RE: Secular Humanism and Humanity: What are they?
March 15, 2015 at 12:31 pm
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2015 at 12:40 pm by Whateverist.)
(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.
