http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/02/maine-teenagers-deny-animal-cruelty-charges-alleging-put-kitten-in-running/
A few months ago we had a discussion of whether non-human animals can be the subject of morality.
Over on UD, Mung opined that animals are meat robots, incapable of suffering.
EDIT: Wrong UD poster. Mapou, not Mung. Apologies.
The Myth of the Continuum of Creatures: A Reply to John Jeremiah Sullivan (Part Two)
Apparently the Bible neglects to mention the possibility that animals can be the subject of morality, or that torturing animals can be a sin. But some IDists have declared that torturing babies is self-evidently wrong.
So is microwaving kittens self-evidently wrong? Or self-evidently okay, because it isn’t forbidden by scripture? What Would William Do? Or Mung? Apparently we have secular laws against this. Why?
I’d like to ask this at UD, but I can’t.
I eat meat and I accept that farm animals can be killed and eaten. Abbatoirs should be regulated and methods of handling and killing humane. Killing animals solely for gratuitous pleasure is not acceptable in my society and I support that.
And nobody is forced to eat meat, though few restaurants here cater well for vegetarian clients. Commercial pressure will probably encourage restauranteurs to be more accommodating.
What’s your position?
That’s why it’s been such a failure….
Alan Fox,
But Alan, what does you being happy have to do with the concept you described earlier, which is everyone should be free to pursue any expression of freedom, as long as it doesn’t preclude anyone else from pursuing their own expressions? Lots of people have their own ideas about what would please them, which although you might find distasteful, have zero to do with infringing on your rights.
This is so clearly true Alan, but its just inconvenient for your position.
That is why societies operate on a different notion of morality.
As do people! What flavour of ID do you hold to?
Haha, that is why it is guaranteed not to fail, because every time it does, you simply change the definition of it.
Eventually we will probably find organisms are completely Lamarckian and teleologically planned for survival, and your side will still be claiming you were right all along.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10788449/Why-psychopaths-are-more-successful.html
What, you mean change in response to new evidence?
Um, I think you’ll find that’s what is supposed to happen!
I infer from that you don’t believe we’ve already found such. Yet despite that lack you are an ID supporter? Why? On what basis are you *currently* an ID supporter?
If you live alone on an isolated island, then I have no concern about what you do. Once your activities impinge on the lives of others, then there is need for agreement and regulation. Almost any set of rules that are moderately fair to all is better than anarchy, in my view. But that should not prevent us from proposing improvements that could make life more fulfilling and happier for everyone. “Greatest good for the greatest number”.
What do you suggest? Do you disagree?
Yes indeed, given that 99%+ of everything that has ever lived is extinct….
Again, no, because you have not established any actual connection between the CPC and atheistic morals. Once again, you’ve failed to retain the context of the issue.
Alan,
Do you honestly not see how you are completely changing your narrative?
How did what I say impinge on the rights of others, other than to insult their sensibilities of what they prefer to see? If I run around in public naked, it doesn’t stop you from doing what you want (which is what you stated was your criteria for how public morality should be defined), but it does indeed offend some people. So your standard has now completely changed.
You now agree, its not good to offend other people’s ideas of right and wrong, even when it has nothing whatsoever to do without preventing you from expressing your own idea of freedom. You are now talking about the greatest good for the greatest number. That is an ENTIRELY different philosophy than you stated earlier.
So I have to say this Alan, and I am not trying to be offensive to you, but I think you often struggle with understanding clear lines of logic. It is completely irrelevant what I think is a good standard for public policy, what is at issue is whether or not a belief system which says that all of life is just an accident of material objects poorly copying themselves can ever justify a concept of good or right and wrong, which is universal.
Ultimately all you attempts will fail, unless you simply accept that there is a goodness to be strived for, which exists outside of materialism.
I see you tripping all over yourself with just your little idea of “Do what you like as long as it doesn’t prevent me from doing what I want” which you have now already abandoned because you can see how untenable this position is. So I don’t see how you are ever going to make the further leap of understanding of why materialism alone can never justify any morality at all, because anything that happens in a completely materialist world view is neither good nor bad, but simply subjective personal feelings which are meaningless outside of yourself.
L I A R
But you’re to be congratulated for motivating me to post again at this cesspool of ignorance and bias pretending to be objective under the name of “skepticism.”
What a joke.
I don’t need to establish any such connection to make the point I was making. It may not make some point you imagine I’m trying to make, but it makes my actual point.
It doesn’t make any difference if I show that atheists are forcing atheistic morals on other, or if I show that atheists are forcing non-atheistic morals on others; atheists are still forcing their morals on others. That was the only point I was making – that atheists, like anyone else, force their morals on others, whether those morals have anything to do with atheism or not. IMO, ot’s a biased, bigoted canard to single christians and christian morals out.
Wrong UD poster. It was Mapou. I’ve added a link to the OP.
Wrong on two counts. I haven’t changed my narrative. And I always strive to be honest. I’ve too poor a memory to be a good liar.
The level of offence taken from nakedness varies from situation to situation and culture to culture. In a naturist environment, being dressed can give offence. There are no absolutes here; it’s just a matter of conformity.
Where did you find me saying something that is counter to “The Golden Rule”? I think “greatest good” etc and fairness mixed with compassion is a reasonable starting point for negotiating rules of communal living.
Don’t worry about offending me. I certainly struggle with logic to the extent that I am not yet convinced that it is useful when discussing ethics. Your reference to the theory of evolution seems a bit of a non sequitur
Absolutely! It’s what makes life worth living.
that’s logically fallacious! 🙂
No. I think anyone’s personal space, especially what goes on in their head is sacrosanct and inviolable. I’m horrified at the way some can invade other’s space without the least compunction. Muggers and Jehovah’s witnesses for example
.
Not to worry as it’s not your responsibility. Reality is all there is so I shall be trying to make the best of it.
Alan Fox,
Alan, are you even able to see the contradiction of statements you write within hours of days of each other?
For instance compare this just a short while back!!!!!!!:
It is so simple. Everyone is guaranteed human rights. But those rights extend to all in the group, society, culture, state, whatever. Rights for one have to be limited when they diminish the rights of another. AThe religious bigot is allowed to believe homosexuality is a grievous sin and refrain from indulging in it. Gay people have the right not to be attacked and prevented from entering into loving relationships with the same tax and property benefits as heterosexuals.
With this!!!!!!!!:
The level of offence taken from nakedness varies from situation to situation and culture to culture. In a naturist environment, being dressed can give offence. There are no absolutes here; it’s just a matter of conformity.
THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES IT’S JUST A MATTER OF CONFORMITY you now write!
So if society thinks gays don’t conform, why should they have rights that offend others? Why can’t one just say then: The level of offence taken from HOMOSEXUALITY varies from situation to situation and culture to culture. What are these human rights you talk about in the first paragraph?
Your two statements are ABSOLUTE contradictions. One is about undeniable rights, and another is about conforming to what others want you to do!!!!!
Sorry, but I can no longer take you seriously at all Alan. You have completely lost the plot.
As I said, you don’t have to worry. You don’t even need to read for comprehension. What’s your philosophy of life?
It may well, but it does not rebut Alan’s point. Atheists do not force atheistic morality on others. You’ve failed to rebut this, offering instead the claim that people force arbitrary morality on others. Big whoop. That doesn’t rebut Alan’s point.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t rebut Alan’s point. So it’s a rather moot point at best. Bravo…
Yeah well…most Christians are arrogant social bigots. What are you going to do?
The point is that not being offended is not a right. Society cannot guarantee that right, because there’ll always be something that offends others. Girls wearing tuxedo’s offend me. Should they be limited in their right to do so because it offends me?
So what if your sensibilities are offended by your thinking about two people of the same sex being together: just try to think of it less, then!
So no, they were not, since I did not see Alan promote the notion that offense should be considered a guideline for determining what rights to allow, and what to limit. He merely noted that 1) everybody should have equal rights, only limited to the extent that they do not infringe upon other people’s rights, and 2) different people are offended by different things. How are those contradictory?