Compared to animals, how valuable is a human life?

[prodigalson2011]

That doesn’t mean they can’t be abstract objects.

In the sense implied by a necessary being, yes it does. Moral values are contingent upon the existence of real creatures to whom they apply and a purpose to which they are intended to work. If life is an accident, it has no purpose, and thus no necessary moral objective. To suggest otherwise commits the “is/ought” fallacy. Morals don’t make sense in the absence of these two things, and they don’t make sense unless applied to real things. Numbers, on the other hand, make sense whether they are applied to real objects or not.

Because B’s moral beliefs derive from fundamental moral facts that are necessarily true.

You’ll recall that B believed in murder. I’ll assume you meant A. Regardless, you are showing the vacuousness of your philosophy. You’re pretty much saying, “Just because.”

Unlike God, whose necessity can be logically arrived at and explained by reason, you have pretty much illustrated the fact that you can provide no line of reason that shows moral facts to be necessarily true. You just keep asserting that they are.

 

[Crescentinus]

In the sense implied by a necessary being, yes it does. Moral values are contingent upon the existence of real creatures to whom they apply. Numbers make sense whether they are applied to real objects or not.

You’ll recall that B believed in murder. I’ll assume you meant A. Regardless, you are showing the vacuousness of your philosophy. You’re pretty much saying, “Just because.”

Unlike God, whose necessity can be logically arrived at and explained by reason, you have pretty much illustrated the fact that you can provide no line of reason that shows moral facts to be necessarily true. You just keep asserting that they are.

Also, this is an example of spencelo’s argument getting wrecked to the point of sheer recklessness.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nothing wrong with sentiments. As Pascal said: “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.” (The heart has its reasons that reason does not know.)

Of course not, but there’s also a good reason for the epithet, “sentimental old fool.” To depend solely on sentiment leads to a lot of muddy thinking!

 

[spencelo]

In the sense implied by a necessary being, yes it does. Moral values are contingent upon the existence of real creatures to whom they apply and a purpose to which they are intended to work.

Fundamental moral facts are not so contingent, and your assertion that that just doesn’t make sense is made without argumentative support.

You’ll recall that B believed in murder. I’ll assume you meant A. Regardless, you are showing the vacuousness of your philosophy. You’re pretty much saying, “Just because.”

No, because one of them holds beliefs that correspond to reality; the other does not.

Unlike God, whose necessity can be logically arrived at and explained by reason, you have pretty much illustrated the fact that you can provide no line of reason that shows moral facts to be necessarily true. You just keep asserting that they are.

Demonstrating that there are fundamental moral facts wasn’t my intention. I only sought to give you a noncircular answer, which I did. Whether my answer is correct is another matter entirely, but if it is, then your question is incoherent the same way that my question about God is incoherent.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s actually an epistemology that everyone uses. Suppose A is considering whether Catholicism or Islam is more rationally defensible. If it turns out that Islam entails extremely counter-intuitive consequences relative to his background beliefs but Catholicism does not, and both are internally consistent, then A as more reason to reject Islam then he does Catholicism.

I think this is your error.

You have assumed that I am a Catholic because I find that Catholic teachings are appealing to me. This is unfortunately not how it works. To do so is irrational. So in short, the epistemology you propose is illogical or at the least, gives no reasons to think it valid.

What I suggest is you do some homework on why one should become Catholic. This is a journey you take through use of reason i.e. not mere personal beliefs/opinions. Once you arrive at the Church, then you give full assent to it.

Right now what we are doing is arguing over your personal belief on animals vs. the Catholic Church’s view. As far as I am concerned, you only have your personal opinion vs. the good reasons I have to believe in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Needless to say, I am not going to pick your personal opinion.

 

[TimothyH]

But why wouldn’t that follow?

The Church teaches that every person is entitled to care which is ordinary and normal. It is not required to go to extraordinary lengths to keep someone alive. That’s why people are allowed to go into hospice, so that they have dignity at the end of their lives. It is not necessary to bankrupt the rest of the family in the hope of a miracle cure.

When death approaches and there is no reasonable cure, we are to accept it as aprt of necessary part of entering into eternal life, with faith and hope in God’s mercy.

To kill multitides of animals in an attempt to prolong life shows a lack of trust in God’s mercy, perhaps a desire to control life and death itself. It is not normal, and shows lack of trust in God’s plan for us. If we have tried to live a good life in Christ then we should have nothing to fear.

The last line of the night prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours is “Lord, grant us a restful night and a peaceful death. Amen.”

-Tim-

 

[prodigalson2011]

Fundamental moral facts are not so contingent, and your assertion that that just doesn’t make sense is made without argumentative support.

a) if there is no such thing as life, there is no such thing as murder.
b) if there is no such thing as murder, the statement “murder is wrong” is nonsensical.

a) if there is no such thing as life, there is no such thing as stealing.
b) if there is no such thing as stealing, the statement “stealing is wrong” is nonsensical.

a) if there is no such thing as an intelligent being, there is no such thing as lying.
b) if there is no such thing as lying, the statement “lying is wrong” is nonsensical.

You could go down the list with any moral statement you care to dream up. The obvious result is that, in the absence of life and/or intelligent beings, moral statements are nonsensical. Therefore, they are contingent. More important than such individual demonstrations, though:

a) if there is no intended purpose for the universe, to say that something is “wrong” is nonsensical, as “wrong” implies an intended order.
b) morality implies that some things are wrong.
c) therefore, if there is no intended purpose for the universe, then morality is nonsensical.

No, because one of them holds beliefs that correspond to reality; the other does not.

What you mean is, “One of them holds beliefs that correspond to my subjective view of reality.” You have no logical basis for thinking one’s reality is truer than the other. You have proven this by consistently failing to provide a logical basis for any of your statements.

Demonstrating that there are fundamental moral facts wasn’t my intention. I only sought to give you a noncircular answer, which I did. Whether my answer is correct is another matter entirely, but if it is, then renders your question incoherent the same way my question about God is incoherent.

You have not given me a noncircular answer. The answer only becomes noncircular if, as in the case of God, you can logically demonstrate the self-sufficiency of moral facts. You have failed to do this. Whether your answer is correct is not another matter entirely; it’s the entire crux upon which your argument rests. If you don’t have a reason to believe what you believe, then you are being illogical.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Demonstrating that there are fundamental moral facts wasn’t my intention. I only sought to give you a noncircular answer, which I did. Whether my answer is correct is another matter entirely, but if it is, then your question is incoherent the same way that my question about God is incoherent.

Your answer has simply been “I believe in x,y,z”. Then you call it a fundamental moral fact.

If you think a little critically of your own position, surely, you will notice that you have not given us any reasons to think merely you believing something is reason to consider it a fundamental moral fact.

The Jihadist believes that non-muslims are not human. They would consider the Catholic teaching on human dignity of all human persons absurd. Do you think we should care? In the same way, I don’t think we should care that you believe in the equal value of animals and humans.

 

[spencelo]

b) if there is no such thing as murder, the statement “murder is wrong” is nonsensical.

The statement that murder would be wrong if it existed is not nonsensical.

Therefore, they are contingent.

Nope.

What you mean is, “One of them holds beliefs that correspond to my subjective view of reality.”

Nope - not what I mean at all.

You have not given me a noncircular answer. The answer only becomes noncircular if, as in the case of God, you can demonstrate the self-sufficiency of moral facts. You have failed to do this.

This doesn’t follow; the coherency of the question doesn’t depend on whether the existence of the proposition at issue can be demonstrated.

 

[spencelo]

Your answer has simply been “I believe in x,y,z”. Then you call it a fundamental moral fact.

If you think a little critically of your own position, surely, you will notice that you have not given us any reasons to think merely you believing something is reason to consider it a fundamental moral fact.

I agree, but I haven’t been doing that. I simply answered the original question asked of me regarding what makes an action is objectively wrong.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The statement that murder would be wrong if it existed is not nonsensical.

This is equivalent to saying that, “If life existed, murder would be wrong.” The proposition of life is still necessary for the coherence of the idea of murder. Ergo, murder is still contingent upon life.

Nope.

Yep. (see above)

Nope - not what I mean at all.

You see, you keep saying things like this, but then you never say exactly what you do mean. Explain, logically, how A’s view is “reality” whereas B’s “is not reality.” Any true statement must be logical, and must therefore be logically explicable.

This doesn’t follow; the coherency of the question doesn’t depend on whether the existence of the proposition at issue can be demonstrated.

I think you meant to say the coherency of the answer, as that is what is being debated. In any case, the coherency of the answer depends on the logical validity of its premise; this is exactly where your answer fails: its premise is logically invalid, for reasons I have been illustrating to death through my past umpteen posts.

If the existence of objective moral facts on the basis of atheism is true, then it must be, at least, a logically coherent, demonstrable proposition. If your argument is to be accepted, you must at least accomplish that much: show that their existence is at least logically coherent.

 

[spencelo]

This is equivalent to saying that, “If life existed, murder would be wrong.” The proposition of life is still necessary for the coherence of the idea of murder. Ergo, murder is still contingent upon life.

While the existence of murder is contingent on life, the proposition that murder would be wrong if life exists is not so contingent. Propositions are abstract objects. So, still nope.

You see, you keep saying things like this, but then you never say exactly what you do mean. Explain, logically, how A’s view is “reality” whereas B’s “is not reality.” Any true statement must be logical, and must therefore be logically explicable.

Reality is objective, and A’s views correspond to reality whereas B’s does not.

The coherency of the question depends on the logical validity of its premise; this is exactly where your question fails: its premise is logically invalid, for reasons I have been illustrating to death through my past umpteen posts.

A “premise” doesn’t have “logical validity” - only arguments have logical validity. A premise can be true or false, meaningful or meaningless, but not “logically valid or invalid.”

 

[prodigalson2011]

While the existence of murder if contingent on life, the proposition that murder would be wrong if life exists is not so contingent. Propositions are abstract objects. So, still nope.

Propositions are not morals.

Reality is objective, and A’s views corresponds to objective whereas be does not.

This is more of the same hand waving you’ve been doing. You have yet to demonstrate that morality is an objective part of reality.

A “premise” doesn’t have “logical validity” - only arguments have logical validity. A premise can be true or false, meaningful or meaningless, but not “logically valid or invalid.”

Any statement, premise or not, must be logically valid in order to be true. To say that it is logically invalid is to say that it is false in a particular way. In this case, the premise of your answer, “Objective moral facts (on the basis of atheism) are self-sufficiently true,” is a statement which can be, by way of syllogism, shown to be logically invalid. In other words, we could convert that statement into an argument and it would prove logically invalid.

 

[spencelo]

Propositions are not morals.

Moral propositions are still propositions.

This is more of the same hand waving you’ve been doing. You have yet to demonstrate that morality is an objective part of reality.

You’re right I haven’t, but that isn’t necessary to answer the circularity charge.

Any statement, premise or not, must be logically valid in order to be true. To say that it is logically invalid is to say that it is false in a particular way. In this case, the premise of your answer, “Objective moral facts (on the basis of atheism) are self-sufficiently true,” is a statement which can be, by way of logical syllogism, shown to be logically invalid. In other words, we could convert that statement into an argument and it would prove logically invalid.

“Logical validity” identifies a certain kind of *inferential relationship *between a group of statements that make up an argument. A premise by itself isn’t logically valid or invalid. What I’m telling you is something I’ve learned in my logic courses. Can you point to a single logician or philosopher specializing in logic who disagrees with me?

 

[prodigalson2011]

In this case, the premise of your answer, “Objective moral facts (on the basis of atheism) are self-sufficiently true,” is a statement which can be, by way of syllogism, shown to be logically invalid. In other words, we could convert that statement into an argument and it would prove logically invalid.

To wit:

a) If atheism is true, the universe has no objective purpose.
b) Moral truths depend upon objective purpose.
c) Atheism is true.
d) Moral statements are objectively true.

A and B are contradictory. C affirms A and negates B. D tries to affirm B. Either C or D must be false.

 

[spencelo]

To wit:

a) If atheism is true, the universe has no objective purpose.
b) Moral truths depend upon objective purpose.
c) Atheism is true.
d) Moral statements are objectively true.

A and B are contradictory. C affirms A and negates B. D tries to affirm B. Either C or D must be false.

I reject (b), and while it’s truth has often been asserted, it certainly hasn’t been demonstrated.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I reject (b), and while it’s truth has often been asserted, it certainly hasn’t been demonstrated.

Moral statements use the language of “right” and “wrong” or “should” and “shouldn’t.” These are concepts that explicitly imply purpose. If there is no purpose to something, then there is no “right” or “wrong” way to use it. If there is no purpose to something, then there is nothing that it “should” or “shouldn’t” be used for. Objectively speaking.

 

[spencelo]

Moral statements use the language of “right” and “wrong” or “should” and “shouldn’t.” These are concepts that explicitly imply purpose.

They do not. What purpose is implied?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Moral propositions are still propositions.

Moral propositions are not moral facts.

You’re right I haven’t, but that isn’t necessary to answer the circularity charge.

Yes, it is. Otherwise, you’re just saying, “I believe X is true because X is true.”

“Logical validity” identifies a certain kind of *inferential relationship *between a group of statements that make up an argument. A premise by itself isn’t logically valid or invalid. What I’m telling you is something I’ve learned in my logic courses. Can you point to a single logician or philosopher specializing in logic who disagrees with me?

Yes, and as I just said, your premise can be broken down into a group of statements that make up an argument for its own truth. It fails that test.

In short, every premise is the conclusion of another argument…

 

[CopticChristian]

Many on here believe that a human being is infinitely more valuable than any animal. In that case, I would ask people to consider the following hypothetical.

Suppose a multi-billionaire developed an extremely rare form of cancer that will end her life in 2 years – so rare, in fact, that this particular disease will never affect anyone else. Luckily for her, she has enough money to fund a research program to find a cure, but the program would involve performing extremely painful and fatal experiments on over 10 billion mammals (cats, dogs, squirrels, whales, monkeys, you name it). If an animal rights group were able to block this research program, thereby dooming the multi-billionaire to her fate, would that be wrong? I believe it would be morally abhorrent to sacrifice over 10 billion mammals to the save the life of one human, but that seems to be a necessary (absurd!) consequence of the view that human life has infinite value. What say you?

Spence,

Let us put this in the proper perspective that would relate to your world.

There is a guaranteed cure for AIDS. This guarantee requires the use of a daily sacrifice of mammals to produce a drug that cures the AIDS disease and forever eliminates the possibility that any sodomizing gay man would suffer or die from AIDS.

Do we sacrifice daily or not?