A rational mind cannot be random. It must have the power of choice.
Rationality can exist only where is order and predictability - rather than chaos.
They are good when they serve a useful purpose such as self-protection…
As even a hedonist would agree.
Therefore pain and suffering are not intrinsically evil and cannot serve as the sole benchmark of morality.
Are you suggesting it is realistic to believe in a perfect creator that can be neither demonstrated nor remotely sensed to exist?
It is far more realistic than believing in an immense multitude of inanimate particles of energy which are aimless, senseless, valueless, amoral, irrational and impersonal…
Thoughts are explained by the existence of thinkers.
,which are explained by the existence of thoughts…welcome to the Cartesian circle of solipsism.
Thinkers are not explained by the existence of thoughts but by the existence of the Supreme Being who is not aimless, senseless, valueless, amoral, irrational and impersonal… Farewell to the absurd circle of physicalism.
Ignorance is an inadequate reason for concluding that an explanation is inadequate!
Ignorance of what? I am not ignorant of what makes Descartes’ foundation useless.
Your opinion demonstrates your unawareness of the illogicality of physicalism which presupposes first and foremost the reality of rational minds for the very existence of that hypothesis!
The mind is not isolated from its thoughts, emotions, intuitions, values and decisions.
Which have their source solely in the mind, according to Cartesian philosophy.
They certainly don’t have their source in aimless, irrational and impersonal particles.
Therefore they cannot be about anything other than the mind.
Why not? Physical reality is not an illusion.
Therefore they are useless for understanding any world that might exist beyond the mind.
Particles are incapable of understanding anything! The physical world is understood by inference from what we perceive.
In fact, a physicalist derives the mind from the interplay of physical particles and forces.
How does blind interplay produce insight?
Then you are faced with the onerous burden of explaining the supreme yet disembodied mind.
You are faced with the insurmountable problem of explaining the supreme role of mindless particles. There is overwhelming evidence that the mind is immensely more powerful than the body and a far more adequate explanation than mindless particles -which are incapable of understanding or designing anything.
The only people who dismiss it as such are those who thought there should have been more.
Yes, the absurdists like Camus and Sartre - before he finally changed his mind.
Those of us who accept this life and this universe as all that there is, understand that if there is fulfilment to be had, it is here and now (for extensive values of ‘now’…)
Abstract terms like “fulfilment” and “values” are meaningless in a meaningless system.
It’s interesting how, before, you claimed physicalists gave special status to humans.
That is because their hypothesis is inconsistent and incoherent.
Most physicalists don’t believe physical laws to be irrational - just unintentional.
Rationality presupposes insight and purpose.
The laws themselves are descriptions of the ways in which physical entities characteristically behave.
Regularity does not constitute rationality.
But I am not a humanist, so I do not look to it as the basis for my morality.
How do you establish morality on a basis of atomic particles?
Hardly - it’s a recognition that these rights would not exist if we had not enshrined them and made a commitment to uphold them.
Who are “we”?
According to you unknown entities might turn out to be destructive forces and should be distrusted or destroyed accordingly!
That’s a pretty extreme interpretation of what I actually wrote.
It is the only logical one.
I asked why I should value an unknown over a known entity, and you have thus far not answered that question.
I accept the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
You would have it that I must value human beings above all other forms of life, regardless of whether I have anything to do with those other human beings or not.
My view is shared by the vast majority of civilised persons and legal systems throughout the world. You cannot sacrifice a human being for the sake of your dog with impunity…
Which rights did you have in mind?
All of them!
And why should they conflict with any interests of mine?
The colossal amount of conflict in the world answers that question. Selfishness, greed and the lust for power are rampant.
I ask this in the context of a society that finds the rights of other animals to be extremely inconvenient.
That is because many individuals in society are misguided.
Particularly so if the unknown or unfamiliar entity has already demonstrated its hostility, in the case of the aforementioned hypothetical child who threatened harm to my dog.
So you would take the law into your own hands and kill the child if it were necessary to do so? If your values based on the potential danger of unknown entities self-preservation and the preservation of your immediate circle must be your fundamental principle.
