(March 15, 2015 at 9:04 am)Ignorant Wrote: As for 1), what exactly is "freedom" in the context of reduction of everything, including ourselves, to the material evolutionary process? In the Free Will thread it seems that you reject the idea of the "self". What then is it about the human animal that is capable of realizing any sort of "freedom"?

As for the last sentence, I agree, and I assume it is due in whole or in part to your reasons expressed in 1).

I view freedom as the unimpeded expression of will or character, which we don't choose (we aren't free to will what we don't will) but can certainly be subject to the same influences as anything else (actually in this case more---reason).

(March 15, 2015 at 4:01 am)Ignorant Wrote: This seems like an important aspect. Are humanity's social aspects reducible to evolutionary traits resulting from a deterministic (although random) process?

As with many human traits, it results from the interplay between nature and nurture. Both are deterministic, but the element of nurture is a contingent one, varying depending upon where and to whom you are born.

Ignorant: you're welcome It's nice to see a theist discussion which does not have a god appeal shoe horned into it.

Sure, some animal slavery isn't as bad as human slavery has been, but it's still slavery to me.

(March 15, 2015 at 4:01 am)Ignorant Wrote: Are humanity's social aspects reducible to evolutionary traits resulting from a deterministic (although random) process?

I don't really know, though what would be the alternative? Of course the social aspects would have enhanced survival and so be supported by evolution. But what of it? Does it make any difference?

Would/should one disregard felt values on account of how we theorize about them? We wouldn't deliberately choose a flavor of ice cream we like less over one we like more based on any theory.

The saying "the unexamined life is not worth living" is not equivalent to "the life in which rationality does not dictate every decision is not worth living". I think I prefer "the unobtrusively examined life is not worth living", although I kind of suspect life is plenty worth living with or with out any examination at all.

---

(March 15, 2015 at 6:40 am)Ignorant Wrote: On what basis then, is there a "moral" distinction between owning animals for the sake of work (e.g. dogs, horses, oxen, cattle, etc.) and owning humans for the sake of work?

Before I answer, are you any good with a shovel or at pulling weeds?

---

(March 15, 2015 at 11:10 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, some animal slavery isn't as bad as human slavery has been, but it's still slavery to me.

So I guess that would explain why the caged bird sings and why the kept dog enjoys having her belly rubbed.

My dog and I have a reciprocal relationship in that I try to train her and she does her best to train me too. Of course there are aspects of our relationship which are not 'level'. For example I prepare her meals and bag her shit while she accomplishes no useful work at all.

I don't call having a pet slavery, that's entirely different. We have pets and our lives revolve around making them happy

Assuming you look after them properly, that's more akin to adopting.

Or perhaps even willingly enslaving yourself to their well being.

That is pretty much what we've done

I'd rather go hungry myself than see my pets go hungry. I spend most of my day pandering to their whimsies We just finished building a shed in the garden for the bunnies to have a nicer indoor environment, and tubes for them to play in! They are very happy, we love watching them "binky" round the garden.

But enough about me and my masters

(March 14, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

---

[quote='Jenny A' pid='897294' dateline='1426207618']You might take a moment to read the Wikipedia entry. Notice that what humanism means has changed over time and that there is such a thing a theistic humanism. You might also read the entry on Secular Humanism

---

I really appreciate your suggestions, but I am more interested in how regular individuals (even though I am sure most of you are much more that "regular") understand their own worldviews (e.g. secular humanism). Of course I could read about it in books and articles, but I much prefer hearing about it from people in their own words.

I will speak slowly, for the hard of reading. I . . . am . . . not . . . a . . . secular . . . humanist. My world view just doesn't happen to include god as anything other than a cultural phenomenon.

(March 14, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

Quote:If what you really want to know is how my definition of human differs from most theists I know, the answer is really very simple: their definition includes a soul and mine does not.

That really isn't what I wanted to know. I just wanted to know more about what your definition of human is. If someone asked you what it "meant" to be human, what would you tell them? You already gave a great start to an answer in your original reply. I am trying to respond to everyone on their own terms.

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Most people don't have a good definition of human beyond we know one when we see one. We do differ somewhat from other animals, but really, with the possible exception of language it's only a matter of degree.

Like all species, we are special to ourselves. That "great start" is all the difference between humans and other species I have to offer. But consider this, do you think there is another species that ponders the question what is it to be us? That would be self awareness. So would knowledge of death.

So, how do you define human? Seriously. It's a question that anyone asking should be expected to have an answer to.

(March 15, 2015 at 2:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(March 14, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Ignorant Wrote: I just wanted to know more about what your definition of human is. If someone asked you what it "meant" to be human, what would you tell them?

But consider this, do you think there is another species that ponders the question what is it to be us?

I would also like to know how the person asking the question answers it himself. In particular, I'm interested to know whether your answer is drawn from personal reflection or taken whole cloth from authoritative sources.

(March 15, 2015 at 1:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't call having a pet slavery, that's entirely different. We have pets and our lives revolve around making them happy

Assuming you look after them properly, that's more akin to adopting.

-go ahead and tell yourself that, lol. See if it works with buying me, an adult human male. If you bought me, and your life revolved around "making me happy" - a generous assumption in the case of a pet, let alone a human being...would that be adoption or slavery?