Can theists be rational?

[Paulhoff]

It might be just me, but I can't quite follow any of what Paulhoff is saying. Random words seem to have been substituted.

What, not lots and lots of words for you, OK. You treat other people well because it only helps you out in the long run, you don't have to worry about going to sleep at night. Geezzz, think.

Paul

 

[westprog]

Speaking only for myself, I believe it's in your own best long-term interests. I believe that human beings are social animals, and that in order to be happy it's necessary to have honest relationships with others. I believe that's fundamentally impossible if you consider your own life to be more valuable than other lives. So striving to be a "good" person and striving to be "happy" to me are basically intertwined.

Also, society works better if it's a group of people working together, and not working towards their own self-interest. In my opinion, that's why we have laws, to protect the honest ones from those working towards their own self-interest.

But that's just my amatuer philosophy talking, and maybe it's completely flawed, I don't know.

I don't find any fault with the philosophy. But if the fundamental aim is "to be happy" then that is the fundamental principle, and however entwined "good" is, it's not the central factor.

What if being good to other people is against my self interest? What if it makes me sad?

 

[L The Detective]

I don't find any fault with the philosophy. But if the fundamental aim is "to be happy" then that is the fundamental principle, and however entwined "good" is, it's not the central factor.

What if being good to other people is against my self interest? What if it makes me sad?

That's a good point. I think that conflicts of interest are inevitable, no matter what belief system we adopt.

I would say that the central principal, at least to me, is that "all human lives are equal value." And that means that no one person's needs outweighs another. So if someone is treating you in such a way that puts their needs above yours, then I think it goes against the principal. "Happiness" I think is just a natural motivator, and you're right in that in may not be the same for all people, although in my observation it seems to be true for most people.

For the rest of those people who don't want to live in a society of equals, but would rather follow the philosophy "my own self-interest outweighs all others," that's why we have laws, to protect us from those people. Personally, I think that those people will never be truly happy, but that's my own baseless speculation, and maybe it's wrong.

 

[Paulhoff]

You know it is real simple sometimes, treat other people well and most times it comes back to you. If one need fear to be good, that will not last long, and is not a good base for a society to grow on.

What if being good to other people is against my self interest?

That is call being Mature, that how it is sometimes.

Paul

 

[fls]

That's a good point. What about "treat all life as equal value to your own." I know I should make a distinction there for human life, but I don't know, that seems kind of arbitrary to me.

Still asymmetric.

Linda

 

[L The Detective]

Still asymmetric.

How so?

Oh... because some people may not consider their lives to have any value? I guess you're right.

 

[fls]

For the rest of those people who don't want to live in a society of equals, but would rather follow the philosophy "my own self-interest outweighs all others," that's why we have laws, to protect us from those people.

We don't have laws to protect us from those people. We have laws to protect our own self-interest.

Are you truly less interested in your self than in others? Does that mean you own no property and your services are freely available for anyone's use?

Linda

 

[fls]

How so?

Well, for one thing, as you mentioned in your post, it fails to distinguish between humans and any other life-form.

Taken from the perspective of the other, they will see a value that is different from what you see - you see a value that corresponds to your own, they see a value that doesn't correspond to their own.

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

But where does the human dignity come from?

From certain concepts of humans, one of which I adhere to. To call it "secular humanity" is not that wrong, I suppose, and human dignity is a postulate of this concept.

 

[Paulhoff]

But where does the human dignity come from? Why treat others as you would be treated?

Not from the bible, nothing in there against slavery, and tells about killing every man, woman and child for not believing in the so-called right god.

Paul

 

[L The Detective]

We don't have laws to protect us from those people. We have laws to protect our own self-interest.

Yes, you're right. I was over-simplifying again. What I was trying to say is overall reason for law, in my view, is to protect people from harming each other.

Are you truly less interested in your self than in others? Does that mean you own no property and your services are freely available for anyone's use?

No, to be honest with you I am probably more interested in myself than in others. I think that's human nature. I just think that while trying to serve my own needs, I shouldn't be stepping on anyone else's. It's okay for me to own property because I have acquired it by fairly compensating others, and my services are available for fair compensation. That sort of thing. Fair compensation relies on the idea that all people have the same basic rights, correct?

 

[Herzblut]

I would say that the central principal, at least to me, is that "all human lives are equal value."

I think that's a good point, but not sufficient because it does not say anything about the value as such. Is it, say, 150$?

 

[L The Detective]

Well, for one thing, as you mentioned in your post, it fails to distinguish between humans and any other life-form.

True. We could solve that by just inserting the word "human life," but that seems arbitrary, which bothers me. I could say "intelligent life," but that creates other problems. I acknowledge that is an intrinsic problem with morals in general.

Taken from the perspective of the other, they will see a value that is different from what you see - you see a value that corresponds to your own, they see a value that doesn't correspond to their own.

Right, but that value is also intangible and we aren't measuring it against anything but itself. As far as I can tell, if someone sees the value of human life as X, and I see it as Y, there's no way to compare X and Y in any meaningful way. Well, I suppose I could say "my life is as valuable as a potato," and you could dispute that, but I'm not sure what that even means.

Maybe you're right. It's just that most people don't tend to define the values of their life in tangible terms, so it doesn't seem like a realistic problem to me. Most people tend to value their lives as the most valuable thing they have. I would think that that almost has to be the case by definition, but maybe other people see it differently.

 

[L The Detective]

I think that's a good point, but not sufficient because it does not say anything about the value as such. Is it, say, 150$?

I guess you're right. I hadn't thought it was necessary to put a tangible value on human life, but maybe it is.

After thinking about it, I think that a person's life has to be the most valuable thing they can possibly have, because all other things stem from it. At very least, nothing else in life can be more valuable than life itself, because without life you lose everything in life.

Does that make sense?

 

[Herzblut]

I guess you're right. I hadn't thought it was necessary to put a tangible value on human life, but maybe it is.

After thinking about it, I think that a person's life has to be the most valuable thing they can possibly have, because all other things stem from it. At very least, nothing else in life can be more valuable than life itself, because without life you lose everything in life.

Does that make sense?

Very good sense. I personally, for systematic reasons, talk about human dignity as the "highest good" (but this is not the main point) and assign to it an infinite value. It is a priceless value: no price, however high, can pay for it.

Hence, I won't say "one human is worth 12 camels", not even 25!

 

[L The Detective]

Very good sense. I personally, for systematic reasons, talk about human dignity as the "highest good" (but this is not the main point) and assign to it an infinite value. It is a priceless value: no price, however high, can pay for it.

Hence, I won't say "one human is worth 12 camels", not even 25!

That's a good way to look at it. I hope you won't be offended if I steal that idea for future discussions?

 

[fls]

Fair compensation relies on the idea that all people have the same basic rights, correct?

People, yes.

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

That's a good way to look at it. I hope you won't be offended if I steal that idea for future discussions?

Hehe, you cannot possibly steal from me what I don't own. Maybe you want to have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_dignity#In_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

to see who I have stolen the idea from. Herr Kant has strongly influenced my ethics.

 

[fls]

True. We could solve that by just inserting the word "human life," but that seems arbitrary, which bothers me. I could say "intelligent life," but that creates other problems. I acknowledge that is an intrinsic problem with morals in general.

That's why I like self-interest. It avoids that problem, since it recognizes the source of interest for each life form and eliminates the arbitrary nature.

Right, but that value is also intangible and we aren't measuring it against anything but itself. As far as I can tell, if someone sees the value of human life as X, and I see it as Y, there's no way to compare X and Y in any meaningful way. Well, I suppose I could say "my life is as valuable as a potato," and you could dispute that, but I'm not sure what that even means.

Maybe you're right. It's just that most people don't tend to define the values of their life in tangible terms, so it doesn't seem like a realistic problem to me. Most people tend to value their lives as the most valuable thing they have. I would think that that almost has to be the case by definition, but maybe other people see it differently.

But if we use self-interest, does it matter whether those values can be compared? Do we distinguish, among people, on the basis of who places the highest value on their interests? As Herzblut points out, it's all pretty much "priceless" (there's gotta be a Mastercard commercial in there somewhere ).

Have you read "The Selfish Gene"?

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

People, yes.

Linda

Yes, animals are not moral agents. They don't have inherent moral value. (For me personally.)