Moral Argument for God's Existence

[max-greece]

Plus its hard to come up with a moral position for a carrot.

The Federal Constitution has three forms of protection for plants: the protection of biodiversity, species protection, and the duty to take the dignity of living beings into consideration when handling plants. The constitutional term "living beings" encompasses animals, plants and other organisms. At legislative level, the Gene Technology Act limits the scope of the term to animals and plants. Previous discussion within constitutional law relates the term Würde der Kreatur ("dignity of living beings") to the value of the individual organism for its own sake. Since its establishment by the Federal Council in April 1998, the ECNH has been expected to make proposals from an ethical perspective to concretise the constitutional term dignity of living beings with regard to plants. Although previous discussion of Würde der Kreatur was marked by the context of the legal interpretation of the constitution an ethical discussion should be carried out independently of this.

---

Although the authority of intuition in ethical discourse is contested, it was hoped in the initial phase of the discussion at least, to draw on concrete, typical examples to agree on general criteria for dealing with plants.

It became clear, however, that for plants – unlike animals – it was almost impossible to refer to moral intuition. There is no social consensus on how to deal with plants. Even within the ECNH, the intuitions relating to the extent and justification of moral responsibilities towards plants were highly heterogeneous. Some members were of the opinion that plants are not part of the moral community, because they do not satisfy the conditions for belonging to this community. Others argued that plants should not belong to it, because otherwise human life would be morally over-regulated. A further group felt that there were particular situations in which people should refrain from something for the sake of a plant, unless there are sufficient grounds to the contrary. This opinion was justified either by arguing that plants strive after something, which should not be blocked without good reason, or that recent findings in natural science, such as the many commonalities between plants, animals and humans at molecular and cellular level, remove the reasons for excluding plants in principle from the moral community. The only criterion on which all the members could agree, despite their very differing intuitions, was that we should not harm or destroy plants arbitrarily. Whether concrete ways of acting could be derived from this prohibition on the arbitrary handling of plants, and what they might be, remained unclear.

The Dignity of Living Beings With Regard To Plants:

So I was right then? It is hard to come up with a moral position for a carrot.

[MindForgedManacle]

You don't say? Giving a philosophical explanation.... Of morality.... in a philosophy forum. How could I do something like that?

Philosophy forum? missed that detail... ooops... enjoy your philoso-babble.
I'm out!

'Philoso-babble'? Okay, there is no inherent problem with there being differing moralities and views on it. Philosophical discussions on, well, anything can get off the ground when both sides understand how the terminology is being employed. That seems to be what Gen is trying to do.

[pocaracas]

Philosophy forum? missed that detail... ooops... enjoy your philoso-babble.
I'm out!

'Philoso-babble'? Okay, there is no inherent problem with there being differing moralities and views on it. Philosophical discussions on, well, anything can get off the ground when both sides understand how the terminology is being employed. That seems to be what Gen is trying to do.

The problem is.... some people are using the common definition of morality, while others use the philosophical all-encompassing definition of the same word.... and of course, no one will ever get through to the other until both agree on the definition of what it is that is being discussed.

[Chas]

"However he chooses and whichever he chooses, that's a choice he cannot escape. And that gives the moral dimension to his actions. That forms the basis on which his actions can be considered moral or immoral."

How is it moral or immoral? By what standard?

You mean how he chooses his morality? That choice is amoral. And as indicated by the existence of so many different moralities - there isn't a fixed standard, yet.

So the solitary person's 'morality' is entirely functional?

All morality is entirely functional.

We are in agreement.

[genkaus]

The problem is.... some people are using the common definition of morality, while others use the philosophical all-encompassing definition of the same word.... and of course, no one will ever get through to the other until both agree on the definition of what it is that is being discussed.

Given that common definition was shown to be circular and the philosophical all-encompassing definition compatible with the common one, I'd say that the rational choice is obvious.

---

You mean how he chooses his morality? That choice is amoral. And as indicated by the existence of so many different moralities - there isn't a fixed standard, yet.


All morality is entirely functional.

We are in agreement.

So, we agree that morality is relevant to our solitary person?

[Chas]

The problem is.... some people are using the common definition of morality, while others use the philosophical all-encompassing definition of the same word.... and of course, no one will ever get through to the other until both agree on the definition of what it is that is being discussed.

Given that common definition was shown to be circular and the philosophical all-encompassing definition compatible with the common one, I'd say that the rational choice is obvious.

---

We are in agreement.

So, we agree that morality is relevant to our solitary person?

Only in the sense of a personal, functional morality generated solely by said solitary person.

[genkaus]

Only in the sense of a personal, functional morality generated solely by said solitary person.

So, now, you are dictating which morality is relevant to him?

[Chas]

Only in the sense of a personal, functional morality generated solely by said solitary person.

So, now, you are dictating which morality is relevant to him?

We're talking about the solitary person. From whence cometh his morality except from himself?

[genkaus]

We're talking about the solitary person. From whence cometh his morality except from himself?

Is that all you meant by "personal, functional morality"?

Because it can come in quite a few ways.
- He could find a book of moral instructions.
- He could base it on his life before the island.
- He could come up with all sorts of imaginative constructs and base his morality on that.
- He could observe the nature around him and come up with a morality based on that.
- Or he could come up with a morality based on certain philosophical reflections.