Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[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

[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?

[Kelp(p)]

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

NORM

I'm almost positive it was you and JPH seems to back me up http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/mar09scr.html

But since it isn't in the WayBackMachine, I guess it's lost to the aethers. I'll withdraw my claim.

Wasn't talking to you anyway.

True, but you were being a jackass about a subject that I was talking about and I thought I'd just point out ignorant your bluster makes you look.

[Tassman]

Perhaps. But human sacrifice that was condemned in scripture was basically you sacrificing another person (mostly unwilling children) to a god. Christ willingly went to the cross on our behalf - more like a good friend taking a bullet that was meant for you.

Except that it's God firing the bullet. The blood sacrifice of Jesus would not have been necessary if God hadn't demanded a sacrifice in the first place. The fact that he did demand it (according to legend) just reinforces the primitive nature of the story. Most ALL the ancient deities demanded sacrifices or offerings of some sort; it was standard practise for gods.

[Kelp(p)]

Except that it's God firing the bullet. The blood sacrifice of Jesus would not have been necessary if God hadn't demanded a sacrifice in the first place. The fact that he did demand it (according to legend) just reinforces the primitive nature of the story. Most ALL the ancient deities demanded sacrifices or offerings of some sort; it was standard practise for gods.

And where in Scripture do you see God demanding Christ as a sacrifice?

[The Pixie]

Based on what?

That there are some things that seem to be intrinsically wrong.

And in your universe what happens when one does not follow this "objective standard?" Why should we, if not following it is to our benefit?

See the is the problem with Christian morality. It is all about Me me ME! If it does not benefit me, why should I do? If it does not harm me when I ignore it, why not just ignore it? Christians apparently lead moral lives for selfish reasons.

Atheist morality is quite different. Atheists (for the most part, in the western world) live moral lives without the threat of hell and without the promise of heaven. Atheists live moral lives because that is the right thing to do.

[The Pixie]

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 think you two are talking at cross-purposes. Enjolras is assuming people are capable of telling right from wrong, and so are moral agents. It appears that seer is not capable of seeing right from wrong (needing God to tell him), and presumably does not think people in general are capable of doing that (the point of the thread is that we are no more moral than fish, and they certainly cannot tell right from wrong). Oh, and seer had not even heard the term "moral agent" until this discussion!

[The Pixie]

And where in Scripture do you see God demanding Christ as a sacrifice?

Is it the word "demanded" you object to? I can understand why, but I think Tassman is guilty only of hyperbole here. Jesus' temporary sacrifice was due to a situation contrived in the most part by God himself.

[Kelp(p)]

Is it the word "demanded" you object to? I can understand why, but I think Tassman is guilty only of hyperbole here. Jesus' temporary sacrifice was due to a situation contrived in the most part by God himself.

Demanding, commanding, requiring, whatever. I take no offense at the wording.

I don't grant that human sin and suffering is God's fault, and even if it is I don't grant that He's morally culpable. Nor do I grant that God commanded Christ be made a sacrifice.

[seer]

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?

No, the fact that you find some acts emotionally distressing that say a Stalinist does not, is meaningless. How does our visceral reaction change, in kind, the acts that humans do as compared to chimps? Why does speaking in moral terms change anything?

[seer]

I think you two are talking at cross-purposes. Enjolras is assuming people are capable of telling right from wrong, and so are moral agents. It appears that seer is not capable of seeing right from wrong (needing God to tell him), and presumably does not think people in general are capable of doing that (the point of the thread is that we are no more moral than fish, and they certainly cannot tell right from wrong). Oh, and seer had not even heard the term "moral agent" until this discussion!

Nonsense Pixie - the fact is you got nothing. Tell me, how do you know right from wrong? Did the evolutionary process teach you that? How are ethics not relative in your universe?

[The Pixie]

Demanding, commanding, requiring, whatever. I take no offense at the wording.

I don't grant that human sin and suffering is God's fault, and even if it is I don't grant that He's morally culpable. Nor do I grant that God commanded Christ be made a sacrifice.

So who is morally culpable? You and me, born 2000 years later? Adam and Eve, unable to tell right from wrong, and so mislead into eating a fruit?

Someone would appear to have chosen to engineer a system where his own temporary death on a cross had some great significance. That some, being all-powerful, could have chosen to do it with the temporary death on a cross.

[The Pixie]

Nonsense Pixie - the fact is you got nothing. Tell me, how do you know right from wrong?

The rest of us hasve this thing call empathy. Look it up. It leads to ideas of reciprocity, doing to others as you would have done to yourself.

Did the evolutionary process teach you that?

The evolutionary process gave (the rest of) us the ability to empathise. Human morality is something that has developed over many centuries, with older generations teaching younger, who refine it and teach it on.

How are ethics not relative in your universe?

Because in my universe all moral agents are equal. The same rules apply to all moral agents. If it is wrong for me to do X, then it is wrong for everyone.

In my universe, there is no "might is right". There is no Well he created us, so he can kill us if it is convenient to him.

[seer]

The rest of us hasve this thing call empathy. Look it up. It leads to ideas of reciprocity, doing to others as you would have done to yourself.

That is a non-answer.

The evolutionary process gave (the rest of) us the ability to empathise. Human morality is something that has developed over many centuries, with older generations teaching younger, who refine it and teach it on.

The evolutionary process also gave us the ability to be extremely selfish with the ability to slaughter our fellow man for personal gain and power. Why do you find one natural behavior acceptable and the other not?

Because in my universe all moral agents are equal. The same rules apply to all moral agents. If it is wrong for me to do X, then it is wrong for everyone.

So you just made that up? And in your universe when someone violates this rule what happens to them?

In my universe, there is no "might is right". There is no Well he created us, so he can kill us if it is convenient to him.

Really, so when a group violates your invented moral law what happens to them? Will you use "might" to force them to follow your "right?"

[Enjolras]

No, the fact that you find some acts emotionally distressing that say a Stalinist does not, is meaningless. How does our visceral reaction change, in kind, the acts that humans do as compared to chimps? Why does speaking in moral terms change anything?

The human/chimp distinction has already been pointed out, numerous times. We are moral agents so we think (and feel) in moral terms. That is the answer. Repeating the question as you have been doing does not advance the conversation.

Why was Stalin wrong? Because he harmed people. That is the answer to your other question.

Why is harming people wrong? It just is. That is the answer to a question you have not been asking, but perhaps should consider.