Compared to animals, how valuable is a human life?

[spencelo]

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.

But the logic doesn’t follow. I agree that it is not “necessarily” wrong to kill an animal if it has no self-awareness and no sensitivity to pain, but that doesn’t mean I think it is “never” wrong to do so. In your example, are you essentially me whether killing a *nonsentient *human being is wrong?

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 thinkers such as Dawkins.

I agree I haven’t demonstrated the existence of fundamental moral facts, but such a demonstration is unnecessary in order to give you a noncircular answer. On my view, some facts simply have no further explanation than their own existence.

If I asked “what makes it the case that God exists?” A noncircular answer would be: He just does–his existence doesn’t depend on anything else.

 

[prodigalson2011]

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?

This is a false dilemma. Unlike our illogical secular counterparts, Catholic philosophy understands that there can be no such distinction in dignity between children and adults, as these are both temporary states of the same being. A being either has inherent dignity or it doesn’t.

Not to mention that these teachings could not be coherently encased in Catholic teaching without eliminating God from it altogether. This is a red herring.

 

[spencelo]

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.

It’s not meaningless because we reason that way all the time. If Islam consistently permits honor killings, then that would be a reason to reject Islam. The extremely counter-intuitive consequences of Catholicism are no different. This is not to say that those consequences are decisive reasons against Catholicism, but from my epistemic viewpoint, they are still good reasons - so my rejection is rational.

 

[meltzerboy]

Not an accurate representation of what I said.

What then would be an accurate representation of what you said? It seems to me your belief in fundamental objective values is based on your belief. What is that belief based on, if not religion (such as Hinduism) and not humanism?

 

[spencelo]

This is a false dilemma. Unlike our illogical secular counterparts, Catholic philosophy understands that there can be no such distinction in dignity between children and adults, as these are both temporary states of the same being. A being either has inherent dignity or it doesn’t.

Not to mention that these teachings could not be coherently encased in Catholic teaching without eliminating God from it altogether. This is a red herring.

I don’t see the incoherency. If Catholicism taught that adults are infinitely more valuable than children, I don’t see why that couldn’t be consistent.

 

[spencelo]

What then would be an accurate representation of what you said? It seems to me your belief in fundamental objective values is based on your belief. What is that belief based on?

You fail to distinguish between:

(i) Some moral propositions are fundamental; and
(ii) I believe that (i) is true

The truth of (i) doesn’t depend on my believing in it. Why do I believe (i)? That’s a different matter entirely.

 

[prodigalson2011]

But the logic doesn’t follow. I agree that it is not “necessarily” wrong to kill an animal if it has no self-awareness and no sensitivity to pain, but that doesn’t mean I think it is “never” wrong to do so. In your example, are you essentially me whether killing a *nonsentient *human being is wrong?

Yes. I am asking whether you think there are any circumstances in which murdering a human being who lacked apparent self-awareness and pain recognition is justifiable.

I agree I haven’t demonstrated the existence of fundamental moral facts, but such a demonstration is unnecessary in order to give you a noncircular answer. On my view, some facts simply have no further explanation than their own existence.

That is not the question I asked. I didn’t ask you to explain their existence. I asked you to logically demonstrate their existence. There is a difference. I’ll show you what I mean below.

If I asked “what makes it the case that God exists?” A noncircular answer would be: He just does–his existence doesn’t depend on anything else.

If left on its own, that is a deeply unsatisfactory answer. It’s true that nothing can explain God, as He is the source of everything and thus if there were something to explain Him, that thing would be God. So that’s just a logically incoherent question.

HOWEVER, God’s existence CAN be logically demonstrated (see: Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Edward Feser, Peter Kreeft, William Lane Craig).

And, on the other hand, we also find that objective moral values can be, not only logically demonstrated, but explained on the basis of theism. On the other hand, on the basis of atheism, they can be neither explained nor logically demonstrated.

Therefore, on the basis of atheism, morality must remain fundamentally subjective.

 

[triumphguy]

It’s not meaningless because we reason that way all the time. If Islam consistently permits honor killings, then that would be a reason to reject Islam. The extremely counter-intuitive consequences of Catholicism are no different. This is not to say that those consequences are decisive reasons against Catholicism, but from my epistemic viewpoint, they are still good reasons - so my rejection is rational.

Since you are not a Catholic, and you hold our beliefs to be counter intuitive, and furthermore you make no value distinction between sentient animals and humans, then why do you bother with this forum.

I know you would like to trip some people up argument wise, and show how logical your position is, and how untenable the Catholic position is - misogynistic, misguided, founded on falsehood, kept alive by intellectual trickery.

But since we are so thick (with our bronze-age beliefs, and our false hopes) your victories are going to be hollow…

Oh come to think of it, you’ve not won many arguments on here.

Carry on then Spencelo - you need the practice.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You fail to distinguish between:

(i) Some moral propositions are fundamental; and
(ii) I believe that (i) is true

The truth of (i) doesn’t depend on my believing in it. Why do I believe (i)? That’s a different matter entirely.

No, that’s the entire matter. Why do you believe it?

All you’ve been doing is dodging that very question.

 

[Crescentinus]

According to some antrhopomorphists, human lives are less valuable than that of animals.

 

[triumphguy]

According to some antrhopomorphists, human lives are less valuable than that of animals.

Yep - some tribes in Africa would not be deemed as important as a tribe of gorillas.

 

[Crescentinus]

It’s not meaningless because we reason that way all the time. If Islam consistently permits honor killings, then that would be a reason to reject Islam. The extremely counter-intuitive consequences of Catholicism are no different. This is not to say that those consequences are decisive reasons against Catholicism, but from my epistemic viewpoint, they are still good reasons - so my rejection is rational.

Any “victories” on your part here are in vain, for you are not into debate.

 

[LilyM]

Anyone care to respond to the points I raised in post #58?

 

[spencelo]

Yes. I am asking whether you think there are any circumstances in which murdering a human being who lacked apparent self-awareness and pain recognition is justifiable.

If a human being is truly nonsentient, then I don’t believe killing it would be wrong.

That is not the question I asked. I didn’t ask you to explain their existence. I asked you to logically demonstrate their existence. There is a difference. I’ll show you what I mean below.

If left on its own, that is a deeply unsatisfactory answer. It’s true that nothing can explain God, as He is the source of everything and thus if there were something to explain Him, that thing would be God. So that’s just a logically incoherent question.

“What makes it the case that God exists?” According to you, that’s a logically incoherent question.

“What makes it the case that an action is objectively wrong?” According to me, that’s a logically incoherent question.

 

[triumphguy]

Anyone care to respond to the points I raised in post #58?

Let’s have a look.

Goes to look.

 

[Crescentinus]

Yep - some tribes in Africa would not be deemed as important as a tribe of gorillas.

Exactly!
Just as according to some “schools” of anthropormorphist logic, Catholics are not as important as herds of cattle.

 

[meltzerboy]

You fail to distinguish between:

(i) Some moral propositions are fundamental; and
(ii) I believe that (i) is true

The truth of (i) doesn’t depend on my believing in it. Why do I believe (i)? That’s a different matter entirely.

Which moral propositions are fundamental, that a non-human life is equivalent to a human life? According to whose morality?

 

[spencelo]

Or 10 million viruses or bacteria? They are living beings too.

Nonsentient beings, so they don’t count morally.

To muddy the waters a bit further - what if you were told that the suffering of those 10 million animals would end up saving the lives of 10 BILLION human sufferers of whatever disease the man has? And that each of those sufferers would otherwise go through far more pain from the disease than the animals in the course of finding the cure?

I’d probably be against it, for the same reason I’d be against sacrificing 10 million humans to save 10 billion humans.

 

[spencelo]

Any “victories” on your part here are in vain, for you are not into debate.

Why do you say that?

 

[Crescentinus]

Why do you say that?

It’s simply because of the fact that your arguments here had been wrecked by other CAFers to the point of sheer recklessness.