Why not link to it? I have been called an idiot 4 or 5 times and still havn't seen any argument! My feelings are hurting really bad.

EDIT: What is with the attitude? Do you really think that the concept of value is self evidently reducible to sentience or biological complexity or some other made up formula (of course deers are sentient, beers are bigger than people, rocks are stronger and last longer than people, starfish are just more cool!). If you do, I think you are a small person, like a shopkeeper who, upon trying to think about philosophical things, simply remembers the things that he was taught growing up and repeats them, his certainty secured by his emotional connection to what is familiar. He calls this process "logic". Maybe it is. I think it is a wonderful thing that there are shopkeepers in the world and simple people deserve respect, but this is really not the way to do philosophy.

(March 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why not link to it?

Because it is in 'your' thread, in reply to what you wrote - and therefore your responsibility to read.

(March 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I have been called an idiot 4 or 5 times and still havn't seen any argument! My feelings are hurting really bad.

Boohoo.

(March 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm)jstrodel Wrote: EDIT: What is with the attitude?

Its brought on by people who spew nonsensical arguments, have them refuted and then pretend as if they were never replied to in the first place.

(March 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Do you really think that the concept of value is self evidently reducible to sentience or biological complexity or some other made up formula

No, it is reducible to rationality and self-consciousness.

(March 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm)jstrodel Wrote: (of course deers are sentient, beers are bigger than people, rocks are stronger and last longer than people, starfish are just more cool!).

None of which are the basis of value.

(March 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm)jstrodel Wrote: If you do, I think you are a small person, like a shopkeeper who, upon trying to think about philosophical things, simply remembers the things that he was taught growing up and repeats them, his certainty secured by his emotional connection to what is familiar. He calls this process "logic". Maybe it is. I think it is a wonderful thing that there are shopkeepers in the world and simple people deserve respect, but this is really not the way to do philosophy.

That's ironic, since I've never been taught any of the arguments I make here and you are the one repeating the tired old apologetic bullshit.

Quote:No, it is reducible to rationality and self-consciousness.

How do you know that it is those two criteria that confer ethical worth? If you have one but not the other (as in, animals have self-consciousness but not rationality) does that make them 1/2 as valuable as people? How do you deal with people that do not have either e.g. fetus's, unconscious old people? Do they become ethically erroneous as soon as they lose those criteria? What makes you so sure?

What is being reduced in value statements? Do they ultimately refer to properties of value in that exist in the world or are they created by societies? You sound very confident about what you are saying, but I think you are talking about a standard that is essentially a made up standard. There are many words which describe psychological/physiological properties that are related to ethics. You narrow it down to two, but I could think of others, such as the degree to which an agent is functioning in his proper teleological role and fulfilling his duties to society and not causing harm as defined by his design and the processes of establishing the ends of human behavior as law.

You list rationality and self consciousness as your criteria, do all people have an equal right to live? Is it ever moral to fight a war? How do you derive a set of ethics with those two scienc-ey principles? How do you define moral responsibility? You probably don't believe that people have free will. You probably come to the end of all of this and have some sort of "enlightened" view of ethics that makes people essentially cogs in a social machine that must constantly redefine ethical norms for people who are effective incapacitated by their lack of free will and lack of any guiding criteria for behavior other than an arbitrary stopping point of the two criteria of "rationality" and "self consciousness" that are constantly re-evaluated and revised according to the whims of the societies that enforce their norms on others. What stops people from choosing other criteria to define ethical norms? Some people are primitivists, they consider nature to be sacred. Others believe in animal rights and consider a different measure of worth to signify ethical value.

In the end I think you realize that you have what is basically an ad hoc view of morality, that fails to capture the human spirit and brilliance of the uninhibited soul as it acts on its divinely given impulses. Of course, none of what you have written is even remotely adequate, from a theistic perspective. Maybe that is why you are so angry.

I think the categories of "rationality" and "self consciousness" show the point I made earlier, about relying on practical reason to understand reality. You know in your heart that it is ad hoc, that it does not capture life in itself, only your values and perception of life. That is why I say it is like the mind of a shopkeeper, who has practical reason to guide him and tell him what is acceptable in his world, but which fails to penetrate the nature of things. If practical reason is enough to understand the purpose of life and that meets your (very low) standard, well, ok, but why be so aggressive about it? It is not like you are sharing anything other than your opinions.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: In the end I think you realize that you have what is basically an ad hoc view of morality, that fails to capture the human spirit and brilliance of the uninhibited soul as it acts on its divinely given impulses.

Oh and you were doing so well up until here.

Can you tell me what difference it makes that the human spirit and uninhibited soul act on impulses that are divinely given, rather than naturally? Any poet will tell you that all the best impulses are whispered in the ear by little birds .. a point that Genkhaus refuses to acknowledge.

Quote:Can you tell me what difference it makes that the human spirit and uninhibited soul act on impulses that are divinely given, rather than naturally? Any poet will tell you that all the best impulses are whispered in the ear by little birds .. a point that Genkhaus refuses to acknowledge.

I would not say that they are divinely given, as in special prophetic revelation. I have seen prophets, and the Holy Spirit does absolutely whisper things to people. It is not so much that intellectual knowledge is really less natural than other kinds of knowledge. They arise out of the same person. I think that there is the propensity for people in approaching problems using reason to be creative and to have other motivations that influence the direction of what they do and these result in either a corrupted or just a limited picture of the human experience.

The point that I am trying to make is that certain means of understanding behavior can bear more fruit than others. If someone was to simply observe normal human tasks and processes, I think they would understand people better than if someone was just to spend a lot of time thinking about what normal human tasks are in most cases.

I think when people are responsive to their bodies and to human nature and become aware of what they are designed for and their inner sense of what is good and bad and what they see their role in the world, they have the potential of seeing their own instincts and bodily drives and appreciating their nature more than someone who was writing a science fiction novel for instance.

I do not think that this is foolproof, people could misconstrue deeply embedded human created values as biological absolutes (atheists do this all the time when they talk about things like "rationality" which refer to cultural rather than biological processes). But I think that people can see into their nature to some degree, and this can be more effective than pure reason (which really has a lot of detractors even from its strongest advocates).

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How do you know that it is those two criteria that confer ethical worth?

Because without these two practicing morality would not be possible. The concept of ethical behavior (and thus being a moral agent) is applicable only to those who possess these qualities.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: If you have one but not the other (as in, animals have self-consciousness but not rationality) does that make them 1/2 as valuable as people?

No. Its all or nothing.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How do you deal with people that do not have either e.g. fetus's, unconscious old people?

One of the issues I've not figured out completely. As it stands now, I regard their worth with respect to their potential worth in future or past or their worth as measured by those who support their life.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Do they become ethically erroneous as soon as they lose those criteria?

What do you mean by ethically erroneous?

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What makes you so sure?

The fact that those qualities are necessary and basic to ethical behavior.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What is being reduced in value statements?

What does this mean?

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Do they ultimately refer to properties of value in that exist in the world or are they created by societies?

"Value" - being conceptual in nature - does not exist in the world. It is created by and exists in mind of a rational being.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You sound very confident about what you are saying, but I think you are talking about a standard that is essentially a made up standard.

All standards in existence are essentially made up by humans. But you can present a standard with confidence if you can justify it rationally.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: There are many words which describe psychological/physiological properties that are related to ethics.

Given that the field of ethics is psychological in nature - that's to be expected.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You narrow it down to two, but I could think of others, such as the degree to which an agent is functioning in his proper teleological role and fulfilling his duties to society and not causing harm as defined by his design and the processes of establishing the ends of human behavior as law.

Justify why I should accept the role imposed upon me by the society and you'd have a case.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You list rationality and self consciousness as your criteria, do all people have an equal right to live?

To the extent they do not infringe upon the similar right granted to others - yes.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Is it ever moral to fight a war?

When defending your life and liberty and so on...

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How do you derive a set of ethics with those two scienc-ey principles?

Check out my discussion with Whateverist in the thread "What is GOOD?". You'll find your answers there.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How do you define moral responsibility?

Acceptance of consequences of your actions.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You probably don't believe that people have free will.

I do.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You probably come to the end of all of this and have some sort of "enlightened" view of ethics that makes people essentially cogs in a social machine that must constantly redefine ethical norms for people who are effective incapacitated by their lack of free will and lack of any guiding criteria for behavior other than an arbitrary stopping point of the two criteria of "rationality" and "self consciousness" that are constantly re-evaluated and revised according to the whims of the societies that enforce their norms on others.

Nonsense. Why would you assume anything so ridiculous? If you are going to build a strawman, atleast put some effort into it.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What stops people from choosing other criteria to define ethical norms?

Nothing - as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others to do the same.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Some people are primitivists, they consider nature to be sacred.

Let them live like that then - I say.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Others believe in animal rights and consider a different measure of worth to signify ethical value.

As long as they can provide justification for it, I'd consider it.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: In the end I think you realize that you have what is basically an ad hoc view of morality, that fails to capture the human spirit and brilliance of the uninhibited soul as it acts on its divinely given impulses.

I realize no such thing. In fact, I realize the opposite. I consider morality based on uninhibited, unconsidered impulses to be irrational and to go against the very concept of what it means to be moral and I consider my morality to be based on the most sacred and noble aspect of human spirit.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Of course, none of what you have written is even remotely adequate, from a theistic perspective.

Obviously - since your perspective begins with incorrect premises.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Maybe that is why you are so angry.

Who says I'm angry?

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I think the categories of "rationality" and "self consciousness" show the point I made earlier, about relying on practical reason to understand reality.

And what point would that be?

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You know in your heart that it is ad hoc,

My heart is not capable of knowledge and my head knows its not.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: that it does not capture life in itself, only your values and perception of life.

Nonsense. If I thought that, I'd throw it out and start from the scratch.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: That is why I say it is like the mind of a shopkeeper, who has practical reason to guide him and tell him what is acceptable in his world, but which fails to penetrate the nature of things.

Then I'd take the analogy as a compliment, because practical reason is the way to penetrate the nature of things.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: If practical reason is enough to understand the purpose of life and that meets your (very low) standard, well, ok, but why be so aggressive about it?

Because fools like you would have crappy standards dressed up noble values and seek to replace the noblest values built upon the foundation of reason - the basis of human achievement. Letting such a disgusting attempt stand goes against my moral principles.

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: It is not like you are sharing anything other than your opinions.

Ofcourse, it is. I'm sharing my worldview which is not reducible to mere opinions.

(March 6, 2013 at 12:12 am)genkaus Wrote:

(March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm)jstrodel Wrote: It is not like you are sharing anything other than your opinions.

Ofcourse, it is. I'm sharing my worldview which is not reducible to mere opinions.

So you managed to slip the bounds of "your" worldview and climb right out into the world itself? No need for mere opinions once you've adapted your view to the world itself, or at least what you know the world ought to be based on pure reason.

(March 6, 2013 at 12:35 am)whateverist Wrote: So you managed to slip the bounds of "your" worldview and climb right out into the world itself? No need for mere opinions once you've adapted your view to the world itself, or at least what you know the world ought to be based on pure reason.

Given that I base my worldview on facts and try to rigorously correct any error when shown - I don't see a problem with saying that it is not reducible to facts. Also, you think that there is another way to know the world apart from reason? Are we talking about your little bird again?

(February 6, 2013 at 10:20 am)TaraJo Wrote: So, let's suppose we could go back and get samples from different time periods and clone babies from all along the evolutionary tree from apes to modern humans; where would we draw the line between beast and man?

NEVER
Because we were not Animal at any time
Evolution is a big Hoax

(March 13, 2013 at 2:13 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(February 6, 2013 at 10:20 am)TaraJo Wrote: So, let's suppose we could go back and get samples from different time periods and clone babies from all along the evolutionary tree from apes to modern humans; where would we draw the line between beast and man?

NEVER
Because we were not Animal at any time
Evolution is a big Hoax