(October 12, 2014 at 1:00 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is the taking of life always wrong? This is what Esq says. It's ALWAYS wrong. But only sentient life. Why is that wrong? Why can't it ever be just to take life? Why is human sentience valued above other animal sentience?

I already told you why. It's because I actually thought about why I value life, specifically what the distinguishing characteristics that I found valuable were, and when I did that I could not rationally conclude that the thing I would mourn for when a person dies is that their heart would no longer be beating, or their hair would stop growing.

The biological signs of life are not the things we value. In fact, they are important only insofar as they allow the consciousness, the person inside the body, to persist. I expand the value of sentience, by the way, to animals too; the value of my dog is not in the fact that I need to keep feeding him to keep him alive, but rather that he's my dog. I mentioned this before; I value sapience, not biology.

And so do you, by the way, and here's a simple thought experiment to prove it: you have a child, and it dies. If I were to offer you a replacement child, just another kid at roughly the same age, would you accept that as a good idea? Why not? It's a human being, of the same age and gender; if what we cared about was biology then there's simply no reason why this wouldn't be an adequate replacement. Why mourn the dead child, unless we actually care about the person, and not the life signs?

Quote:I would agree that humans can't judge any other human... because we simply lack the knowledge to make that decision. God, in having that knowledge, can. Even on a one millisecond old sentient baby.

If god has all knowledge, it doesn't necessarily follow that he'll always make the correct, or morally justifiable decision. Not just as a product of the claim. You'd need to establish that he'd use that knowledge in correct ways.

There's no denying esq that we can feel something when a human dies. We have empathy because this is our species and we have a very good idea of what they feel and what other people might feel if they experience loss. That has nothing to do with morals, apart from it being a consideration if we were to decide to take that life. That is: is it still right to kill them even though people that know them will suffer. Personally I'm against all war. What's your stance on that? It's legal to kill thousands of people to defend your liberty. It's globally defined as moral too.

As for God, the point is that he would have the knowledge to know if the taking of life was really justified, if as defined, he has knowledge of everything. Omniscience. I believe, and I've outlined the reasons why I think he is purely good, and the Jews and ancient Hebrews certainly agreed. You don't have to agree. That is not your belief. I understand that.

(October 12, 2014 at 5:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 1:00 am)Esquilax Wrote: I already told you why. It's because I actually thought about why I value life, specifically what the distinguishing characteristics that I found valuable were, and when I did that I could not rationally conclude that the thing I would mourn for when a person dies is that their heart would no longer be beating, or their hair would stop growing.

The biological signs of life are not the things we value. In fact, they are important only insofar as they allow the consciousness, the person inside the body, to persist. I expand the value of sentience, by the way, to animals too; the value of my dog is not in the fact that I need to keep feeding him to keep him alive, but rather that he's my dog. I mentioned this before; I value sapience, not biology.

And so do you, by the way, and here's a simple thought experiment to prove it: you have a child, and it dies. If I were to offer you a replacement child, just another kid at roughly the same age, would you accept that as a good idea? Why not? It's a human being, of the same age and gender; if what we cared about was biology then there's simply no reason why this wouldn't be an adequate replacement. Why mourn the dead child, unless we actually care about the person, and not the life signs?


If god has all knowledge, it doesn't necessarily follow that he'll always make the correct, or morally justifiable decision. Not just as a product of the claim. You'd need to establish that he'd use that knowledge in correct ways.

There's no denying esq that we can feel something when a human dies. We have empathy because this is our species and we have a very good idea of what they feel and what other people might feel if they experience loss. That has nothing to do with morals, apart from it being a consideration if we were to decide to take that life. That is: is it still right to kill them even though people that know them will suffer. Personally I'm against all war. What's your stance on that? It's legal to kill thousands of people to defend your liberty. It's globally defined as moral too.

As for God, the point is that he would have the knowledge to know if the taking of life was really justified, if as defined, he has knowledge of everything. Omniscience. I believe, and I've outlined the reasons why I think he is purely good, and the Jews and ancient Hebrews certainly agreed. You don't have to agree. That is not your belief. I understand that.

If God is perfectly good, is it possible for him to experience hatred?

Boru

(October 12, 2014 at 5:37 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If God is perfectly good, is it possible for him to experience hatred?

Boru

Anger is good. Irrationally harbouring intense dislike (hatred) is bad. So no.

(October 12, 2014 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 5:37 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If God is perfectly good, is it possible for him to experience hatred?

Boru

Anger is good. Irrationally harbouring intense dislike (hatred) is bad. So no.

Pity about Esau, then.

Boru

The bible sure does talk about god hating a lot of stuff for him to be a guy who can't hate...

(October 12, 2014 at 5:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote: There's no denying esq that we can feel something when a human dies. We have empathy because this is our species and we have a very good idea of what they feel and what other people might feel if they experience loss. That has nothing to do with morals, apart from it being a consideration if we were to decide to take that life. That is: is it still right to kill them even though people that know them will suffer.

I would think that considerations of the effects of our actions on other people form the cornerstone of our morals, given that morality relies upon the interactions of thinking beings to even exist. That said, we don't even need to go to the moral argument; my point is that we make determinations about life and whether it's worth saving, that life is not automatically presumed to be worth preserving merely because it is life. We don't generally have any qualms about taking a brain dead person off life support, for example, or of allowing a person with fatal injuries beyond the help of medicine to pass away peacefully rather than extending their life futilely for them to experience more pain. There's more to our evaluations of life than its unthinking preservation, and I think that's at the crux of the abortion issue, that fetuses don't possess those qualities that would make that life worth preserving.

Quote: Personally I'm against all war. What's your stance on that? It's legal to kill thousands of people to defend your liberty. It's globally defined as moral too.

I think stuff like war is a more pragmatic concern than we usually give it credit for; it may be a morally acceptable method of conflict resolution, but I don't think that necessarily makes it morally preferable. It's in a hierarchy: we think of peaceful resolution as more morally correct than violent conflict, and even within war itself we don't celebrate the death. It's an unfortunate means to an end.

This is pretty easy to see, because if we picture a hypothetical nation that uses war as its first resort to any potential conflict, I doubt any of us would consider that nation to be morally correct in its dealings, nor morally superior to more peaceful nations.

Quote:As for God, the point is that he would have the knowledge to know if the taking of life was really justified, if as defined, he has knowledge of everything. Omniscience. I believe, and I've outlined the reasons why I think he is purely good, and the Jews and ancient Hebrews certainly agreed. You don't have to agree. That is not your belief. I understand that.

I'm just wary of people adding more premises to their claims than they've demonstrated. These things can get pretty complex once you start stripping back the assumptions; for example, even in your claim of an all knowing, purely good god, there's no reason to assume consistent morally good actions from that god. Maybe his judgment gets clouded by emotion on occasion, and he acts rashly. Being able to make a perfectly well informed decision, and acting upon that ability, are two different things.

(October 12, 2014 at 5:58 am)Losty Wrote: The bible sure does talk about god hating a lot of stuff for him to be a guy who can't hate...

Not irrational or unjustified hatred tho :p

(October 12, 2014 at 6:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 5:58 am)Losty Wrote: The bible sure does talk about god hating a lot of stuff for him to be a guy who can't hate...

Not irrational or unjustified hatred tho :p

I think hatred is naturally irrational and maybe even unjustified. Especially hatred of people.

That's because you're gorgeously lovely Losty.

---

(October 12, 2014 at 6:00 am)Esquilax Wrote: I would think that considerations of the effects of our actions on other people form the cornerstone of our morals, given that morality relies upon the interactions of thinking beings to even exist. That said, we don't even need to go to the moral argument; my point is that we make determinations about life and whether it's worth saving, that life is not automatically presumed to be worth preserving merely because it is life. We don't generally have any qualms about taking a brain dead person off life support, for example, or of allowing a person with fatal injuries beyond the help of medicine to pass away peacefully rather than extending their life futilely for them to experience more pain. There's more to our evaluations of life than its unthinking preservation, and I think that's at the crux of the abortion issue, that fetuses don't possess those qualities that would make that life worth preserving.

We do have qualms about taking people off life support. The UK health service could save millions if that weren't the case. If we could disregard human life like we disregard other animal life. We're obsessed with keeping people alive. My mum signed a no resuscitate agreement but they still keep her alive as a vegetable. We have no choice in that. I guess a fetus's worth is in it's potential, which doesn't differ from a sentient humans potential. The only difference is pain. That's all we're talking about here: our classifying worth on pain receptors.

(October 12, 2014 at 6:00 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote: Personally I'm against all war. What's your stance on that? It's legal to kill thousands of people to defend your liberty. It's globally defined as moral too.

I think stuff like war is a more pragmatic concern than we usually give it credit for; it may be a morally acceptable method of conflict resolution, but I don't think that necessarily makes it morally preferable. It's in a hierarchy: we think of peaceful resolution as more morally correct than violent conflict, and even within war itself we don't celebrate the death. It's an unfortunate means to an end.

This is pretty easy to see, because if we picture a hypothetical nation that uses war as its first resort to any potential conflict, I doubt any of us would consider that nation to be morally correct in its dealings, nor morally superior to more peaceful nations.

So it's still 'moral'?

I see the USA as a prime example of a nation that uses war as its first resort to any potential conflict. In fact I suspect it manufactures it to divert attention from it's real issues of rampant capitalistic meltdown. Citizens of the US are mostly convinced of their moral correctness in that. As are the majority of the western world who follow suit. We demonise small nations as terrorists.

But then I see terrorism as war and quite often wholly justified. Lives are sacrificed for good reason. Moral? I'd say so. Justified taking of life.

(October 12, 2014 at 6:00 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:As for God, the point is that he would have the knowledge to know if the taking of life was really justified, if as defined, he has knowledge of everything. Omniscience. I believe, and I've outlined the reasons why I think he is purely good, and the Jews and ancient Hebrews certainly agreed. You don't have to agree. That is not your belief. I understand that.

I'm just wary of people adding more premises to their claims than they've demonstrated. These things can get pretty complex once you start stripping back the assumptions; for example, even in your claim of an all knowing, purely good god, there's no reason to assume consistent morally good actions from that god. Maybe his judgment gets clouded by emotion on occasion, and he acts rashly. Being able to make a perfectly well informed decision, and acting upon that ability, are two different things.

In my claim of a purely good god, there are strong reasons for me to assume that his actions are consistently morally good. He is unable to be susceptible to human frailties. He's not just unable, he is naturally unable. He cannot act contrary to his nature. If he could, he wouldn't be the God that I believe in.

You don't understand that God or concept, and that's accepted. I don't expect you to. I simply state that that is my belief, based upon my consideration of the information presented, my acceptance and trust of that information, and my active participation acting upon that information. Without that exact same route to conclusion it would be impossible for you to believe the same. And I respect your position.

Carm, to be informed about abortion, you have to be informed in biology.