Elsewhere on this forum I wrote:
And in doing so I felt somewhat surprised this was something I really needed to explain. But on this forum I've noticed most Christians here treat humans as qualitatively different to animals when it comes to morality. They believe that because humans are made in the image of God / have immortal souls / will be resurrected in the afterlife / have been given different commands by God about action toward other humans as compared to action toward animals, that therefore human-human moral interactions aren't on a continuum with human-animal moral interactions but are rather completely different to them. As such, they believe things like killing a developing human fetus is utterly and completely different to killing a developing animal fetus even if the two have the same levels of brain function (or lack thereof).
So, I'm wondering whether I'm right in simply assuming that all atheists here would share the same basic moral premises as myself that:
1. Humans exist on a continuum with animals, having evolved from them,
2. That what makes beings morally relevant is the extent to which they posses minds (let's avoid details here of whether by that we mean 'consciousness' or 'self-awareness' or 'possessing intention' or something else)
3. That minds exist on a scale of not there at all through to human-level
...and thus share the belief that the moral differences between humans and animals are quantitative not qualitative.
I am wondering, in particular, if Carpedm will come down on the side of affirming all those premises, or will argue that because in practice morality is a social construct created through a social contract that therefore animals cannot participate in it because they can't negotiate their part in any contract.
Vote in the poll!
[Harming another being is] wrong in proportion to its level of 'mind' - i.e. its sentience / cognition / conscious / comprehension / memory / self-awareness faculties. So rocks aren't on the scale because they don't have minds in any way shape or form, while plants / bacteria are at the absolute minimum of life on up through insects, fetuses, fish, mammals, and finally humans with fully functioning minds which have the maximum mind we have yet to encounter
And in doing so I felt somewhat surprised this was something I really needed to explain. But on this forum I've noticed most Christians here treat humans as qualitatively different to animals when it comes to morality. They believe that because humans are made in the image of God / have immortal souls / will be resurrected in the afterlife / have been given different commands by God about action toward other humans as compared to action toward animals, that therefore human-human moral interactions aren't on a continuum with human-animal moral interactions but are rather completely different to them. As such, they believe things like killing a developing human fetus is utterly and completely different to killing a developing animal fetus even if the two have the same levels of brain function (or lack thereof).
So, I'm wondering whether I'm right in simply assuming that all atheists here would share the same basic moral premises as myself that:
1. Humans exist on a continuum with animals, having evolved from them,
2. That what makes beings morally relevant is the extent to which they posses minds (let's avoid details here of whether by that we mean 'consciousness' or 'self-awareness' or 'possessing intention' or something else)
3. That minds exist on a scale of not there at all through to human-level
...and thus share the belief that the moral differences between humans and animals are quantitative not qualitative.
I am wondering, in particular, if Carpedm will come down on the side of affirming all those premises, or will argue that because in practice morality is a social construct created through a social contract that therefore animals cannot participate in it because they can't negotiate their part in any contract.
Vote in the poll!
Comment