| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2011 01:31:31 AM · #626 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The kid isn't part of your "tribe" and won't increase your chances of survival. In fact, you might drown yourself if you try to help. Maybe you should not rescue either of them. |
Perhaps this is a real difference between atheists and followers of the old prophets. To we humanists, the kid is in our tribe. Every single person on the planet is. We have to save each other, because we don't believe that a miracle will happen. We cant pray for a better world, we have to make it happen. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 02:09:18 AM · #627 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Nullix:
The kid isn't part of your "tribe" and won't increase your chances of survival. In fact, you might drown yourself if you try to help. Maybe you should not rescue either of them. |
Perhaps this is a real difference between atheists and followers of the old prophets. To we humanists, the kid is in our tribe. Every single person on the planet is. We have to save each other, because we don't believe that a miracle will happen. We cant pray for a better world, we have to make it happen. |
Thought the same thing....
Also  Nullix, are you noting Cartesian ethics out of convenience or because that's what you adhere to?
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 02:09:27. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:10:57 AM · #628 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Maybe then we can ponder what someone who doesn't believe in Odin might do if he found a wallet in the woods |
If he was a puckah Viking then he should seek out the owner and kill him, otherwise it would be immoral to take the money. Ideally he should probably give it back and then rob the owner. I use only male pronouns as he is not an equal opportunity employer. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 08:59:54 AM · #629 |
Originally posted by raish:
I use only male pronouns as he is not an equal opportunity employer. |
Those pesky pronouns. In yesterday's news, some Protestants were going bonkers over the latest round of proposed revisions to the NIV Bible: this time to make the pronouns gender neutral. They were upset because it might skew the "word of God." It doesn't seem to matter to them that the original words were gender neutral and therefore likely skewed by NOT revising the translation. Some of the strongest opposition is apparently coming from the "Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organization that believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church." It's no wonder these guys complain about "redefining traditional marriage" when they can't even make it past the stereotypical gender roles of the 1950's. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 09:46:21 AM · #630 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
After all, how could they possibly make a decision without believing in those things?! A head scratcher for sure. |
How often do we make unique decisions without the advantage of experience, context, culture, etc.? |
How often do the superstitions we DON'T believe in play any role in those decisions? We don't waste the tiniest fraction of thought pondering what Apollo might want us to do, and Nullix here is playing the role of the Hellenic reconstructionist wondering how anyone who doesn't believe in Greek gods would address the situation. He thinks the answer is somehow derived from that belief, so no belief = no basis to answer the question and he wonders [batting eyelashes innocently] where the answer might come from. It's like an astrologer wondering how anyone could possibly get through the day without consulting a horoscope... and equally ridiculous. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 12:14:09 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Kelli:
why would you even come up with a question like that? |
The question was brought up to me and I have a way to answer it, but I was wondering how an atheist would answer it. The kid isn't part of your "tribe" and won't increase your chances of survival. In fact, you might drown yourself if you try to help. Maybe you should not rescue either of them.
You could feel more sorry for the dog who probably was dragged in by the boy. At least the boy made a choice to go in the water.
Are we really more important than other animals? We're all just animals. |
I love your assumptions.
Is that how your thought processes work? You're given a situation: Boy and Dog in water. Both in trouble. Both need saving. Can only save one. -- Yet your first thoughts are "Oh, the dog is only in there because the boy dragged it in." and "The boy jumped in the water of his own volition. His choice." Which, of course, leads to the rather disturbing image of deciding to save the dog because the boy should suffer the consequence of his action?
I mean, why else would you even say something like that?
My first reaction would be to try to save the boy. This comes about because of my life experiences and the knowledge I have gathered.
1. I know that dogs are, for the most part, incredibly strong swimmers.
2. I know that children, even those that are comfortable in the water and know how to swim, haven't fully developed yet and are prone to panic, thus rendering them more likely to drown because they won't be able to remain calm and rational.
3. I am more socially and emotionally conditioned to respond to a child in need over an animal in need.
I am also an individual with my own set of experiences and teachings. Someone else may differ. An atheist raised by parents that hated them, went on to become a PETA member, and despises children because of the way they were treated AS one will obviously have a different outlook. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 02:34:43 PM · #632 |
These conversations would be more interesting if they weren't automatically twisted into the silliest shadow of what it could be.
It's pretty obvious most everybody would save the boy. That goes without saying. But why?
I think Nullix is potentially pointing out that the only real difference between a dog and a boy on a biological level is that the boy is a member of our species. We then can utilize ingroup/outgroup loyalty to make our decision. The twist comes in that on this thread people have slammed ingroup/outgroup loyalty as a large cause of harm in society. So, given this example, it seems that we can't completely dismiss ingroup/outgroup loyalty as an axis for moral decisions. Like most things, it seems to be a question of degree which leaves the black/white people out in the cold.
There ARE people that take this idea to extremes. PETA would unequivocally state that medical or safety research on animals in unethical and seem to make no distinction to weighted values of harm/good between humans and other animals.
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 14:36:33. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 03:13:06 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These conversations would be more interesting if they weren't automatically twisted into the silliest shadow of what it could be.
It's pretty obvious most everybody would save the boy. That goes without saying. But why?
I think Nullix is potentially pointing out that the only real difference between a dog and a boy on a biological level is that the boy is a member of our species. We then can utilize ingroup/outgroup loyalty to make our decision. The twist comes in that on this thread people have slammed ingroup/outgroup loyalty as a large cause of harm in society. So, given this example, it seems that we can't completely dismiss ingroup/outgroup loyalty as an axis for moral decisions. Like most things, it seems to be a question of degree which leaves the black/white people out in the cold.
There ARE people that take this idea to extremes. PETA would unequivocally state that medical or safety research on animals in unethical and seem to make no distinction to weighted values of harm/good between humans and other animals. |
black/white doesn't belong in the human experience. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 03:14:25 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These conversations would be more interesting if they weren't automatically twisted into the silliest shadow of what it could be.
It's pretty obvious most everybody would save the boy. That goes without saying. But why?
I think Nullix is potentially pointing out that the only real difference between a dog and a boy on a biological level is that the boy is a member of our species. We then can utilize ingroup/outgroup loyalty to make our decision. The twist comes in that on this thread people have slammed ingroup/outgroup loyalty as a large cause of harm in society. So, given this example, it seems that we can't completely dismiss ingroup/outgroup loyalty as an axis for moral decisions. Like most things, it seems to be a question of degree which leaves the black/white people out in the cold.
There ARE people that take this idea to extremes. PETA would unequivocally state that medical or safety research on animals in unethical and seem to make no distinction to weighted values of harm/good between humans and other animals. |
black/white doesn't belong in the human experience. |
Also, these conversations would be more interesting if the thread was "Questions about philosophy but were afraid to ask". As they have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism in any way :D |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 03:51:49 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The twist comes in that on this thread people have slammed ingroup/outgroup loyalty as a large cause of harm in society. |
Umm... no. Ingroup/outgroup loyalty is unavoidable. We naturally want to help those we identify with, and nearly everyone would opt to save the boy first in the scenario above. Nearly everyone would also try to save the dog if possible, just as we try to save beached whales and rescue deer stuck in frozen ponds. Dolphins and dogs frequently save humans, too. Do you think they ponder the moral implications? That's not a matter of morality, it's just how some social animals behave: we help those we sympathize with (in descending order of importance). If we see a beagle being attacked by coyotes, we try to save the beagle. We don't think about saving the coyotes from starvation or how many fish, turtles, plants or insects might benefit from a drowned dog in the woods(!?). We don't worry about those other lives.
What people have slammed here is the ARTIFICIAL ingroup that religion creates, which inevitably lowers the importance of otherwise equal human beings. What if you encounter two Indian people drowning in the woods and one of them is an untouchable while the other is a Brahmin. A believer in that caste system automatically places a higher value on the life of the Brahmin while the atheist sees them both as equally worthy and completely disregards the castes as an artificial prejudice imposed by man. In a sense, religion and castes serve similar purposes.
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 15:53:49. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:12:17 PM · #636 |
"Artificial" only denotes "that which I do not value".
Your reply only serves to avoid the question at hand. Rephrase. If we met someone who relates a story where they had to choose to save a dog or a person from a fire (so we can avoid the "the dog can swim" bit) and they chose the dog, could we objectively declare their choice to be incorrect? This way we don't have to worry about being in the moment or trying to save both, etc. The choice has been made (not even by yourself). Can we objectively declare it incorrect and on what grounds?
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 16:13:40. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:40:15 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Artificial" only denotes "that which I do not value". |
It means artificial, numnuts.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
could we objectively declare their choice to be incorrect? |
No, of course not, and that's why you and others pose these types of questions: the Bible can only pretend to be valid when there is no "correct" answer for it to get wrong. Ask something verifiable that an omniscient creator should know- the shape of the earth, the age of the universe, the nature of disease, evolution, etc.- and the Bible fails every time. Ask something that doesn't have a right answer and you can find some interpretation of some Biblical phrase that justifies it as accurately as a good fortune cookie. Slavery is right? The Bible agrees. Slavery is wrong? The Bible agrees. Whoopie. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:40:20 PM · #638 |
You need neither religion nor castes to engage in existential triage. This is a massive red herring. The whole concept of hypotheticals in these discussions is absurd, it's meaningless. And both sides are using them.
"What if you were hunting mushrooms in the woods and happened to witness a scene where a lovely, innocent maiden in torn clothing is shrieking in horror and running through the forest, with a hairy, nasty, corpulent, greasy biker-type in hot pursuit? What if, before your amazed eyes, they BOTH plunge into a hidden pool with a whirlpool that is sucking them both to oblivion? Whom do you save? Why? Does this question have any meaning? Does your ANSWER have any meaning? Support your conclusions with at least three examples. You will be graded on clarity of thought."
Let's get into the real world, guys.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 16:41:04. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:42:12 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Artificial" only denotes "that which I do not value". |
It means artificial, numnuts. |
Any chance you could actually be civil? And if you want to be a jackass, at least spell "numbnuts" right, willya?
R. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:42:15 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"What if you were hunting mushrooms in the woods and happened to witness a scene where a lovely, innocent maiden in torn clothing is shrieking in horror and running through the forest, with a hairy, nasty, corpulent, greasy biker-type in hot pursuit? What if, before your amazed eyes, they BOTH plunge into a hidden pool with a whirlpool that is sucking them both to oblivion? Whom do you save? Why? Does this question have any meaning? Does your ANSWER have any meaning? Support your conclusions with at least three examples. You will be graded on clarity of thought."
Let's get into the real world, guys. |
Right on (to whatever extent the "real world" applies to discussions of superstitious belief). |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:43:01 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And if you want to be a jackass, at least spell "numbnuts" right, willya? |
You misspelled "will you," jackass. ;-)
Numnuts, knucklehead, schmuck, silly, bozo, genius, Einstein... pick your favorite and spell it however you like to express the phrase, "It means exactly what I said, not what you want to believe I said [your descriptive word goes here]."
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 16:46:48. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:45:38 PM · #642 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And if you want to be a jackass, at least spell "numbnuts" right, willya? |
You misspelled "will you," jackass. ;-) |
ROTFLMAO... I figure any time I'm using the word "numbnuts", I'm entitled to continue in the colloquial vein :-)
R. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 04:47:47 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
ROTFLMAO... I figure any time I'm using the word "numbnuts", I'm entitled to continue in the colloquial vein :-) |
:-) |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 05:25:20 PM · #644 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Artificial" only denotes "that which I do not value". |
It means artificial, numnuts. |
The point is the PETA person will tell you that your distinction between human and dog is just as artificial for such purposes. Your reply will be, "of course it's not artificial" and away we go. You think one is important and another isn't. Nothing more.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
could we objectively declare their choice to be incorrect? |
No, of course not, and that's why you and others pose these types of questions: the Bible can only pretend to be valid when there is no "correct" answer for it to get wrong. Ask something verifiable that an omniscient creator should know- the shape of the earth, the age of the universe, the nature of disease, evolution, etc.- and the Bible fails every time. Ask something that doesn't have a right answer and you can find some interpretation of some Biblical phrase that justifies it as accurately as a good fortune cookie. Slavery is right? The Bible agrees. Slavery is wrong? The Bible agrees. Whoopie. [/quote]
You fall back on typical stuff. I didn't mention the Bible at all. Sheesh. We're not even exploring that framework. The question is not whether we'd pick the dog or the person. Everybody picks the person. But why do we pick them? If the answer is ingroup loyalty, can we rearrange the scenario where the answer changes? What if the dog belonged to the person doing the saving (ie. he now belongs in his "tribe" or family)? Does that change it?
I don't know why you don't just participate in the discussion instead of being loud and blustery about Zeus, or slavery or all sorts of other things that don't matter. Really all that is being discussed is this:
Question: Why do we value human life over other life?
It seems like you feel we think your answer means nothing because you don't believe in God. Nobody is saying that. At least I'm not saying that.
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 17:48:46. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 06:23:19 PM · #645 |
| OK, a hypothetical question for the Christians then.... You're walking through the woods and encounter a boy who's been raised by Satan worshipping parents and is completely immersed in the most evil, vile thing you could imagine. He's about to be bitten by a venomous snake and you have the ability to kill the snake and keep him from being killed, but not the ability to stop him from completing his deed if you do. Do you? |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 06:35:35 PM · #646 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
OK, a hypothetical question for the Christians then.... You're walking through the woods and encounter a boy who's been raised by Satan worshipping parents and is completely immersed in the most evil, vile thing you could imagine. He's about to be bitten by a venomous snake and you have the ability to kill the snake and keep him from being killed, but not the ability to stop him from completing his deed if you do. Do you? |
This seems like a very different question. To be clear, are you telling me he is in the act of some great evil right now and the snake is going to bite him at the same time? So I'm weighing the value of his life against the evil of the act he is about to commit?
What's your answer? Let's rephrase just slightly for you since I'm guessing "Satan worship" doesn't mean a lot. The child is now a man and a known child molester who is about to rape an eight year old girl. Do you save him? |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 06:48:11 PM · #647 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is the PETA person will tell you that your distinction between human and dog is just as artificial for such purposes. |
PETA is atypical, like using a mental patient to counter a generalization regarding humanity. I say "Humans don't generally kill each other" and your reply is "Yeah, well what about Dahmer?" Whatever. I don't know why you don't just participate in the discussion instead of being loud and blustery about things that don't matter.
Religion is a purely fabricated/man-made/manufactured ingroup... an ARTIFICIAL distinction between people who wouldn't otherwise be different. Strip away the religious contrivances and you couldn't distinguish between a German and a Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, a Sunni and a Shiite. They're just people, no different from you or I.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Everybody picks the person. But why do we pick them? |
I already answered that. We just do. There needn't be a reason or purpose, and there's nothing inherently right or wrong about it. Why do we choose to save the beagle rather than allow the coyotes to feed? Would some small percentage of people choose to favor the coyotes? Sure. Is it right to save the dog or wrong to starve coyotes? There is no objectively "correct" answer, which despite your protests, is exactly why you employ such questions. Science can't provide an objective answer (because there isn't one), so this must be the gap where religion fits. You've said as much on several occasions. Let's completely ignore the fact that religion lacks any basis to answer such questions rationally or objectively, and has a long and storied history of legitimizing accepted practices that we now widely regard as wrong. Have you stoned any adulterers lately?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't mention the Bible at all. Sheesh. We're not even exploring that framework. |
*Ahem* What exactly might we expect your moral positions to be based upon? For a good hearty laugh, please tell us again that the Christian concept of God is the absolute basis of morality and that you don't glean this insight from the Bible. All I ask is that you don't do it while I'm drinking soda in front of the monitor. Kthx. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 06:54:58 PM · #648 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I already answered that. We just do. There needn't be a reason or purpose, and there's nothing inherently right or wrong about it. |
This is all I need to reply to. So, for the record, is there likewise nothing inherently right or wrong about picking the dog? And is the reason for either answer because there is no such thing as an "inherent right" or an "inherent wrong" or is it for other reasons?
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 18:57:37. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 07:06:37 PM · #649 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, for the record, is there likewise nothing inherently right or wrong about picking the dog? |
Yup. There's nothing objectively right or wrong about picking the dog. Of course, subjectively most people will strongly favor the boy. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 07:34:45 PM · #650 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, for the record, is there likewise nothing inherently right or wrong about picking the dog? |
Yup. There's nothing objectively right or wrong about picking the dog. Of course, subjectively most people will strongly favor the boy. |
Ah. I getcha. So when we meet the person who picked the dog, really all we can really observe on the situation is, "most people would've picked the kid". |
|
