Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou use 'moral' in an idiosyncratic sense, but that is of no matter. If you prefer, the question could be rephrased in term of 'ethical value', or merely in terms of 'reason-giving force'. If you claim that something X has more value to you than something Y, then, ceteris paribus, you are claiming that there are stronger reasons in favor of pursuing, endorsing, supporting, etc. X than there are for Y. It does not matter for my purposes here whether you think there is no referent for the term 'moral'.
[b]…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 ...[text shortened]... ive judgement for I don’t think one person is “WORTH” more than another in the objective sense.[/b]
I think you are confused regarding the objective/subjective distinction. You have been asked to explain your views. Your views are beliefs of yours, and as such admit of questions of justification. That is, your beliefs are either justified or unjustified. Calling a belief subjective does nothing to answer questions concerning the justification of that belief. If you mean by 'subjective' that your subjective beliefs have no reasons that justify them, then your subjective beliefs are unjustified and need not be taken seriously. But of course that is not correct. You think you do have reasons for your beliefs, and that your reasons justify your beliefs. So why not simply say that although your beliefs may be incorrect, you think they are supported by good reasons?
If you think that the notion of worth is purely subjective, in that no claims about worth can be assessed, then why did you attempt to answer the original question at all? But you did attempt to answer that question; you claimed that considerations of general intelligence weighed in favor of ascribing differential worth to humans. So, you do not think that worth is purely subjective. Rather, you think that considerations of general intelligence (or those other qualities for which this is a shorthand) can justify claims about worth. Since considerations of general intelligence are not purely subjective, it follows that objective considerations can justify claims about worth. So, by your own lights, you are now contradicting yourself by claiming that 'worth' is purely subjective.
Originally posted by bbarr…You use 'moral' in an idiosyncratic sense…
You use 'moral' in an idiosyncratic sense, but that is of no matter. If you prefer, the question could be rephrased in term of 'ethical value', or merely in terms of 'reason-giving force'. If you claim that something X has more value to you than something Y, then, ceteris paribus, you are claiming that there are stronger reasons in favor of pursuing, endorsi ...[text shortened]... s, you are now contradicting yourself by claiming that 'worth' is purely subjective.
Not really. I don’t think there is such thing as “moral”.
…the question could be rephrased in term of 'ETHICAL value'.… (my emphasis)
No. I don’t think there is such thing as “ethics”.
…or merely in terms of 'reason-giving force'. .…
Yes. I think that is about right -assuming that I haven’t misunderstood what you mean by that.
… If you claim that something X has more value to you than something Y, then, ceteris paribus, you are claiming that there are STRONGER REASONS in favour of pursuing, endorsing, supporting, etc. X than there are for Y.…(my emphasis)
If what you mean by “STRONGER REASONS ” is “stronger personal reasons” then yes.
… I think you are confused regarding the objective/subjective distinction. You have been asked to explain your views. Your views are BELIEFS of yours,.… (my emphasis)
Actually, I wasn’t referring to my “BELIEFS” there because what “value” I attribute to a life doesn’t come from any “belief” that that life has “value” in the objective sense. I may mentally arbitrarily assign a totally subjective “value” to life but that doesn’t reflect any “belief” in the objective existence of a “value” for I have no such belief -instead, the “value” I arbitrarily assign to life reflects on my preferences rather than my beliefs.
If I personally prefer the taste of apples to pears than I may arbitrarily assign a greater “value” to the taste of pears but that only reflects my personal preferences and not any objective belief that “apples have more value than pears”.
… Calling a BELIEF subjective does nothing to answer questions concerning the justification of that belief. …(my emphasis)
Perfectly true. But what I expressed was not a “BELIEF” and therefore there is no “BELIEF there that requires justification.
…If you think that the notion of worth is purely subjective, in that no claims about worth can be assessed, then why did you attempt to answer the original question at all? But you did attempt to answer that question; you claimed that considerations of general intelligence weighed in favour of ascribing differential worth to humans. So, you do not think that worth is purely subjective. Rather, you think that considerations of general intelligence (or those other qualities for which this is a shorthand) can justify CLAIMS about worth.…(my emphasis)
I do not make any “CLAIMS” about worth if what you are referring to is some kind of “objective worth”.
…Since considerations of general intelligence are not purely subjective, it follows that objective considerations can justify claims about worth. …
Is what you mean by
“general intelligence are not purely subjective”
in this context the same as:
“the EXISTENCE of love, fear of death, ability to form friendship etc is not purely subjective” ?
-if so, then I totally agree with you that “general intelligence are not purely subjective”.
But if what you mean by that statement is:
“the VALUE of love, fear of death, ability to form friendship etc is not purely subjective” ?
Then I would disagree with you. That doesn’t prevent me from personally assigning an arbitrary value to love etc but I would have no belief that those “values” exist in an objective way for I would think those “values” only exist in my mind and are totally dependent on my personal preferences.
Originally posted by bbarrbbarr
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?
You make me curious: what is your opinion on this matter?
It seems I cannot quite decipher what your opinion is from what you have said in your last few posts.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat matter are you asking about? Our brief discussion moved quickly from applied ethics (e.g. criteria for assessing the respective value of lives) to metaethics (e.g., whether claims about value or worth have objective truth-conditions, and whether such terms actually fail to refer to anything real).
bbarr
You make me curious: what is your opinion on this matter?
It seems I cannot quite decipher what your opinion is from what you have said in your last few posts.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltoni was using those words as synonyms actually.
[b]…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 empha ...[text shortened]... tion.
So what do you mean by “REASON” in the above? -do you mean “purpose” or “explanation”?[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyhuman beings are not superior to animals because even though we are smarter, there are some w/ better physical abilities. superiority is not always measured by just intelligence; also, we are all animals and mortals, it's not as if we are gods compared to them.
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 ...[text shortened]... ns of the earth. However, on the other hand, are they not animals? Hmmm. What a conundrum.
Originally posted by bbarrI guess the former:
What matter are you asking about? Our brief discussion moved quickly from applied ethics (e.g. criteria for assessing the respective value of lives) to metaethics (e.g., whether claims about value or worth have objective truth-conditions, and whether such terms actually fail to refer to anything real).
What is your criteria (assuming you have such criteria -I don’t mean to imply that you MUST have such criteria) for assessing the respective value of lives?
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomSo it is within your estimation that killing an animal is akin to killing a human being? Either you value both to the point that you would not kill either or you do not value either and would kill both.
human beings are not superior to animals because even though we are smarter, there are some w/ better physical abilities. superiority is not always measured by just intelligence; also, we are all animals and mortals, it's not as if we are gods compared to them.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFinally, someone who is willing to confront a little truth around here.
[b]…do you value human life over that of an animals?…
Of course I do.
Ok, so you would say human beings have a greater intellect, and you would be correct. However, it goes beyond our mere intellect as to why I value human life over that of the animal kingdom. For the creationist, we believe that God breathed a "soul life" into man, thus we were created in his own image.
I do realize that the term "superior" carries with it many negative connotations and for that I apologize.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't understand why people who clearly believe they are superior to animals are apologising for using the word.
Finally, someone who is willing to confront a little truth around here.
Ok, so you would say human beings have a greater intellect, and you would be correct. However, it goes beyond our mere intellect as to why I value human life over that of the animal kingdom. For the creationist, we believe that God breathed a "soul life" into man, thus we were create ...[text shortened]... hat the term "superior" carries with it many negative connotations and for that I apologize.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI will try and explain my position better.
I don't understand why people who clearly believe they are superior to animals are apologising for using the word.
I believe you value and my value exceeds that of, say a dog. I believe value is a better term to use because as has been said before, the term superior begs the question, superior in what way? Value, on the other hand, is merely a subjective term that is assigned to a person or diety.
Having said that, it is my belief that mankind was the focus of creation and for that many would say that I am full of myself and that is fine. However, the way I see it is that you can believe this in one of two ways. You can say that I am better than such and such with an attitude of greater importance or you can approach this from the perspective that my existence and value are of great importance to my Creator and I should therefore be humbled by such unearned favor.
I think you will agree that it matters little as to the truth regarding the matter in comparison to how you process this truth and incorporate it into you life. As for myself, I follow the example of Christ who had greater importance and value than myself yet he did not use this as a weapon to inhance himself, rather, he humbly served those of lesser value because of his love for us. You see it all has to do with how you love your fellow man and all other living things around you.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomSo a rat is equal to a person in your eyes?
human beings are not superior to animals because even though we are smarter, there are some w/ better physical abilities. superiority is not always measured by just intelligence; also, we are all animals and mortals, it's not as if we are gods compared to them.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomNo, but I don't understand your answer either. Value does not mean
so superiority dictates value in your eyes?
superiorty, you can have some modern cars, place it next to a very old
model in great condition and value would be placed upon the very
old car over the modern ones. Value can be placed upon some metals
over others and so on, it depends on who is making the judgment
calls. If the market place is where we go to get value, than value is
what someone is willing to pay, and if God is real and God has placed
a value of one over another, than I'd say God's value system will,
of course, win out.
Kelly