Reductio argument: humans not infinitely valuable

[spencelo]

I see so you want us to assume humans aren’t humans.

Not at all.

 

[Nate13]

No, I’m asking for an argument for the claim that it’s human nature not to torture a dog. Anyone can *just assert *that it’s human nature to ______. Unless you provide some explanation for why it’s human nature not to nature, your response will just be ad hoc.

We have you just don’t recognize it because you don’t recognize God’s existence. If you would like I will use the argument another atheist used the other day on here to explain why he believed in the golden rule. He said that humans are empathetic and thus naturally directed towards compassion towards others. He then went on to explain that the golden rule was just living out our nature. So building on his point, I would say humans are naturally inclined to be empathetic and compassionate towards living things and it is right that we act in accord with how we are created. I guess you can say you don’t accept this argument but then I guess you would also have to be saying that atheists don’t have morals. If you don’t bind us to our nature and you don’t believe in a God, then there is nothing left to bind us too.

 

[spencelo]

So building on his point, I would say humans are naturally inclined to be empathetic and compassionate towards living things and it is right that we act in accord with how we are created.

But not everyone will be “naturally inclined” to be empathetic and compassionate towards animals. If A isn’t, then this particular human isn’t acting against his nature. Bottom line: I want to know what Catholics mean by premise (1).

 

[LilyM]

My point was merely that your analogy about necessary falsehoods (2 + 2 = 5) doesn’t hold. Although torturing puppies may have bad psychological effects, it doesn’t always have to. In my example, assume there are no bad psychological effects.

Sigh. OK, assume that I’ve got a hospital nearby, well staffed with good doctors and lots of rattlesnake antivenom. Under these circumstances, would it be OK to let a rattlesnake bite me? Maybe I find it fun and get an adrenaline rush out of it? No, because the risk of harm (and there’s always a risk) isn’t justified by my subjective feelings of pleasure that I get out of the experience. I don’t have a human right to do just exactly whatever I think is fun.

My question was: Would it be wrong for A to torture the dog for fun? Is your answer ‘no?’ I think you meant ‘yes,’ right?

If ‘yes,’ then I would have to understand what you mean by “care for.” What level of care is required? Suppose A generally provides adequate care for his dog, but every month he chooses to kick him around for fun, after which A takes him to the vet to recover. So the torturing doesn’t leave any permanent physical damage, nor does it leave any permanent psychological damage – the dog is perfectly happy everyday of the month except for one. Would it be wrong for A to kick his dog around under these circumstances?

An animal who is beaten one day a month cannot be any more perfectly happy the rest of the time than a human who was beaten one day a month. In other words the situation you describe is a logical impossibility.

 

[Nate13]

But not everyone will be “naturally inclined” to be empathetic and compassionate towards animals. If A isn’t, then this particular human isn’t acting against his nature. Bottom line: I want to know what Catholics mean by premise (1).

Haha yes I’m sorry all non disordered humans are empathetic towards living things. Maybe environment or the way they are brought up or some mental disorder makes them not realize it, but regardless human nature = empathetic towards living things. Take a psychotic killer for instance. You might say they don’t show empathy. You would never call a psychotic killer normal though would you? That’s because we recognize that their way of viewing the world is not normal and not in conformity with human nature. We recognize that something is wrong with them. When you say something is not normal you imply that a definable normal does exist. I’m sure you practice this principle all the time.

 

[LilyM]

You say “minimal degree of care.” So can A, my torturer, torture his dog so long as he provides him with a “minimal degree of care?”

Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain on another as a means of either punishment or coercion.

Someone who has ‘minimal care’ for any other being would not ever inflict severe physical or psychological pain on them as a means of punishment or coercion. So torture is incompatible with a minimal degree of care.

 

[spencelo]

Sigh. OK, assume that I’ve got a hospital nearby, well staffed with good doctors and lots of rattlesnake antivenom. Under these circumstances, would it be OK to let a rattlesnake bite me? Maybe I find it fun and get an adrenaline rush out of it? No, because the risk of harm (and there’s always a risk) isn’t justified by my subjective feelings of pleasure that I get out of the experience. I don’t have a human right to do just exactly whatever I think is fun.

But suppose medical technology has advanced to the point where cures for rattlesnake bite are like cures for a tiny scratch. Still wrong?

An animal who is beaten one day a month cannot be any more perfectly happy the rest of the time than a human who was beaten one day a month. In other words the situation you describe is a logical impossibility.

Actually, it’s not a logical impossibility–there is no contradiction in the hypothetical. But if the scenario sounds too implausible, suppose A gratuitously kicks his dog around once a year for 15 minutes. The rest of the year the dog hangs out with B, who is perfectly nice and kind towards him, and the dog is perfectly happy. Is A’s actions wrong? You’re been to law school, so stop changing the facts on me – work with the hypo!

 

[spencelo]

Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain on another as a means of either punishment or coercion.

Someone who has ‘minimal care’ for any other being would not ever inflict severe physical or psychological pain on them as a means of punishment or coercion. So torture is incompatible with a minimal degree of care.

I don’t think that’s right. Again in my example, the dog is well cared for most of the time, so that satisfies your “minimal degree of care” requirement.

 

[spencelo]

Haha yes I’m sorry all non disordered humans are empathetic towards living things. Maybe environment or the way they are brought up or some mental disorder makes them not realize it, but regardless human nature = empathetic towards living things. Take a psychotic killer for instance. You might say they don’t show empathy. You would never call a psychotic killer normal though would you? That’s because we recognize that their way of viewing the world is not normal and not in conformity with human nature. We recognize that something is wrong with them. When you say something is not normal you imply that a definable normal does exist. I’m sure you practice this principle all the time.

It’s also human nature to be aggressive and violent, but surely we shouldn’t act according to *that *natural inclination. So there is little connection between human natural inclinations and morally correct actions.

 

[Nate13]

It’s also human nature to be aggressive and violent, but surely we shouldn’t act according to *that *natural inclination. So there is little connection between human natural inclinations and morally correct actions.

Lol alright your going to have to help me out here because your ignoring natural law and you don’t believe in God. On what basis do you decide what is moral and immoral? Also there is a difference between natural inclinations and human nature. Just looking at natural inclinations ignores the fact that we have the ability to reason. Reason allows us to look at our natural inclinations and the way our bodies were created and discern the purposes behind how we were created. This is what makes up human nature. It also is what distinguishes us from the animals coincidentally.

 

[LilyM]

But suppose medical technical has advanced to the point where cures for rattlesnake bite are like cures for a tiny scratch. Still wrong?

Inflict scratches on yourself for fun? Deriving pleasure from the fact of hurting yourself? People who do that are called self-harmers - doesn’t matter about the ease of treatment or not, it’s a mental disorder.

Actually, it’s not a logical impossibility–there is no contradiction in the hypothetical. But if the scenario sounds too implausible, suppose A gratuitously kicks his dog around once a year for 15 minutes. The rest of the year the dog hangs out with B, who is perfectly nice and kind towards him, and the dog is perfectly happy. Is A’s actions wrong? You’re been to law school, so stop changing the facts on me – work with the hypo!

Yes it is a logical impossibility - hapiness means a state of pleasure. No human or dog could possibly be truly in a state of true pleasure knowing a) it was beaten within the last few weeks and b) it is going to be beaten again within the next few weeks.

And I seriously doubt any dog or human could be truly in a state of pleasure knowing that it was treated like a soccer ball for 15 minutes last year and is going to be again this year! A heck of a lot of damage will be done by 15 minutes of kicking, and is not going to be forgotten by man or beast that soon.

As for law school - the difference is that we used hypotheticals that a) were at least somewhat within the bounds of actual possibility and b) made or introduced useful points for our consideration. Yours fail on at least the latter point if not the former.

 

[spencelo]

Lol alright your going to have to help me out here because your ignoring natural law and you don’t believe in God. On what basis do you decide what is moral and immoral?

I thought natural law was predicated on normal natural inclinations, which is an empirical matter. Isn’t it empirically true that humans are naturally inclined towards aggression and violence?

My point is: before you claimed that torturing a puppy is wrong because that goes against the normal natural inclination for compassion. But by this logic, it would be wrong not to be aggressive because that would go against the normal natural inclination to act aggressively. So what’s the standard for determining which natural inclinations to follow?

 

[prodigalson2011]

In my cancer patient hypothetical, mistreating 10 billion animals seemed okay to you. Why doesn’t that constitute disrespect and hate towards God?

I didn’t say that. I asked if you saw a qualitative difference in value between animal and human life.

Nevertheless, your “cancer patient hypothetical” stretches beyond the bounds of reason into the realm of the absurd, so addressing it seriously wasn’t even a consideration.
But I am not fundamentally opposed to animal experimentation for medical research, provided that the suffering of the animals is minimized. This is not disrespect and hate towards God because we are not acting out of malice.

To draw another parallel, if you killed your neighbor’s dog to keep it from attacking a small child, that would not be the same as killing it for fun, nor would it be a deliberate offense against your neighbor. The intent was to save a human life.

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God has given us animals to use in ways that are conducive to the prosperity of humanity. We are not inflicting suffering for the sake of doing it–it is being done to save human lives. Intent accounts for much. But since you think we have no more worth than other animals, it is only consistent for you to think that it would be better for one person to die rather than 2 dogs (or 10,000,000,000, if you please ).

 

[Nate13]

I thought natural law was predicated on normal natural inclinations, which is an empirical matter. Isn’t it empirically true that humans are naturally inclined towards aggression and violence?

Oops sorry I was revising my post above with the answer to this question:

Also there is a difference between natural inclinations and human nature. Just looking at natural inclinations ignores the fact that we have the ability to reason. Reason allows us to look at our natural inclinations and the way our bodies were created and discern the purposes behind how we were created. This is what makes up human nature. It also is what distinguishes us from the animals coincidentally.

My point is: before you claimed that torturing a puppy is wrong because that goes against the normal natural inclination for compassion. But by this logic, it would be wrong not to be aggressive because that would go against the normal natural inclination to act aggressively. So what’s the standard for determining which natural inclinations to follow?

see above. natural inclinations does not equal human nature

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think that’s right. Again in my example, the dog is well cared for most of the time, so that satisfies your “minimal degree of care” requirement.

This is very scary to read. You sound exactly like someone who beats up on their spouse or children and then claims to ‘love’ them.

Such a person has absolutely no concept of what love means. Neither do you, it seems, have the slightest clue of what ‘care’ means. You can’t properly claim to ‘care’ about a person or animal if you can bring yourself to torture them in the way you’ve described, any more than you can properly claim to ‘love’ someone while beating them black and blue on occasion.

If such is seriously your view then counselling is in order.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I thought natural law was predicated on normal natural inclinations, which is an empirical matter. Isn’t it empirically true that humans are naturally inclined towards aggression and violence?

Again, you illustrate your ignorance of the topics you’re trying to debate. Natural law is predicated on the logical order of nature. Human inclinations most often act against natural law. That’s kind of the whole link between natural law and sin. Sin is a violation of natural law. Human beings sin so much because they are inclined against the natural law.

Please, if you want to debate with Catholics, at least properly familiarize yourself with the philosophical framework of Catholicism.

 

[Nate13]

This is very scary to read. You sound exactly like someone who beats up on their spouse or children and then claims to ‘love’ them.

Such a person has absolutely no concept of what love means. Neither do you, it seems, have the slightest clue of what ‘care’ means. You can’t properly claim to ‘care’ about a person or animal if you can bring yourself to torture them in the way you’ve described, any more than you can properly claim to ‘love’ someone while beating them black and blue on occasion.

If such is seriously your view then counselling is in order.

No, I think he/she is very desperately trying to cling to a failing argument. I fully expect him/her to attack the legitimacy of using logic and reason as ways to come to know the truth here very soon.

 

[spencelo]

Inflict scratches on yourself for fun? Deriving pleasure from the fact of hurting yourself? People who do that are called self-harmers - doesn’t matter about the ease of treatment or not, it’s a mental disorder.

People who go rock climbing (for the adrenaline rush) get scratches all the time. Is that wrong?

I
Yes it is a logical impossibility - hapiness means a state of pleasure. No human or dog could possibly be truly in a state of true pleasure knowing a) it was beaten within the last few weeks and b) it is going to be beaten again within the next few weeks.

You are confusing logical impossibility with psychological or factual impossibility. Although it’s physically impossible for me to fly by flapping my arms, it’s not logically impossible.

I
And I seriously doubt any dog or human could be truly in a state of pleasure knowing that it was treated like a soccer ball for 15 minutes last year and is going to be again this year! A heck of a lot of damage will be done by 15 minutes of kicking, and is not going to be forgotten by man or beast that soon.

Again, this is my hypo: assume that B is an amazing dog psychologist who knows how to bring the dog back into a playful happy state. Why wouldn’t kicking the dog be wrong under this scenario?

 

[prodigalson2011]

No, I think he/she is very desperately trying to cling to a failing argument. I fully expect him/her to attack the legitimacy of using logic and reason as ways to come to know the truth here very soon.

I’ve been engaged in a prolonged debate with him in another thread. He won’t attack the legitimacy of using it; he’ll just insist that he doesn’t need to do so to prove his arguments.

 

[spencelo]

Just looking at natural inclinations ignores the fact that we have the ability to reason.

So you’re now moving beyond the “natural inclination” justification. How do you reach the conclusion that torturing the dog is wrong given our ability to reason?