Is The Concept Of Human Dignity...

[shunyadragon]

That's dine, but I don't see where we've actually disagreed.

You have indicated that you do not believe that 'Dignity' has a basis in the natural evolution of human nature.

[Stoic]

Right, but you would have no rational objection to him imposing his moral view on you.

I guess that depends on how one defines "rational objection". Everything we do is ultimately based on emotion, or instinct. There is no purely rational reason for us to do anything.

[Starlight]

Nonsense, the point is circumstances to do not change ones value.

If you're willing to execute people you clearly don't value their lives very highly. It's really strange to say the least that someone who supported the death penalty would have a thread about valuing human life and be trying to lecture people from countries that valued human life more and didn't have the death penalty.

Right so you let the murderer live to murder again. I want to protect the innocent.

A quick google found me studies from multiple countries showing that convicted murderers who served a sentence and were released, subsequently went on to kill someone else ~10% of the time. So executing the murderer has 100% chance of killing a person, whereas not executing them and releasing them after a sentence has a 10% chance of killing a person, so it is obvious that if human life is what you value then you wouldn't want them executed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again none of this changes the fact that all men bear the image of God.

It is not a fact. That is purely your own theological construct.. And which god do you have in mind? Odin? Zeus? Anubis?

We may (and should) execute the child rapist

Should we? What if that child rapist was himself abused and raped as a child? More to the point what about Deuteronomy 32.35 and Paul's advice in Romans 12.19?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would perfectly rational for the majority to exploit a minority to benefit the majority's survival. Most empires did this over history.

A sweeping generalisation. Read up on some history.

It was certainly not the case for the Brits in India. Hitler was very impressed that relatively few white Britons managed to have control over so many millions of Indians. His version of India would be the USSR where the Germans would, like the British in India, be a minority controlling a vast majority.

The Nazis not only drove the Jews into camps, they took all their wealth to fuel their goals.

Not all the Jews were wealthy and why are the Roma, Slavs, disabled, political opponents, and homosexuals always left off this list?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would mean that humans had worth despite what a particular society thought. The Rwandan genocide was immoral because creatures of transcendent value were murdered. When the Hutu reduced the Tutsi to beings without value (to be raped and murder at will) they were rationally and morally wrong. If the Tutsi really were beings without transcendent value then that valueless view, that opinion of the Hutu, was perfectly rational and morally justifiable.

It is a teensy weensy bit more complicated than that. Rwanda is a former colony. The legacy of colonialism continues to be to the detriment of Africa.

[seer]

I guess that depends on how one defines "rational objection". Everything we do is ultimately based on emotion, or instinct. There is no purely rational reason for us to do anything.

OK...

[seer]

If you're willing to execute people you clearly don't value their lives very highly. It's really strange to say the least that someone who supported the death penalty would have a thread about valuing human life and be trying to lecture people from countries that valued human life more and didn't have the death penalty.

I'm not lecturing anyone. And defending the general population (the generally innocent) by life in prison or the death penalty is a human value.

A quick google found me studies from multiple countries showing that convicted murderers who served a sentence and were released, subsequently went on to kill someone else ~10% of the time. So executing the murderer has 100% chance of killing a person, whereas not executing them and releasing them after a sentence has a 10% chance of killing a person, so it is obvious that if human life is what you value then you wouldn't want them executed.

But you have no way of knowing which of the released 10% will kill again. And the fact that most of these murderers are probably quite old when they were finally released. And what is the rate of other crimes they may commit? If we could be sure that they would never harm anyone again that would be a different story.

[seer]

A sweeping generalisation. Read up on some history.

I have, quite a lot. But you failed to address the question: why wouldn't it perfectly rational for the majority to exploit a minority to benefit the majority's survival.

[seer]

It is not a fact. That is purely your own theological construct.. And which god do you have in mind? Odin? Zeus? Anubis?

Prove that it is my own own theological construct...And as far as I know no one claims that were were created in the image of Odin or Zeus. Or that humans have any value to those deities.

Should we? What if that child rapist was himself abused and raped as a child? More to the point what about Deuteronomy 32.35 and Paul's advice in Romans 12.19?

Are you saying that Deuteronomy and Romans suggest that the state should not punish wrong doers?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Prove that it is my own own theological construct.

I cannot "prove" what is taking place in your brain.

There is no evidence for your position. It is premised on your religious beliefs. Nothing more.

We
.And as far as I know no one claims that were were created in the image of Odin or Zeus.

That phrase only occurs in Genesis 1.26 which is one of the two creation myths. Genesis 2.7 simply has the deity creating man from dust rather as Odin, Vili, and Ve created man and woman from two beautiful trees.

Are you saying that Deuteronomy and Romans suggest that the state should not punish wrong doers?

It is all a matter of interpretation. That comment applies to all these texts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have, quite a lot. But you failed to address the question: why wouldn't it perfectly rational for the majority to exploit a minority to benefit the majority's survival.

What you wrote at post #16 was not a question it was a statement that was followed by a generalisation.

"It would perfectly rational for the majority to exploit a minority to benefit the majority's survival. Most empires did this over history. "

If you consider this statement to be correct you need to provide some supporting evidence for it. It is not up to me to explain what you wrote.

[seer]

I cannot "prove" what is taking place in your brain.

There is no evidence for your position. It is premised on your religious beliefs. Nothing more.

And you can demonstrate that religious beliefs are not true?

That phrase only occurs in Genesis 1.26 which is one of the two creation myths. Genesis 2.7 simply has the deity creating man from dust rather as Odin, Vili, and Ve created man and woman from two beautiful trees.

It is all a matter of interpretation. That comment applies to all these texts.[/QUOTE]

First, the image idea is also repeated in James 3:9. Second, where does is Odin said to value humans or that humans are created in his likeness?

[seer]

What you wrote at post #16 was not a question it was a statement that was followed by a generalisation.

"It would perfectly rational for the majority to exploit a minority to benefit the majority's survival. Most empires did this over history. "

If you consider this statement to be correct you need to provide some supporting evidence for it. It is not up to me to explain what you wrote.

Then tell me why that point is wrong. Or do you agree? And that is not my position - try reading in context.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Then tell me why that point is wrong. Or do you agree? And that is not my position - try reading in context.

I repeat that it is not up to me to explain to you what you have written.