Personally, I don't think human life is superior, just another stage the soul goes through.
Given the choice now, do you choose to help others, including animals (and I would think, that if you thought yourself just another animal, that would increase your compassion for them) or; do you take advantage of your intellectual powers to exploit other animals?
...Believing there is no consequence for your actions, now or in the next life?
If you believed in the interconnectedness, then exploitation would be less attractive. IMHO
Doreen's story
Re: Doreen's story
I find myself close to actually agreeing with this...Gob wrote:I'd save the kittens...
I like kittens....
...can't stand kids...
Treat Gaza like Carthage.
Re: Doreen's story
Wow, just wow. 
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Doreen's story
Full circle back to Doreen, at last. 
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: Doreen's story
Well BSG, absent the reality of God, (I would have been happy with "belief" but since you said "myth" I'm going to say "reality". And if you say "Prove it" I'm going to say, "You first"LJ, absent the myth of God, what makes human life morally superior to other animal life?
) I know several Atheists personally who have worked out a moral schematic that leads them to the conclusion that human life has greater moral worth than that of lower animals. This is why I initially pointed out that it is possible to be an Atheist and either embrace that view or not. (BTW, I used to not capitalize the word "Atheist" but I've started to in order to show the Atheists the same level of respect that I would extend to those adhering to any other faith-based belief system
)
Re: Doreen's story
Really? How about a hippo's saving a wounded impala from a crocodile?Lord Jim wrote:Human beings are the only species capable of behaving morally and also the only species capable of behaving immorally. We are the only species for whom morality is even a factor; if you believe you are observing moral or immoral behavior in another species you are engaging in anthropomorphic projection.
The hippo was too late; the impala died anyway. Still, how would one go about proving or disproving that the hippo acted morally?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Doreen's story
Ask it.
Did you save that impala simply because you thought it was in distress.
Or was it maternal instinct.
If the answer was the former well then...
Did you save that impala simply because you thought it was in distress.
Or was it maternal instinct.
If the answer was the former well then...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Doreen's story
Does anyone here speak hippoese?[/quote]keld feldspar wrote:Ask it.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Doreen's story
Given the vast majority of NATURE NOT acting morally...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Doreen's story
By whose determination? A bunch of human scientists who see everything through a prism of speciesism? Who claim any evidence of morality or complex higher thinking in other animals is merely proof of anthropomorphism?
One could fill a book - several - with the things scientists have claimed to be true about various members of the animal kingdom which have proved untrue.
In Lewis Thomas's Lives of a Cell he posited that mankind should not be allowed the power to destroy life on a massive scale (i.e., nuclear weaponry) until we fully and completely understand just one living organism on this planet. He proposed a parasite that lives in the gut of a particular insect - a termite of sorts, as I recall (I don't have the essay handy). But in any case, the premise holds; what humankind doesn't understand about the other living creatures with whom we share the planet greatly exceeds what we do know. Our arrogance far exceeds our intelligence.
Applying the logic of zero morality in the rest of the animal kingdom, that creatures are driven solely by instinct and self-preservation; what maternal instinct would apply interspecies? There is no evolutionary advantage to be gained by the hippo by saving an impala.
Interestingly, the closest living relatives to hippos are whales and porpoises. Tell me, what instinctive evolutionary advantage do porpoises gain by attacking sharks to protect human swimmers and surfers? Such behavior has been documented numerous times worldwide.
Could it be the altruistic behavior of an animal capable of complex higher - moral - thinking?
One could fill a book - several - with the things scientists have claimed to be true about various members of the animal kingdom which have proved untrue.
In Lewis Thomas's Lives of a Cell he posited that mankind should not be allowed the power to destroy life on a massive scale (i.e., nuclear weaponry) until we fully and completely understand just one living organism on this planet. He proposed a parasite that lives in the gut of a particular insect - a termite of sorts, as I recall (I don't have the essay handy). But in any case, the premise holds; what humankind doesn't understand about the other living creatures with whom we share the planet greatly exceeds what we do know. Our arrogance far exceeds our intelligence.
Applying the logic of zero morality in the rest of the animal kingdom, that creatures are driven solely by instinct and self-preservation; what maternal instinct would apply interspecies? There is no evolutionary advantage to be gained by the hippo by saving an impala.
Interestingly, the closest living relatives to hippos are whales and porpoises. Tell me, what instinctive evolutionary advantage do porpoises gain by attacking sharks to protect human swimmers and surfers? Such behavior has been documented numerous times worldwide.
Could it be the altruistic behavior of an animal capable of complex higher - moral - thinking?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: Doreen's story
"Our arrogance far exceeds our intelligence."
That was my point, that we and the planet we inhabit would be far better off, if we were just animals. ...but we're not.
That isn't explained by evolution, at all. High intelligence isn't necessary for survival of the species; in fact, it's turning into a serious detriment in a very short, evolutionarily speaking, time. There must be an other explaintion for it.
That was my point, that we and the planet we inhabit would be far better off, if we were just animals. ...but we're not.
That isn't explained by evolution, at all. High intelligence isn't necessary for survival of the species; in fact, it's turning into a serious detriment in a very short, evolutionarily speaking, time. There must be an other explaintion for it.
Re: Doreen's story
That's easy....what maternal instinct would apply interspecies?
A screwed up one...
One where, a genetic or chemical defect within the brain, or (perhaps an injury) has caused it's instinctive hardwiring to go a bit haywire and imprint improperly.....
That is true of numerous topics over the past several hundred years...jeepers, I thought you Atheists were supposed to be all about science....One could fill a book - several - with the things scientists have claimed to be true about various members of the animal kingdom which have proved untrue.
Re: Doreen's story
That's an excellent point...A bunch of human scientists who see everything through a prism of speciesism?
I'm sure that a gibbon or wildebeest scientist would have an entirely different perspective...
Re: Doreen's story
There might be a genetically-driven instinct to respond to a croc attack which is not completely species-secific.bigskygal wrote:"... what maternal instinct would apply interspecies? There is no evolutionary advantage to be gained by the hippo by saving an impala. ... "
Porpoises have also been observed hunting and killing dolphins very often on the pacific coast in the past few years. There is no evidence that they kill sharks -in order to- save humans they are probably just eliminating species which compete for food.bigskygal wrote:
"... Tell me, what instinctive evolutionary advantage do porpoises gain by attacking sharks to protect human swimmers and surfers? Such behavior has been documented numerous times worldwide. ... "
The evidence for 'moral' behavior is weak, as it is here. There are good evolutionary explanations for what is called "altruism" in many animals.bigskygal wrote:"...
Could it be the altruistic behavior of an animal capable of complex higher - moral - thinking?
Re: Doreen's story
OK BSG.
To see where we're at here when you refer to "nature".
To what are you specifically referring to, be careful...
To see where we're at here when you refer to "nature".
To what are you specifically referring to, be careful...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Doreen's story
Some concepts are so ridiculous that only an "intellectual" could take them seriously.
'Nuf said.
'Nuf said.
Re: Doreen's story
I blame Disney...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is