Can theists be rational?

[fls]

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

I'm assuming that people aren't animals?

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

I'm assuming that people aren't animals?

Linda

You assume, from what I understand, that (some) animals have intrinsic moral value but I might be wrong. Anyhow, I don't think that animals can have any right or value, unless we decide to give it to them.

 

[L The Detective]

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

That's true. I was just looking for a way to point out, what to me is an intrinsic equality in the value of all human life. If we agree that all life is priceless, then it would seem by definition that everyone's life is of equal value. My thinking is that morals stem from that idea, on one way or another. But that's certainly an over-simplification, at least.

No, I haven't read "The Selfish Gene," but I'm aware I should! It's on my book queue.

 

[L The Detective]

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

My thinking is that animals as a group aren't able to be responsible members of society, and therefore they don't deserve the rights that come along with that responsibility. It seems like that might be similar to what you're saying.

 

[fls]

You assume, from what I understand, that (some) animals have intrinsic moral value but I might be wrong. Anyhow, I don't think that animals can have any right or value, unless we decide to give it to them.

Okay, so people aren't animals, since you said earlier that people have inherent dignity that cannot be denied by anyone.

The difference is that I assume that people are animals.

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

The difference is that I assume that people are animals.

So, there are human animals and non-human animals. If you don't mind, I say "human" for the former and "animal" for the latter, which is the traditional wording, I suppose, isn't it?

Anyway, wording does not change the fact that I regard humans to be morally different from animals. Humans are moral agents, and animals are not.

 

[fls]

That's true. I was just looking for a way to point out, what to me is an intrinsic equality in the value of all human life. If we agree that all life is priceless, then it would seem by definition that everyone's life is of equal value.

Since assigning no value is functionally equivalent to giving everyone the same value, I'd like to avoid the idea of value, equal or otherwise. It leaves open the idea that one could assign different values to different people.

Linda

 

[fls]

Anyway, wording does not change the fact that I regard humans to be morally different from animals. Humans are moral agents, and animals are not.

Yes, I got that. I wasn't trying to play word games, I was trying to indicate that there isn't anything that excludes animals as moral agents a priori.

Linda

 

[westprog]

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$?

Then the question is - do human lives have intrinsic value, or is it a matter of what we assign to them?

 

[L The Detective]

Since assigning no value is functionally equivalent to giving everyone the same value, I'd like to avoid the idea of value, equal or otherwise. It leaves open the idea that one could assign different values to different people.

Linda

I see what you mean. It's just that, this is the only reason I can think of to be moral for purely logical reasons, without relying on empathy. But it sounds like you're a bit more well-read on the subject than I am.

 

[westprog]

I see what you mean. It's just that, this is the only reason I can think of to be moral for purely logical reasons, without relying on empathy. But it sounds like you're a bit more well-read on the subject than I am.

I think you're right though. If people don't have any absolute value, (regardless of what it is) then we can assign other people whatever value suits our needs.

 

[L The Detective]

Then the question is - do human lives have intrinsic value, or is it a matter of what we assign to them?

The concept of value is an idea invented by people, correct? Therefore, I think it's just a matter of what we assign to them, by definition. There's no way to measure the intrinsic value of human life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a potentially useful idea. I like the idea that human life is basically of infinite value.

ETA: It's not that I think there is an "absolute value." I don't think that's the case. I like the idea that "the value of human life is infinite" because it makes sense, and I think it's a concept that nearly everyone could agree on. I don't think that "absolute values" for ideas like this exist, I think the best we can do is find a common ground that seems reasonable.

 

[Belz...]

Thread over, then.

It's amazing how some people can spot a few words and ignore a whole post worth of others to make a reply.

Care to adress what I actually said, now ?

 

[westprog]

The concept of value is an idea invented by people, correct? Therefore, I think it's just a matter of what we assign to them, by definition.

Fruit is a concept invented by people. But we can't just call an elephant a fruit. The reason that we think that human beings have value is because we know that we have value ourselves. It's a reasonable extrapolation that other people have value too.

There's no way to measure the intrinsic value of human life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a potentially useful idea. I like the idea that human life is basically of infinite value.

ETA: It's not that I think there is an "absolute value." I don't think that's the case. I like the idea that "the value of human life is infinite" because it makes sense, and I think it's a concept that nearly everyone could agree on. I don't think that "absolute values" for ideas like this exist, I think the best we can do is find a common ground that seems reasonable.

I don't think that it's wrong to say that human beings have an absolute value. But if that is accepted, we have to accept the implications that come with it.

 

[fls]

I see what you mean. It's just that, this is the only reason I can think of to be moral for purely logical reasons, without relying on empathy.

What are you suggesting? That we only act morally towards those things that pass a certain threshold of value? And that we arbitrarily assign a value to humans that passes that threshold and withhold that value from everything else?

How would you counter the idea that value varies and that some humans could potentially fall below that threshold?

Linda

 

[westprog]

It's amazing how some people can spot a few words and ignore a whole post worth of others to make a reply.

Care to adress what I actually said, now ?

I've addressed everything you said in detail. My posts in reply to you probably equate to a substantial magazine article now.

 

[westprog]

What are you suggesting? That we only act morally towards those things that pass a certain threshold of value? And that we arbitrarily assign a value to humans that passes that threshold and withhold that value from everything else?

How would you counter the idea that value varies and that some humans could potentially fall below that threshold?

Linda

There is no satisfactory solution. We tend to assume that other human beings have about the same value to themselves as we do to ourselves. We aren't to sure about animals. We don't regard carrots or rocks as being in the game at all.

 

[paximperium]

What are you suggesting? That we only act morally towards those things that pass a certain threshold of value? And that we arbitrarily assign a value to humans that passes that threshold and withhold that value from everything else?

Actually that sounds about right. The value we place is subjective and is based on societal memes hence the lack of value placed on African Americans in the 18th century and the general lack of value placed on everyone who was not a noble in the dark ages.

Even today, KKK and white supremacists place a lower value on non-whites than on whites.

How would you counter the idea that value varies and that some humans could potentially fall below that threshold?

I don't believe there is anything to counter. There ARE some people who fall below that threshold set by society. An example would be child molesters but unfortunately, any undesirables also can be a victim such as the homeless, drug addicts and atheists.

Hence the importance of teaching and spreading the values that you deem desirable.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Actually that sounds about right. The value we place is subjective and is based on societal memes hence the lack of value placed on African Americans in the 18th century and the general lack of value placed on everyone who was not a noble in the dark ages.

This is an overgeneralization, and I'm fairly sure that it's inaccurate. For example, part of the success of Martin Luther King Jr's tactics relied on the exact opposite--that there were people who placed value on African Americans. In addition, you can easily find positive opinions on African Americans from whites deriving from earlier times. Finally, this doesn't explain why we place value on them now, certain aspects of the American Civil war, etc.

Ironically, this attempt to show our cultural bias, I believe, suffers from judgments made of cultures past based on our cultural bias.

Even today, KKK and white supremacists place a lower value on non-whites than on whites.

This is simply us versus them mentality, which actually winds up being empathy based--it's simply a different line drawn around "us". Isn't this the very thing you're arguing against?

I'm not sure where this discussion of morality came from, but it's interesting, and I generally have a lot I disagree with. I'm wondering if it deserves a split.

 

[paximperium]

This is an overgeneralization, and I'm fairly sure that it's inaccurate. For example, part of the success of Martin Luther King Jr's tactics relied on the exact opposite--that there were people who placed value on African Americans.

Which is a meme. My claim is that this value we place on human lives is a cultural and societal idea, a meme. MLK succeeded by affirming the value of African Americans to whites. He basically sold them on the idea that African Americans have a value similar to whites and hence should be treated fairly and hence this meme overwhelmed and won out againts the meme that AA were of lesser worth.

In addition, you can easily find positive opinions on African Americans from whites deriving from earlier times. Finally, this doesn't explain why we place value on them now, certain aspects of the American Civil war, etc.

Which does not invalidate my claim. Memes are not universal. They are beliefs that are clustered in different segments of society and among different cultural groups. It is a learnt belief and hence subject to change.

Ironically, this attempt to show our cultural bias, I believe, suffers from judgments made of cultures past based on our cultural bias.

Which is partly my argument.

This is simply us versus them mentality, which actually winds up being empathy based--it's simply a different line drawn around "us". Isn't this the very thing you're arguing against?

Not really, it is what I'm arguing for. An us vs them mentality is a learnt behavior. It invalidates or depreciates the value of other "outside groups".

In effect, a threshold or value that is placed on acting morally is completely subjective in the sense that it is a learned behavior that affects an entire societal group along with an individual. This threshold may be partially internal(genetics which play a role in sociopathic behavior) and environmental. While we may as individuals subjectively determine our threshold of morality, it is society as a whole that enforces this morality.