R
ralphinal
Guest
Agreed. The concept of no universal truths, even without a God, can lead to some dangerous paths.
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
The trouble with the concept of ‘universal moral truths’ is that it’s impossible to establish them as being, well, ‘universal’ or ‘true’.
In reality we’re rather thrown back on ‘conventions’ and ‘traditions’.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Then there is no objective reason that human life is more special than any other kind of life, or anything else for that matter?
N
notself
Guest
I never said it was a universal law. I said it was an almost universal recommendation. I also said that* if *the hypothesis of the alturism gene is correct then we would be hard wired for it.
Now just because we could be hard wired for altruism does not mean that it is the only force at work. Our behavior is not controled by one gene and is not even exclusively genetic… Experience also plays a part.
The average person in my opinion is naturally inclined to follow the concept of the Golden Rule.
N
notself
Guest
Gorillas are a social species who protect each other. Gorillas have saved humans from harm. But, I don’t think gorillas would protect another species before they protected a member of their family who was in danger.
Why then would humans protect another species before protecting one of their own species who was in danger? Human life is the most special life to other humans. It is a natural survival strategy for a social species.
Given a choice between saving a family member or a neighbor, a human would choose to save the family member. Given a choice between saving a neighbor or a stranger, a human would save a neighbor.
What I can’t figure out is why we give money to Sally Struthers for the health and care of children on other continents yet veto a bill to provide health care for children in this country. Behavior must be very complex.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
The ‘objective reason’ may just be “it’s hard-wired” - actually, that would be (by definition, since it would be possible to consider ways of testing the idea out in the physical world) a more ‘objective reason’ than recourse to a set of rules somehow deduced from concepts about a metaphysical being. That’s not to say that, by being more ‘objective’ it would be ‘better’ (in terms of a hitch-hiker’s guide to life the universe and everything), given that we’re highly complex creatures living in psychological, cultural and linguistic constructs, just that it would be more ‘objective’ (ie more easily testable).
In the sense of the thread, it’s not necessary to have some kind of external set of ‘universal, God-validated values’ to say that “human life’ is more special.” Neither can the idea that “human life is more special” establish the existence of ‘universal God-validated values’ and, hence, ‘God’.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I agree about it not proving or disproving God. I am saying that either there are universal truths (and being hard wired into the genetic code would make it so, even if we did not act upon it) or there are not. If there are no universal truths, then why should we see human life as special? It is not a God thing as much as it is a reason issue. If no truth applies to all people, then no truth applies to all people.
Notself,
I may be missing something in your post. Are you saying that humans protect other species to their own species detriment as proof that humans are special?
N
notself
Guest
Please read it again. I may have been editing it while you were reading it.
The point I hope is now clear is a species will help member of another species as long as it does not conflict with the safety/survival of its own. Humans will help other species as long as it does not conflict with the safety/survival of a human.
Humans and animals help a member of their own species based on closeness of relationship (usually). All of this, both animal and human, is evidence of a altruistic gene in social species. This gene functions based on kinship **and **social relationship but it can function to the benefit of other species as well.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
There may, or may not, be ‘universal (moral) truths’, but how would you establish them as being so?
If we take the example of the ‘golden rule’ - which, itself, varies between the negative (“do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you”) and the positive (“do unto others that which you would have them do unto you”) - how would you establish it to be ‘universal’ and ‘true’, when it is patently obvious that it’s been universally ignored whenever it’s suited the individuals involved, ie not something that can be deduced from universal human behavior?
In what sense could “sets of things/ideals human beings hold to be important when they’re being good” be ‘universal truths’ but not “sets of things/ideals human beings hold to be important when they’re being bad”?
That’s not to say that they’re not ‘universal’ or ‘true’, just that you can’t prove it.
N
notself
Guest
Behavior is extremely complex and difficult to understand. There are tendencies in behaviour that appear to be universal. Altruism toward other member of the same species is one such tendency. This tendency is what has produced what should be more appropriately called the Golden Recommendation.
There are no univerally held moral truths that I can think of, at least not in list form such as commandments.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Exactly.
There are tendencies in behaviour that appear to be universal. Altruism toward other member of the same species is one such tendency. This tendency is what has produced what should be more appropriately called the Golden Recommendation.
I tend
to agree!
R
ralphinal
Guest
Ok. To sum it up
We can say that human life has value, though we cannot say that there is a universal truth componant to that statement.
We can say that euginics is an artifical construct that has worse outcomes than it seems to on paper.
Humans only protect other species when humans define it as a need.
I agree with the last two. Naturally, I disagree with the first. I do wish that we could come with a solid basis for saying that human life is precious (without a God component).
We can say that human life has value, though we cannot say that there is a universal truth componant to that statement.
We can say that euginics is an artifical construct that has worse outcomes than it seems to on paper.
Humans only protect other species when humans define it as a need.
I agree with the last two. Naturally, I disagree with the first. I do wish that we could come with a solid basis for saying that human life is precious (without a God component).
A
AllSaints1631
Guest
hm. Interesting.
N
notself
Guest
Human life is precious because it is rare.
There is this 2500 year old parable about the rarity of human life.
There was a small wooden hoop floating in the middle of a great ocean, from the surface of which every several hundred years a blind turtle emerges. Compared, the chances of that blind turtle emerging in exactly the spot where that wooden hoop is floating, its head passing through the hoop, exceeds that of being born as a human being.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Then are endangered species more precious? If there are 100 white rhinos left, is there life worth 100/6 billion more than a humans?
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
And “is (be) how the universe works” actually means “is from God”.
You may call that “thing” which has arranged the universe working as it does what you like.
I call it God, as only that “thing” is worthy of attributing “how the universe works” to.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Absolutely. And there is some reason for them not listening to their “consciences” when they do that.
Do I attribute a “soul” to monkeys? No. But they have been given what WE need to see in them to help us see in ourselves what is important about being human, as opposed to “base animal”.
What they have is a very pale “first sketch” of what we have, but it makes us think about how much greater it is to be human than animal.
N
notself
Guest
You didn’t ask that in your original question. The parable could also be used in reference to all life as compared to the size of the universe.
I believe that all life is precious. Because most people think that lives other than human life are to be used and even used up, we are killing our world and ourselves.
Given the choice between saving a child and that of a white rhino, I would choose the child. That does not mean that the life of the rhino is not valuable. If a rhino had to choose, she would choose the life of a rhino over that of a human.
Humans are the most “able” animal, definitely the top predator, but in looking at the entire biome of the planet, we need other species in order to survive. This very need makes other species valuable. I know it is a corny phrase, but there really is a web of inter-related life. If only we can manage to keep from tearing the web beyond repair.
R
ralphinal
Guest
So, is human life precious because we can ask these questions in the first place? Because we can destroy on a whim?
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
I’m only trying to hav others see that WITH my premises, which I’m nt asking anyone to accept as true (unless they’d like to), my explanations DO in fact make sense.
Everyone may (and will) believe what they like, but I feel it important to explain my reasoning so that people can see that it is internally consistent, and might be worth considering “believable”. I’m not here to convince anyone, just to “spread the good news”.
People who claim that morality is based on anything other than God, are claiming that it’s based on “it seems like a good idea”.
People who do that are actually basing their morals ON God, in reality, because “God” to them is “that which makes some things good and some things bad”.
I have no need to prove God’s existence. Those who don’t believe in “that which makes some things good and some things bad” (ie God) need to prove that that doesn’t exist.
They can’t do that, for obvious reasons.
- Status