I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity."  Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."

A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of  "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?

Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.

Views: 8340

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Everybody's entitled to their opinions. I say, to my species equality associates, that eating animals is not a moral issue at all.

Anybody notice that Wretched Saint seems to have gone away --?

Maybe he's thinking . . . do you think there's any chance he will concede a single point? Or maybe his absence means he concedes them all.

He may have a different name or different approach, but he'll be back.

Maybe he's thinking!  Ha, ha! You're a riot Atheist exile!

Hey . . . It could happen!

No ...here just listening. Sapiens qui vigilat.

Yes, the wretched saint has fled.  I miss his earnest sincerity.

I take the sincere comment to heart. But watch out about calling me earnest or I'll cook someone's dog. ha!

Ok. This topic has certainly gone off the rails. :)

Alright, from the top here. 

  • Humans are animals.
  • Humans are natural creatures, like all animals, not possessed of any supernatural abilities.
  • Humans do not engage in any activity that is unique to the species other than a matter of degree.
  • There is nothing unnatural or immoral about the conduct of any human - no more so than any other member of any animal species. 
  • There is nothing inherently "wrong" about any human action. It may be unacceptable according to the frame of reference of an observer and therefore "wrong" in that context, but no conduct by itself possesses any innate moral characteristics. 
  • No member of any animal species has any innate worth - age, gender, "race" (breed), species, etc. is of no consequence. Any member is free to set a definite valuation to itself or any other creature or object, but none such has that as an implicit characteristic. 

Given the above framework, racism, animal cruelty, and so on, are not actually immoral, but they are unacceptable within our modern culture and usually counterproductive to the common weal. Given that, such patterns of thought or practice should be persuaded against if at all possible. And, yes, other animals engage in forms of animal cruelty and racism with regards to their own species or other species - it's common and natural - and causes distress for many human observers. Why? Because that's just how we are typically as a species.

We are not animals! Sounds a bit like cough* Christian* Cough dogma. That's exactly what we are. Cherry picking some attributes that only some humans have to try to make a case for being somehow apart from the animal kingdon seems like quite an arbirary approach. What about the insane, chronically senile, severely mentally handicapped? Are they animals by virture of the fact they don't have the attributes you have chosen? 

@ John - The difference between animals and humans is the FOXP2 gene. Animals don't have it. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Different.htm

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service