N
Nonatheist
Guest
Why would torturing be immoral?
Is it because God says so or?
Is it because God says so or?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
goout
Guest
I hope you don’t mind if I bold the heart of your post as a demonstration to those who are reading.…
Why does being a part of human species give you a moral worth?
In the end it sounds like 'Humans have moral worth because they are humans’
l don’t find that answer satisfying, l think humans have highest moral worth because of the highest ability to suffer and experience death, that wouldn’t apply to fetuses.
…
Just when you think you can’t be astounded by anything…
N
Nonatheist
Guest
What is your disagreement with my statement?
N
nicholasG
Guest
It may not be immoral in all circumstancesWhy would torturing be immoral?
Is it because God says so or?
If someone hid a bomb in a building and you had the bomber, you may be justified in using torture to find out were the bomb is in order to save the people inside.
On the other hand if torturing was for pleasure, I think it would be immoral.
There are atheists who believe it’s immoral so it’s not necessarily “because God says so.“
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Yes, torture can be justified. Although it requires a very strong justification.
Atheists usually follow many different ethical positions, two most popular being naturalism or ‘morality is subjective’ worldview. l reject both. Though l am not an atheist.
Though under my theory, l have an explanation why torture of any being is bad, while Christian ethical theory could explain only why torturing a human is bad.
Atheists usually follow many different ethical positions, two most popular being naturalism or ‘morality is subjective’ worldview. l reject both. Though l am not an atheist.
Though under my theory, l have an explanation why torture of any being is bad, while Christian ethical theory could explain only why torturing a human is bad.
N
nicholasG
Guest
Maybe, but the Bible does imply cruelty to animals is bad.Christian ethical theory could explain only why torturing a human is bad.
S
Servant31
Guest
A mentally retarded person? Someone impaired in an accident? Brain damage?
Who makes the decision. A philosopher, a doctor, politician, panel, university? Are depressed people of less capacity?
To me this is as slippery as the slope gets.
Who makes the decision. A philosopher, a doctor, politician, panel, university? Are depressed people of less capacity?
To me this is as slippery as the slope gets.
S
Servant31
Guest
I’m definitely not satisfied with the idea that the mother has more value than a baby. Who are we to assign value? These arguments almost always fall into the same framework. The mother has the “right” to determine value of a child at her convienience. This “right“ supersedes the value of the child. Where does this right come from? It’s supposedly inviolable… except that it violates another’s’ right to life. It just can’t work.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
It depends how severe tha damage is.
Person with depression, autism or most other mental conditions doesn’t have reduced sentience.
Person who suffered a car crush and now is braindead, wouldn’t have moral worth. As at that point person doesn’t really exist
Person with depression, autism or most other mental conditions doesn’t have reduced sentience.
Person who suffered a car crush and now is braindead, wouldn’t have moral worth. As at that point person doesn’t really exist
N
Nonatheist
Guest
It depends on what gives someone moral value. l have a problem with the idea that something just by being a part of human species, has equal value to all other members of human species.
That would mean that cells at conception have same moral value as born child or a mother.
This idea would also allow for animal torture, as other animals are not humans therefor they don’t have moral value, if you think that animals do have moral value than you will still have a problem to determine which one has more, dog and a bug would have same moral worth under that line of thinking.
But of course, no human actually believes that, so there must be a difference between those two animals, and that difference is sentience.
If we apply that reasoning to other animals, why wouldn’t we apply it to humans?
That would mean that cells at conception have same moral value as born child or a mother.
This idea would also allow for animal torture, as other animals are not humans therefor they don’t have moral value, if you think that animals do have moral value than you will still have a problem to determine which one has more, dog and a bug would have same moral worth under that line of thinking.
But of course, no human actually believes that, so there must be a difference between those two animals, and that difference is sentience.
If we apply that reasoning to other animals, why wouldn’t we apply it to humans?
G
goout
Guest
The problem I have with your statement is it demonstrates a moral numbness that is really inexcusable in these times, when information and history are plentiful.What is your disagreement with my statement?
…
Why does being a part of human species give you a moral worth?
In the end it sounds like 'Humans have moral worth because they are humans’
l don’t find that answer satisfying, l think humans have highest moral worth because of the highest ability to suffer and experience death, that wouldn’t apply to fetuses.
G
goout
Guest
The problem I have with your statement is it demonstrates a moral numbness that is really inexcusable in these times, when information and history are plentiful.What is your disagreement with my statement?
So let me ask you, what else did George Floyd have to accomplish, other than being a human being, to deserve your “moral worth”?…
Why does being a part of human species give you a moral worth?
In the end it sounds like 'Humans have moral worth because they are humans’
l don’t find that answer satisfying, l think humans have highest moral worth because of the highest ability to suffer and experience death, that wouldn’t apply to fetuses.
Can’t you simply let him be human and respect his “moral worth”? Doesn’t simply being human give him the right to live and breathe?
Last edited:
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l formed this theory on the basis of how most if not all people look at morality,
l identified that humans as well as any other animals have a disdain for suffering and death.
Humans can understand it and emphasize with it to a highest extent.
From that it logically follow that beings who can suffer the most, and have the highest understanding of their own death have more moral value than those who can’t feel pain or feel it to a minimum extent and those beings who work on insticts alone.
There is two different meanings of the word ‘human’.
You have biological one, as the human species(DNA and all that) and philosophical one (What does it mean to be a human).
Second one regards being human as being a human person. While first would regard cells as being human.
l see no moral value in someone’s species, their DNA etc.
l identified that humans as well as any other animals have a disdain for suffering and death.
Humans can understand it and emphasize with it to a highest extent.
From that it logically follow that beings who can suffer the most, and have the highest understanding of their own death have more moral value than those who can’t feel pain or feel it to a minimum extent and those beings who work on insticts alone.
There is two different meanings of the word ‘human’.
You have biological one, as the human species(DNA and all that) and philosophical one (What does it mean to be a human).
Second one regards being human as being a human person. While first would regard cells as being human.
l see no moral value in someone’s species, their DNA etc.
S
Servant31
Guest
Who though gets to a assign value? You? A doctor, PhD., politician? Vote? Supreme Court? I went to a semi”good school”. I can assure you human nature and human flaws amongst the educated is equally alive and well. I found it more disturbing that reassuring in almost any capacity. The Supreme Court for a period decided that certain people were only worth 3/5ths of a person… Politicians? Would you like the opposing political party to determine your value and right to life?
But I don’t understand why valuing all human life equally would allow for animal torture? I’m not following this?
But I don’t understand why valuing all human life equally would allow for animal torture? I’m not following this?
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l am not really assigning values, l am rationalizing the values we already have.
If we go by your approach ‘All human life has moral value, because we are made in imagine of God’(or something similar), in that case would any non-human life have moral value?
l don’t think it would be possible to explain that, also to distinguish between forms of life.
Example: Why would it be more immoral to kill a dog for no reason, rather than to chop a tree for no reason?
Both are life.
With that question you can either say that it’s the same, or you will have to appeal to theory similar to mine, that sentience plays a major part.
If we go by your approach ‘All human life has moral value, because we are made in imagine of God’(or something similar), in that case would any non-human life have moral value?
l don’t think it would be possible to explain that, also to distinguish between forms of life.
Example: Why would it be more immoral to kill a dog for no reason, rather than to chop a tree for no reason?
Both are life.
With that question you can either say that it’s the same, or you will have to appeal to theory similar to mine, that sentience plays a major part.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
The moral value of animals is based on what role they fill in society. This is easy to observe in any human society, as some animals are lifted above others for one reason or another. A cow isn’t more sentient than a cat, but in India, killing a cow is far worse than killing a cat. It has nothing to do with sentience or what you call sentience, man bases the value of things on how useful they are to him.if you think that animals do have moral value than you will still have a problem to determine which one has more, dog and a bug would have same moral worth under that line of thinking.
But of course, no human actually believes that, so there must be a difference between those two animals, and that difference is sentience.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
People in India don’t harm cows for religious reasons, not moral ones.
What you are saying right now is moral relativism, which l try to avoid.
We value dogs more, but by no objective factor does dog have more moral value than a chimpanzee.
Also, that could be used to justify humans murdering eachother.
If one human society deems slavery or cannibalism as valuable, than they would be justified in doing that.
What you are saying right now is moral relativism, which l try to avoid.
We value dogs more, but by no objective factor does dog have more moral value than a chimpanzee.
Also, that could be used to justify humans murdering eachother.
If one human society deems slavery or cannibalism as valuable, than they would be justified in doing that.
E
Elf01
Guest
OK, certain politicians make me really mad. Am I justified in killing them?l know you didn’t, l said that just to drive a hard line between emotions and morality.
Love as well as any other emotion can make person irrational, and as people can’t control emotions l would say that if people are emotion enough, their actions can be morally justified.
Example would be
Person killing another to save their loved one from dying.
Any emotion that clounds someones judgment so much, that they can’t even think straight would serve as a justification
Would a pro lifer mad over abortion be justified in killing someone who does abortions?
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l would say only emotions strong enough, that they make person act irrationally can be used as a justification.
E
Elf01
Guest
So you’d have no moral issue if somebody killed a newborn in their sleep (if the newborn couldn’t feel pain)?Yes, but fetus never existed as a person, while person under anesthesia and in sleep was.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.