Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
On the subject of animals!
Options
-
16-09-2008 12:46amI know its late but I’m bored and can’t sleep so humor me.
If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof? Wouldn't this be considered "species-ism" by other species? To where do we anchor this assumption that we are the highest? Because we make tools? Other animals will just say that they don’t need tools, that all their tools are built in naturally and they do not need to extend their sensory apparatus any more than they have to in order to survive, so you could say that they are more advanced than us in many different ways, because if we are only just another species then our primary functions is to survive also.
And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one? If there's no God, then what does the humanist anchor its idea of their moral value system to? How is it derived? And why if we are just animals should we adhere to it? Why not adopt the crocodile’s moral value system if that’s' the case? They've been around longer than us and will probably outlive us too, so why not adopt their moral value system (whatever that is) if we are not the highest form of animal? Theirs at least has a proven track record due to their longevity of survival, and as already said if all we are is animals then our primary objective is to merely survive as a species for as long as possible anyway.
Whether God exists or not, man is not the source from which any moral value systems are derived. Why? Because if God does exist then He is the source from which we derive our value system. And even if He doesn't exist where do get off thinking we are the source? We are just a byproduct of an evolutionary process which will become extinct in a relatively short space of time anyway, so where do we get off thinking that our system is the highest moral good? If all we are is just another species of animal then who is to say that if a super intelligent race of aliens came to earth that they would pick us as the primary species to study and not say, cows or bears or eagles or ants?Tagged:0
Comments
-
Soul Winner wrote: »I know its late but I’m bored and can’t sleep so humor me.
If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof?
Personally, I don't consider humans a higher form of life than other animals. Each species has it's own niche in the biosphere which has maintained equilibrium (more or less) for billions of years.
Once the next mass extinction passes it will be time to judge again. We won't seem so mighty if we don't make it through.0 -
No organism is "higher" than any other, simply because there is no means to measure evolutionary height. We are fit to our environment or we are not. We reproduce or we fail to. We are measured only by the perpetuation of our genes. By that measure, bacteria, beetles and an overwhelming number of parasitic worms are doing just as well as us if not better.
Now, we could go by complexity, but there's plenty of animals that match us or beat us in that regard.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »
Now, we could go by complexity, but there's plenty of animals that match us or beat us in that regard.
Dam you octopus!!!
*shakes fist* :mad:
*Octopus shakes back, times 8!* :eek:0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »To where do we anchor this assumption that we are the highest?
Our eyes are less well designed than octopuses, we see less clearly than eagles, we run slower and smell less accurately than dogs, we don't live as long as trees, we swim worse than fish, we don't fly at all and pound for pound, we'd probably lose a fight with most animals our size. Not much to be proud of there.Soul Winner wrote: »If there's no God, then what does the humanist anchor its idea of their moral value system to? How is it derived?Soul Winner wrote: »And why if we are just animals should we adhere to it?Soul Winner wrote: »Whether God exists or not, man is not the source from which any moral value systems are derived.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof?
This is an arbitrary objective judgement. A side effect, I assume, of your belief in an omnipotent God.
Humans are smarter and more complex than most other animals. That doesn't make us "better".And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one?
There is no best moral system. Just the ones we prefer. We can agree on certain basic principles, such as "people suffering is bad" and "people deserve to be happy" and such things, and then argue about how that is best achieved.
Sometimes we just can't discuss it usefully, such as with religious values. If a Christian asserts that what is "good" is what God wants, then thats the end of the conversation. This is the central thrust of Sam Harris' arguments. He is terrified of the immunity to rational discussion that faith brings. I can't convince a fundamentalist Muslim that infidels don't deserve to die, because God says they do, and God is right.If there's no God, then what does the humanist anchor its idea of their moral value system to? How is it derived?
Feelings. It sounds a little soft but still, most people share feelings about how we should treat each other, and sometimes we can agree on how we'll behave.And why if we are just animals should we adhere to it?
Because we want to. Lets not be naive, if someone wants to behave in a manner others will find reprehensible, they'll do it anyway. Hence the amount of rapists and murderers in the world.If all we are is just another species of animal then who is to say that if a super intelligent race of aliens came to earth that they would pick us as the primary species to study and not say, cows or bears or eagles or ants?
Yes, they might. But I doubt it. Like I said, our distinguishing trait is advanced intelligence, which allows us to have technology. Thats a trait an alien species is likely to share, and therefore find us interesting.0 -
Advertisement
-
Personally, I don't consider humans a higher form of life than other animals.AtomicHorror wrote: »No organism is "higher" than any other, simply because there is no means to measure evolutionary height.To my mind, we don't anchor it anywhere since us atheists don't believe ourselves "higher" than anything elseThis is an arbitrary objective judgement. A side effect, I assume, of your belief in an omnipotent God.
Humans are smarter and more complex than most other animals. That doesn't make us "better".
I'm amazed. In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals. We wouldn't swerve into a child on a pavement to save a dog in the road, we wouldn't allow drugs be tested on children that might save chimpanzees in the long term, we don't keep humans as pets and we certainly wouldn't kill and eat another human.
Now maybe you're all playing clever word games with "better" and "higher", but I certainly value human life a lot higher than all animal life.0 -
Now maybe you're all playing clever word games with "better" and "higher", but I certainly value human life a lot higher than all animal life.
In terms of my own subjective feelings, yes, I will frequently value human life over other forms of life. I don't think that stems from any inherent superiority of human life. I won't for a second defend it as anything other than a feeling I have.
Apparently you share this feeling. Good, lets build a society. But if you'll sit in an armchair and try to argue that human life has some universally objective superiority then I'll call you a fool. I'll do it! I can take the infraction!
The religious would of course attempt to counter this with the childish notion of the soul. Twice the fools I say!0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one?
Value systems can be perfect, it's the lack of adherence to them that's the problem.There are very simple, very convincing, explanations about why co-operation and honesty are much better choices than defaulting and dishonesty and none of them require gods. There are plenty of other species that exhibit the same kind of extensive co-operative social behaviour that humans do -- it's not that special at all.
The very fact that other species (e.g. primates) live within primitive social structures is evidence against the notion that a God especially "gave" humans morality.0 -
Among all species on earth, humans probably have the most computing power. Maybe that's why some people consider themselves 'higher' than animals. But humans also waste the earths resources, and we go to extreme lengths to eliminate our rivals and cause mass bloodshed, so maybe that 'balances' out our value here on earth.0
-
Soul Winner wrote: »If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof?...
because we can. As a species we have a selfish need to protect ourselves and our genes and propagate them on to another generation. All species share this unstoppable urge to exist. Do you think a Lion weighs up whether it is better for that gazelle to live rather feeding its cubs? No, it kills it instinctively to keep its genes propagating.Soul Winner wrote: »And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one?
The difference is one set of morals puts the onus on all humans to decide what's right and wrong, the other set of morals puts the onus on a small minority of humans to decide what is right and wrong because they believe a magical spirit speaks to them.I'm amazed. In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals.
Nothing really that amazing tbh. I accept that I have as much right on this planet as any other creature, but I also accept that I am human and want my species to survive over all others. This opinion of being "higher" really is subjective. Put any of us alone in the middle of the Amazon and tell me you feel higher in importance than any of the other animals living there.0 -
Advertisement
-
In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals.god wrote:And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I'd imagine that most atheists believe that we're all in this together and we should treat life and the earth with as much respect as possible. It's not as though we're prone to thinking that god's going to show up with a new earth if we break this one.0 -
The real question should be why religionists believe they are/have to be the higher form of life (apart from sky-daddy of course). Currently we Humans are the most intelligent life form on Earth well suppose to be cough.."Soul Winner". But in real society the most intelligent don't aspire to being at the highest level....George Bush for example.
Soul Winner: you just want to feel special, the world was created just for you, the trees, the flowers, rainbows, cancer. cop-on and grow up gods'-little-child.0 -
Tomk1, you cop on, and stop dragging the discussion down to that level.0
-
Ok lets go a little deeper with this.
If there is no God, then how do we judge what is good and what is evil? One of the reasons that atheists are atheists is that they cannot believe that a God who is supposed to be all good would allow evil (as we see it) to exist.
Ok so, let us assume that there is no God. From what do we derive our moral judgment on things? Can animals be evil or just humans? If only humans can be evil, then why only humans? If all we are is just another form of animal? Why aren’t male lions for instance considered evil for killing cubs from another male lion in order that the mother lioness will become receptive again and produce cubs for him? If a human man did that he would be adjudged evil wouldn’t he? Why not the male lions? Are monkeys in a sense evil for their casual sex behaviour and promiscuity? Do they even know any of these concepts? And even if they did know and still did these things would that make them evil? Why do humans have these concepts if all we are is but a by-product of an evolutionary process like all other animals? Where do we get this stuff from? What use is it? If we are just animals then where did this seemingly solely human trait arise? Where is the evolutionary advantage in it? Where will it lead? Why have it if it ultimately has no purpose for anything?
Why is it immoral (in our view) for somebody to rape and yet animals do it all the time? Don’t get me wrong I am not advocating an anything goes behaviour type world, I just want to get into the world where we have no God, never had one, never made one up, or were never exposed to any form of deity in our entire history, we only ever lived in a world where we and all the other animals exist. Would it be right or wrong to rape or kill? If wrong then why is it wrong? How do we define wrong and why do we define wrong? Why are there things that are deemed unacceptable? And why is it that only humans are hung up on this if all we are is just another (and in most cases) lesser form of animal?
To presume something is evil, then we must have some sort of standard by which we measure what is deemed evil and what is not. If there is no God and therefore no law from God then by what standard do we deem something as evil whereby we may not do the evil and do the good? Why are we bound to have a law at all if there is no God? What is the evolutionary advantage in having a law that prohibits certain types of behaviour that seem natural for other animals to do in order that they maybe propagate and survive? And allow other more acceptable behaviours like love and compassion and charity? Are we freaks of evolution? It would appear so if there really is no God. Why do we value ourselves more than animals? From whence comes this value system, if not from God? And if we are not more valuable then why do we have these traits? What use are they and what purpose do they serve? Why hasn’t Natural Selection eliminated them yet if there is no ultimate purpose in evolving such traits?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Why do we value ourselves more than animals?0
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Ok lets go a little deeper with this.
If there is no God, then how do we judge what is good and what is evil?Soul Winner wrote: »One of the reasons that atheists are atheists is that they cannot believe that a God who is supposed to be all good would allow evil (as we see it) to exist.Soul Winner wrote: »Ok so, let us assume that there is no God. From what do we derive our moral judgment on things? Can animals be evil or just humans? If only humans can be evil, then why only humans?Soul Winner wrote: »If all we are is just another form of animal? Why aren’t male lions for instance considered evil for killing cubs from another male lion in order that the mother lioness will become receptive again and produce cubs for him?Soul Winner wrote: »If a human man did that he would be adjudged evil wouldn’t he?Soul Winner wrote: »Why not the male lions?Soul Winner wrote: »Are monkeys in a sense evil for their casual sex behaviour and promiscuity?Soul Winner wrote: »Do they even know any of these concepts?Soul Winner wrote: »And even if they did know and still did these things would that make them evil?Soul Winner wrote: »Why do humans have these concepts if all we are is but a by-product of an evolutionary process like all other animals? Where do we get this stuff from? What use is it? If we are just animals then where did this seemingly solely human trait arise? Where is the evolutionary advantage in it? Where will it lead? Why have it if it ultimately has no purpose for anything?Soul Winner wrote: »Why is it immoral (in our view) for somebody to rape and yet animals do it all the time?Soul Winner wrote: »Don’t get me wrong I am not advocating an anything goes behaviour type world, I just want to get into the world where we have no God, never had one, never made one up, or were never exposed to any form of deity in our entire history, we only ever lived in a world where we and all the other animals exist.Soul Winner wrote: »Would it be right or wrong to rape or kill? If wrong then why is it wrong? How do we define wrong and why do we define wrong? Why are there things that are deemed unacceptable? And why is it that only humans are hung up on this if all we are is just another (and in most cases) lesser form of animal?Soul Winner wrote: »To presume something is evil, then we must have some sort of standard by which we measure what is deemed evil and what is not.Soul Winner wrote: »If there is no God and therefore no law from God then by what standard do we deem something as evil whereby we may not do the evil and do the good? Why are we bound to have a law at all if there is no God?Soul Winner wrote: »What is the evolutionary advantage in having a law that prohibits certain types of behaviour that seem natural for other animals to do in order that they maybe propagate and survive?Soul Winner wrote: »And allow other more acceptable behaviours like love and compassion and charity?Soul Winner wrote: »Are we freaks of evolution?Soul Winner wrote: »It would appear so if there really is no God. Why do we value ourselves more than animals?Soul Winner wrote: »From whence comes this value system, if not from God?Soul Winner wrote: »And if we are not more valuable then why do we have these traits? What use are they and what purpose do they serve? Why hasn’t Natural Selection eliminated them yet if there is no ultimate purpose in evolving such traits?
That is my uneducated & very simplistic 2 cents anyway.
MrP0 -
Now maybe you're all playing clever word games with "better" and "higher", but I certainly value human life a lot higher than all animal life.I'm amazed. In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals.We wouldn't swerve into a child on a pavement to save a dog in the road,we wouldn't allow drugs be tested on children that might save chimpanzees in the long term,we don't keep humans as petsand we certainly wouldn't kill and eat another human.0
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Why do we value ourselves more than animals?
Evolutionarily that has worked out well for us don't ya think? Most other animals do it don't they? We've just been particularly good at it or better at it for now at least. A lion values itself more than a dear when it eats it.Soul Winner wrote: »From whence comes this value system, if not from God? And if we are not more valuable then why do we have these traits? What use are they and what purpose do they serve? Why hasn’t Natural Selection eliminated them yet if there is no ultimate purpose in evolving such traits?
Again same question? Why can't morality be an animal trait? Why do you have such low opinions of animals?After all with all due respect you and I are both animals.
0 -
I recall reading somewhere that certain kinds of monkey/ape shun those in their society who commit rape.
I'd find a source but I'm not in a position to google 'monkey rape' right now.0 -
Advertisement
-
Evil is slightly different. You call things evil because the bible tells you so. As I get older I become less comfortable with the term evil. As an atheist I am not sure that I can really use the term evil as you do.
Now hold on a minute. We hear all the time that God cannot exist because evil is allowed to exist don't we? That one is non stop from atheists as an argument to prove that God does not and cannot exist. If there is no God because evil is there then it is a non Biblical evil isn't it? It is an evil adjuged so by atheists who contend that God is not there, so it cannot be derived from God or the Bible. It is not the evil that I was thought from the Bible because God doesn't exist which makes that version of evil invalid. So if it’s a non Biblical evil then who decides that it is in fact evil? Don't turn the tables on my Biblical views, we all know that they are stupid and invalid now because God doesn't exist. I'm talking about evil outside of the Biblical frame, the atheist’s evil. By what moral compass does an atheist regard something or someone as evil outside the Biblical frame? Common sense doesn't really cut it. What is common sense and what purpose does it serve? Collective good maybe but morally what does it achieve? Why do we want to be moral?0 -
Numbers 15:32-37 wrote:While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
I think it's safe to say that nobody on this forum gets their morals from 'God'.0 -
-
I recall reading somewhere that certain kinds of monkey/ape shun those in their society who commit rape.
I'd find a source but I'm not in a position to google 'monkey rape' right now.
Here’s the deal: We are told that Natural Selection is a purposeless non sentient process that eliminates traits that weaken the survival chances of a species and keeps the ones that are more advantageous.
So why hasn't morality in these primates been eliminated by Natural Selection? What advantage does it have? Wouldn't they be better off without this trait as it would avoid the necessity of lessening their numbers and strength as a group through shunning? Surely this shunning is not advantageous to the species unless it has a purpose. And if its purpose is to strengthen the group then how can we say that Natural Selection is purposeless process? You can’t have it both ways, can you?0 -
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I think it's safe to say that nobody on this forum gets their morals from 'God'.
That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Here’s the deal: We are told that Natural Selection is a purposeless non sentient process that eliminates traits that weaken the survival chances of a species and keeps the ones that are more advantageous.Soul Winner wrote: »And if its purpose is to strengthen the group then how can we say that Natural Selection is purposeless process? You can’t have it both ways, can you?
Why do you see morality in primates as a disadvantage, but believe humans need morality as prescribed by God? Only a few short years ago humans were still banging rocks together and dragging their knuckles. Morality seems to have brought them some way along.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Now hold on a minute. We hear all the time that God cannot exist because evil is allowed to exist don't we? That one is non stop from atheists as an argument to prove that God does not and cannot exist.Soul Winner wrote: »If there is no God because evil is there then it is a non Biblical evil isn't it? It is an evil adjuged so by atheists who contend that God is not there, so it cannot be derived from God or the Bible.Soul Winner wrote: »It is not the evil that I was thought from the Bible because God doesn't exist which makes that version of evil invalid. So if it’s a non Biblical evil then who decides that it is in fact evil?Soul Winner wrote: »Don't turn the tables on my Biblical views, we all know that they are stupid and invalid now because God doesn't exist.Soul Winner wrote: »I'm talking about evil outside of the Biblical frame, the atheist’s evil.Soul Winner wrote: »By what moral compass does an atheist regard something or someone as evil outside the Biblical frame?Soul Winner wrote: »Common sense doesn't really cut it.Soul Winner wrote: »What is common sense and what purpose does it serve?Soul Winner wrote: »Collective good maybe but morally what does it achieve? Why do we want to be moral?
MrP0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?
Dawkins likes to go on at length about just where we get our morals from. He believes that there are Darwinian reasons for the behaviour we now call 'good' behaviour. The whole 'treat others as you would have them treat you' thing seems to make sociological sense.
EDIT: Another good answer might be "We don't yet know".0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »So why hasn't morality in these primates been eliminated by Natural Selection?Soul Winner wrote: »What advantage does it have?Soul Winner wrote: »Wouldn't they be better off without this trait as it would avoid the necessity of lessening their numbers and strength as a group through shunning? Surely this shunning is not advantageous to the species unless it has a purpose. And if its purpose is to strengthen the group then how can we say that Natural Selection is purposeless process? You can’t have it both ways, can you?
Therefore this shunning behaviour will have the effect of preserving the mating behaviour that has developed over a long period of time. Again there is no purpose required. Either there is an advantage or not.Soul Winner wrote: »That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner.
Read the Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.0
Advertisement