we are selfish".  But is there a better reason?  What if I extended that selfishness even further and decided that school children might be good quarry for hunting?


Stephanos,

I'm truly not denying that humans are unique.  I'm just denying that they are superior than other animals.  Isn't your mother dearer to you, than my mother?  And yet, is your mother truly superior than my mother?   Are you truly selfish?

I think you would agree that your love and family ties make your family more important to you, not an inferiority of my family or of a hamster's family, for that matter.       

Our nature and family ties knit humans closer to humans, not some inferiority of other animals.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


90 posted 03-01-2008 01:23 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

I fully admit that a belief in human "superiority" may stem from arrogance.  But if God has truly bestowed on us the distinct and honorable role of bearing his image in a way that our fuzzy cousins cannot, to deny it would amount to false-humility.  Thankfully remembrance of the Fall may keep us humble (even in the knowledge of our position), since it reminds us that fallen gods can do much more mischief than any beast ever could.


Maybe for now, we'll have to be content with each other's concessions, though not fully agreeing.  I'm glad that you can recognize the distinction, even if you don't interpret it the same.  And you may also be glad that I am not opting for a do-as-you-will lordship over the earth, that doesn't recognize any kinship at all with our fuzzy and feathered neighbors.


I would like to address your last point, though no time for now.

Later,


Stephen  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


91 posted 03-01-2008 12:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
beating your wife would be little different than beating an egg.


When it comes to constructing flawed questions there is no difference. Flawed is flawed Stephen, just as pregnant is pregnant, there is no middle ground.

quote:
And that it is really possible for certain cultures to be more "right" than others about certain moral views or practices.


Right by whose standards Stephen, yours or those of the cannibal?

You can only measure the actions of others by comparison to your own standards, at which point you are liable to fall foul of personal bias. Even if you disregard cultural bias and look at standards within our own culture there is clear evidence that no universally correct standard exists and that what you see as right is just plain wrong when viewed by someone else.

Non-Christians are more right when it comes to moral standards than Christians, at least according to non-Christians, are they correct? If you are a Christian you’re more likely to disagree with this statement, if you’re a non-Christian you’re more likely to agree. If you could find an unbiased observer, and by dint of the excluded middle that’s literally impossible, my guess is you’d find that neither group can legitimately claim to be more right than the other.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


92 posted 03-01-2008 09:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
When it comes to constructing flawed questions there is no difference. Flawed is flawed Stephen, just as pregnant is pregnant, there is no middle ground.


But didn't your protest of the "wife beating" question at least assume the immorality of beating one's wife?  This proves the point that you too, on more than a few issues, feel that there is a real right or wrong.  How can you say that cultures are equally knowledgable or right (on moral matters as well as other matters) by the virtue of merely existing?

quote:
Right by whose standards Stephen, yours or those of the cannibal?

I could just as easily say to you:

Right by whose standards, Grinch, yours or those of the serial killer?

Right by whose standards, Grinch, yours or those of the rapist?

Right by whose ... yours or those of the child molester?

... yours or those of the ...

(and the problem with this line becomes obvious)


I'm not saying there's no such things as grey areas in the picture;  But I will insist that there is a coherent picture displayed in the consideration of the moral question.  There are many wrongs which, if done to you, would make you feel instantly certain of this.  Not that you shouldn't forgive and play the better man, but you certainly wouldn't feel that your offense must always be the sheer result of socialization.  I'm also quite sure that you would feel that there are decent acts, which if done in any cultural setting would be really worthy of admiration.

If you say otherwise, I think you're somewhat in denial.  If you are irritated at this saying , I only ask that you overlook my deterministic socialization that led me to say so.        

quote:
Right by whose standards Stephen, yours or those of the cannibal?

You can only measure the actions of others by comparison to your own standards, at which point you are liable to fall foul of personal bias.


Right by whose standards yours or those of the cannibal?  As you tried to say of me before, you've given me only two choices, when there is in fact a third ... another standard of which mine and the cannibals is measured against, and of which both is only an attempt.  As with everything else, some attempts are better than others.  

Personal bias is hardly likely when the consensus of humanity is that cannibalism is a morally diseased practice.  Remember that those who think its okay to kill fellow humans for food are in the minority, just like those in our own nation who think its okay to open fire in schools, or to methodically destroy peoples lives for fun.  You're in the minority here if you want to justify the kinds of things which are pretty much ubiquitously condemned.

And by saying so I'm not even subscribing to the consensus view of morality.  I'm just saying that the one moral law is evident enough for most to grasp.

quote:
Even if you disregard cultural bias and look at standards within our own culture there is clear evidence that no universally correct standard exists and that what you see as right is just plain wrong when viewed by someone else.


What is the clear evidence for the non-existence of a universal morality?


quote:
Non-Christians are more right when it comes to moral standards than Christians, at least according to non-Christians, are they correct? If you are a Christian you’re more likely to disagree with this statement, if you’re a non-Christian you’re more likely to agree. If you could find an unbiased observer, and by dint of the excluded middle that’s literally impossible, my guess is you’d find that neither group can legitimately claim to be more right than the other.


I really don't see the scenario of Christians and non-Christians trying to push very different moral standards.  Though I often see relativistic thinkers denying there is a real moral standard in the universe, but all the while living as if there were (even to the point of protesting the behavior of others at times).  


For its not that Christian and non-Christian morality differ so much.  Even non-Christians whom I've known who seem to be morally questionable in areas, hold a body of belief and practice quite in common with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and moralists of all stripes.  The one or several noticeable moral differences catch all of the attention, against a backdrop of so much common ground, its embarrassing.  C.S. Lewis once wrote that "The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum".  

What Christians have tended to say (or should in my opinion) is that none of us have been able to keep the moral standards we hold in common.  No one even lives up to his own standards, so how much less God's?  And this underscores a moral / spiritual need in our lives.  Again I think the juxtaposition of "Christian" morals and "non-Christian" morals reveals less contrast than imagined.  Christianity always assumed the morality that was already there.  And while it did sharpen that standard to a frightening clarity at times (like when Jesus said that a man commits adultery who merely lusts in his heart ... or murder if he hates in his heart), it did not bring forth an original moral system.  It's originality lies elsewhere, namely in how the problems of failure and broken relationship is approached and overcome.  


And the same is illustrated in our little discussion here, Grinch.  You said that you find murderous cannibalism abborhent (although you undermine your own insight as a purely conditioned response).  I am in fact agreeing with your moral code, but strongly disagreeing with your philosophy.  


(And BTW, we don't have to discuss this Grinch.  You've expressed in the past that you didn't want to, and I still want to respect that wish if it remains so).


Stephen  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-02-2008 05:22 PM).]

Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


93 posted 03-01-2008 09:45 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

yes we are by biological thinking.

I see it as they have a mind of there own. so do we. Are we more sophisticated then them? In some ways yes and others no.
We are just about as savage as them. Yes but we go at it in a different manner...

So in my opinion yes we are animals. just have a larger brain for thinking more indepth thoughts.

~Zach~  


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


94 posted 03-02-2008 08:10 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Stephen

It’s the general arguments for and against the existence of gods I’m avoiding Stephen. I don’t mind discussing a subject where the existence of gods is a prerequisite that underpins one side of the argument as long as the focus remains on the subject at hand.

Saying that however may be a little hypocritical in a thread about humans\animals that’s rapidly being sidetracked down the branch line of morality.

Start another thread with your last reply Stephen and I’ll happily discuss morality.

LadyTom
Member
since 02-29-2008
Posts 351
LA, CA


95 posted 03-02-2008 12:02 PM       View Profile for LadyTom   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LadyTom

quote:
Non-Christians are more right when it comes to moral standards than Christians, at least according to non-Christians, are they correct? If you are a Christian you’re more likely to disagree with this statement, if you’re a non-Christian you’re more likely to agree. If you could find an unbiased observer, and by dint of the excluded middle that’s literally impossible, my guess is you’d find that neither group can legitimately claim to be more right than the other.

Ah-Ha, Grinch, this is not Christian/non Christian issue. Human history is much, much longer than "Christian" History. Before 2008 years, Human indeed had humanity, morality and conscience....that was why civilization...  
TM
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


96 posted 03-02-2008 05:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch,

I can appreciate that.  I do think the moral question is related to the thread since moral awareness is one of the major phenomena which sets humans apart from animals.  But there are other things to talk of as well, and as always the thread is an open book waiting to be written.  I don't really want to start a thread on ethics or morality.  I'm content to keep it in the context of this present thread, though I certainly don't mind if you think the direction is amiss, and choose not to respond.  


Tom Mark ... What's with the "LadyTom"?  You're really confusing me now.  


Stephen  
LadyTom
Member
since 02-29-2008
Posts 351
LA, CA


97 posted 03-02-2008 05:30 PM       View Profile for LadyTom   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LadyTom

Tom Mark ... What's with the "LadyTom"?  You're really confusing me now.
Stephen, To be honest , TomMark is Ron's Big brother. LadyTom is the family Aunt ... Different roles. Now, serious, I am back to the original old woman otherwise I would soon get myself into trouble.  
LadyTom
Member
since 02-29-2008
Posts 351
LA, CA


98 posted 03-03-2008 07:22 PM       View Profile for LadyTom   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LadyTom

quote:
Different things are the same thing because the same thing is different things.  Differences/Different things were never NOT the same thing.

I shall not pretend that I don't know what you  were trying to say. Sir Essorant.  
Different things are the same things....such as
Human is a thing
Animal is a thing
Light is a thing
Ocean is a thing
"think before leap" is a thing too in life.
So they are all the same "thing"s.

Same thing is different things... such as light
Light is a thing
But red, yellow blue are all different lights

Different things were never the same thing....such as
Red light has never been blue light.

The meaning of word thing here has different content.

So back to if human beings are animals.
Human is a thing
Animal is a thing
They are the same "thing"

But human is called human
Monkey is monkey
they are not the same thing

And because in any grouping point, Human and monkey  are just like that  red light has never been blue light? right?

If human is not monkey
If human is not whale
If human is not birds
If human is not reptile
If human is not ....
so human is not animal.

Is this what you wanted to say, sir Essorant?    


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


99 posted 03-03-2008 09:37 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


My vote is for cats
to take over the world . . .
because they couldn’t care less


.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Are Humans Animals?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors