Why don't the ends justify the means but God can permit evil to draw out a greater good?

[Peter_Plato]

We all think there’s a purpose to life. It wouldn’t disappear if we all suddenly found out that there was no God. You can try this if you like. Tell your wife that if there wasn’t a God then there wouldn’t be any purpose in staying together. There wouldn’t be a purpose in loving her and the children. There would be no reason not to hop into bed with that cute girl down the supermarket who seems to like you. Tell her that your life would become utterly meaningless.

Make sure the bed in the spare room is made up before you do. You’ll be spending a lot of time in there.

This, Bradski, is precisely the crux of the difference between a morality founded on God and one that is not. It is the differing ontologies upon which the two moralities are based that make all the difference.

If God does not exist and eliminative materialism is true then human beings are “merely” complex processing machines and in the end the value of any particular human simply ends when the component parts stop functioning. “Value” is simply an endowed characteristic that in reality is ephemeral and only as meaningful as the valuer can muster and only for the duration that they do.

If God, as intentional ground of being itself, exists and the value of human beings is grounded in the nature of being itself as the valuing Ground of existence, then that makes a great difference in terms of what it means to value another person and why we do. If a human person is potentially immortal, has subsistent subjective existence and valued because their personhood is integral to their nature, then the nature of “valuing” is set to a completely different standard.

The point being that the nature of the object of value determines the objective value that is imputed to it. If human beings are, in reality, NOTHING BUT complex chemical processes then the inherent value imputed to human beings has a certain degree of warrant, but that degree of value is far below the value warranted if human beings are immortal and have inherent value imputed by the intentional nature of Being itself.

I would argue that it is the very nature of the object valued that reasonably determines its value, so the view that we have about that nature makes all the difference in terms of the value we are warranted to impute to the “things” we value.

Given that a “devalued” concept of what a human being is is an essential aspect of atheistic materialism, I would argue that atheistic morality is, in principle, deficient relative to theistic morality.

This says nothing of the actual moral stance taken by any particular atheist since the manner in which a particular person is valued by another may far exceed the warrant of their ideology. Similarly, a theist may not fully realize the implications of their belief system and woefully underestimate the value of others in moral determinations.

What I am arguing is that the belief systems themselves make a difference in terms of the moral warrant those who subscribe to a particular belief system have for “valuing” others, since the belief systems make very different claims about the nature of who or what it is that is valued.

It is simply false to conclude that a belief system that endows absolute value on human existence will, in the final analysis, have no different moral implications than a belief system that claims human beings are nothing but chemical processes with no enduring existence.

 

[Amandil]

You are definitely not reading what I’m writing. The term is ‘ultimate purpose’, not ‘objective purpose’. The universe has no ‘ultimate purpose’. There is no reason for it to exist. It doesn’t care about us. We are not all moving towards some ultimate purpose. It’s not part of a grand plan.

That you avoided answering my questions is duly noted.

We all place subjective values on life. It would be impossible to get through the day if we didn’t. If you have a child and I asked you if you place more value on his or her life than you do for a complete stranger, then you would (obviously) say yes. If you really intend saying no, then keep your wife away from the computer or it’s off to the spare room again.

Since both my child and the stranger both necessarily have eternal value your example is a false dichotomy.

We shouldn’t steal unless (blank). We shouldn’t kill unless (blank). If you can find any reason at all to fill in the blanks, then you are exhibiting a relative morality.

Don’t be absurd.

You don’t steal because we have no right to claim absolute ownership of anything. It doesn’t belong to us but to God.

You don’t kill for precisely the same reason. Life belongs to God, not us.

These are not “relative values” but objective moral truths.

I said ‘pretty much exactly’. Not ‘exactly’. And I gave some trite examples of where we might differ. But please feel free to give some more. We can see how different we are in our moral outlook. Let’s start with the basic ones. Stealing, lying, killing, cheating. Where do you think we differ?

You apparently don’t understand. I have an objective foundation to make those discriminations; that not stealing, not killing, not committing adultery, are in fact moral and that stealing, lying, killing, committing adultery are immoral. That foundation does not lie in my subjective mind but independent of it, because that is how God created us.

As an atheist you have removed that foundation and settled for subjectivism and relativism. The morality you restrain yourself to is necessarily not from you, but from “convention”. They are “social constructs”, correct?

Ultimately the only limits that you have to do a thing or not do a thing are those which you arbitrarily place on yourself. If freedom means not to be constrained by outside influences, why do you allow these “conventions” or “social constructs”, which historically have been dictated by religions, to limit you?

Then point proven, I guess. If you were an atheist you would personally think there was nothing wrong in walking out on the wife and kids. The point is, which you appear to not understand, is that you are saying quite a lot about yourself but squat about atheism.

Wrong. It would (hypothetically speaking) demonstrate that I was a consistent atheist.

Just as your objection demonstrates that you are an inconsistent atheist, and dare say nihilist.

Just as I am now a consistent Catholic(in regards profession) Because [sarcasm on] I have this strange notion, at least for modern minds, of actually connecting thinking with doing; of actually conforming my mind and life to a chain of reasoning.

I know it sounds absolutely nuts, doesn’t it?[sarcasm off]

 

[TaurusRex]

The original sin was pride, not sex. They believed the lie of “the serpent” that by eating the fruit from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” that they would be "like gods who know good and evil.

Before the commission of the sin their perception of their sexuality, of all of creation, was that of original justice. They understood and saw all things as “good**”(“good” properly defined as “that which God intends to be”**, not what is “good” according to our subjective opinion, or society, etc.).

Despite their state of nudity they understood love as God intended it, they did not perceive themselves as objects but as persons, their hearts and minds were free from concupiscence.

The Original Sin shattered that harmony. They “covered” themselves because their view of themselves and the other became distorted, as well as their view of God.

There’s a difference between “reading between the lines” and committing eisegesis.

And yes I’m quite aware. What’s your point?

Amandil,
first of all to be honest I find your use of the words: “committing eisegesis” insulting and my answer to that is go back and read the first post of this thread and then “get the beam out of your own eye” as far is (name removed by moderator)utting one’s own thoughts is concerned;
And I can care less that “yahoo” supports you.

There’s reference that originally sex was the common answer, that is, “carnal knowledge” and that’s my meaning because I’m at a disadvantage in this forum trying not to speak in an inappropriate manner, but it looks like I’m going to have to tell the joke to which I referred in the joke forum.

When you read the joke, it has a double kick to it, but I’m not going to reveal/explain it. Anyway, I’ll just say this, that I still think it’s obvious that I’m right because of the nudity cover-up for one;
Although perhaps use of the word: “unclean” would have been better pertaining to the fact that Hebrews told the story;

And “knowledge of good and evil” comes to mind, not to mention that the apple is associated with sex, that is, not with “be fruitful and multiply” as in the meaning of pro-create, but sinful sex like in sodomy, unclean sex;
So why is water used to neutralize “pride” where it certainly seems to be more practical to cleanse unclean, nasty sex especially in those days when they baptized with total emersion.
Could it have been that God meant get washed?

As far as Genesis, I understand that Eve wasn’t even really the first female in the original story and that the Hebrew god was Elohim (some sort of hermaphrodite or two headed god or something like that);
However, the Hebrews made a big deal out of being unclean and they also had some really taboo topics related to sex (again, sex meaning behaviorism not “be fruitful and multiply” idea).

Isn’t that the meaning of the thread author when it’s stated that “fornication is evil”?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060629151520AAt63Du

WHAT was the original sin? “Sex,” many people will answer. They believe that the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden was a symbol of sexual relations and that Adam and Eve sinned by committing a sexual act.

The idea is not new. According to historian Elaine Pagels, “the claim that Adam and Eve’s sin was to engage in sexual intercourse” was “common among such [second-century] Christian teachers as Tatian the Syrian, who taught that the fruit of the tree of knowledge conveyed carnal knowledge.” Also, to Christendom’s Church (so-called Christians) Father Augustine of the fifth century C.E., sin had its beginnings in sexual desire on Adam’s part. In fact, Psychology Today said “Adam’s sin was carnal knowledge.”

PS:
Don’t forget to look for my joke about it.
Also you can insist that original sin is “pride” until you’re blue in the face and I won’t believe it …
You’re forgetting that you’re probably a college graduate in the 21st century where Adam and Eve weren’t more than prehistoric man and woman lucky enough to learn the rudiments of survival much less concern themselves with irrational ideas.

rex

 

[Amandil]

Amandil,
first of all to be honest I find your use of the words: “committing eisegesis” insulting

If you find yourself to be so sensitive to people who are debating you with honest criticism, them maybe you should go somewhere else.

and my answer to that is go back and read the first post of this thread and then “get the beam out of your own eye” as far is (name removed by moderator)utting one’s own thoughts is concerned;
And I can care less that “yahoo” supports you.

None of this makes absolutely any sense. I never said anything about “yahoo”.

There’s reference that originally sex was the common answer, that is, “carnal knowledge” and that’s my meaning because I’m at a disadvantage in this forum trying not to speak in an inappropriate manner, but it looks like I’m going to have to tell the joke to which I referred in the joke forum.

When you read the joke, it has a double kick to it, but I’m not going to reveal/explain it. Anyway, I’ll just say this, that I still think it’s obvious that I’m right because of the nudity cover-up for one;
Although perhaps use of the word: “unclean” would have been better pertaining to the fact that Hebrews told the story;

And “knowledge of good and evil” comes to mind, not to mention that the apple is associated with sex, that is, not with “be fruitful and multiply” as in the meaning of pro-create, but sinful sex like in sodomy, unclean sex;
So why is water used to neutralize “pride” where it certainly seems to be more practical to cleanse unclean, nasty sex especially in those days when they baptized with total emersion.
Could it have been that God meant get washed?

As far as Genesis, I understand that Eve wasn’t even really the first female in the original story and that the Hebrew god was Elohim (some sort of hermaphrodite or two headed god or something like that);
However, the Hebrews made a big deal out of being unclean and they also had some really taboo topics related to sex (again, sex meaning behaviorism not “be fruitful and multiply” idea).

Isn’t that the meaning of the thread author when it’s stated that “fornication is evil”?

PS:
Don’t forget to look for my joke about it.
Also you can insist that original sin is “pride” until you’re blue in the face and I won’t believe it …
You’re forgetting that you’re probably a college graduate in the 21st century where Adam and Eve weren’t more than prehistoric man and woman lucky enough to learn the rudiments of survival much less concern themselves with irrational ideas.

rex

Thus is utterly incoherent.

As far as for you citing “yahoo” as a theological source. Real credible.

 

[Bradski]

If God does not exist and eliminative materialism is true then human beings are “merely” complex processing machines and in the end the value of any particular human simply ends when the component parts stop functioning. “Value” is simply an endowed characteristic that in reality is ephemeral and only as meaningful as the valuer can muster and only for the duration that they do.

It seems very difficult for someone in your position to describe mankind as akin to complex machines without inserting a word such as ‘merely’ or ‘simply’. That we are ‘just’ a bundle of elements. When I don’t know anyone who actually thinks like that. I’m sure I remember some Scottish guy saying that we’re quite a piece of work. Noble in reason, infinite in faculty.

You don’t need a belief in any god at all to feel that. We are, whether your god exists or not, the pinnacle of creation. Masters of our domain. We send ships to the stars. We unlock the mysteries of existence.

I could respond by suggesting that we are ‘merely’ God’s creation. But it frankly doesn’t matter to me in this regard whether He does of does not exist. Hamlet was right in either case.

There has been this magnificent journey through time with so many twists and turns and we’ve eventually found ourselves here with some of us shaking out heads in wonder at it all. I know that you seem to find it difficult to think that all this just happened according to some cosmic dice throw. That we are just accidents of the universe. You want to believe that it has been all set up just as we see it. That there is a purpose. That we all part of some plan.

I’m always at a loss at this point to describe how depressing that sounds to me.

I would argue that it is the very nature of the object valued that reasonably determines its value, so the view that we have about that nature makes all the difference in terms of the value we are warranted to impute to the “things” we value.

That’s completely wrong. ‘Value’ almost by the very definition of the word itself, is relative. Dictionary definitions are rife with terms like ‘relative worth’, ‘one’s judgement’ etc. I shouldn’t even have to bother giving examples.

Every person has objective worth (as per Hamlet). But the value we put on that person’s life is relative. Ask yourself what you would be prepared to pay to save a strangers life on the other side of the planet. And then ask what you would spend to save your child.

Given that a “devalued” concept of what a human being is is an essential aspect of atheistic materialism, I would argue that atheistic morality is, in principle, deficient relative to theistic morality.

You haven’t shown that someone who doesn’t believe in a god has a devalued concept of a human being. I don’t believe we’re ‘mere’ complex processing machines. And you don’t have to believe in any god at all to be able to make that statement. You want it to be so because you’d have something on which to hang your argument, but saying so don’t make it so.

 

[Bradski]

Since both my child and the stranger both necessarily have eternal value your example is a false dichotomy.

We’re talking here and now. Let’s try the same question I asked above: How much would you spend to have a complete stranger treated for cancer? Now think about what you’d spend if it was your kid.

This isn’t difficult, surely. You value your child’s life more than a strangers. It’s not a trick question. It’s not theology. You don’t have to bring eternity into it. And it’s certainly not a false dichotomy. We all do it and that includes you. But for whatever reason, you want to find a way not to admit it. Beats me…

You don’t steal because we have no right to claim absolute ownership of anything. It doesn’t belong to us but to God.

You don’t kill for precisely the same reason. Life belongs to God, not us. These are not “relative values” but objective moral truths.

No they are not. They’re simplistic terms that are basically correct whether there is a God or not. I hope you don’t kill just because God says so. I hope you can think of some other very good reasons. But they don’t stand alone. If I asked you whether there was any circumstance whatsoever when it would be morally correct to steal something, I hope to hell you’d be able to come up with an answer.

I have an objective foundation to make those discriminations; that not stealing, not killing, not committing adultery, are in fact moral and that stealing, lying, killing, committing adultery are immoral. That foundation does not lie in my subjective mind but independent of it, because that is how God created us.

Well I worked them out for myself. You see, we do share the same morality. Any movement on finding things about which we disagree?

As an atheist you have removed that foundation and settled for subjectivism and relativism.

Well, unless you can’t think of an example where stealing or killing, for example, would be the right thing to do, then we are different in this regard. But we both know we’re not. Except that you find it difficult to acknowledge it.

Wrong. It would (hypothetically speaking) demonstrate that I was a consistent atheist.

There are lots of examples of Christians losing their faith. Do you know of any who then feel they can do what they like? I think not. I think you have an idea of what constitutes being an atheist means and there’s not much I’m going to able to do to avow you from that position.

7[sarcasm on]I know it sounds absolutely nuts, doesn’t it?[sarcasm off]

Hey, go find your own quirky quotes. You’ll be making up a conversation next.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You don’t need a belief in any god at all to feel that. We are, whether your god exists or not, the pinnacle of creation. Masters of our domain. We send ships to the stars. We unlock the mysteries of existence.

Interesting that the value you assign to humans is in “we” and “our” in a generic sense and endowed by great accomplishments (ships to stars, unlocking mysteries) rather than the value of each individual person, in particular, those with no great credentials for which to boast. Would “we” still be valuable to you if “we” were not “masters of our domain” or the “pinnacle of creation.”

Which, by the way, makes my point that value does depend upon the inherent nature of what is that is being valued.

Before, you get carried away, though, I simply disagree that human value depends upon accomplishments. It does depend upon the essential nature of what it means to be a human being. Fundamentally, it is what we are, not what we do, that makes human beings the “pinnacle of creation.” Building ships to stars or unlocking mysteries does not make us essentially better and more valuable, in my view.

That’s completely wrong. ‘Value’ almost by the very definition of the word itself, is relative. Dictionary definitions are rife with terms like ‘relative worth’, ‘one’s judgement’ etc. I shouldn’t even have to bother giving examples.

Every person has objective worth (as per Hamlet). But the value we put on that person’s life is relative. Ask yourself what you would be prepared to pay to save a strangers life on the other side of the planet. And then ask what you would spend to save your child.

Here is your error, the value placed upon a person’s life is not imputed by what I am willing to “pay to save a stranger’s life.” That stranger’s value is not affected in the least by my actions. My actions do not hinge on value, they depend upon responsibility. I am responsible for my child’s welfare in ways that I am not for a stranger. A stranger’s life is not devalued in the least, nor made relative, by the fact that the stranger is not my primary concern because, to put it plainly, their value does not derive from me, it is integral to them because of the nature of who and what they are.

You haven’t shown that someone who doesn’t believe in a god has a devalued concept of a human being. I don’t believe we’re ‘mere’ complex processing machines. And you don’t have to believe in any god at all to be able to make that statement. You want it to be so because you’d have something on which to hang your argument, but saying so don’t make it so.

Do you “value” differently the following two automobiles?

1. An impeccably machined, finely crafted Rolls Royce.
2. A rebuilt albeit cobbled together AMC Gremlin.

The point being, it is the nature of the object of value that determines its intrinsic value.

Similarly, if, by nature, human beings are, either…

1. Enduring and immortal persons with the potential to share in eternal divine existence, or
2. An agglomeration of chemical processes where “personhood” is merely an epiphenomenon without subsistent or enduring existence.

It seems to me that the integral “worth” or valuation that could reasonably be accorded to the person in question is different between 1) and 2) just as it is different between 1) and 2) in the case of automobiles.

Now you might just happen to be a Gremlin lover and insist that the Gremlin, to you, is more valuable than the Rolls and point to the subjective grounds you have for “liking” Gremlins that makes you more commendable than those uppity “Rolls lovers,” but it seems to me that your claim that Gremlins are “better” than or objectively more valuable qua automobile than the Rolls Royce isn’t a sustainable claim. The Rolls is simply a better car - in virtue of what it means to be a car - than a Gremlin.

Similarly, with regard to human persons as having moral worth, an eternally existing human, where personhood is a subsistent characteristic, is qua human being a more “valuable” entity than an agglomeration of chemicals with no enduring personhood.

The nature of what it means to be a human being makes a huge difference in terms of the kind of objective value that can be ascribed to each. Again, you may, like the Gremlin lover, insist that your valuing of the “bag of chemicals” is more laudable than the uppity theist who has a higher standard, but I don’t think your claim - that the “bag of chemicals” is objectively more valuable than the “eternal person” of the theist - is a sustainable one. Certainly, it has a kind of “homey charm” about it, but no real cogency.

 

[Amandil]

We’re talking here and now. Let’s try the same question I asked above: How much would you spend to have a complete stranger treated for cancer? Now think about what you’d spend if it was your kid.

I’d start a collection at my parish and the entire parish would pitch in to have him treated. That would happen regardless of is it was my daughter or a total stranger.

Wait…we do that anyway through Archdiocesan Appeal programs and Catholic charities all over the world.

What exactly do you and other atheists do to treat someone with cancer?

No they are not. They’re simplistic terms that are basically correct whether there is a God or not.

Are you threatened by such terms? Do we need to drown ourselves in polysyllabic philosophical jargon to have a discussion about philosophy and ethics?

i.e. Objective-“independent of the knower and his consciousness”.

Morality-“doing the good that ought to be done and avoiding the evil that ought to be avoided.”

Morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective moral principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives. All three must be correct for an act to be moral, not just one.

I hope you don’t kill just because God says so. I hope you can think of some other very good reasons. But they don’t stand alone. If I asked you whether there was any circumstance whatsoever when it would be morally correct to steal something, I hope to hell you’d be able to come up with an answer.

Now you’re apparently doing what you accused me of doing; not reading what I wrote.

Do you understand, philosophically speaking, the difference between “natural law” and “positive law”?

Well I worked them out for myself. You see, we do share the same morality. Any movement on finding things about which we disagree?

The difference is I can give and objective explanation why that morality ought to be followed at all times and in all circumstances.

You can’t.

Well, unless you can’t think of an example where stealing or killing, for example, would be the right thing to do, then we are different in this regard. But we both know we’re not. Except that you find it difficult to acknowledge it.

Was the forced starvation of the Holodomor in the Ukraine by the Soviets the right thing or the wrong thing for them to do., and why?

There are lots of examples of Christians losing their faith.

“Losing their faith” has no bearing on the existence of God. Those who have just convinced themselves that un-reality is more preferable to Reality. I pray that they regain their senses.

I think you have an idea of what constitutes being an atheist means and there’s not much I’m going to able to do to avow you from that position.

I used to be an atheist.

Do you know of any who then feel they can do what they like? I think not.

The few who remain friendly to me don’t.

But the more ardent ones, the ones who now refuse to talk to me or see me, they’re of a different sort.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No they are not. They’re simplistic terms that are basically correct whether there is a God or not. I hope you don’t kill just because God says so.

I think this line will make my point from the last post even stronger. It isn’t a question of not killing BECAUSE God says so, it is a question of not killing because of what God says is the nature of other human beings.

God says they are immortal persons with enduring personal existence, which is why we ought to care and this valuation comes from the ground of Being itself, He who knows with certainty the nature of what it is that he has created.

The problem with your relative valuation is that you don’t know for certain the nature of what it is that you value, therefore you cannot, with certainty, properly make a valuation.

Suppose you discovered that your best friend was REALLY the alien Redgick (MIB) who “stole your friend’s skin” and intended, under its cover, to destroy humanity. Doesn’t the real nature of “what” your friend is make a difference in terms of how he is to be valued by you?
Would, perhaps the possibility of siding with him and becoming Lord of the Earth make his friendship valuable in your eyes, since value is a relative thing?

The problem with “relative” value is that it depends upon our knowledge concerning the reality of what it is that we value. You may have a notion of the relative value of your friend as he really is and extend that same value to Redgick under the mistaken impression that he is your friend, but discovering the reality of what the creature is that you are valuing makes all the difference as to its inherent and objective value.

 

[Bradski]

Amandil;r:

I’d start a collection at my parish and the entire parish would pitch in to have him treated. That would happen regardless of is it was my daughter or a total stranger.

Wait…we do that anyway through Archdiocesan Appeal programs and Catholic charities all over the world.

What exactly do you and other atheists do to treat someone with cancer.

I’d bet that if I said: ‘If I asked you a hypothetical question, would you answer it.’ you’d say ‘No’. You don’t seem to have grasped the concept.
Amandil;r:

…the ones who now refuse to talk to me or see me…

I can’t imagine why that would be…

 

[Amandil]

I’d bet that if I said: ‘If I asked you a hypothetical question, would you answer it.’ you’d say ‘No’. You don’t seem to have grasped the concept.

Why? Because I didn’t give you your answer which you were anticipating?

I can’t imagine why that would be…

I might consider that a personal attack if I were someone else. If that’s all you have to respond with that says more about you than about me.

As for them, they made their choice. I still pray for them. And I’ll still have respect for them because at least they were consistent.

 

[Bradski]

Interesting that the value you assign to humans is in “we” and “our” in a generic sense and endowed by great accomplishments (ships to stars, unlocking mysteries) rather than the value of each individual person, in particular, those with no great credentials for which to boast. Would “we” still be valuable to you if “we” were not “masters of our domain” or the “pinnacle of creation.”

Which, by the way, makes my point that value does depend upon the inherent nature of what is that is being valued.

Yes, I say ‘we’ because I’m talking about mankind in general. I think that’s what Shakespeare meant: ‘What a piece of work is Man(kind)’. Individually however, we are all different. That bit about truths which are self evident is not quite right. We are not all born equal. We do not live our lives equally. What we individually bring to the table varies enormously. And some actually take from it. But that’s not to say that we should not all be treated equally.

And value does not therefore depend on the inherent nature of that being valued. To use a trite example, a bucket of water is worthless in a monsoon but valuable in a drought. It’s still a bucket of water however you look at it, but if it adds something positive to the situation then it becomes more valuable.

And that’s the way it works with us. Utilitarianism is a pretty brutal philosophy when you come down to the nitty gritty. But it’s one that we all subscribe to in some way. We may all be equal in the eyes of The Lord and I’m sure that’s true. But hey, there are practical considerations down here that don’t give us that option. Which leads on to this…

Before, you get carried away, though, I simply disagree that human value depends upon accomplishments. It does depend upon the essential nature of what it means to be a human being. Fundamentally, it is what we are, not what we do, that makes human beings the “pinnacle of creation.” Building ships to stars or unlocking mysteries does not make us essentially better and more valuable, in my view.

The bits about ships and mysteries are just an example of where mankind is in relation to the rest of existence. Go back a while and rubbing sticks together to make a fire was the pinnacle. In time, taking decades to get a rusty old spaceship barely out of the solar system will be the equivalent of knocking a piece of flint into a useful shape.

But human value, for me (and I suspect it’s true for everyone) does indeed depend on accomplishments. If the lifeboat is sinking and you have Shakespeare, Einstein, Martin Luther King and Adam Sandler on board, who is the first to get thrown to the sharks? (personally, I’d throw Sandler out even if it wasn’t sinking).

And have you never heard something along the lines of: ‘that useless no good husband of mine just sits on his arse all day…’ or heard an eulogy telling of what a person brought to life. That the world was a better place for them having been here?

These are common sentiments and they actually mean something. Some people make the world a better place. It cannot be denied. So therefore, to us mere mortals, they are more valuable to humankind than someone who, not only brings nothing, but actually takes from it.

Yes, again, in the eyes of The Lord we are all equal. But we haven’t the luxury of divinity.

 

[Bradski]

I am responsible for my child’s welfare in ways that I am not for a stranger. A stranger’s life is not devalued in the least, nor made relative, by the fact that the stranger is not my primary concern because, to put it plainly, their value does not derive from me, it is integral to them because of the nature of who and what they are.

Yes. And I tend to agree. Take any two people at random and you’d be hard pressed not to say anything other than they have equal value as people. But that’s an incredibly simplistic comment. There is relative value which is dictated by concentric circles of empathy. Your child is more valuable to you than a friend. A friend is more so than a stranger. A stranger from your neighbourhood versus someone from a distant country. It even crosses over into different species, so a chimp is more valuable than a worm.

And, as brutal as it may be to make these sort of decisions, who could find it difficult not to agree that, in an objective sense, a Maximillian Kolbe is more valuable to humankind than a Joseph Mengele? Could you make a serious argument that they are of equal worth? And not to God, but to us? Because we are the ones making the decision.

Similarly, if, by nature, human beings are, either…

1. Enduring and immortal persons with the potential to share in eternal divine existence, or
2. An agglomeration of chemical processes where “personhood” is merely an epiphenomenon without subsistent or enduring existence.

Hmmm. What do you call it when you offer just two alternatives when there are obviously more than two? Add a third:

1. Human beings are a magnificent result of billions of years of evolution, capable of contemplating their own existence and of understanding their position in the grand scheme of things. Not all being born equal and not all bringing equal worth to their own life or to the life of others, our empathy, which is a natural condition, nevertheless dictates that we treat other humans equally.

I’ll go with number 3.

Similarly, with regard to human persons as having moral worth, an eternally existing human, where personhood is a subsistent characteristic, is qua human being a more “valuable” entity than an agglomeration of chemicals with no enduring personhood.

Quite possibly you may be right. But then I don’t believe your proposition that we are eternally existent.

Again, you may, like the Gremlin lover, insist that your valuing of the “bag of chemicals” is more laudable than the uppity theist who has a higher standard, but I don’t think your claim - that the “bag of chemicals” is objectively more valuable than the “eternal person” of the theist - is a sustainable one. Certainly, it has a kind of “homey charm” about it, but no real cogency.

So there are two arguments.

We have worth because, to put it simply, there is a God.
We have worth because (see above).

If there is a God, then the first one would be true. But the second (or something similar) would also be true. If there is no God, then just the second would be true. You have both options whereas I have only the one.

But I cannot see how you can argue that the second is simply a piece of charming home-spun, feel-good fluff. Christians like to paint atheists as believing that we’re all just a bag of chemicals and why not do as we please. After all, it’s ultimately meaningless. Whereas that’s the argument you are left with if it turns out there’s no God. That would, by your own arguments, be the only position you would have left.

Someone like me still feels there’s worth and value and a meaning to life even if there;'s no God. You say there isn’t. For your sake, I hope you’re right.

 

[tonyrey]

I could respond by suggesting that we are ‘merely’ God’s creation. But it frankly doesn’t matter to me in this regard whether He does or does not exist.

You want to believe that it has been all set up just as we see it. That there is a purpose. That we all part of some plan.

I’m always at a loss at this point to describe how depressing that sounds to me.

Inconsistent?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes. And I tend to agree. Take any two people at random and you’d be hard pressed not to say anything other than they have equal value as people. But that’s an incredibly simplistic comment…
And, as brutal as it may be to make these sort of decisions, who could find it difficult not to agree that, in an objective sense, a Maximillian Kolbe is more valuable to humankind than a Joseph Mengele? Could you make a serious argument that they are of equal worth? And not to God, but to us? Because we are the ones making the decision.

If you recall in my analogy to automobiles I was, in effect, arguing that the value of any entity or agent is determined by the capacities of that entity or agent, which is why I claimed a Rolls Royce is more valuable qua automobile than an AMC Gremlin. If you follow my chain of thought, logically, not tangentially, you will realize that Kolbe, the Rolls Royce model of humanity is, according to my argument, more valuable than Mengele, because the latter is determinably a gremlin. What point of mine were you addressing, then, because I missed the steps you took to get here?

My guess is that you confused “accomplishments” with capacities, as if they were identical. They aren’t. It is Kolbe as a particular kind of human who acts in a certain way that is valued. He is not valued for his actions, he is valued because HE, qua human being, acts in the way he does BECAUSE of the kind of human HE is.

We do not value Mozart or Beethoven because we value the music they create but because they have the capacity to compose such music.

Getting back to Mengele, for a second. There is an ethics professor at Yale, Nicolas Wolterstorff, who argues quite cogently that there might be a kind of residual value even in “broken down” or malfunctioning humans, provided that they can be redeemed. He makes the point that even a Jaguar, seemingly beyond repair, might be more valuable than some lesser working model of automobile, if a mechanic exists that can bring the Jaguar up to its potential, i.e., redeem it. Mengele, then, depending upon his redeemable value could conceivably be as valuable, in an absolute sense, as Kolbe if he can be redeemed (i.e., repaired) by God.

The issue, as far as human beings go, however, is that free will is never infringed upon by God, so Mengele’s “redeemability” potential is not merely up to God, but a question of Mengele’s willingness to be repaired.

Hmmm. What do you call it when you offer just two alternatives when there are obviously more than two? Add a third:

1. Human beings are a magnificent result of billions of years of evolution, capable of contemplating their own existence and of understanding their position in the grand scheme of things. Not all being born equal and not all bringing equal worth to their own life or to the life of others, our empathy, which is a natural condition, nevertheless dictates that we treat other humans equally.

I’ll go with number 3.

The problem with going with number 3, is that you are essentially, pegging value upon the accidental origin of characteristics. Surely, the potentials of “contemplating their own existence and … understanding their position in the grand scheme of things” are not enhanced merely by these being random accidents, in particular, since the “grand scheme of things” (given eliminative materialism) is not much of a ‘scheme’ after all, just a fortuitous series of bizarre coincidences AND “existence” is simply an illusory and short flicker of unstable and unknowable quality fated to be extinguished with no real lasting significance.

Certainly 3 is a charming myth, but, just as certainly, it is only so because it borrows its “charm” from the afterglow of Judeo-Christian ideas surrounding the eternal grandeur of human existence. If the “grand scheme” is the story of a sophisticated “bag of chemicals” arising from chemical soup, then “contemplating” that existence comes perilously and desperately near the mirage example you like to trot out now and then. It looks like a grand and significant oasis in the distance, but turns out only to be heat waves off the sand. Yet the reason an oasis is significant to begin with is because we have been endowed with the expectation from a previous, i.e., Judeo-Christian, experience.

Quite possibly you may be right. But then I don’t believe your proposition that we are eternally existent.

So there are two arguments.

We have worth because, to put it simply, there is a God.
We have worth because (see above).

If there is a God, then the first one would be true. But the second (or something similar) would also be true. If there is no God, then just the second would be true. You have both options whereas I have only the one…
Someone like me still feels there’s worth and value and a meaning to life even if there;'s no God. You say there isn’t. For your sake, I hope you’re right.

I think you missed my point. It is not that we have worth simply because there is a God, but that we have worth because the qualities we intuitively perceive to be important qualities have lasting significance. This is so because these qualities are essentially immaterial, which makes them - if eliminative materialism is true - fleeting and inconsequential. However, if theism is true these qualities are eternal and significant.

It is how the two radically distinct paradigms support and underwrite what are clearly the “great making” qualities, RE: human beings, that makes the two views of human existence radically different.
Theism “has currency” because of the stock of bullion that bolsters the moral economy. Materialism, as far as “value” goes has nothing in its vault because matter does not, on its own, impute or underwrite “value” at all. Matter doesn’t trade in “value” currency at all. At least face up to the implications of your paradigm.

 

[Memaw]

I was always taught that God MUST breathe life into EVERY life that is born into this world…so, is this not true?

Saying that none of the aborted babies will experience hell is similar to saying none of the aborted babies will ever get the chance to grow up and contribute to society, maybe one of the aborted babies over the years was going to find the cure for cancer, or develop free energy or something similar that would significantly make the earth a better place.

God set human fertility in place when HE created man in the first place. You miss the point I was trying to make. Those aborted babies were deprived of their life on earth by the actions of their mother but they never lost God. Eternity is forever. We could “what if” or “maybe” in many ways but that doesn’t change “what is’”. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Bradski]

Inconsistent?

No. Read it again in context.

 

[tonyrey]

No. Read it again in context.

. If it doesn’t matter to you whether God does or does not exist there is no reason why you should find the idea of being part of a plan depressing…

 

[Bradski]

If you recall in my analogy to automobiles I was, in effect, arguing that the value of any entity or agent is determined by the capacities of that entity or agent, which is why I claimed a Rolls Royce is more valuable qua automobile than an AMC Gremlin.

I understood your analogy to be that one car is inherently better than the other. Because a Roller doesn’t just have the ‘capacity’ to be a better car. To all intents, by any measure, it is a better car.

If you follow my chain of thought, logically, not tangentially, you will realize that Kolbe, the Rolls Royce model of humanity is, according to my argument, more valuable than Mengele, because the latter is determinably a gremlin.

Nobody would argue here.

My guess is that you confused “accomplishments” with capacities, as if they were identical. They aren’t.

I agree. Totally different.

It is Kolbe as a particular kind of human who acts in a certain way that is valued.

Yes, agreed.

He is not valued for his actions, he is valued because HE, qua human being, acts in the way he does BECAUSE of the kind of human HE is.

I’ve had this argument with someone else. ‘A person is good, therefore he he does good things’. It’s the second phrase: ‘he does good’ that determines the description of the person as ‘good’. You can’t say that a person is good without him doing good things. You can’t call someone evil without them having done evil things. We can all have the potential to do good or evil, but it’s what we actually do that makes us one or the other.

We do not value Mozart or Beethoven because we value the music they create but because they have the capacity to compose such music.

So if Mozart had the capacity to produce great music, but didn’t, would you value him as a musician? It would make no sense to say that you would. In fact, most people, myself included, would suggest that it was a life waste.

Back to the guys in the lifeboat and one is a great scientist, another a great humanitarian, another a great artist. Everyone looks at the guy in the corner who says: ‘Hang on - I have the capacity to create wonderful music’. Splash. In he goes.

Getting back to Mengele, for a second. There is an ethics professor at Yale, Nicolas Wolterstorff, who argues quite cogently that there might be a kind of residual value even in “broken down” or malfunctioning humans, provided that they can be redeemed.

No problem with that. Bit of a weak argument if you’re Mengele in the lifeboat (I know I’ve done wrong, but give me a second chance!). But valid nevertheless if you’re genuine about giving worth as opposed to taking it. But we have the benefit of hindsight here. We know the value of both Kolbe and Mengele and we know that one added something to this existence and one took away from it.

Maybe God will decide whether they are of equal value as far as He is concerned (maybe Mengele had a death bed conversion), but as I’ve said, we are obviously not in a position to make that call. We work in the here and now and we make decisions as mere mortals. And we place value on the two men because of what they did. Not because of any potential that they had. But because what they did defined them.

The problem with going with number 3, is that you are essentially, pegging value upon the accidental origin of characteristics.

Yes. I don’t see a problem with that. I am eternally grateful that an amazing sequence of ‘accidents’ has allowed me to exist. I sometimes keep myself warm at night contemplating that fact. And that I can go someway to understanding and contemplate my existence is mightily valuable. Other forms of life do not have that luxury. And I use the term accurately. It is a luxury. It is no small thing. It may be the biggest thing that we have. So I don’t see it as a problem at all.

“existence” is simply an illusory and short flicker of unstable and unknowable quality fated to be extinguished with no real lasting significance.

Now you’re back to the ‘Just A Bag Of Chemicals’ argument (JABOC). I’ve already said I disagree with that assessment. Repeating it is not likely to change my mind.

If the “grand scheme” is the story of a sophisticated “bag of chemicals” arising from chemical soup, then “contemplating” that existence comes perilously and desperately near the mirage example you like to trot out now and then.

How so? I contemplate this existence. The here and now. If you see something off yonder that you think explains it better than any explanation I have, then you are free to head off towards it. You may see people walking off in all sort of directions as you leave. They all think they’re going the right way. Let me know when you get there. I’ll wait here.

Materialism, as far as “value” goes has nothing in its vault because matter does not, on its own, impute or underwrite “value” at all. Matter doesn’t trade in “value” currency at all.

JABOC again…

 

[Bradski]

. If it doesn’t matter to you whether God does or does not exist there is no reason why you should find the idea of being part of a plan depressing…

Read the damn thing in context please.

‘It doesn’t matter to me in this regard whether God does or does not exist’.

‘In this regard’ refers to Man feeling that he is ‘such a piece of work’. We presumably all feel that we are something special, whether God exists or not (and here comes Tony’s bit about materialism and bags of chemicals yet again).

But if God exists, then I find the idea of me being part of some grand design somewhat depressing.