Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why no pet penitentiaries?

William Dembski
December 11, 2005
Darwinism, Evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a paper by one of my students:] According to Darwin’s theory, humans are separated from the animals only by a matter of degrees, not by categories. This is the working presupposition behind the evolutionary ethics of James Rachels. Thus, there can be no fundamental difference between “evil” committed by rhesus monkeys and that committed by the Great Apes –- Homo sapiens. This is where the reductio meets the ad absurdum. To argue that crimes committed by animals and those committed by humans are equivalent does not comport with reality and it does not jive with our experience. While we do have pet cemeteries, we do not have pet penitentiaries. No one incarcerates a Mantis religiosa for the copulatory consumption of her mate’s head, but Scott Peterson is justly sentenced for murdering his pregnant wife.

Comments
Oops... the missionaries demand should be "Christ died for your sins" in my New Guinea example. Dave T.taciturnus
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
Keiths, If I may jump in here: "And why shouldn’t God give his word an unmistakably divine provenance, like arranging the stars to spell it out, or (as DaveScot suggested) engraving it on the surface of the moon? " Here is an answer: 1) It wouldn't prove what you think it would prove. Imagine this scenario: A missionary in New Guinea tries to convince natives to convert to Christianity. They demand unmistakable evidence that God exists: They demand that God write "God exists" across the sky. So the missionary hires a sky-writer and the plane writes "Christ died for your sins" across the sky in smoke. The New Guinea tribesmen, never having seen an airplane in their stone age culture, fall down and worship God. What the missionary has done is deceive the tribesmen, something God would never do. Another example (this time a true story): A friend of mine once consulted a famous psychic to contact a dead relative of hers. She was convinced that the psychic actually contacted this relative because of some of the information revealed. Anyone who has visited the skeptic websites knows how this trick can be done. My point to her was: How can she be sure it was her relative the psychic contacted? Maybe it was an evil spirit having sport with her and pretending to be her relative. It's like the internet - you can't be sure who is on the other end. We do not get a certified provenance in communication with the spirit world. All we know about moon-engraving is that we can't do it ourselves. There may be aliens that can do it, or there may be spirits other than God that can do it. If "God exists" is engraved on the moon, all we know is that we didn't do it and some intelligence did (there is ID for you!) Beyond that, it proves nothing. God would not write on the moon because he knows that it wouldn't actually prove his existence, even if we were deceived into thinking it did. Believing something true for the wrong reasons is still deception, and God does not deceive. So He doesn't try to impress us with cosmic stunts. The distinctive act of God is creation ex nihilo, and therefore the only act unmistakably of divine provenance is the creation of the universe itself. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Without hesitation. If it’s down to me or a squirrel, the squirrel is toast (assuming I could catch and kill it). --------------- lol. good luck! those suckers are tricky! and in cartoons, they stand on limbs and throw acorns down on your head. tricky and mean those squirrels. and if it happens in a cartoon, well duh it happens in real life too, right? :)Josh Bozeman
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
pmob1 probes my vegetarian ethics: "Plants are people too you know." Believe me, pmob, in 20 years of vegetarianism I've heard it all: melodramatic depictions of agonized corn plants screaming as the combine mows them down, accusations of genocide toward all of the innocent soybean plants who must die, their corpses brutally processed into tofu for my plate, etc. pmob1 asks: "Would it be ethical to cull overpopulated deer herds and put the carcasses to use by eating them?" The culling question is tricky. It depends on a lot of things including the likelihood that the culled deer could have survived, the relative pain of the culling method versus death by starvation, etc. This determination would have to be made by a fully independent, licensed and bonded animal ethicist. If the culling itself were deemed ethical, I'd have no trouble with anyone (including myself) butchering and eating the carcasses. I'm not squeamish about eating animals per se; I just don't want them to be killed unnecessarily for food or any other reason. The interrogation continues: "Another one: my friend’s kid hit a doe last night (common occurrence) and kept it. We’ll help him butcher it and then we’ll eat it. Does that pass muster?" Yes, roadkill is fine by me as long as a) you don't deliberately hit animals in order to eat them, and b) you can stomach it. I have not personally indulged in roadkill, though the neighborhood vultures seem to like it. A couple more questions you didn't ask that I hear often: "If you were lost in the woods and had no other way of surviving, would you kill and eat animals?" Without hesitation. If it's down to me or a squirrel, the squirrel is toast (assuming I could catch and kill it). "Do you kill bugs in your house?" Ants I will kill, because I don't want them in my house and I haven't found any other way of getting rid of them reliably. Everything else I catch and put outside. I don't worry about the bugs that die on my windshield; life is too short (for them and for me).keiths
December 15, 2005
December
12
Dec
15
15
2005
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
Red Reader quotes me, concerning atheists as lawgivers: “It is religious folks (some, but certainly not all) who take on that role by assuming they know God’s laws and attempting to impose them on the rest of us.” Red responds: "Have you ever heard of political correctness?" You're right, Red. I didn't think of political correctness until after I made my post. That is definitely a secular instance of folks trying to impose unreasonable rules on the rest of us. Even so, the original dispute was about atheists as self-appointed lawgivers, and I think it's safe to say that most of the PC promoters are not atheistic. See my reply to crandaddy (forthcoming) for more on this. Red Reader then quotes me (incorrectly -- it was actually DaveScot): “I figure any real God doesn’t need third parties and human-made recording devices to deliver their messages.” Red Reader replies: "Since He is God, he can do things the way He wants. If He does things the way YOU think are appropriate, then that makes YOU God. Have you considered the possibility that there IS a God and you are not Him?" I agree with Dave on this one (dang -- it happened again :-)). It's true, Red, that an omnipotent God could "do things the way He wants." But most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe the following things about God: 1. He provided his inspired word to us. 2. We can trust his word (at least to some extent; believers differ on how much, and on what subjects). 3. He wants his word to be understandable. 4. He wants us to believe his word. 5. He is omnipotent. If all of those premises are true, you would expect something quite different from the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran. For example: 1. There would be no dispute over translations. God would guide the translation process and make sure there were no errors, intentional or otherwise. 2. There would be no dispute over interpretations. God would make his word unambiguous enough that anyone approaching it honestly would reach an identical interpretation. 3. Failing that (which shouldn't happen, since he's omnipotent) he could "beam" the correct interpretation directly into a person's mind. 4. There would be no internal contradictions. 5. There would be no external contradictions (for example, statements that science has proved wrong). 6. Descriptions of God would not reveal human frailties, like forgetting (God puts the rainbow in the clouds partly as a reminder to himself not to send another flood; see Genesis 9:16), braggadocio and gratuitous cruelty (the book of Job, where God gets into a, shall we say, "urinary" contest with Satan and allows Satan to torment Job just so that God can score points), or deliberate injustice (as when God "hardens" Pharaoh's heart repeatedly, and then punishes all of the Egyptians for it; see Exodus 9, 10, 11). The Bible fails all of these tests, which is one of the main reasons my faith did not survive adolescence. And why shouldn't God give his word an unmistakably divine provenance, like arranging the stars to spell it out, or (as DaveScot suggested) engraving it on the surface of the moon? Red concludes: "Is anyone still reading after 61 comments? I hope so; I hate to waste my brilliant insight." The die-hards (DaveScot, Josh, pmob1, SteveB, me) are all still here, since we all posted to this thread today. I do wonder if everyone else has given up, though.keiths
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I'd say my last dog had a vocabulary of around 200 words and could definitely feel guilt and show remorse, like if the kitchen garbage bag was scattered and all the chicken bones were gone. I don't think it was fear: he knew he wouldn't actually get hurt. Plus he had a large non-verbal vocabularly. On the other hand, he never did figure out sneakers... Next time I'm going to try some abstraction, like if you're faced with a stair landing or a Y-path where one route goes up and the other down. Now obviously, my dogs knew to respond to "up" and "down" and in different specific ways depending on the situation, but I don't think they ever got the abstraction of up and down where it could be applied to different situations.pmob1
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
You said: “Plus you’ve got people that will kill you for a pair of sneakers or for looking at them the wrong way. We’re still animals and it shows through all too often.” Yes, you prove my point. Given varying conditions or static conditions (doesn’t matter), humans exhibit rapid, unpredictable variation. Animals don’t. People will kill you for the sneakers, not kill you for the sneakers, invent sneakers, market sneakers, crave sneakers, eschew sneakers, prefer sneakers, collect and distribute sneakers for charity, return lost sneakers, compliment sneakers, demand that sneakers finally be thrown out, wash sneakers, give sneakers at Christmas-time, and so on. Any wild animal, faced with sneakers, will be limited to the same range of instinctive action as it was 100,000 years ago.pmob1
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
DaveScot, You said: “Nonsense. People survive without being taught how.” Yeah? Name one. You said: “Instincts can be overcome through training, which is what happens to us.” Right, but never to animals in the wild. Difference of kind, not degree. You said: “Dogs, horses, all kinds of wild and domestic animals can be trained to act against instinct as well.” Right: underline “can be trained.” Animals only get there courtesy of long, patient training by an entirely different kind of intelligent agent, us. Cows don’t teach flies to overcome instincts. Dogs don’t teach squirrels to overcome instincts. Similarly, we can’t “teach ourselves” about morality. We need outside instruction first. You said: “Our claim to fame is mostly writing. Writing acts like instinct only it is instinct that can be acquired instantly, be passed along to the next generation, and can accumulate without end.” “Instant instinct” is an oxymoron in animal biology. Again, difference in kind. You said: “That’s why we wallowed in the dirt with the other animals for millions of years until we perfected writing then in the span of a few thousand years went from living in caves to building space stations.” That and 6-row barley.pmob1
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
keiths "It is religious folks (some, but certainly not all) who take on that role by assuming they know God’s laws and attempting to impose them on the rest of us." Have you ever heard of political correctness? "I figure any real God doesn’t need third parties and human-made recording devices to deliver their messages." Since He is God, he can do things the way He wants. If He does things the way YOU think are appropriate, then that makes YOU God. Have you considered the possibility that there IS a God and you are not Him? (Is anyone still reading after 61 comments? I hope so; I hate to waste my brilliant insight.)Red Reader
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Dave, My two basic points that we started with remain unanswered. They are: 1. Moral relativism fails primarily for two reasons: - It is internally contradictory. - It is practically unworkable. Since the relativist is unwilling to make an absolute statement (ie, X is always wrong), he is therefore logically obligated to define at least one situation in which every reprehensible act, X (like the one mentioned earlier—but there are many, many more) is acceptable or even “right.” 2. NDE, and materialism more generally, doesn’t have a plausible explanation for the existence of people’s moral capacity. It was interesting that you said, “humans are rather unique among higher animals in the wanton ability to maim, torture, and kill their own kind. No other species can destroy each other with the proficiency we’ve developed. And you argue we aren’t animals? What, are you stupid?” Maybe I am. But this comment actually shows that in an ironic sort of way you agree with my thesis that “humans are rather unique among higher animals,” as indeed they are. When I say that people are moral beings, this doesn’t mean that we always _act_ morally, it means this means that we have the capacity to act in the moral realm. And this includes acts of altruism, sacrifice and love, along with acts of self-centeredness and evil and yes, even unspeakable evil. And the fact that you have an ability to recognize evil when you see it and consequently object to it illustrates (again) the huge chasm that exists between people and any other member of the animal kingdom. I don't have conversations like this with my dog. The squirrels in my back yard don't debate the problem of evil. And materialism has no plausible explanation for why this is. But additionally, as I said before, the relativist is in the very difficult positon of being able to recognize evil but then not be able to say that such acts of evil ARE evil and are ALWAYS so, as I can. Pretty tall order. Thanks,SteveB
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Animals are capable of active decision making- thinking through the morality of various situations. Interesting. I wonder what dogs aspire for...what goals rats have. What fears of the future do rabbits ponder. Wolves standing around wondering how to better the lives of their neighbors- maybe head start classes would be a good idea for the group! Sigh. If only they could tell us.Josh Bozeman
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
"Dave, the fact that humans DO actively CHOOSE to do such things that would clearly violate instincts to protect children, and do so in so many different ways, actually strengthens the case that humans are, in fact, quite different from animals." Different only from some animals. Some mammals, under certain circumstances, eat their young. I never heard of a ruminant that kills its young or its own kind or any other kind unless threatened. "You acknowledge that, unlike animals, humans can choose one way or another- that’s exactly what morality is! It’s a choice to either live by the RULES or to refuse to accept them and live by your own." I never acknowledged that's unlike animals. I've had many pets where some chose to obey certain rules and others didn't. Some were polite and gentle and some were rude and forceful. What can I say? You're wrong, I know it, and I know why. You lack the long experience working with and observing animals that I have.DaveScot
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
“You, on the other hand, will enlighten us as to the context in which this behavior [torturing children] is morally acceptable.” Protecting children is instinctual in the animal kingdom as it is with humans. Interestingly, humans are rather unique among higher animals in the wanton ability to maim, torture, and kill their own kind. No other species can destroy each other with the proficiency we’ve developed. And you argue we aren’t animals? What, are you stupid? --------------- Dave, the fact that humans DO actively CHOOSE to do such things that would clearly violate instincts to protect children, and do so in so many different ways, actually strengthens the case that humans are, in fact, quite different from animals. And, because humans DO abuse their own children and the children of others (often times for no real reason at all), and we DO label that an act that is immoral, it further proves the point the original poster was referring to. If child protection is simply instinctual, we shouldn't see that only humans work outside of these supposed "instincts" to abuse children. Many mothers have children and have no desire to take care of them at all, or immediately actively abuse them- we rule them unfit mothers committing immoral acts, we don't say that they were somehow born deficit the instincts. In no culture is such behavior (tortruing children) acceptable...but, if we're just mere animals, and it's instinct to do what we do- then when humans DO abuse children, we should turn our heads and just accept that it's instinct. It's a lesser instinct that usually shows itself in the form of love and protection (then again, if it's only instinct then there's no such thing as "love"- love is born out of choosing to act in a certain manner). You can't judge instinct, since one would be incapable to control their instincts. But, we understand that people can, indeed, control their behaviors and act in certain ways based on decision making, various choices, etc. (something that isn't in play in animals- animals have instincts that say 'take care of your young (no reason given, no reason would be understood)' end of story) so we don't label these "instincts"- whetheer it be abuse or love of children...we see both in terms of morality- love is right and abuse is wrong. That alone is absolute in all cultures in all times in all place...even tho you fail to see that many human actions are COMPLETELY absolute in their level of morality. Steve B gave you a clear example right there. And the fact, as I mentioned, that one can actually CHOOSE to act in either love or abuse means that mothers and fathers don't just act purely on instinct alone, or maybe not even instinct in general in these situations. You acknowledge that, unlike animals, humans can choose one way or another- that's exactly what morality is! It's a choice to either live by the RULES or to refuse to accept them and live by your own. Along with morality, you have to have decision making, choices from a list, etc. Instincts, alone, are neutral.Josh Bozeman
December 14, 2005
December
12
Dec
14
14
2005
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
Actually, now that I think about it, humans are worse than a great many animals. I'm hard pressed trying to think of any herbivores that maim, torture, and kill their own kind or any other kind for that matter. We're animals. We kill our own kind and others that get in the way for territory, property, sex, fun, greed, profit, status, and for no reason at all. And we do it with greater efficiency than any other animal. Nature's greatest killers - that's us. That's our accomplishment.DaveScot
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
SteveB "I think it’s universally accepted (although perhaps not admitted) that people have spiritual qualities (ie, the capacity to make moral choices)." Well, isn't that just precious. I think it's universally accepted (although perhaps not admitted) that the revealed word of God in hundreds of disparate religious tomes are all pure fabrications made by men. Everyone knows (although some won't admit it) that Gods don't need men to record their proclamations for them. What a fabulous debate tool you have there Steve. Just lay out your beliefs and then claim everyone else must believe them too whether they admit it or not.DaveScot
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
SteveB Explain to me why, if there are absolute moral values, there is so much disagreement on what they are. You insult me with a gratuitous remark about a gift for non sequitur then fail to address the point I made. What a grand gift for lame evasion you have. "You, on the other hand, will enlighten us as to the context in which this behavior [torturing children] is morally acceptable." Protecting children is instinctual in the animal kingdom as it is with humans. Interestingly, humans are rather unique among higher animals in the wanton ability to maim, torture, and kill their own kind. No other species can destroy each other with the proficiency we've developed. And you argue we aren't animals? What, are you stupid?DaveScot
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
"Put humans in a stable environment for even 250 years. Boom, you’ve got a new type of governance, a novel basis for sovereignty, unprecedented rights and protections, new power plays and post patterns, guys flying to the moon, all that sort of thing." Plus you've got people that will kill you for a pair of sneakers or for looking at them the wrong way. We're still animals and it shows through all too often. Writing is the only thing that separates us. Take that away and we're back to living in caves again with no advantage over the bats and bears that live in caves too.DaveScot
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
pmob "We don’t have Any instincts to speak of" Nonsense. People survive without being taught how. Instincts can be overcome through training, which is what happens to us. We get trained by our parents. Dogs, horses, all kinds of wild and domestic animals can be trained to act against instinct as well. Our claim to fame is mostly writing. Writing acts like instinct only it is instinct that can be acquired instantly, be passed along to the next generation, and can accumulate without end. That's why we wallowed in the dirt with the other animals for millions of years until we perfected writing then in the span of a few thousand years went from living in caves to building space stations.DaveScot
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Beer- of course I'd say it's instinct. If altruism IS nothing but instinct, then why call it altruism? We're talking pure instinct, and nothing else. Punishment isn't truly punishment if there's no thought behind it...it's just instincts kicking in and demanding an animal do A or B. On top of this, humans are an entirely different breed, in that we will work to lessen the impacts this has on society, we will work to change society's mindset in regards to these actions that merit punishment, we'll progress over time to a system of better and tougher laws, changed in our systems of justice, and on and on. Lions, wolves, apes, all other animals are, as someone else mentioned, stuck in a rut in a sense. A million yrs from now, they'll be doing the same thing, acting in the same way, making the same mistakes, having no change in any of their social orders or systems of life in any sifnificant way. Along with instincts, you need to have a conscious choice, decision making, etc. to have true altruism as we know it as humans. If you don't, then we should just call it instinct and the word altruism loses the meaning behind it, as it rightfully should if humans and animals acted in the same manner. There's no comparison between what humans do and what wolves do, or any other animal. Social orders in animals are built on necessity based on pure instinct. Clearly not so for humans. And what we do as people we do out of moral choices, decision making, planning out our lives, right and wrong...you can hardly argue ANY animal is sitting down thinking up moral absolutes, envisioning 10 yrs from now and how to make the world a better place, choosing what path their lives should go down (you don't have alcholic apes who turn their lives around and spend the rest of their time acting as a force for good over evil.) If you do something because your instincts say you have to, that's one thing...when you make a moral choice to do something that goes against your instincts and has no benefit to you or anyone you know, or anyone you've even met- that's a totally different ball game. If we're going to call both events altruism, we might as well toss the word out, because it holds no real meaning if we use it like this. Few even bat an eyelash when an animal helps its baby...but when a human risks his life to run into a burning building to save a kitten- people see something special, and rightfully so.Josh Bozeman
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
you continue to say that other animals know right and wrong and show altruism, but it just isnt so. its clear that other animals dont punish their own for bad behavior Ever seen a pack of wolves interacting? (On TV, not in the wild, obviously.) If one of the submissive members oversteps his bounds, he or she is punished by the alpha male or female. Same for hyenas. Same for gorillas. Same for Lions. Same for any animal with a social structure. Seriously, all you have to do is watch the Discovery channel to see these things. And about altruism: There are LOTS of different animals that show their fellows where they found food or shelter. A bee will come back to the hive to tell the other bees where the nectar is through dance. I know you'll say that the bee is just doing this through instinct. Of course, did you think altruism came from anywhere else?beervolcano
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
DaveScot, You wrote: If humans differ from other animals only in degree, which all scientific evidence indicates is true, ----- also (#29): Social orders (right and wrong behaviors) are evident amongst many species. Come on. Most animals do the same thing in the same situation over and over. It’s all instinct. There’s about zero evidence for choice. They might manifest social order but there is no evidence that the order is anything but locked-down instinct. I’ll grant you that some animals have a slightly bigger toolbox than others, but they continue to do the same things with those tools, over and over. Move up the mammalian chain and it doesn’t get much more impressive. Look at it in terms of range. Put a higher mammal in the same niche for a few thousand years. I’m not saying they’re stuck on stupid but they’re definitely stuck. They have the same routine today that they did 10,000 years ago. Even the chimps are still scratchin’ their pits just like in the bad old days. No change. Nothing happening. Nada. “Moral” stasis. Put humans in a stable environment for even 250 years. Boom, you’ve got a new type of governance, a novel basis for sovereignty, unprecedented rights and protections, new power plays and post patterns, guys flying to the moon, all that sort of thing. Meanwhile, the rest of the animal kingdom is skitching over the same old scratch in the same old record. We don’t have Any instincts to speak of and the few “drives” we do have are played out in many different ways by different societies or even particular individuals. We are, however, equipped with “the difference.” Otherwise we probably couldn’t survive. I love them critters but that difference is hardly one of degree.pmob1
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
aldo30127 said: “The main problem with this student’s position (and the people defending it) is that s/he assumes that Darwin posits that humans have no spiritual qualities.” No—at least that’s not my view. I think it’s universally accepted (although perhaps not admitted) that people have spiritual qualities (ie, the capacity to make moral choices). What NDE doesn’t have is a plausible explanation as to why these qualities exist or where they came from. And so the challenge is for NDE to be consistent with its presuppositions. Standard issue darwinism says that “physical” is all we are, because “physical” is all there is. For a consistent darwinist, “that spark of divinity” you refer to is pure fiction, and yet, I have yet to meet the person who believes that he, or his wife, or his child doesn’t posess this (although they might not choose to call it that). Now, I hold that a spark of divinity exists in people because God really exists and he put it there. I have a view that is consistent with my presuppositions. The darwinist, however, has... what? He has, as I said before, an IMMENSE gap between himself and the next higher animal in the tree (pick whatever one you want. None of them have the capacity for moral behavior, or abstract thought, or language—the uniquely human attributes that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom.) What his theory claims is that we have all been created by the same mechanistic process which moves in an incremental, step by step fashion. What his theory predicts is that we should be one--just one--of these incremental steps “above” the one just below us. But what we find is a chasm. Interestingly, what we find is strangely consistent with the judeo-xian idea that we have been created in the image of God.SteveB
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Curious as to which of Rachels's books the student is referring to. I read The Elements of Moral Philosophy where James argues very persuasively against all kinds of relativism.David Bergan
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
While I was in a class on science and religion talking about evolution/creation, our elder professor once pointed out the high percentage of correlation between human DNA and the other primates... and then posed the rhetorical question, "Why shouldn't we consider them humans?" Not one second after the question was out of his mouth the answer came thundering back, "Because if they were considered human, then we would have to allow them to vote, own property, and drive cars!" It was the only time I saw that respected professor blush.David Bergan
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
"that the only way absolutes can be ruled out is by invoking one." that truth is the nail in the coffin of moral relativism. It's inescapable.Bombadill
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
DaveScott: Once again, your gift for the non-sequitur is extensive and remarkable. The issue of morality is an important one and applies to people across the board, regardless of their world view or whether they're "religious" or not. Moral relativism--despite its popularity in the culture at large--is internally contradictory and I reject it primarily for this reason, not the “religious” motivation that you assume I have. Consider the popular relativist bromides: “Everything is relative” or, “There are no absolutes.” It doesn’t take long to realize (even from those of us who are unable to “be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear”) that the only way absolutes can be ruled out is by invoking one. Additionally, in practical terms, the relativist, because nothing is ever absolutely right or wrong, is forced to articulate at least one situation in which a terribly reprehensible act (the enslavement, rape, torture and brutal murder of a child, for example) is morally acceptable--because nothing is absolute. Now, I with my Neanderthal, “religious” motivations and perspectives have no compunctions about identifying this as wrong for any person, any context, any era, and any culture. You, on the other hand, will enlighten us as to the context in which this behavior is morally acceptable. Looking forward, -sbSteveB
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
DaveScot You said: The problem with absolute moral values in religions is they all seem to be inventions of men. None of them have their commandments engraved on the face of the moon. They’re all recorded on media accessable to men in languages created by men. Think “discoveries” of men, not inventions. You are taking the position of radical relativists who would say that science (for instance) is composed of nothing more than “inventions.” There is no “real” harmonic law of mean motion, no “real” gravitational constant. After all, none of these are engraved on the face of the moon. They are just symbols in common language by which we adjust our thinking in a series of (shifting) contexts. Right? Balderdash. Moral truths, like science truths, are discoveries. They are difficult to discover. The moral discovery process seems to be even slower than the scientific, which is plenty slow. But just because men write it down and pass it around, mull over it, mistake it, amend it, reform it, doesn’t mean that there’s nothing true there to discover.pmob1
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
keiths you said: It is religious folks (some, but certainly not all) who take on that role by assuming they know God’s laws and attempting to impose them on the rest of us. Judeo-Christianity running through English and then American law, produced maximum liberty. Secularism (USSR, Red China) and Euro-paganism (Nazi Germany) produced maximum tyranny. Case not quite closed. Consider the following: The evil ID fundamentalist bible-chewing monsters want maximum freedom. Local folks create and maintain their own moral codes, teach their kids as they see fit. ID in Granstburg, WI, straight Darwinism in Madison, WI. Whatever. The wonderful Sensitive, Caring, Smart seed-eating secularists want maximum monitoring and policing from a single, centralized Borg-like bureaucracy. If one single school board in one single township deviates one single angstrom from Big Sister’s mandatory biology rulebook, about 50,000 lawyers descend on the place surrounded by about 100,000 “journalist” dweebs. Let me put it to you plain so you get it. The folks in Grantsburg don’t go hassling the folks in Madison. The folks in Madison go out into the countryside to monitor, enforce, threaten and sue.pmob1
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Josh, You said: Atheists position themselves as the lawgivers. This is anti-American. Not at all. What's anti-American is that they want judges to make law, which is extremely anti-American. The only constitutional authority judges have is to ensure that we follow our own laws, the one's we enacted through our representitives. All rule-making is legislative only. That's even more true of the Constitution which is super-legislative: all changes require super-majority ratifications, i.e. great popularity, the broadest possible process. The atheists (and liberals generally) say that's over. We're going to a system with the narrowest possible process. We won't handle it anymore. A few judges will do it all. "Shopping judges" is now the highest form of law for these people. That's bad. But there's nothing anti-American about non-believers running, getting elected and casting votes.pmob1
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
keiths, Vegetarian ethics: plants are people too you know. In fact, some of the folks at my local coops are now more revved up about native prairie grass seeds than they are about burger. Would it be ethical to cull overpopulated deer herds and put the carcasses to use by eating them? Another one: my friend's kid hit a doe last night (common occurrence) and kept it. We'll help him butcher it and then we'll eat it. Does that pass muster?pmob1
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply