Agape and its significance

[R_Daneel]

Isn’t that interesting, you see no value in “free will” with moral problems, and yet free will is what gives humans the unique ability to overpower nature and nurture in order for moral problems to actually exist. Hmmm…, you could even get rid of the whole pesky question of morality if you simply deny the existence of free will. How convenient.

We don’t really know if we have a true, libertarian free will. It is a plausible assumption, nothing more.

But there is no right or wrong in a person’s sense of value? That can get pretty dicey considering there are quite a lot of murderers and rapists out there. But hey, values differ from person to person.

The funny thing is, that you bring up those negative behaviors. I am pretty sure that we could agree that there is no “value” in those acts, neither for the actual victims, nor for the rest of us. If we could somehow get rid of those sociopaths, we would do it.

If a person is suicidal, and does not see the value in his life then is he correct in his thinking?

According to his value system, he is. “Whose life is it anyway?”

Who are we to say the drug addict valuing meth over everything else in life is wrong? But no, there are no right or wrong answers, “we all just have different perspectives.” Wait, did I get too real again? I’m sorry, I forgot we were talking about robots.

No, we are NOT talking about robots.

The hypothetical situation reveals the fact that you do not want to stand behind the claims you have made. You say there is no inherent value to anything (including human life), so if a person is more valuable to you dead than alive, and it makes no intellectual difference to the person anyway due to the limitations of his understanding, then why do you not save your own, very valuable life? Please, correct me if I’m wrong with your actual reasoning (with a *real *supporting argument for your values, not just rambling on about other people’s values).

This simply does not follow in real life. In a hypothetical life-boat scenario, the rules are different.

 

[R_Daneel]

A welcome back from vacation thought:

The idea that you seem to want us to accept is that the “why” does not matter, as long as some “good” occurs. There is no difference between a person who is helped by the free will of another person or by the programing of a robot. There is no difference between a Van Gogh and a copy of the original, as long as it looks nice in your living room.

Yes, according to the value system one adopts. For someone who simply enjoys the beauty of a painting, it does not matter if he has an original, or a copy. For someone else, who only cares about the market value, it does not matter, if the painting is beutiful or not, it only matters if it has a dollar value. Different perspectives, different value systems.

Yet, if we should stop asking “why” simply because we might not be able to be 100% certain of getting the correct answer, then you might as well tell people to stop pursuing science, archeology, history, psychology, ect. All that matters is what we get on face value. It is only about treating the symptoms of this situation, not the reason for the fever itself.

Opps, not so fast. In those hypothetical scenarios, the “fever” is treated, not just the “symptoms”. I am afraid, you did not differentiate between the two kinds of “why”. There is the “why”, which asks for the “cause” of something, and that is what science is all about. Then there is the “why” of consequences, of results, of the “telos” of the act. Let’s not confuse the two. In both cases we can have valid, legitimate questions, and irrelevant, useless ones.

Finding out the “why” is how we learn to encourage or discourage bad results, such as eugenics and genocide - very real situations which is a possibility for every generation. The “it can’t happen here” dismissal is a blind belief held by many naive thinkers - and then all of a sudden, people wake up to the realization that we are once again sacrificing our children for the gods of material comforts and discriminating for the sake of diversity. By restricting your hypothetical situation to just the supposed “good” results, you do not consider the full aspect of your philosophy.

Too farfetched, in this specific case. There is no connection between “genocide” and appreciating the help even that help was not volitional. Please, remember, we are not talking about “robots”. We are talking about very good people, who instinctively do the “right thing”, without oscillating, without wasting time to make up their minds.

 

[anns82]

I find it interesting that your concept of “value” is simply based on what a person chooses to hold valuable. At the same time, you say that free will is not valuable (as long as some undefined “good” is the result). So, according to your chosen value system, you choose free will to be irrelevant. Yet that choice would not be possible without free will.

 

[R_Daneel]

I find it interesting that your concept of “value” is simply based on what a person chooses to hold valuable. At the same time, you say that free will is not valuable (as long as some undefined “good” is the result). So, according to your chosen value system, you choose free will to be irrelevant. Yet that choice would not be possible without free will.

I agree. What is the point? That choice is not a moral choice. If it is a “volitional” choice at all. I prefer chocolate ice-cream to vanilla. I choose to buy chocolate ice-cream and that is a volitional choice. But my preference to chocolate is not a volitional choice. You see the difference?

 

[anns82]

For someone who simply enjoys the beauty of a painting, it does not matter if he has an original, or a copy. For someone else, who only cares about the market value, it does not matter, if the painting is beutiful or not, it only matters if it has a dollar value. Different perspectives, different value systems.

Typed like a true materialist. Both cases are only valid for people who know nothing about art. People do not talk simply because they like the sound of their voice. They talk to convey a message. They talk with a purpose. Likewise, if an artist paints with a purpose (not all artists think they do, but in that case, the “lack of purpose” in itself becomes a purpose) then simply dismissing it as a pretty picture or a price tag is to reject the reason behind the created piece. If we only go based on the materialist philosophy, we are essentially saying that it is only our own thoughts that matter; as if we do not care to open our minds to what others are saying to us. Real art is not a one sided conversation.

Just how the materialist perspective on art only works for people who know nothing about art, the materialist perspective on life only works for people who know nothing about life. Materialism is an incomplete perspective on reality.

 

[anns82]

I agree. What is the point? That choice is not a moral choice. If it is a “volitional” choice at all. I prefer chocolate ice-cream to vanilla. I choose to buy chocolate ice-cream and that is a volitional choice. But my preference to chocolate is not a volitional choice. You see the difference?

You are likening conceptual choice to value free will, which is only possible through free will, to taste.

That does not work.

 

[Betterave]

But there is no right or wrong in a person’s sense of value? That can get pretty dicey considering there are quite a lot of murderers and rapists out there. But hey, values differ from person to person. If a person is suicidal, and does not see the value in his life then is he correct in his thinking? Who are we to say the drug addict valuing meth over everything else in life is wrong? But no, there are no right or wrong answers, “we all just have different perspectives.” Wait, did I get too real again? I’m sorry, I forgot we were talking about robots.

Something to keep in mind: I think Robot Daneel either is a robot, or thinks/hopes he is a robot (of some kind).

 

[Betterave]

And, pray tell, what that “intrinsic value” would be?

You’re doing quite well here, but I have to sympathize with RD on this not being helpful or meaningful to him. It seems like an unintuitive and unnecessary way to explain the natural *intrinsic *value of creatures. Shouldn’t intrinsic mean intrinsic to the creature, rather than to the creator?

 

[JohnDamian]

You’re doing quite well here, but I have to sympathize with RD on this not being helpful or meaningful to him. It seems like an unintuitive and unnecessary way to explain the natural *intrinsic *value of creatures. Shouldn’t intrinsic mean intrinsic to the creature, rather than to the creator?

Intrinsicalness is not predicated relatively. But instead essentially.

 

[anns82]

You’re doing quite well here, but I have to sympathize with RD on this not being helpful or meaningful to him. It seems like an unintuitive and unnecessary way to explain the natural *intrinsic *value of creatures. Shouldn’t intrinsic mean intrinsic to the creature, rather than to the creator?

I agree with you that it does not work for someone who does not believe in a Creator. This is where I was hoping RD would explain by what means he determines the value of something beyond it’s usefulness to the individual.

If value is intrinsic simply due to the fact that it exists, then by what means do we determine something to have a superior value to another? With this, I am thinking specifically to the difference in value between a human and an animal. We hold human life to be more valuable than an animal’s life, and some say it is because we empathize due to our own human nature, but is that simply it? Many people want scientific testing on animals to stop, which would mean that testing on humans would have to increase. Is there a difference between testing on animals vs humans? I believe humans are created with a superior value due to being made in God’s Image. If there is no value difference, then life, is life, is life, is life.

I don’t really think that a person who does not believe in God necessarily disagrees with the value difference between human and animal life, but I do not know on what grounds they make that determination. Hopefully someone can add that to the conversation.

 

[Betterave]

I agree with you that it does not work for someone who does not believe in a Creator. This is where I was hoping RD would explain by what means he determines the value of something beyond it’s usefulness to the individual.

If value is intrinsic simply due to the fact that it exists, then by what means do we determine something to have a superior value to another? With this, I am thinking specifically to the difference in value between a human and an animal. We hold human life to be more valuable than an animal’s life, and some say it is because we empathize due to our own human nature, but is that simply it? Many people want scientific testing on animals to stop, which would mean that testing on humans would have to increase. Is there a difference between testing on animals vs humans? I believe humans are created with a superior value due to being made in God’s Image. If there is no value difference, then life, is life, is life, is life.

I don’t really think that a person who does not believe in God necessarily disagrees with the value difference between human and animal life, but I do not know on what grounds they make that determination. Hopefully someone can add that to the conversation.

But the specific value of something is not simply a function of its existence, but of its essence/nature (the way in which it exists). We determine the relative value of things by looking at their respective natures, not by looking at God (unless God is one of the things whose value we are assessing).

 

[anns82]

But the specific value of something is not simply a function of its existence, but of its essence/nature (the way in which it exists). We determine the relative value of things by looking at their respective natures, not by looking at God (unless God is one of the things whose value we are assessing).

I do not agree. Every person, no matter how they exist - whether they be a homeless person on the street, have some mental disability, or the person who finds the cure for cancer, have an inherent value that is not due to any way they exist, but rather because God made each of them in His Image. That is why it is believed it is believed we are to care for a person in a coma who who is able to continue to live through food, water, and other things normally needed to preserve every human life. That is why we are to love our enemies. We value human life due to it’s nature as both a physical and spiritual being. I am asking if we do not identify the spiritual aspect, then what differentiates a human from another physical creature? It then becomes a subjective value because it depends on the person’s own perspective of the value. With that, a person who is physically unresponsive (as a person in a coma) would no longer be valued to the extent of a conscious person, and I would even wonder if that fact would “lower” below the level of a conscious animal. Then it would be better to test things on people in comas rather than conscious animals. If someone finds a problem with that notion, then there must be something inherently different between an animal and a human. I believe it is due to the way God created us and continues to value us (if He just created us, then lost interest in us, then that would pose a problem the distinguished value of humans as well). Many don’t believe that God created us, so on what grounds is the human/animal difference made?

I also agree that we can learn about God through learning about His creations, but I think people forget we can learn about ourselves by learning about God.

 

[Betterave]

I do not agree. Every person, no matter how they exist - whether they be a homeless person on the street, have some mental disability, or the person who finds the cure for cancer, have an inherent value that is not due to any way they exist, but rather because God made each of them in His Image. That is why it is believed it is believed we are to care for a person in a coma who who is able to continue to live through food, water, and other things normally needed to preserve every human life. That is why we are to love our enemies. We value human life due to it’s nature as both a physical and spiritual being. I am asking if we do not identify the spiritual aspect, then what differentiates a human from another physical creature? It then becomes a subjective value because it depends on the person’s own perspective of the value. With that, a person who is physically unresponsive (as a person in a coma) would no longer be valued to the extent of a conscious person, and I would even wonder if that fact would “lower” below the level of a conscious animal. Then it would be better to test things on people in comas rather than conscious animals. If someone finds a problem with that notion, then there must be something inherently different between an animal and a human. I believe it is due to the way God created us and continues to value us (if He just created us, then lost interest in us, then that would pose a problem the distinguished value of humans as well). Many don’t believe that God created us, so on what grounds is the human/animal difference made?

I also agree that we can learn about God through learning about His creations, but I think people forget we can learn about ourselves by learning about God.

I think you’re confused about the terms I have used. **The essence/nature of a being does not change because of a coma or because of poverty. (A stupid human being is no less a human being for being stupid.) Essence/nature are philosophical terms which denote what a thing is for as long as it is, regardless of what misadventures it has in life.

That said, non-essential conditions of beings, such as poverty or being in a coma, are also objectively valuable: Their value is a *not *a merely subjective matter, but must be objectively assessed relative to the essential nature of the being in question.

Finally, one can identify a ‘spiritual’ aspect of human nature without referring to God. (Of course, this aspect will be *better *understood when it is understood in the light of its Creator.)

 

[anns82]

I think you’re confused about the terms I have used. **The *essence/nature ***of a being does not change because of a coma or because of poverty. (A stupid human being is no less a human being for being stupid.) Essence/nature are philosophical terms which denote what a thing is for as long as it is, regardless of what misadventures it has in life.

That said, non-essential conditions of beings, such as poverty or being in a coma, are also objectively valuable: Their value is a *not *a merely subjective matter, but must be objectively assessed relative to the essential nature of the being in question.

Finally, one can identify a ‘spiritual’ aspect of human nature without referring to God. (Of course, this aspect will be *better *understood when it is understood in the light of its Creator.)

Ok, I think where I am primarily having the problem is how someone determines the human to have a higher value in it’s essence, compared to animals. I understand it as the spiritual aspect, but for a person who does not believe in the existence of a spirit (everything is simply all series of chemical reactions within the brain), non-the-less, the existence of God, I do not know on what grounds they identify human value over animal value. If it is simply creative intelligence, then that poses a problem with those who have a mental disability. If it is empathy for a fellow human being, then what about the person who is self-centered and does not care for another, or who simply likes animals more than people - that makes value relative to the individual’s concern for others. So my question is on what grounds does someone believe a human is more valuable than an animal without the recognition of a spirit? As far as I can tell, it is an instinctive/irrational belief on the atheist’s part.

I very well could be wrong on this, so I am open to thoughts - and let me know if I’m on a different wavelength. I am just saying that I truly do not know an answer to why an atheist would recognize the intrinsic value to human life. When RD asked, I did not give him a response that I thought he would accept, I gave him the response that I believe to be correct.

 

[Betterave]

Ok, I think where I am primarily having the problem is how someone determines the human to have a higher value in it’s essence, compared to animals. I understand it as the spiritual aspect, but for a person who does not believe in the existence of a spirit (everything is simply all series of chemical reactions within the brain), non-the-less, the existence of God, I do not know on what grounds they identify human value over animal value. If it is simply creative intelligence, then that poses a problem with those who have a mental disability. If it is empathy for a fellow human being, then what about the person who is self-centered and does not care for another, or who simply likes animals more than people - that makes value relative to the individual’s concern for others. So my question is on what grounds does someone believe a human is more valuable than an animal without the recognition of a spirit? As far as I can tell, it is an instinctive/irrational belief on the atheist’s part.

I very well could be wrong on this, so I am open to thoughts - and let me know if I’m on a different wavelength. I am just saying that I truly do not know an answer to why an atheist would recognize the intrinsic value to human life. When RD asked, I did not give him a response that I thought he would accept, I gave him the response that I believe to be correct.

In general we can recognize (as you have) that we can move both ways: from an understanding of God to a better understanding of humans, and vice versa. Now human love is a reflection of God’s love and we understand it better when we understand that fact. But we can still understand human love before coming to understand its source - if we couldn’t, our experience of human love could never lead us to God’s love; but it can.

More specifically, creative intelligence is great - we all recognize that - but not when separated from love - we also all recognize that. Love, caring, community, friendship, including special care for those who need it the most (the young, the old, the sick, the stupid, etc.) are features that clearly belong to human nature, which is inherently social/communitarian. Without these accompanying features ‘creative intelligence’ can be quite ghastly really. Those who want to emphasize cognitive function as the locus of specifically human value simply haven’t thought about human values enough.

 

[R_Daneel]

Love, caring, community, friendship, including special care for those who need it the most (the young, the old, the sick, the stupid, etc.) are features that clearly belong to human nature, which is inherently social/communitarian.

Have you seen studies of higher apes? You would be surprised how “human” they are - without that “immortal soul”.

 

[Betterave]

Have you seen studies of higher apes? You would be surprised how “human” they are - without that “immortal soul”.

Yes, and not really. Discussion of “immortal soul” is a bit “red-herring” at this point though, isn’t it?

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, and not really. Discussion of “immortal soul” is a bit “red-herring” at this point though, isn’t it?

I don’t think so. You said that “love, etc…” are human traits only. The apes’ behavior contradict that.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t think so. (1) You said that “love, etc…” are human traits -]only/-]. (2) The apes’ behavior contradict that.

1. No I didn’t.
2. No it doesn’t.

 

[R_Daneel]

1. No I didn’t.
2. No it doesn’t.

Aha. This is what you wrote:

Love, caring, community, friendship, including special care for those who need it the most (the young, the old, the sick, the stupid, etc.) are features that clearly belong to human nature, which is inherently social/communitarian.

So the apes “clearly” exhibit “human nature”. Of course I do agree with that. Moreover, the apes do not exhibit volitional behavior. Their behavior is based upon instincts - but you say that they have features that “clearly belong to human nature”… sure looks like an interesting conondrum to me. Maybe that “volitional” aspect is not a big deal after all.