Purpose and Meaning

Originally posted by whodey
There is also a Biblical reference to this phenomenon. I recall a scripture that says that every man does as he pleases and does what is right in their own eyes. I don't think it is mutually exclusive to the theists, although it is nice to pin it on them. Come to think of it, are you not doing the same thing here?

As far as man's "superiority" over anim ...[text shortened]... you had to decide to save a human being or an animal, would you not choose the human being?

…As far as man's "superiority" over animals, can I ask you one thing? Do you eat other animals?….

Do some animals sometimes eat us? (are vultures “superior” over us for that reason?) Are some humans cannibals? (-and thus those cannibals “superior” over us?) I don’t think what eats what can reasonably used as a criterion for what is “superior” -not that I think there is generally such a thing as generally being “superior” -the word is ridiculously subjective.

Originally posted by whodey
There is also a Biblical reference to this phenomenon. I recall a scripture that says that every man does as he pleases and does what is right in their own eyes. I don't think it is mutually exclusive to the theists, although it is nice to pin it on them. Come to think of it, are you not doing the same thing here?

As far as man's "superiority" over anim ...[text shortened]... you had to decide to save a human being or an animal, would you not choose the human being?

would an animal save a human being or an animal of the same species?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
actually, evolution does have a "mind" in a sense; that is the whole point of evolution. we evolve and change in order to survive long enough to reproduce.

…actually, evolution does have a "mind" in a sense; that is the whole POINT of evolution…. (my emphasis)

Err…no. Evolution doesn’t have a “POINT” unless, of course, you count what data evolution explains as its “point”. I am surprised you actually believe that evolution is not totally mindless in every sense -I think your view would be at odds with most scientists in that field.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…actually, evolution does have a "mind" in a sense; that is the whole POINT of evolution…. (my emphasis)

Err…no. Evolution doesn’t have a “POINT” unless, of course, you count what data evolution explains as its “point”. I am surprised you actually believe that evolution is not totally mindless in every sense -I think your view would be at odds with most scientists in that field.[/b]

are you kidding me? are you saying you believe we evolve for no reason at all? we evolve and adapt to survive, there is a reason for it; it doesn't just happen.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
would an animal save a human being or an animal of the same species?

In fact animals save humans all the time, does that make them superior? Dolphins have saved humans time after time by keeping them afloat till human help arrives. Dogs saves humans pulling them out of swamps or whatever, barking when a house is on fire, there are lots of examples like this, don't think altruism is strictly a human characteristic.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…As far as man's "superiority" over animals, can I ask you one thing? Do you eat other animals?….

Do some animals sometimes eat us? (are vultures “superior” over us for that reason?) Are some humans cannibals? (-and thus those cannibals “superior” over us?) I don’t think what eats what can reasonably used as a criterion for what is “superi ...[text shortened]... is generally such a thing as generally being “superior” -the word is ridiculously subjective.[/b]

Perhaps that is a poor example. Put another way, do you value human life over that of an animals? If so why, and if not why not?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
are you kidding me? are you saying you believe we evolve for no reason at all? we evolve and adapt to survive, there is a reason for it; it doesn't just happen.

As a Creationist, there are several key points in the history of the universe that I see that points to a God.

1. Creation of matter
2. Creation of life
3. Creation of mankind.

The later, of course, needs explaining because mankind seems vastly different from the rest of the animal kingdom on many levels.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In fact animals save humans all the time, does that make them superior? Dolphins have saved humans time after time by keeping them afloat till human help arrives. Dogs saves humans pulling them out of swamps or whatever, barking when a house is on fire, there are lots of examples like this, don't think altruism is strictly a human characteristic.

id like to point out that it was not me who said that humans are superior to animals, that is a creationist's view.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
id like to point out that it was not me who said that humans are superior to animals, that is a creationist's view.

Then back up your belief. Why are human being not superior to other animals? For example, do human beings not have superior intellect? Don't human beings dominate the animal populations etc?

I think this issue is a bit touchy with most evolutionists. On the one hand, it is as obvious as the nose on ones face that man is "different" from the rest of the animal populations of the earth. However, on the other hand, are they not animals? Hmmm. What a conundrum.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
are you kidding me? are you saying you believe we evolve for no reason at all? we evolve and adapt to survive, there is a reason for it; it doesn't just happen.

…are you kidding me? are you saying you believe we evolve for no REASON at all? … (my emphasis)

If what you mean by ”REASON” in the above is “purpose” then yes; -we evolve for no REASON at all. That is, after all, what the theory of evolution implicitly says.

…we evolve and adapt to survive, there is a REASON for it...… (my emphasis)

If what you mean by “we evolve and adapt to survive” is “we evolve and adapt for the “purpose” to make us better able to survive” then that is incorrect and what you mean by ”REASON” in the above is “purpose” in which case there is no “REASON for it”.

But if what you mean by “we evolve and adapt to survive” is “we evolve and adapt by evolution that has a predisposition to make us better able to survive” then that is correct and what you mean by ”REASON” in the above is “explanation” in which case there is a “REASON for it” -it is natural selection.

So what do you mean by “REASON” in the above? -do you mean “purpose” or “explanation”?

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps that is a poor example. Put another way, do you value human life over that of an animals? If so why, and if not why not?

…do you value human life over that of an animals?…

Of course I do.

…If so why...…

Because we have much greater intellect. Evolution has given us big brains (in proportion to our body size) and a vastly greater intellect (than any other animal) by natural selection just like evolution has given elephants a longer and more flexible nose (the trunk) than any other animal natural selection.

Note that I say “vastly greater intellect” but not “superior intellect” because the word “superior” is ridiculously subjective -is the elephants nose “superior” to ours or is it simply longer and more flexible and more versatile in its use? Is one race “superior” over another? Exactly what is meant by “superior” if it means more than just “greater” or “more adaptable“ or “more versatile” etc?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…do you value human life over that of an animals?…

Of course I do.

…If so why...…

Because we have much greater intellect. Evolution has given us big brains (in proportion to our body size) and a vastly greater intellect (than any other animal) by natural selection just like evolution has given elephants a longer and more fle ...[text shortened]... by “superior” if it means more than just “greater” or “more adaptable“ or “more versatile” etc?[/b]

Do you apply this same rubric to measure the value of lives between members of the same species?

Originally posted by bbarr
Do you apply this same rubric to measure the value of lives between members of the same species?

Generally not. That is partly because I assume the difference between the general level of intellect between two ants to be unlikely to compare to the massive difference of intellect between a human and an ant.

Also, I don’t just place a value on the intellect by judging just by the general level of intellect but also by the capacity for that intellect to love, fear death, form friendships etc.

Obviously, all these judgments are highly subjective -there’s no way around that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Generally not. That is partly because I assume the difference between the general level of intellect between two ants to be unlikely to compare to the massive difference of intellect between a human and an ant.

Also, I don’t just place a value on the intellect by judging just by the general level of intellect but also by the capacity for that int ...[text shortened]... ships etc.

Obviously, all these judgments are highly subjective -there’s no way around that.

Fine. But there is quite a profound difference between the general level of intellect possessed by one with Down's Syndrome and that possessed by your average Nobel Laureate. Do you think that this difference is morally important in assessing the respective value of their lives? If not, then I wonder why this difference plays such a role in your assessment of the respective value of the lives of humans and non-human mammals. If so, then I wonder how you draw a principled distinction between profound differences and the merely moderate differences in general levels of intellect that obtain between those humans within a couple standard deviations of mean general intelligence.

If the importance you place on general intellect is merely shorthand for something more fundamentally important, like fear and love, then your answer to the original question above was misleading. What distinguishes the value of lives of humans from other animals is not their respective general level of intelligence, but rather their respective abilities to love, form close personal bonds, suffer, etc.

But, if it is these qualities of humans that you take to count in favor of the supposition that their lives are generally more important than those of other animals, then I would like to ask a variant of my original question: Is the life a human more capable of love, intimate friendship, acute suffering, etc. worth more than that of another human less psychologically endowed?

Originally posted by bbarr
Fine. But there is quite a profound difference between the general level of intellect possessed by one with Down's Syndrome and that possessed by your average Nobel Laureate. Do you think that this difference is morally important in assessing the respective value of their lives? If not, then I wonder why this difference plays such a role in your assessment ...[text shortened]... ship, acute suffering, etc. worth more than that of another human less psychologically endowed?

…Fine. But there is quite a profound difference between the general level of intellect possessed by one with Down's Syndrome and that possessed by your average Nobel Laureate. …

true

…Do you think that this difference is MORALLY important in assessing the respective value of their lives?...… (my emphasis)

When I was referring to “value” I was not referring to “moral value”. What I was referring to when I was referring to “value” was, if I was given a choice of either saving the life of X or saving the life of Y but not both then if I tend to choose to saving the life of X rather than Y then, purely in that sense, I “value” X more than Y. As for “moral value” -I don’t think there is such thing as “moral value” nor “MORALLY important” because I don’t think there is such thing as “moral”.

…I wonder how you draw a PRINCIPLED distinction between profound differences and the merely moderate differences in general levels of intellect that obtain between those humans within a couple standard deviations of mean general intelligence. .… (my emphasis)

I don’t. -at least I do not “draw a PRINCIPLED distinction” objectively -I only do in a purely subjective way and in a way that cannot be derived from logic just as my preference of which flavour of ice-cream I prefer cannot be derived from logic. That is why I emphasises that this is a purely subjective judgement in my last post.

… If the importance you place on general intellect is merely shorthand for something more fundamentally important, like fear and love, then your answer to the original question above was misleading…

I think you have a point there. I didn’t mean to mislead but, yes, you are right, it was slightly misleading.

… What distinguishes the value of lives of humans from other animals is not their respective general level of intelligence, but rather their respective abilities to love, form close personal bonds, suffer, etc.…

Yes -or at least for me that is correct.

… Is the life a human more capable of love, intimate friendship, acute suffering, etc. WORTH more than that of another human less psychologically endowed?…(my emphasis)

Of course the word “WORTH” has a purely subjective meaning and thus I have no objective means to asses the “WORTH” of a human or anything else. As a result, I do not know the “correct” answer to your question and I don’t even think there is a “correct” answer to your question!

However, if I was given a choice of either saving the life of person X or saving the life of person Y but not both then if person X was more capable of love, intimate friendship, acute suffering, etc than person Y then, yes, I probably would tend to choose to saving the life of X rather than Y then purely in that sense, I judge person X to be “WORTH” more than Y -but, if so, that would be purely a subjective judgement for I don’t think one person is “WORTH” more than another in the objective sense.