Compared to animals, how valuable is a human life?

[Eufrosnia]

I merely stated my belief that research program would be unethical - I realize I didn’t argue for it. I was more interested to see what Catholics here thought.

But from my pov, the fact that Catholicism entails such an intuitively absurd consequence is telling. It would be like if Catholicism permitted the torture and rape of a young child. If Catholicism permitted that, the onus wouldn’t be on me to explain why that action is wrong.

But the absurdity is what you must prove i.e. that killing those animals for the cure is unethical.

Do you have any reasons to give us on how to evaluate and arrive at the conclusion that it is absurd?

 

[Eufrosnia]

That would take us far left-field from the present discussion, but I believe my answer sufficiently answers any objection of circularity.

Well, this question was not directed toward bringing about the fact that your argument is circular. I think that is obvious. What you are debating here is

1. I believe that killing so many animals to save a human life is wrong
2. The Church teaches otherwise
3. Absurd!

So what I am asking is proof for (1). You cannot simply give your opinion in support of premise (1) and expect us to believe you, right?

 

[spencelo]

Yes, it does because I think such treatment of a human being is intrinsically evil for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, we can immediately transpose any conditions you wish upon it and the two propositions become equivalent. Therefore, my question follows perfectly from what you said.

The fact that **you **believe such treatment is intrinsically evil doesn’t logically commit me to the view that the treatment would be permissible under any and all circumstances, nor am I logically committed to that view on the basis of anything I previously said.

Your being sympathetic to the idea does not provide a logical case for the truth of that idea. I may be sympathetic to the idea that there are dinosaurs on Mars. If you ask me to provide a logical ground for that belief and I say “Because there are dinosaurs on Mars,” my reasoning is circular.

The same goes for you if I ask you to provide a defense for your belief in objective moral facts and your response is “I believe there are objective moral facts.” How can you demonstrate the truth of that statement? If you can’t, you don’t have a logical case for it.

Given my belief that there are fundamental moral facts, the answer that there **are **such facts is a perfectly non-circular one to your question, “what makes some action objectively wrong?” In short, an action is wrong because its wrongness is entailed by some fundamental moral fact.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That would take us far left-field from the present discussion, but I believe my answer sufficiently answers any objection of circularity.

A sufficient refutation of an accusation of circularity would look something like this:

a) If X, then Y
b) X
c) so Y

In the case of morality, it might look something like this:

a) if God exists, there are objective moral values
b) God exists
c) therefore there are objective moral values

This is a very rudimentary form of the argument, and the premises would require some explication, but this is a logically consistent argument. On the other hand…

Your answer amounts to:

a) If I believe X, then X
b) X
c) so X

Translated into context:

a) If I believe that objective moral values exist, then objective moral values exist.
b) I believe objective moral values exist
c) Therefore objective moral values exist

Your conclusion is assumed in your premise. And that is a circular argument. Unlike the previous example, which is not self-evidently true, we can at least build upon the premise to determine whether or not it is plausibly true. In this case, we don’t even have anything to build upon. It’s a dead argument. It pretty much amounts to, “Cause I say so.”

 

[spencelo]

a) If I believe X, then X
b) X
c) so X

Translated into context:

a) If I believe that objective moral values exist, then objective moral values exist.
b) I believe objective moral values exist
c) Therefore objective moral values exist

Not an accurate representation of what I said.

 

[spencelo]

Well, this question was not directed toward bringing about the fact that your argument is circular. I think that is obvious. What you are debating here is

1. I believe that killing so many animals to save a human life is wrong
2. The Church teaches otherwise
3. Absurd!

So what I am asking is proof for (1). You cannot simply give your opinion in support of premise (1) and expect us to believe you, right?

Don’t you mean you wish me to prove (3)? Proof of (1) is simple: I believe it. Btw, it’s not just the killing I object to, but also the torture that precedes it.

 

[Windmill]

So to be clear: you believe that the research program in my hypothetical is justifiable?

It is, regardless of my personal beliefs. It’s based on objective truth.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Don’t you mean you wish me to prove (3)? Proof of (1) is simple: I believe it. Btw, it’s not just the killing I object to, but also the torture that precedes it.

No I mean (1). If the proof is simple, you can present it here? Because I do not find it that simple

P.S. (3) is a conclusion. You are suppossed to give evidence/reasons/proof to believe the premises. The premises, if true, should lead to the conclusions. Last post where I represented your argument, I rearranged your argument so that it does not have the circularity anymore. But Premise 1 is still hanging and begging for evidence/proof/reasons.

 

[spencelo]

But the absurdity is what you must prove i.e. that killing those animals for the cure is unethical.

Do you have any reasons to give us on how to evaluate and arrive at the conclusion that it is absurd?

Yes, I do. But just so you understand my perspective: suppose for the sake of argument that Catholicism permitted the rape, torture and killing of young children. For non-Catholics, should they take that consequence as a reason to reject Catholicism? Yes or no?

 

[Windmill]

Do you see the suffering of the animals in your hypothetical OP as needless?

 

[Windmill]

I’m also curious what your response would be to my post here, that seems to have gone unnoticed:

In point of fact, one person’s cure does justify the suffering and death of animals if it is medically necessary to reach the cure.

Here is the real problem in America: there are those out there who are Hell-bent on blurring the distinction between animals and men for the final end of justifying hedonistic behavior. If men are no different from animals, and if animals are governed solely by instinct, then men should not be held to any moral standard because they are no different than animals. Therefore, they would say, men should make decisions strictly on instinct: if it feels good, do it.

These diabolical philosophies are subtle and they play on every man’s tendency towards selfishness and pleasure-seeking to exclusion of virtue, self-denial, and sacrificial love. This is nothing new, it is only repackaged in modern terms. It appeals to men’s sense of justice by tapping into our natural fear of suffering, but you have to be very careful and think critically here.

God created man to govern the world and the animals. To start placing animals and men on the same level is to warp God plan for creation and deny us our role as higher beings governed by intellect and will. Once we start down that path, true Christian charity is completely nonsensical.

 

[spencelo]

No I mean (1). If the proof is simple, you can present it here? Because I do not find it that simple

1. I believe that killing so many animals to save a human life is wrong

So you want me to prove that I believe that killing those animals would be wrong? For that, all I need to show is evidence of my belief.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes, I do. But just so you understand my perspective: suppose for the sake of argument that Catholicism permitted the rape, torture and killing of young children. For non-Catholics, should they take that consequence as a reason to reject Catholicism? Yes or no?

If the Catholic Church permits rape of children, that would show that Catholic Theology is logically inconsistent i.e. it talks of the dignity of the human person and then allows rape.

Thus, it would follow that Catholic teaching is false.

But in the case you are describing, you are not showing us a logical inconsistency in Catholic teaching. You are showing a contradiction of Catholic teaching against your belief. In such a case, for us to take you seriously, you have to present us with reasons/proof/evidence to accept your belief (in this case Value of animal persons = human persons).

 

[prodigalson2011]

The fact that **you **believe such treatment is intrinsically evil doesn’t logically commit me to the view that the treatment would be permissible under any and all circumstances, nor am I logically committed to that view on the basis of anything I previously said.

You’re missing the point. This has nothing to do with what I believe. I merely pointed out my perspective to put the argument in context. The point of the example is that on your previously expressed opinions, the actions necessarily become equivalent. It has to do with what you have stated you believe, not me. Let’s summarize. On your view:

a) there is no fundamental moral difference between animals and humans
b) it is not necessarily wrong to kill an animal if it has no self-awareness and no sensitivity to pain.

So

c) therefore it is not necessarily wrong to kill a human being if (s)he has no self awareness and sensitivity to pain.

That is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the first two premises, both of which are opinions you have expressed.

Given my belief that there are fundamental moral facts, the answer that there **are **such facts is a perfectly non-circular one to your question, “what makes some action objectively wrong?” In short, an action is wrong because its wrongness is entailed by some fundamental moral fact.

You have not demonstrated the existence of “fundamental moral facts.” If I say to you, “There are T-rexes in outer space because I believe that there are dinosaurs on Mars,” are you going to accept that as a sufficiently logical argument? Because there is no qualitative difference between my T-rexes and your fundamental moral facts in terms of logical demonstration.

Don’t work yourself too hard, now. This is really a trick question. There really are no logical grounds for objective moral values on the basis of atheism, and most atheist philosophers have conceded that point–from Nietzsche to Sartre on down to lesser (and decidedly unphilosophical) thinkers such as Dawkins.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Not an accurate representation of what I said.

That’s exactly what you said.

Given my belief that there are fundamental moral facts (in other words, “I believe there are fundmental moral facts.”), the answer that there are such facts (in other words, “Therefore there are fundamental moral facts.”) is a perfectly non-circular one

Here you said that your belief in fundamental moral facts is a perfectly logical grounds for the argument that there are such facts. Again, this amounts to:

I believe there are fundamental moral facts.
Therefore there are fundamental moral facts.

And that is a circular argument. You’re fighting a losing battle here.

 

[Eufrosnia]

1. I believe that killing so many animals to save a human life is wrong

So you want me to prove that I believe that killing those animals would be wrong? For that, all I need to show is evidence of my belief.

Very good. But as you might know, we are not required to entertain beliefs of other people unless they can give us reasons to think it reflects the objective reality.

So to give you an example, I can believe that there is an invisible green monster in your brain that is making you type these things. But no one should believe me unless I can give them reasons for it, right?

Therefore, if you want us to take your argument seriously, you have to give us reasons to accept your belief.

 

[spencelo]

If the Catholic Church permits rape of children, that would show that Catholic Theology is logically inconsistent i.e. it talks of the dignity of the human person and then allows rape.

Thus, it would follow that Catholic teaching is false.

But suppose Catholic teaching *was *consistent; suppose it taught that adults have infinitely more dignity than children, and there were no principles that contradicted the idea that the rape and torture of children was okay. For non-Catholics, should they see that consequence as a reason to reject Catholicism even if the teachings were internally consistent?

 

[spencelo]

Very good. But as you might know, we are not required to entertain beliefs of other people unless they can give us reasons to think it reflects the objective reality.

So to give you an example, I can believe that there is an invisible green monster in your brain that is making you type these things. But no one should believe me unless I can give them reasons for it, right?

Therefore, if you want us to take your argument seriously, you have to give us reasons to accept your belief.

Which goes back to what I said before: you want me to prove (3) not (1).

 

[Eufrosnia]

But suppose Catholic teaching *was *consistent; suppose it taught that adults have infinitely more dignity than children, and there were no principles that contradicted the idea that the rape and torture of children was okay. For non-Catholics, should they see that consequence as a reason to reject Catholicism even if the teachings were internally consistent?

In your hypothetical situation, then it would follow that one must simply accept the Catholic teaching.

But you are simply delving in to meaningless territory here. It is like asking if the Pope will reject the Holy Trinity tomorrow in an ex cathedra statement, whether one should believe the teaching. It is meaningless because it can never happen.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Which goes back to what I said before: you want me to prove (3) not (1).

Well, let me make this less ambiguous. You say the following:-

Value of an Animal = Human Person

I am asking for proof of the above. Do you have any other than your own personal belief?