Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[Enjolras]

Well yes if you look at this emotionally (what emotionally strikes you as wrong), but logically, in kind, and in behavior, there is no difference.

Emotionally?! What do emotions have to do with it? You yourself acknowledged that humans are moral agents and chimps are not. There is a moral difference, which is the only relevant difference as far as this discussion is concerned. Your question has been answered.

Now you are saying there is no 'logical' difference between the two. What does that even mean and how is this relevant?

[NormATive]

Why would anybody want to have a conversation with you on a topic you've declared in advance to be nonsense, Mr. I-Thought-Hypostasis-Was-Just-A-Medical-Term?

Uh..that wasn't me. You're thinking of someone else. I do recall that thread. Wasn't talking to you anyway.

NORM

[seer]

You wrote in the OP that you couldn't see why humans killing one another is any different than chimps doing the same:


The reason it is not equally upsetting is because chimps are not moral beings and humans are. That is the reason. This has been answered. There is no need to keep bringing it up again as though this has not been dealt with.

Well yes if you look at this emotionally (what emotionally strikes you as wrong), but logically, in kind, and in behavior, there is no difference.

[Enjolras]

Well no, chimps don't think morally (as far as I know). I thought that was a given. No what?

You wrote in the OP that you couldn't see why humans killing one another is any different than chimps doing the same:

I find it strange, that they find human behavior strange or in need of reform. They don't find it equally upsetting when a lion kills and eats a gazelle, or who one group of chimpanzees slaughters all the males in another group and take their females and territory. We say that is just nature working herself out. But how, for instance, is the Rape of Nanking any different in kind?

The reason it is not equally upsetting is because chimps are not moral beings and humans are. That is the reason. This has been answered. There is no need to keep bringing it up again as though this has not been dealt with.

[seer]

Why can't you simply answer the questions? You acknowledge that humans think morally. That's good. How about chimps? Seriously. Until you answer this, there's no point in going further.

Well no, chimps don't think morally (as far as I know). I thought that was a given. Now what?

[Enjolras]

Well first I need to understand what you are driving at. I'm not denying that human beings think morally - but what does that lead to? I mean you have a moral view, Stalinists have theirs, the Hutus theirs, etc... I'm trying to find out why these different moral opinions are significant.

Why can't you simply answer the questions? You acknowledge that humans think morally. That's good. How about chimps? Seriously. Until you answer this, there's no point in going further.

[seer]

If you will simply answer my questions, I will attempt to connect the dots.

Well first I need to understand what you are driving at. I'm not denying that human beings think morally - but what does that lead to? I mean you have a moral view, Stalinists have theirs, the Hutus theirs, etc... I'm trying to find out why these different moral opinions are significant.

[Enjolras]

I'm not saying that human beings don't have an ethical sense. I'm asking - why does it matter? Why does the fact that human beings have different or relative moral opinions ultimately matter? Of course that begs the bigger question - why do we ultimately matter?

If you will simply answer my questions, I will attempt to connect the dots.

[seer]

Let's take them one at a time. Do you or do you not see the difference between a human 1 year old and a human adult in terms of moral reasoning and accountability? If so, can you or can you not see how this relates to the question of why humans have morality and chimps don't?

I'm not saying that human beings don't have an ethical sense. I'm asking - why does it matter? Why does the fact that human beings have different or relative moral opinions ultimately matter? Of course that begs the bigger question - why do we ultimately matter?

[Kelp(p)]

So, that Mel Gibson movie was fiction in your opinion? As I recall, you once had the promo image for the movie as your avatar.

If it was really God on that cross, then the crucifixion was a farce. Being God, he wasn't really in mortal danger since God, presumably, can't die.

So, WTF?

Cue the trinity nonsense:

NORM

Why would anybody want to have a conversation with you on a topic you've declared in advance to be nonsense, Mr. I-Thought-Hypostasis-Was-Just-A-Medical-Term?

[Enjolras]

Deal with what?

Let's take them one at a time. Do you or do you not see the difference between a human 1 year old and a human adult in terms of moral reasoning and accountability? If so, can you or can you not see how this relates to the question of why humans have morality and chimps don't?

[NormATive]

Again, I don't know what this means since Christians don't teach human sacrifice per se. Yes, Christ had a physical body but it was God the Son that died for our sins.

So, that Mel Gibson movie was fiction in your opinion? As I recall, you once had the promo image for the movie as your avatar.

If it was really God on that cross, then the crucifixion was a farce. Being God, he wasn't really in mortal danger since God, presumably, can't die.

So, WTF?

Cue the trinity nonsense:

NORM

[seer]

I will answer your questions, but I would appreciate a little quid pro quo. Otherwise it's just you stating your views over and over again, ignoring what I have already said. Not much of a conversation. :(

Deal with what?

[Enjolras]

You tell me, do you believe in free will? But my point stands - adults or not, we are merely animals doing what animals do. Now you may have objections concerning some behaviors of your fellow animals but those concerns are relative and cultural - hence not worth serious consideration.

I will answer your questions, but I would appreciate a little quid pro quo. Otherwise it's just you stating your views over and over again, ignoring what I have already said. Not much of a conversation. :(

[seer]

A Seer thread primer:

1. Make an assertion or ask a loaded question (usually about dang liberals)

2. Wait for nuanced discussion from both sides of a complex issue (which has usually been addressed by philosophical experts for centuries.)

3. Ignore nuanced discussion.

4. Repeat assertion or question.

5. Repeat whole process in thread after thread.

Seer is entitled to his beliefs no matter how paranoid. That is his right. Being wrong or misguided is one thing. Being boring is a sin.

Get a life pancreasman, I mean really it must be terrible that I get to live in your head rent free!