(February 2, 2018 at 11:06 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: CL, no one is saying that.  They’re just trying to point out that a spectrum exists; that  it’s not binary like that.

Of course I agree a spectrum exists lol. I never said otherwise. In fact, I actually said exactly that when I said they can't rationalize  in the same way we can. And then clarified it again after Pocas first post.

It's just super annoying because this happens every time. I say something here about us being different from animals in any particular way, and people always come back with these examples of animals doing something. It feels like people are being obtuse on purpose for the sake of arguing and it drives me crazy.

Whenever someone says "people are different than animals" I always want to say, but people are animals. Obviously we're not plants, robots or gods so what else if not animals? What really are you trying to say other than that people are different than all other animals? But every animal is different than every other animal, different species possessing different strengths and weaknesses.

When Christians argue this way we all know the point is that it is part of the God thing. We are so different because God has set us apart, in his own image they often say. Are you really asking us to acknowledge that humans are different than all other animals in a way that can only be explained by a divinity? Because that probably won't get a lot of agreement here and it isn't because we are being argumentative. We disagree.

Holy crap.

Ok then. Nevermind.

(February 2, 2018 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:12 am)Grandizer Wrote: Reread your last sentence. You're arguing for qualitative difference, aren't you?

I'm not saying they are non sentient robots. I'm saying that what they DO have isn't enough to qualify as having moral responsibility, and thus, moral free will. Meaning God isn't going to punish "immoral dogs" for being immoral. They are all morally innocent.

I see where you're coming from and, on par with that spectrum thing, I tell you that I think humans are merely more complex than animals and, like them, lacking in true "moral free will".... or any free will.

(February 2, 2018 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:12 am)Grandizer Wrote: Reread your last sentence. You're arguing for qualitative difference, aren't you?

I'm not saying they are non sentient robots. I'm saying that what they DO have isn't enough to qualify as having moral responsibility, and thus, moral free will. Meaning God isn't going to punish "immoral dogs" for being immoral. They are all morally innocent.

According to you:

Animals: No free will.

Humans: Free will.

Have I misrepresented you again?

(February 2, 2018 at 11:35 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not saying they are non sentient robots. I'm saying that what they DO have isn't enough to qualify as having moral responsibility, and thus, moral free will. Meaning God isn't going to punish "immoral dogs" for being immoral. They are all morally innocent.

I see where you're coming from and, on par with that spectrum thing, I tell you that I think humans are merely more complex than animals and, like them, lacking in true "moral free will".... or any free will.

Ok, that's fair enough. I know a lot of atheists don't believe in free will at all. But yes, my argument is that animals aren't at a level, mentally, where they have moral responsibility/moral free will. Humans are. I'm ok with you disagreeing that humans have free will. I just don't like it when people pretend there is 0 difference between the way humans can feel/rationalize, etc, vs how the rest of the animals can, so I'm glad you acknowledge that. Also when people counter argue by saying "Well humans are animals too!" ...because it's like "Yes, I know we are technically animals too, but you know what I mean, come on!" Lol. You would think I said something controversial by saying human are mentally more complex than the rest of the animals or something.

---

(February 2, 2018 at 11:39 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not saying they are non sentient robots. I'm saying that what they DO have isn't enough to qualify as having moral responsibility, and thus, moral free will. Meaning God isn't going to punish "immoral dogs" for being immoral. They are all morally innocent.

According to you:

Animals: No free will.

Humans: Free will.

Have I misrepresented you again?

No. But what you are missing is that this doesn't mean I'm saying we aren't on a spectrum of awareness. Just that animals (other animals that aren't human!), aren't on the level of the spectrum that becomes moral awareness to the point where they would be morally responsible, and thus, qualify as having moral free will.

In other words, God will not "punish" my cat for having attacked and pissed off my other cat this morning. And etc. They are morally innocent.

If we didn't have moral free will (as some people seem to think it would be best if we didnt), it would just mean we would be less advanced creatures - like monkeys.

(February 2, 2018 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:12 am)Grandizer Wrote: Reread your last sentence. You're arguing for qualitative difference, aren't you?

I'm not saying they are non sentient robots. I'm saying that what they DO have isn't enough to qualify as having moral responsibility, and thus, moral free will. Meaning God isn't going to punish "immoral dogs" for being immoral. They are all morally innocent.

Humans may only be 2% away from Chimps, but that 2% difference is HUGE, by orders of magnitude.

Anyways, I find it interesting that the same people who minimize the difference between humans and animal so easily dismiss the similarity of unborn and mature humans. Also, if the difference between animals and humans is one of degree and not of kind why then do these same individuals also insist that unborn humans are different in kind and not degree from mature humans?

(February 2, 2018 at 11:49 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If we didn't have moral free will (as some people seem to think it would be best if we didnt), it would just mean we would be less advanced creatures - like monkeys.

  No, it would mean we didn't have "moral free will".  We're still exactly as "complex" as we are regardless.....and of all the creatures in the world to use as an example of something not having something we have...monkeys are easily the second worst example.  This is getting silly.

---

(February 2, 2018 at 1:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Humans may only be 2% away from Chimps, but that 2% difference is HUGE, by orders of magnitude.

Sure is, but whatever that huge difference is it doesn't seem like "free will" is included...so...moot point.

Why is it that "free will" can't be argued for in it's own right? We've got one of you making constant appeals to consequence, and the other attempting to appeal to hypocrisy. "Free will" is starting to look like an elusive trait that makes people talk like complete knobs, but it's unclear what else it does. So much for our big, complex brains and massive differences from dumb animals........

(February 2, 2018 at 1:17 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not saying they are non sentient robots. I'm saying that what they DO have isn't enough to qualify as having moral responsibility, and thus, moral free will. Meaning God isn't going to punish "immoral dogs" for being immoral. They are all morally innocent.

Humans may only be 2% away from Chimps, but that 2% difference is HUGE, by orders of magnitude.

Anyways, I find it interesting that the same people who minimize the difference between humans and animal so easily dismiss the similarity of unborn and mature humans. Also, if the difference between animals and humans is one of degree and not of kind why then do these same individuals also insist that unborn humans are different in kind and not degree from mature humans?

Most estimates are at less than 1% but there are a number of different ways that is counted.  The second answer to this question at the Biology Stack Exchange makes a different but interesting comparison.  

Quote:Perhaps the best way to understand the relation between DNA sequence divergence and the differences between human and chimpanzee physiology and morphology is to compare these differences to the variability among humans. Human-chimp DNA sequence divergence is roughly 10 times the divergence between random pairs of humans.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questi...r-primates

Ten times the variation between chimps and humans in comparison to what you can find between individual humans does not strike me as being very great.  I would think the difference between the inter human variation and the difference between ourselves and other mammals I would expect to find much, much greater.  Alas I find no figures on the internet.

More fun chimp facts.  Troops of chimps living together in central africa are more genetically diverse than humans living on different continents.  We're some seriously inbred motherfuckers.

(February 2, 2018 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 2, 2018 at 11:12 am)Grandizer Wrote: Reread your last sentence. You're arguing for qualitative difference, aren't you?

I'm not saying they are non sentient robots. I'm saying that what they DO have isn't enough to qualify as having moral responsibility, and thus, moral free will. Meaning God isn't going to punish "immoral dogs" for being immoral. They are all morally innocent.

Maybe the very first dog was a naughty dog, and he took a bite from the sacred, forbidden doggy-bone.  😝