-->
@RationalMadman
Interesting thoughts. You must not be a pet owner then.
Animals and the Afterlife
Posts
Total:
320
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I guess your entitled to the brain-fizz that you call an opinion, but then you have given up any rational reason to be mad about the extermination of those who are detrimental to the survival of a population.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Parents own children, state owns prisoners, bosses own employees.
Having a pet that you care for doesn't in any shape or form mean it lacks a soul.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well I guess your entitled to the brain-fizz that you call an opinion, but then you have given up any rational reason to be mad about the extermination of those who are detrimental to the survival of a population.
Quite frankly this is incoherent. Being angry is an emotional response and emotional responses are unrelated to logic and reason arguably they anethema.
-->
@RationalMadman
Parents own children, state owns prisoners, bosses own employees.
This is not how you use the word "own." Two of them would be more appropriately "are responsible for" which is not the same as "ownership," the other would be "employs" which is not ownership either.
Having a pet that you care for doesn't in any shape or form mean it lacks a soul.
As you aren't a Christian, you're free to interpret as you like I guess, but does it mean definitely that animals DO have souls? It's one or the other, isn't it? It's difficult to address the question to you without understanding exactly what system of beliefs you're a subscriber to, and my experience with 'pagans' are largely that their systems of belief are extremely malleable.
-->
@secularmerlin
Alright, let me rephrase. You have no rational reason to disapprove of the extermination of a group that is detrimental to the survival of a population.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Disapproval is an emotion too.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
An example of a logical argument would be that something is contrary in regards to a particular goal.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I think we have different thoughts on what an emotion is. I would consider disapproval more of an opinion, or a judgment based on weighing pro's and con's or something like that. But for the sake of argument I'll go with you on that.
The logical contradiction then would be that you, a product of natural selection, would act in a way that is contrary to the millions of years of programming driving you to survive/procreate. If a group is detrimental to a population, what purpose would there be in allowing them to continue to consume resources and hinder the genetic advancement of the species?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You are making a common error concerning the term "survival of the fittest". The term only refers to the ability effectively pass on genes it has literally nothing to do with being the biggest or strongest only the most able to survive and mate in a particular environment.
-->
@secularmerlin
Which is particularly why I said that the group within a population is "detrimental to survival," and I did not specify whether anyone was bigger or stronger. I also clarified that this detrimental group is consuming resources and inhibiting genetic advancement, all while threatening the survival of the rest of the population. From your point of view, there is no rational reason not to exterminate that group.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
In what way does being Jewish make a population detrimental in any way let alone in the way you are suggesting?
-->
@ludofl3x
So are Christians. They cherry pick their religion to suit their agenda. All religions are malleable but any religion that debies the sentience and soul animals is alwats, ecery sibgle time, corrupt religion rhat os used to colonise and brutally abuse both animals and humans, for there is no difference once you start deeming conscious, living beings as less alive, aware and real as you.
We are merely the apex predators of our planet's ecosystem, nothing more or less.
-->
@secularmerlin
I never said that it was, nor do I believe it is. I am saying that, from the general standpoint of your view, there is no rational reason not to exterminate any group who I perceive is detrimental to my survival, or the survival of my population.
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you eat meat? Or eggs?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I will skip the arguments for vegetarianism and flip this on you.
I support euthanasia and abortion (up to five months in but not beyond that) and see most torture and rape as worse crimes than merciful ends of the murder spectrum.
The agony of the being is to be respected and worked against. The death of the creature is not at all a means of denying it has a soul, the logical fallacies are countless in this leap of reasoning.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Unless I too percieved them as detrimental you are incorrect. As a human who wants to live and who has enough empathy with others to know they likewise probably want to live it is in my best interest to foster a political climate that keeps humans alive rather than exterminating them. You perceiving some deficiencies or detriment is insufficient to justify your actions. Also eugenics are not natural by definition therefore they have nothing to do with natural selection. Now can we get back to this soul thing you claimed you could demonstrate? Or has my refusal to let you straw man my position made that difficult?I never said that it was, nor do I believe it is. I am saying that, from the general standpoint of your view, there is no rational reason not to exterminate any group who I perceive is detrimental to my survival, or the survival of my population.
-->
@RationalMadman
No, no, no, you're not getting off that easy. You just completely skipped over that you think religious people brutalize people and animals, and that neither is more valuable than the other, yet there seems to be no problem with raising animals for no other purpose than killing and eating them. Would you same the same if we did that with people?
But as sign of good will, I will address your post as well. I'm not sure if you were trying to prove a point by the abortion and torture stuff. If you're saying that torturing and murdering someone is worse than "merciful" murdering, I guess I would agree with you there. Not sure how that flips anything on me though?
I also never said that the death of a creature=denial of a soul, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing for. I would however still like to hear why it's ok to kill animals for food but not people?
-->
@secularmerlin
Well we have to deal with the inconsistencies in your worldview before we can address the soul issue. You already stated that we can't control any of our mental processes, which are nothing more than chemical reactions that move the cluster of molecules we call a body. They have no existence outside of those chemical reactions, nor do we in any way initiate them.
Unless I too percieved them as detrimental you are incorrect.
So I would only be incorrect if we both perceived them as detrimental to our survival? So if we agreed, then it would be ok to exterminate them?
Also, why would I have to justify my actions? Why would I even be held responsible for them if I can't control my mental processes and am just a product of my environment? That implies that I would have to appeal to some sort of morality (which doesn't exist) to show that I was not wrong to do what I did. But who determines that and why should I have to comply?
The problem is that if there is nothing more to our existence than random clusters of molecules, than human life has absolutely no value. Every time you try to justify why it's not ok to kill people, you have to give them value because the default position you keep going to is that we should not kill them, thus we need a good reason to justify killing them.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually think that you're ok with genocide or eugenics. I believe you when you say you are empathetic and compassionate toward others. But that compassion just doesn't fit with your view that there is nothing more to us then random clusters of molecules and uncontrollable chemical reactions, and that life has no value, meaning, or purpose.
Ask any government who has ever declared war if this is the case. For example the nazis themselves could be called detrimental to humanity and there was a very large and worldwide push to kill as many as possible.So I would only be incorrect if we both perceived them as detrimental to our survival? So if we agreed, then it would be ok to exterminate them?
Also, why would I have to justify my actions? Why would I even be held responsible for them if I can't control my mental processes and am just a product of my environment?
Because, right or wrong, you will be held accountable for your actions by your fellow human beings.
That implies that I would have to appeal to some sort of morality (which doesn't exist)
Subjective moral standards exist and are enforced by humans.
to show that I was not wrong to do what I did. But who determines that
Prevailing human opinion most generally in the form of laws.
why should I have to comply?
The consequences of actions are generally sufficient cause to compel adherence society's rules. We do not by and large decide what these consequences will be and so no 'choice' made based upon these rules and consequences needs freewill to explain.
The problem is that if there is nothing more to our existence than random clusters of molecules, than human life has absolutely no value. Every time you try to justify why it's not ok to kill people, you have to give them value because the default position you keep going to is that we should not kill them, thus we need a good reason to justify killing them
What assignation of value is not subjective? Food only has value in as much as we need it to live and a society with a surplus will place a lower value on food than a society suffering a famine. Humans tend to value human life. That in no way makes thos an objective fact.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually think that you're ok with genocide or eugenics. I believe you when you say you are empathetic and compassionate toward others.
Good.
But that compassion just doesn't fit with your view that there is nothing more to us then random clusters of molecules and uncontrollable chemical reactions, and that life has no value, meaning, or purpose.
Life does have value to humans. It is just a subjective opinion however not an objectively provable fact. If all life on earth came to an end there is no particular reason to think that the universe or anything inside or outside the universe would notice or care.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm not sure we agree that these two things are mutually exclusive: that we are only collections of atoms (you've offered no alternative theory thus far, are you going to?) and that as such, life has no value, meaning or purpose. Add the word "intrinsic" and you might have something, but my life certainly means something to ME; I'm not sure to whom it should . Again, you're not making your own argument, you're simply taking issue with his, and it does seem a bit straw-man. It also seems a different topic.there is nothing more to us then random clusters of molecules and uncontrollable chemical reactions, and that life has no value, meaning, or purpose.
Do you believe animals have souls and therefore are subject to the rules of heaven or hell and Jesus? Or are they soulless, therefore they are consigned to whatever place that a burned down tree goes? What is the basis for your opinion?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No, no, no, you're not getting off that easy. You just completely skipped over that you think religious people brutalize people and animals, and that neither is more valuable than the other, yet there seems to be no problem with raising animals for no other purpose than killing and eating them. Would you same the same if we did that with people?
If that's all the people had potential to be good for and at a time when society deemed it okay, this would certainly occur. The word 'good' and 'okay with it' or 'say the same if' is all hypothetical bullshit. We all can talk like we're a mega hero, if it happened to humans it's a big problem sure but if you refer to torture and agony, no that's not okay. What we do with blue collar workers is not very different to what we do with work horses or guide dogs. The reason people end up getting more agency than animals do (unless they are prisoners) is because society deems them to have more potential usefulness to those around them (even just in terms of making them happy). This equally is why pets are treated with more respect than your typical farm or zoo animal.
I am not coming here pretending to be a romantic hero, I am coming here a completely genuine pragmatist who refuses to let my rationality cloud my heart and love for animals. They are people, they have personalities and completely conscious 100% legit experiences of reality.
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a summary of my position on human souls from a previous post responding to secularmerlin:
A soul can most simply be explained as the immaterial part of us that our thoughts, emotions, desires, and will stem from.I believe the only way to explain human existence is a duality of material and immaterial components, or body and soul. If we are only a material body, then immaterial concepts such as logic or morals are inconsequential and should have no bearing on our existence since matter is all that matters.That is just a brief summary of a rational argument for the existence of a soul. All other distinctions between the immaterial aspects of animals and humans are drawn from the Bible.
Here is my position on the difference between human and animal souls that you may have seen in a previous post that I tagged you in:
Animals do not have souls as humans do. It seems like a safe conclusion to say that there will be animals in heaven. However, the Bible is not explicitly clear on whether particular animals will be there. I tend to think they just cease to exist since they do not have a human soul, but they certainly won't go to hell. Since they don't have souls, they are not culpable for moral choices and cannot be punished in that way.To put my view another way, there will likely be animals in heaven, just not the animals that die in this lifetime. This may not be a particularly comforting answer, but we can find comfort in knowing that there is no sorrow, grief, or death in heaven.But that still leaves one critical question: Even if your dog did go to heaven, would you be going there to meet it?
You are right that I should have included the word "intrinsic" in my explanation to make clear that I was indeed referring to an objective value that humans have. To clarify, my positive position is that an immaterial soul given by God is the only way to justify humans having intrinsic value. To deny this leaves one forced to accept the subjective value that is up to other humans to give and take away from each other.
-->
@RationalMadman
So just to be clear, you do eat meat then?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't reveal things about me IRL that will help narrow me down to any significant degree. I am defending that animals and humans most certainly lack or possess souls to equal degrees and that there's zero moral hypocrisy or logical fallacy going on with me stating such.
If it helps, let me make it explicit: If a chimpanzee, orangutan etc. proved to be cognizant enough to vote to a degree of maturity that an 18 year old human achieves, I would completely support making him/her a citizen that can vote if they also showed loyalty to the community/society in some kind of sense.
-->
@secularmerlin
Life does have value to humans. It is just a subjective opinion however not an objectively provable fact.
But all of your arguments go back to the only two essential arguments against genocide that don't actually condemn it.
The opinion-based argument is basically saying genocide is opposed because an individual or group of people don't like it. But it could just as legitimately fall the other way and say that genocide is encouraged because an individual or group of people do like it. Even governments are just systems that either oppose or encourage actions based on opinion. And if humans are the ones who assign value, then they can also take it away. So the opinion-based argument leaves genocide as a legitimate and acceptable action with the proper approval by those in power.
The other argument is based on biological survival mechanisms. My safety is only guaranteed if I am contributing to the survival of the species or population. If I am a detriment, the survival mechanisms should legitimize eliminating the threat (me). The same can be said for a group of people who may be a detriment to the survival of the species. Thus, genocide is a legitimate action as long as it is contributing to the survival of the species.
Both essential arguments allow for genocide as a legitimate action no matter how you spin them. I refuse to believe in a materialistic worldview that allows for that and you should too. That is a rational reason that I believe in a duality of humans, both material and immaterial.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm sorry I don't know what to tell you. The universe does not care about genocide only humans do. Unfortunately all standards for morality can lead to horrifying consequences. For example if we use wellbeing versus harm we may well harm an innocent person for the wellbeing of two. If survival of the species is our metric we might subscribe to eugenics. If we follow the dictates of the bible we might condone slavery and put a significant portion of the world's population to death. If you have a standard for morality that does not I would love to hear it.
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't reveal things about me IRL that will help narrow me down to any significant degree.
I can understand that. I will say though, that unless you are willing to condemn the food industry for the countless killing of animals which have the same status as people, it is hypocritical to condemn other groups that are killing humans as worse. I would be happy to hear an interaction with that and will not make any conclusions or accusations about your personal eating habits.
But let me try what is perhaps a less personal approach as well. Do you think that we include animals in our justice system since they regularly kill other animals and sometimes even people? Or are they not to be held accountable in any way, even for manslaughter?
-->
@secularmerlin
In fact classing genocide as right or good even if it is fictional is incomprehensible to me.
This was your previous quote from post #134. But I think that is safe to say that from a materialistic worldview, there is no legitimate reason to condemn acts like genocide, and these acts can even be justified as acceptable.
My standard is an objective one that can actually distinguish between right and wrong. Even if opinion-based systems encouraged genocide, it would still be condemned as evil. And survival mechanisms could not be used as an excuse to justify genocide, it would still hold people responsible for their evil acts. It also places intrinsic value on each human life. This value is given by God and is not subject to human opinion, thus it cannot be taken away by other humans. This objective standard is set by God, is revealed through the Bible, and condemns acts that are completely natural to the animal world like murder, theft, and adultery.
Now we can certainly address the controversial passages and events in the Bible and I'm happy to, but to do so implies that there is a moral standard to even appeal to that would condemn those things as wrong. A materialistic worldview cannot condemn anything as evil, even genocide. Nor can it praise anything as good such as altruism or empathy. All it can do is tell you that clusters of molecules are bumping into each other in ways that cause your brain to fizz with "emotion."
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
This was your previous quote from post #134. But I think that is safe to say that from a materialistic worldview, there is no legitimate reason to condemn acts like genocide, and these acts can even be justified as acceptable.
If you replace legitimate with objective I will agree but I disagree with this statement as ot stands. Humans wanting to live is a legitimate reason even if not an objective one independent of human opinion.
My standard is an objective
What precisely makes your standard objective? Also the Yahweh commands genocide so under the biblical model it is not just excusable but expected. There is no need to address this as it is not in question. The god depicted in the bible allowed, commanded and even committed genocide over and over in the story. Either genocide is not wrong or Yahweh is.