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
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. Physically we are different than animals only in degrees. Our morality comes not from our animal-like material nature, but from our spiritual nature; that spark of divinity that doesn't come from evolution. And even if it didn't and the materialists are compeltely correct, why compare us with lions whose instinct is a selfish one? Why isn't instinctual to walk down the street and not kill the guy walking next to you? Ants show altruism and sacrifice for members of the colony closely related to them but none for distant relatives. Human society is one gigantic extended family. Now, I don't believe for a second that animals show any true compassion (because I believe in God) but the arguments that morality cannot happen without Him, at least here, don't hold much water.aldo30127
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
It's a good thing that dogs don't know right from wrong. Or else I would have...well, it would involve sharp kitchen knives flying across the room! My mom's dog bit me on the nose once...why? Because I got too close to her. Just sitting there and BOOM, he suddenly turned into psycho doggy and latched onto my nose. Sad thing is, it's a tiny chiauaha. (I'm too lazy to even look up that spelling.) :)Josh Bozeman
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
My cat hasn't been out of the house in two years and my dog lives outdoors in a cage. All the farm animals I know of are in pens or cages too. What's this about we don't send animals to prison? What would be the point? Remember that woman who had the face transplant? They killed the dog that chewed her face off. Death penalty for animals? You bet!IDthink
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
"So, if I’m a lion and the presence of a rival decreases the chances that I can procreate, I drive him off or kill him.” Try to force you way into Hugh Hefner’s estate to play with his girls and see if you don’t get driven off or killed." ----------------- How these two items became equated, I've no earthly idea. There's absolutely no comparison between these two items. Surely you aren't arguing that lions have morality. The reason one would be "driven off" off Hef's estate would be for moral reasons...if someone walked up to the door and rang the bell, if you were to be killed, humans would label that an immoral act. If a lion merely walks into another's territory, there's no thought, no decisions, no plan, no questions of right and wrong- it's purely instinct put into action that allows for what humans would consider murder, tho we've no problem with it because it's an animal, not a person. The key here (and when discussing the actions of any animal) is instinct- Hef's boys dont just work on instincts and shoot the first person they see getting too close to the driveway, they put reason and thought into action, using moral guidelines to decide what the right and wrong things to do are. As for religion, moral law, and God's actions- most theistic religions teach that evidence itself doesn't convert a person...the spirit of God is what converts a person. Evidence is just a bonus. Even IF the moral law was written on the moon, you'd still be free to ignore it...and who says you would believe it to begin with? Someone who refuses to accept the law will deny it no matter what, making up any story he/she can think of to wave it off as bogus. On top of that, it's not even about moral laws and religion, it's about absolute moral laws and humans in general. Clearly, there have been a set of things throughout all of history for man that have been wrong and things that have been right...for all men, in all times, in all places. Given this fact, it's obvious that the very basic moral laws are, in fact, absolute, and those who violate these basic laws are labelled evildoers. Moral laws, in general, are built into the conscience itself. Religious laws are different to each religion, but they're all based on universal moral laws for ALL people, period.Josh Bozeman
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
dave- 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- they dont have brains capable of even knowing what right is, let alone differing between right and wrong. altruism is hardly altruism unless its a thought out action backed up by compassion and the likes. one member of a species acting in a certain manner to save the species as a whole is 1. rare, and 2. purely instinctual. protecting members of other species is even less seen and its merely more of the same- these animals are working on instinct, not actively searching out the difference between right and wrong, deciding to put forth compassion. no one is going to claim that even a monkey shows compassion, let alone has any idea what compassion means, could feel it itself, etc. living like any other animals- the point was, no one out there wants to live in a world where attacking the guy walking down the street is fine because- hell, its instincts, its survival, get over it! if a dolphin gets eaten by another animal, people dont hold candlelight vigiles. when a person does- they do that and much more. people dont live like animals, they dont share the lack of values, morality, etc. as animals- and no one in their right mind would want to live like a wild animal or in a society thatbased its decisions on the same things animals do. of course nde posits might makes right. thats not a strawman- its fact. as i said, true morals are absolute- and all moral absolutes require a lawgiver. nde posits that morality is illusionary, it was invented by man. how on earth do you think evolutionary psychology came about? its filled with the idea that morality is an illusion and that right and wrong are not real themselves. like i said, few want to admit this aspect of the theory, because its a terrifying concept to nearly all people. either way, admit it or not, its definitely what NDE theory posits for life. survival is whats right...that doesnt jive with human morality. im not even sure what youre getting at when you say that NDE theory doesnt demand survival of the fittest- thats precisely what it requires. you cant pick and choose which parts of life you want that phrase to cover, nde is all about survival of the fittest covering all aspects of life, not just the "lower" animals. no one denies that animals live by the rule of survival of the fittest (one quick viewing of any nature program makes one aware of that)...and NDE theory posits that man is merely an animal that is merely at a higher level than other animals, so you cant suddenly argue that if man isnt in a different category that different rules apply to him as an animal as apply to any other animal on earth. again, most people refuse to admit this aspect because its simply too terrifying to even entertain the notion. not to say that many darwinists don't oppose the idea for humans as well, because as i also mentioned- many of them do just that. male rape on women, murdering your children before a certain age if you dont want them or feel you dont have time to care for them, those who support giving parents the choice of killing babies that are born weak, sick, handicapped, etc. these people are the consistent ones who demand that we not pick and choose where we use the theory and what aspects of life the theory covers, but they go the long haul and let the theory cover all of life, as it should if its right. for, if man is simply another animal, only higher by degree, then survival of the fittest SHOULD be the rule. just as with the law of the nation, you cant pick and choose which ones you want to obey and the ones you dont, you cant do this with NDE theory either.Josh Bozeman
December 13, 2005
December
12
Dec
13
13
2005
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Oops - forgot a link to a list of popular religions http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htmDaveScot
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
Let's say there are absolute morals. Among the following groups, most of which hold that their absolutes are the truth, which are the real absolutes and which are not? 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. I figure any real God doesn't need third parties and human-made recording devices to deliver their messages. But hey, that's just me. :-)DaveScot
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
"So, if I’m a lion and the presence of a rival decreases the chances that I can procreate, I drive him off or kill him." Try to force you way into Hugh Hefner's estate to play with his girls and see if you don't get driven off or killed. Ever heard the old saying "be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear?". It applies to hitting the "submit comment" button too.DaveScot
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
It seems to me there's a lot of people on this thread talking about animals that really don't know jack diddly squat about animals. You know who you are.DaveScot
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
"they are terrified at the mere thought of living like ANY other animal" Huh? Dolphins seem to have an okay time of it. Otters have a lot of fun. It might be cool to be a raptor and soar through the air all day.DaveScot
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Josh "NDE theory would posit that right and wrong, tho illusions, if we want to label things with those two terms- right would be might (survival, the fittest, etc) and wrong would be behaviors that inhibit the grand scheme of evolution" Not at all. Social orders (right and wrong behaviors) are evident amongst many species. Some quite complex. Altruism is also evident amongst many species. Not only that, social order and altruistic behaviors exist between species. Accusing NDE proponents of having a pathological dog-eat-dog world view where only the individual's survival counts is just wrong. You don't like them using straw man tactics against you, like saying religious people want to establish theocracies and burn witches at the stake so don't do it to them. They have plenty of legitimate faults to point out.DaveScot
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
SteveB- along the lines of what you said, I totally agree that a lion would be seen as merely doing what it's instincts tell it to do. Watch any nature program, and you'll see animals kill others among their own all the time...for numerous reasons- weakness being one of them. Weakness, according to NDE theory cannot be good, for it leads to lower success in reproduction and possibly bad genes (weak lions= weak genes= less of a chance to procreate and create higher lions who are better suited to survive.) If we take this one step further- if humans are merely higher animals, just like any other animal, but more highly evolved, then we should live the same way. We should be expected to kill off the weak (the elderly, sick, handicapped) for the good of the group, for better future success in reproduction, along with better genes that make for a better chance of survival. Yet, few humans look at the world this way- they are terrified at the mere thought of living like ANY other animal- which is why we punish those who do bad things, which is why we inherently have a sense of right and wrong, why we frown upon certain behaviors while praising others. This doesn't fit with NDE theory, because we should classifiy "better" or "good" behavior the same exact way any other animal does- unless we're not just another animal as the theory posits. You just can't get around this, even tho most Darwinists try- even Dawkins doesn't want to use NDE theory for society, morals, etc. Also, as I said, the mere fact that we all have morals and that morals are the same for all people at all times in history- with slight cultural differences...then those facts work to falsify the image of NDE theory that we're just simply animals, like any other animals- solely on a higher level. But our experience tells us that 1. morality isn't an illusion (an illusion wouldn't be the same all across the globe for all people at all times through human history), and 2. Moral absolutes are real...that you cannot compromise on morality and say that some things considered bad are sometimes good. We make exceptions for killing when it's done in self defense, but that's common sense. But, no one advocates that killing an innocent person on the street is EVER okay. NDE theory tells us that killing like that SHOULD be okay- just as long as that person is getting in the way of evolutionary progress, is weak, hinders your reproductive ability, etc. Then we have the issue of how on earth could morality arise at all, let alone only arise in one particular species of animal (humans), yet it's found nowhere else in nature. Even monkeys will murder other monkeys, and hardly will a scientist attempt to lock said monkey up- why not?? Because along with morality comes knowledge and the concepts of right and wrong... In the end you're always left with- if humans are simply more highly evolved animals, made of the exact same material, in no way special from other animals except for being on a higher level...then how can we punish humans at all? How can we, via NDE theory, posit morality and right and wrong when the theory distinctly tells us that all 3 of these concepts are mere human inventions that truly mean nothing? The fact is- you can't explain these ideas with NDE theory, and humans are, indeed, special and in a different category than other animals (not simply another level). The fact that even hardened atheist and darwinist Dawkins realizes that we cannot use the theory to rule society should say a lot about all of this.Josh Bozeman
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
The general issue of morality--what it is and where it comes from--is really a huge problem for NDE, in my opinion. On the one hand, we’re told that we’re just like every other animal. So, if I’m a lion and the presence of a rival decreases the chances that I can procreate, I drive him off or kill him. Furthermore, if he’s weaker, he _should_ be driven off because that will help the pride. And this is completely consistent with NDE’s presuppositions. I don’t wring my hands in remorse or go and have sessions with Billy Crystal. This is moral behavior, “correct” behavior for me, as a lion. But now, as a person, even though I’m made up of the same stuff and made by the same mechanism, if I act like the lion, I am roundly condemned by my peers--certainly incarcerated; perhaps executed--regardless of the culture I live in or their world view. Now, I’m not just like every other animal. Now, there’s a huge gap between me and the lion. What NDE predicts is a series of very small incremental steps that separate one species from another. And yet, with these sorts of “traits” (for lack of a better word—i.e., morality, abstract thought, language...) there is an IMMENSE gap between humans the next “lower” species in Darwin’s Tree of Life. What explains this difference from a NDE point of view?SteveB
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
"arising in many kinds and in many ways by different processes" Fascinating that such naturalistic speculations were being tossed around 2100 years ago. And I thought we were supposed to believe that only mythical "superstitions" were being posited back then.Bombadill
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
on the topic of the implications of materialism... An exerpt from one of my older writings... What I intend to do here is to elucidate the effect of an assumption, specifically, the materialist assumption. Materialism is basically a philosophy that is based upon the assumption that matter is all there is; it assumes that matter is self-sufficient. It, by the necessity of its central assumption therefore denies God, the soul and anything that contradicts it. It is as such a synonymous term with atheist, and it is as old as mankind. Now, as should be obvious, with the acceptance of the materialist assumption, the following points easily and necessarily follow:- 1. The denial of divine action, and hence the affirmation of the power of material causes, and only material causes, to create or ‘evolve’ everything, including us. 2. The denial of any accountability to God, and therefore the affirmation of freedom from conscience and any artificial obstacles to the hedonistic fulfillment of all our wants, be they sex, power, wealth, etc… · Point 2 can be restated as the denial of any objective basis for morality, and therefore the affirmation of amorality. 3. This is implied by the previous statements, but is worth a mention anyway. The affirmation that we are nothing but animals. The above implications are noticeably similar to those of Darwinism. And this is no accident, as Darwinism is the fruit of the tree of materialism. Darwinism cannot exist without the assumption of materialism, and nowadays, materialism cannot survive without the assumption that Darwinism is true. In what is to follow, I hope to briefly show the implications of the Darwinist philosophy to mankind by reference to some specific topics. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF MATERIALISM With materialism in mind the following conclusions follow nicely:- CONCLUSION 1 · We are here now, we have not always been here. · This means that we must have evolved or descended from some other animal. Otherwise something immaterial happened (like creation), this is not allowed. Please realize, that upon the acceptance of the materialistic philosophy nowadays, the conclusion that we evolved from some other creature is an absolute necessity. The conclusion that we are only animals is unavoidable. It then follows that what is right for the monkey is right for the man. Which basically means that if it is ok for an animal to do something, then there is no reason we cannot. We are the products of the same processes of nature after all. Although, ancient philosophers may not have known that we were not always around, it seems that in making up an evolutionary myth some assumed it. So conclusion 1 in brief states:- · We are no different than animals. · Not created by God. CONCLUSION 2 The mind is not separate from the material brain; they are in fact one and the same. The reason is obvious, as a materialist, one cannot accept that the mind and all its manifestations is made up of anything other than matter. To the materialist, dualism is illogical, and given their assumption, it definitely is. · This implies that who we are (i.e., our needs, wants, loves, hates etc…) are all reducible to the matter of our brain. · And as the matter of our brain is molded by genes and the environment (according to current thinking), it means that who we are is reducible to genes, environment and matter, and no more. Before moving on to the next point I feel I should clarify why the preceding statements are in fact logical conclusions of the materialist assumption. If who we were was not reducible to the brain (and hence genes and environment which mold it), then that would imply some immaterial element in the makeup of who we are, which is impossible in the materialist framework. Another point is that as it must be that who we are is reducible to matter (Brain matter, genes and environment), and that the genes that make us up are the result of some materialistic evolutionary process, then either directly or indirectly, who we are is related to the process that selected the genes that form us. This is, by the way, nowadays called evolutionary psychology, a growing field that is already making its presence known in sociology and psychiatry. In fact, social Darwinism has been around for over 100 years. It is very important that you all realize that the above conclusions result easily from the materialistic assumption. It does not take a genius to figure them out. So conclusion 2 in brief states:- · Who we are is completely reducible to matter, more specifically, to our genes. · As genes are the product of evolution, who we are is also the product of evolution. CONCLUSION 3 From the previous two points we know that within the materialist framework, who and what we are is the result of totally materialistic processes. And as other animals are, and must be, made from the same matter, exposed to the same processes as we are. We can logically conclude that we are no different than animals. Put more explicitly, we are animals. Now, as in the materialistic universe, there is no such thing as God, there is also no such thing as objective right and wrong. This is an important point. It is absolutely imperative that you realize that to the materialist, nature is absolutely amoral. As it is not the product of a divine intelligence, but of blind chance. The only right and wrong can come from Us, we make up the rules… · What I want and like is right. · What I do not want and like is wrong. · These two statements are essentially the doctrine of hedonism. So essentially, pleasure is good and right, pain is bad and wrong. Or more simply again, the only right, is pleasure. The implications of this logic is that what is right is as changeable as the weather. It is a function of societal consensus witch is itself molded by an elite. So conclusion 3 in brief states:- · There is no objective basis for morality. CONCLUSION 4 The basis of Darwin’s theory was basically the concept of natural selection, or put another way, survival of the fittest. Which basically says that animals with random advantages will out compete and take over populations. By this, Darwin assumed, animals improved, they evolved. Now it is important to realize that Darwin linked the evolutionary process with struggle and ruthlessness, we need only look at the subtitle of the book The Origin of Species which summed up his point of view. “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. And so, while the strong survive, the weak perish. Tautologically speaking. Now let us recall the fact that we are animals, and we live in a universe that is amoral, so, what’s good for the monkey is good for the man. If ruthless struggle for survival improves and evolves animals into an animal like us, why cannot we do the same to ourselves and take evolution into our own hands? The answer is that within an evolutionary and materialistic context, there is no reason whatsoever. In fact, if we are to learn from evolution, we should actually promote and continue our evolution, and, we should eliminate backward morals that stop us from achieving this goal. Essentially, all ethics, morals and beliefs that you may have, must crumble unless they submit to the materialistic and evolutionistic philosophy. If not, surely you are backward and unscientific. Because as we all know, what science says is always the truth, and if you do not blindly accept what science says, then you must have some non materialistic, I mean…, non scientific faith or belief. Please note that the aforementioned conclusions, are not necessarily the only possible ones given the materialist assumption. It is just that I am deriving them with the present world in mind. So conclusion 4 in brief states:- · Who we are and how we got here is a result of the fight for survival, and therefor the survival of the fittest. · Ruthless competition is therefor good, as it is an evolutionary force. As an aside: It is important to realize that the evolutionary myth was one known and deduced to varying levels by many materialists before Darwin. · Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). · Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin’s grand father) (Who wrote two books on evolution ‘Zoonomia’ and ‘Temple of nature’) and (1731-1802). · Jean Lamarck (1744-1829). · Alfred Wallace (1823-1913) And there are others. The materialistic philosophy was gaining a following for a few centuries before Darwin and much of what he said is acknowledged to have been said before, if Darwin did not write his book, someone else would have (e.g., Wallace)… Given the philosophic milieu he was in, it was almost inevitable. In fact, the basic outline of evolutionary theory was described 2100 years ago by an Epicurean poet called Lucretius, in his poem called ‘On the nature of things’, he presents a materialist view of humanity and the universe. In a few passages he says:- “In the beginning the earth gave forth the different kinds of herbage and bright verdure about the hills and over the plains, and the flowering meadows shone with the color of green; then to the various kinds of trees came a mighty struggle, as they raced at full speed to grow up into the air…… So then the new-born earth put forth herbage and saplings first, and in the next place created the generations of mortal creatures, arising in many kinds and in many ways by different processes. For animals cannot have fallen from the sky, nor can creatures of the land have come out from salt pools. It remains therefore, that the earth deserves the name mother which she possesses, since from the earth all things have been produced……[And so] the earth, you see, first gave forth the generations of mortal creatures at that time, for there was great abundance of heat and moisture in the fields. Therefore, wherever a suitable place was found, wombs would grow.” Lucretius 5.783-808 There is even another longer passage from which the idea of natural selection can be adduced. It is to be noted that both Lucretius and his mentor Epicurus were both fully-fledged materialists. And it was with his materialist belief that Lucretius imagined such stories as above. Also note, that as was the case with both Epicurus and Lucretius, it was because of the implications of materialism (hedonism, more so lucretious probably, though supposedly Epicurus was not not a raving hedonist in the modern sense...) that materialism was adopted, not because they thought it was true. Believing it was true happened only after it was accepted as a useful assumption. So too, I believe, was the case with others throughout history and in the present. In fact, Stephen Jay Gould points out for us nicely that the true philosophy of Darwin was materialistic philosophy: - "These so-called M and N notebooks were written in 1838 and 1839, while Darwin was compiling the transmutation notebooks that formed the basis for his sketches of 1842 and 1844. They ... include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism-the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. ... The notebooks prove that ... the primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism. .... In the notebooks Darwin resolutely applied his materialistic theory of evolution to all phenomena of life, including what he termed "the citadel itself" - the human mind. And if mind has no real existence beyond the brain, can God be anything more than an illusion invented by an illusion? In one of his transmutation notebooks, he wrote: `Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!...'" (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Darwin's Delay," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.23-25) Now as a brief recapitulation I shall mention some of the logical deductions of the materialistic and hence evolutionistic philosophy:- 1. There is no God, only mindless matter. 2. We are only animals produced by a materialistic process. 3. Who we are, that is, our childish and ignorant belief that we are special and better than other animals is also the product of a materialistic process. 4. Nature and therefore we as humans is amoral. There is no such thing as right and wrong, only want and don’t want. Materialism as an assumption = evolution as a requirement. Evolution is not science, its the absolutely required conclusion of the philosophy of Materialism/Atheism.Marwan_Boustany
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
"people who make radical changes in their lives and for people who get stuck in a rut."" My point was that said transformation has all appearances of coming from an external source. Something beyond the individual's power to produce. (For the record, I inquire because I'm an example of one radically changed beyond my ability to produce self-change to such a powerful and lasting degree). I suppose my point has less to do with determinism and more to do with the existance of an intervening immaterial intelligence, though... so, disregard because I guess it's off-topic. ;) You mentioned Dan Barker. A truly disingenuous individual. He would have done his fellow skeptic-evangelists much good, had he stayed out of the debating arena. He had better hope he never engages with William Lane Craig, or he's going to get his worst spanking yet. :)Bombadill
December 12, 2005
December
12
Dec
12
12
2005
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
I don't know many theists who demand that others join them. That sort of goes against the fact that worshipping God needs to be a choice of free will, not a coercive demand by another. Of course atheists, generally, consider themselves to be their own lawgivers. If you don't believe in God (the lawgiver), what other source of law could you possibly come up with? The answer is, to most, whatever feels good and doesn't hurt others too much- which is the same as saying that you, yourself, established your own law for you. You can't even HAVE law to begin with without a lawgiver...law without a lawgiver is, as I said before, merely opinion that will eventually change and will differ from person to person. Law is inherently absolute, and laws only come from lawgivers. No law giver= relative law that is fashioned from ones own opinion.Josh Bozeman
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
"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." You're very close to the mark, Keith, but you miss it by a hair - at least as I see it. Some theists try to impose their religion on others, but not all atheists are innocent in this regard. Consider the French Revolution and the Soviet Union. I consider the treatment of ID as a pernicious idea that must be kept out of public schools at all costs to be the implementation of a secular religion, although I think you would disagree.crandaddy
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
DaveScot writes: "Good point on the pound. Dogs & cats arrested for loitering, mostly. Punishable by lethal injection after a short wait for clemency through any kind hearted stranger." Dave, You and I are agreeing entirely too much these days. This must cease. I'm beginning to think that one of us must have had a stroke or something. Luckily, you gave me something to disagree with in an earlier post when you wrote "Atheists position themselves as the lawgivers." This is simply not true (I'm feeling better already :-) ). 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.keiths
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Bombadill asks: "keiths, how would Dennett and friends explain the countless people who struggle for decades with addictions, destructive behaviors, etc… etc… and then, after a spiritual conversion experience, are liberated completely from said behaviors (despite numerous past failures to liberate themselves via sheer “will-power”)?" Bombadill, If determinism is true, it is equally true for people who make radical changes in their lives and for people who get stuck in a rut. Every person is an amalgam of matter and energy in a particular arrangement at a particular moment. The arrangement changes over time as a function of the person's internal state and the "inputs" provided by the environment. Chuck Colson, the convicted Watergate felon, becomes a devout Christian and establishes a ministry. Dan Barker, a fundamentalist preacher, "deconverts" to atheism. A heroin addict gets clean but relapses after a month. A woman in Peoria brews a pot of coffee and sits down to read the Sunday paper, just as she does every Sunday morning. Each of these people is a system changing over time in response to inputs, all according to the laws of physics. In fact, if determinism is true, then it is not just individuals but the entire universe which is unfolding deterministically. Laplace famously introduced the idea of a clockwork universe: a sufficiently intelligent being, armed with the knowledge of every particle's position and motion, could apply the laws of physics and derive the state of the universe at any future time. Its history would unfold like clockwork. The built-in indeterminacy of quantum mechanics casts doubt on this idea, and many have seized on quantum mechanics as a way to sneak free will back into the picture. But there are good reasons to think that this move does not achieve the desired result. But that's for another post.keiths
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
pmob Good point on the pound. Dogs & cats arrested for loitering, mostly. Punishable by lethal injection after a short wait for clemency through any kind hearted stranger.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Why No Pet Penitentiaries? I see you guys haven't been to the pound lately. Jail is bad. Death row worse. I liked it better in the old days when urban critters roamed. They'd get busted sometimes. They know'd they done wrong. You'd have to bail 'em out & such. Now they're caged all the time. Even cats are on-leash, which is why mice & coons are moving downtown and raptors circle over the crosstown commons. Ever see these new-fangled Critter Control rigs? Your property taxes at work. And the personnel all in black with crossbelts and 2-ways and what not. I guess they're practicin' up for real crowd control.pmob1
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Yes. Some of these basic laws were seen to be from God (the pursuit of happiness, freedom of expression/religion (tho we see that right being wasted away by the courts!), and the govt was to merely protect the laws, for they had no right to rise above God and take these laws away (again, something many jurists in this country have forgotten.) If one writes his own laws, then the laws are clearly relative to his own personal opinion, thus they're not truly morals in the sense that morals are absolute, relative "morals" are simply opinions that differ among each person's own taste. NDE theory would posit that right and wrong, tho illusions, if we want to label things with those two terms- right would be might (survival, the fittest, etc) and wrong would be behaviors that inhibit the grand scheme of evolution (since NDE theory posits a blind, purposeless scheme, then we're back to "wrong" being only things that make us less fit and holding back change (evolution) and reproductive success, along with bad gene lines, etc- so, we could argue that taking care of the sick, elderly, and mentally ill actually hinders "progress" seen in this manner, and success in a reproductive sense...so, these should be behaviors we shouldn't take time to put into action. If right and wrong have no true basis outside of what's right for Bob and what's right for Jim, and both sets of right and wrong are different...then, right and wrong become opinions that can change at anytime for any person, no person having to commit to a certain set of "morals". This is why the US has worked so well- the founders put in place many rights they saw as totally absolute, from God himself, unable to take them away, only able to protect these God-given rights. Nations that have put into action a relative moral structure have failed miserably. Communist nations throughout history can attest to this for sure! God-given absolutes were nonexistant in the Soviet Union, it was all about what's good for the state is good for all, end of story- and that state was always a Godless state- which meant they didn't truly affirm absolutes. Now, if the people can reassert their God-given rights that are in decline thanks mainly to jurists in the US (supported by groups like the ACLU, A.U., and others), we, in this country, we would better off as a whole, no doubt.Josh Bozeman
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Josh Atheists position themselves as the lawgivers. This is anti-American. The founding principle is that man is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, what God gives, no man has a right to take away. Governments then are not formed to grant these rights but to protect them. We hold these to be self-evident truths. As far as I'm concerned anyone that doesn't agree with that can get the heck out of my country and don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Imprisonment is correctional in nature. Presumably the threat of it is enough to keep most people in line. For some of the rest, the actual experience of it is enough to keep them in line after release. For the incorrigible whom we lock up and throw away the key it isn't correction it's to protect the public. In no case is it a matter of revenge for if it were then the victim (or his heirs) should be able to grant a reduction in sentence. They are not granted this power because it would negate the correctional aspect.DaveScot
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
An interesting observance I have made of this thread is the apparent treatment of good and evil as objective values - that our endeavors to regulate the actions of others are, in fact, attempts to coerce (Pardon the negative connotation, but I'm at a loss to find a better word to describe how the laws of a society apply to its citizens.) people to conform to an objective moral standard. But regardless of what moral standard an individual member of society may adhere to, is the jurisprudential methodology of any secular government not to coerce its citizens to adhere to an artificially constructed order absent of any absolute moral authority, ergo, training them as humans do animals all the time? Thus, reward and punishment are distributed to one's accordance and discordance, respectively, to this order. So, in essence, we *do* have animal penitentiaries; they're just not made of cement and steel bars. A metric order is established by one or more individuals, and it's subjects are trained to adhere to it, whether they be man or beast. This is the essence of a utilitarian society, and although I reluctantly support a utilitarian democracy such as that of the United States, I am extremely wary of what would happen if the moralistic element of our society disappeared. Who would set the ground rules, and what right would they have to do so? Without an objective moral standard outside of oneself, one's morality inevitably centers upon himself. Absent the guidance of an order which transcends humanity, might makes right becomes the order of the day, and with it's intelligence and ability to rationalize, humanity, itself, becomes the worst threat immaginable to its own wellfare and existance. Davidcrandaddy
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
keiths: I will assume you don't study the bible, from what you said here and quoted in other posts here. The verses here aren't about animal punishment, it's more about rituals. It's nothing to do with punishment for animals. The problem you mention about children not being punished because they don't know the difference between right and wrong is problematic. If humans and apes, dogs, or whatever else only differ by degrees, then there IS no such thing as right and wrong. A child cannot truly be ignorant of the difference if there really is no difference. You seem to accept that right and wrong DO exist, but why? NDE theory wouldn't agree with that- the theory says that right and wrong are human inventions. Right and wrong hinge on absolutes. If morality is simply relative, then right and wrong are only opinions of what is considered to us to be 'ok' and 'not as ok' TODAY, and that could all change tomorrow. Just as, without a lawgiver in the form of a constitutional committee, a supreme court, etc. There can be no true absolute law. If the US had no laws, then we couldn't reasonbly punish anyone...for what are punishing them for? Laws are made to inform people what they can and cannot do. Laws (which are inherently absolute) demand a lawgiver of some sort. If NDE theory is right, then morality is relative, thus no lawgiver. But, you yourself assume that right and wrong DO really exist, and I assume you think they're not mere opinions that evolve themselves, but actual absolutes...thus, a lawgiver. But what of that lawgiver? If we find it absurd to punish the mantis or any other animal- then humans must obviously be unique. If we are unique, then the theories that we're simply higher by degrees is wrong in some aspect.Josh Bozeman
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
On red's point- I think that we eventually get to the fact of moral absolutes. Few would deny that morals are absolute. There are cultural difference, sure, but in the end- there are some things that have always been wrong for humans and some things that have always been right- so some absolutes in this regard must exist. If absolutes do exist in moral laws, our experience tells us that there must be a lawgiver. If you're in a particular state in the US, you're under all the same laws as others in the state- no 'if's and's or but's' about it- the laws are absolute. A judge has discretion based on record and such, but you still have to go thru the process and face the laws that apply to all others. Reminds me of CS Lewis' argument for a moral law giver, which I think are very persuasive. Tho, I never had any doubt about a moral lawgiver, for it's the only thing that makes sense when we realize that humans are distinctly unique among all animals, and it's not just a matter of degrees. You can also stretch this to cover mental illness. Is someone truly mentally ill if their brains are somehow different? Who judges? Maybe those suffering from impulse control issues are actually more highly evolved- who is to say one way or another? Maybe those with so-called impulse control problems can use that reasoning to say that's why they rape. So, maybe rape really WILL be a positive step for human evolution...maybe male rape against women will help somehow? Maybe if what we consider the 'fittest' males rape the fittest females (if they refuse to submit to the plan), it will give rise to more fit offspring, and we can repeat the process over and over, and soon enough we will start to evolve to a higher degree and kill off all the weak among us. Surely, by NDE standards, that would be a great idea and a wonderful move for the species. So, maybe people who claim to have mental problems causing them to commit rape are also more highly evolved, for their actions might bring about a better chance of survival and the chance to better and more readily procreate? Maybe murdering off the weak is good? How do you judge "good" to begin with if good and bad are mere illusions of human evolution? Too many problems exist with relative morality and the thought that no lawgiver exists- if no ultimate lawgiver exists in the world, how can one fairly say that North Korea has an evil government? What if we discover that North Korea's actions are really a positive step in evolution- could we judge their actions evil then if good and evil are truly illusions, and the real right and wrong are simply what is right and wrong for evolution? We could go on and on thru many aspects of human society with NDE- it's full of massive problems that few among us would support putting into action.Josh Bozeman
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
I think this makes perfect sense. NDE tells us that all life is from one common ancestor, and that there are merely different evolved states of life. Humans, according to NDE theory, are merely highly evolved apes who evolved illusionary morals and concepts of right and wrong (that don't really exist according to most who subscribe to the theory.) Imprisonment, traditionally, is mainly for punishment. Only more recently has it been used for rehabilitation...and part of that is probably the onset of mental health issues and such. It's easier to demand someone be rehabilitated if you say that they might have mental problems out of their control that made them do what they do. When it comes to humans understanding what they're doing and knowing what they're doing is right and wrong- that's the rub. If you follow thru with NDE theory- there IS no such thing as right and wrong...there merely illusionary concepts that humans invented and concepts that will eventually evolve themselves. So, why punish humans OR animals (I draw a distinction between the two.)?? If a human is a glorified ape, then it's obvious that when we commit acts of violence, we're just simply acting out the things our brain chemicals are telling us to do, and we can hardly be blamed for that. On top of that- if NDE theory is correct, then free will is a bogus concept as well, and if a person truly has no free will, then how can you fairly punish someone for just doing what they're brains and their will (which is out of their control) tell them to do? I mentioned before that a number of Darwinists out there are arguing that males raping females is just a normal act of survivial of the fittest, and that it should be looked upon as normal behavior. Does anyone here agree with that? If not, why not? My guess is that you refuse to take NDE theory to its logical conclusion, because the thought is terrifying. But, to stay true to NDE theory, you have to use it to explain ALL of life, including social behavior. You can't say 'NDE theory is fine in explaining how life got here and how all species got here, but it's not to be used in society and morals and such.' By doing that, you're saying that you're NOT fine with the theory in its entirety and that some aspects of it are, to you, just too terrifying to consider putting into action. The issue isn't really 'should we punish a bug for its actions'- the real question is 'if humans are merely advanced animals, same as any other animal, just more highly evolved, but still acting on the same chemicals and instincts, then why punish humans'? Humans, if merely animals that are different solely by degree and not unique in any truly novel manner, then why not allow them to act out the same instints apes act out? Or any other animal for that matter? Fact is- many people are fine with all aspects of NDE theory, but only a tiny minority of them will allow that theory to cover all aspects of human life. That's sort of a cop out tho, and that's the problem.Josh Bozeman
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
"Evolutionary ethics" is contradictory to begin with. In the same way that physical biological structures discovered to be irreducibly complex reveal the probability of Intelligent Design, so ethics reveals the probability of an Intelligent "Maker of Objective Rules". There is NO evidence in nature of any physical, material process that can account for the existence of notions of right and wrong, much less such notions that "should" apply equally to everyone. Evolution may reasonably propose one and only one absolute ethic: survival. Survival is ethical. Not-surviving has no point whatever. Evolutionary ethics cannot employ objective standards; even Scott Peterson murdering his pregnant wife might be ethical IF his own survival was at stake. (All Scott really lacked was a smart lawyer who could show that Scott's own survival was at stake. In fact, his "pursuit of happiness" may have been compromised by the courts!) The grisly ethic of Abortion-On-Demand is the ugly and visible example of "evolutionary ethics" in action. The unborn baby's life is of NO VALUE whatever if the mother's real, unreal or imagined survival is threatened; the mother alone makes the decision having to justify the decision to no human being. The concept of ethical standards that "should" apply equally to everyone is evidence of a Designer in exactly the same way that the unique existence and operation of physical laws--gravity, thermodynamics, the properties of light, etc..--exhibit a uniquely ordered Design for the Universe that supports life. Valid ethical constructs support life for "all men equally" or we recognize them immediately as well...unethical. Without objective standards "designed" into the universe, ethical debate is nothing more that "what helps me survive"...at your expense, of course, if I consider it necessary. Sadly, our nation is paying a heavy cultural price for the exclusive permissibility of teaching "evolutionary ethics" in public schools. G. JenningsRed Reader
December 11, 2005
December
12
Dec
11
11
2005
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply