Conquer Club

Human worth

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Human worth

Postby john9blue on Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:13 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
puppydog85 wrote:John, you got my point exactly. Two can play at the dismissing game. I really do try to discuss the topics at hand, which was human worth and I gave a genuine answer to Stalin as to why I believe it "because God says so". I can back up this belief with logic, ect. but it boils down to that answer. And no the flying monkey god does not count in my opinion and I have looked into many positions and found them unable to properly explain human experience. Anyway, Stalin how about you? Why should humans even be considered as having any worth? I say that it is because I believe that my God (and of course it is my God, just as whatever rational system you use is yours) has so ordered it. If you have a problem with that then lets go at it.


puppydog, I have two observations:
1. Now you are talking as if you actually want to debate stuff. A couple of posts ago when you wrote:


that's what happens when you give people's opinions a modicum of respect. they become more willing to debate and even change them. that's why people who don't do this disgust me.


What is the acceptable minimum quantity of respect before one hits your disgust-o meter?


everything is always on my disgust-o-meter. most things just give relatively low readings. something is "disgusting" if it hits over 30-40% on the meter.

this forum's worst posts can reach the 50% mark. i would usually hit 60% back when i visited 4chan and spacedicks. really bad stuff like the "maggot story" and "one guy one cup" can hit 70%
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Human worth

Postby puppydog85 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:49 am

It is a pity all we have here are philosophy and economics majors. I would love to hear a psych student's opinion of someone who, having achieved a certain degree of knowledge in a field, feels the need to make that field of the highest importance and to further feel the need to instruct all others in it. I would be very interested in hearing about that person's psyche.

Stalin, I will respond later today.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Human worth

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:16 am

john9blue wrote:
everything is always on my disgust-o-meter. most things just give relatively low readings. something is "disgusting" if it hits over 30-40% on the meter.

this forum's worst posts can reach the 50% mark. i would usually hit 60% back when i visited 4chan and spacedicks. really bad stuff like the "maggot story" and "one guy one cup" can hit 70%


I take it that you find MLPonies to be mildly disgusting?

For a young man who has wondered the depths of the Internet, you seem to be easily disgusted! :D
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Human worth

Postby john9blue on Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:59 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:
everything is always on my disgust-o-meter. most things just give relatively low readings. something is "disgusting" if it hits over 30-40% on the meter.

this forum's worst posts can reach the 50% mark. i would usually hit 60% back when i visited 4chan and spacedicks. really bad stuff like the "maggot story" and "one guy one cup" can hit 70%


I take it that you find MLPonies to be mildly disgusting?

For a young man who has wondered the depths of the Internet, you seem to be easily disgusted! :D


if 5-10% counts as "mildly disgusting" then sure.

and even if something is disgusting, if it's also high on the (not necessarily sexual) attract-o-meter, then i will still like it.

so even the most disgusting pony on the show can be likeable as long as she looks fucking sweet (which she does)
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Human worth

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:30 pm

john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:
everything is always on my disgust-o-meter. most things just give relatively low readings. something is "disgusting" if it hits over 30-40% on the meter.

this forum's worst posts can reach the 50% mark. i would usually hit 60% back when i visited 4chan and spacedicks. really bad stuff like the "maggot story" and "one guy one cup" can hit 70%


I take it that you find MLPonies to be mildly disgusting?

For a young man who has wondered the depths of the Internet, you seem to be easily disgusted! :D


if 5-10% counts as "mildly disgusting" then sure.

and even if something is disgusting, if it's also high on the (not necessarily sexual) attract-o-meter, then i will still like it.

so even the most disgusting pony on the show can be likeable as long as she looks fucking sweet (which she does)


What's up with her swiss cheese legs?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Human worth

Postby john9blue on Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:51 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
john9blue wrote:
if 5-10% counts as "mildly disgusting" then sure.

and even if something is disgusting, if it's also high on the (not necessarily sexual) attract-o-meter, then i will still like it.

so even the most disgusting pony on the show can be likeable as long as she looks fucking sweet (which she does)


What's up with her swiss cheese legs?


she has the most holes
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Human worth

Postby Gillipig on Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:33 pm

puppydog85 wrote:It is a pity all we have here are philosophy and economics majors. I would love to hear a psych student's opinion of someone who, having achieved a certain degree of knowledge in a field, feels the need to make that field of the highest importance and to further feel the need to instruct all others in it. I would be very interested in hearing about that person's psyche.

Stalin, I will respond later today.

Don't we all do that? When we're good at something we overestimate the importance of that knowledge/ability, and the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Human worth

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:56 pm

Gillipig wrote:
puppydog85 wrote:It is a pity all we have here are philosophy and economics majors. I would love to hear a psych student's opinion of someone who, having achieved a certain degree of knowledge in a field, feels the need to make that field of the highest importance and to further feel the need to instruct all others in it. I would be very interested in hearing about that person's psyche.

Stalin, I will respond later today.

Don't we all do that? When we're good at something we overestimate the importance of that knowledge/ability, and the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are.


You don't understand. The cause of the spread of economics into other fields of knowledge is not primarily due to the evaluation of the economists on economics. This is one influential factor, but this sense of pride originates in the usefulness of economics, and not so much the supposed delusion thoughts of the economists.

The dominant cause is the benefits gained by the exchange of analytical frameworks/tools provided by economics. If this exchange wasn't worth it, we wouldn't see economics in so many fields. That fact that economics is readily applicable and useful to other fields for understanding human action explains the main cause of its spread.

Also, it's not like economics controls things, or substitutes other fields out. It's a complementary good, as in it's used alongside other fields, so I don't see the following as relevant: "the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are."

To argue against your self-overestimation argument, if this was true, and economics was a bunch of crap that wasn't useful, then we wouldn't see it spread into the other fields. Why? Because hardly anyone would trade for something so useless--unless of course they were somehow forced to.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Human worth

Postby puppydog85 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:07 pm

Actually, I was thinking of the spelling nazis. Not economics.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Human worth

Postby Gillipig on Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:19 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
puppydog85 wrote:It is a pity all we have here are philosophy and economics majors. I would love to hear a psych student's opinion of someone who, having achieved a certain degree of knowledge in a field, feels the need to make that field of the highest importance and to further feel the need to instruct all others in it. I would be very interested in hearing about that person's psyche.

Stalin, I will respond later today.

Don't we all do that? When we're good at something we overestimate the importance of that knowledge/ability, and the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are.


You don't understand. The cause of the spread of economics into other fields of knowledge is not primarily due to the evaluation of the economists on economics. This is one influential factor, but this sense of pride originates in the usefulness of economics, and not so much the supposed delusion thoughts of the economists.

The dominant cause is the benefits gained by the exchange of analytical frameworks/tools provided by economics. If this exchange wasn't worth it, we wouldn't see economics in so many fields. That fact that economics is readily applicable and useful to other fields for understanding human action explains the main cause of its spread.

Also, it's not like economics controls things, or substitutes other fields out. It's a complementary good, as in it's used alongside other fields, so I don't see the following as relevant: "the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are."

To argue against your self-overestimation argument, if this was true, and economics was a bunch of crap that wasn't useful, then we wouldn't see it spread into the other fields. Why? Because hardly anyone would trade for something so useless--unless of course they were somehow forced to.

Your honor, I rest my case!
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Human worth

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:21 am

BigBallinStalin wrote: The dominant cause is the benefits gained by the exchange of analytical frameworks/tools provided by economics. If this exchange wasn't worth it, we wouldn't see economics in so many fields. That fact that economics is readily applicable and useful to other fields for understanding human action explains the main cause of its spread.

Also, it's not like economics controls things, or substitutes other fields out. It's a complementary good, as in it's used alongside other fields, so I don't see the following as relevant: "the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are."

This is true only because our system is based so heavily upon markets.

Economics doesn't really steer anything, it reflects. BUT, because so many peopel want to see it as the fundamental director, instead of just reflector, it has extremely undo influence.

Economics is of value.. because economics is of some value, because it is of some value and is used to make decisions.. it becomes even more valuable.

What is actually happening is that economics is pushing out any and all other considerations, because it is expedient and is most tied directly to profit, not becuase it is inherently of true value, good or really reflective of an underlying fortune.

The proof of this is the current economic slide.. and the complete and utter flumuxing of economic "answers". Far too many of the "answers" put forward really amount to "ignore all other impacts because economics dictates".
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Human worth

Postby puppydog85 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:44 pm

Ok, I realize this is waaaay late.

"starts out with a few a priori propositions". Correct me if I am wrong here but you are now saying that you are basing your theory of knowledge on something not based in experience? I am not sure how you get off mocking Christians about religion and prayer and claiming to be a empiricist. In fact, I will just leave it the argument there as you later state you essentially believe in foundationalism, which is exactly what you have been mocking about me. I will however leave this little side note about prayer. I think you misunderstand what prayer and faith are for Christians. I would not tell the tribes to just pray about it either. But I think it is illogical of you to discount it because it cannot be empirically tested and then say you like somebodies a priori and foundationalistic philosophy.

Yes, I would state that I believe in God based ethics. I would essentially agree with Blackstone in the matter that God has revealed His ethic to us in both general (nature) and specific ( the Bible) revelation, with the further caveat that nature has fallen into sin and as such the Bible is really the only good source of ethics today.

So, have fun that if you care to. I realize that I took too long to reply and if you want to drop it I understand.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Human worth

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:49 am

puppydog85 wrote:Ok, I realize this is waaaay late.

"starts out with a few a priori propositions". Correct me if I am wrong here but you are now saying that you are basing your theory of knowledge on something not based in experience? I am not sure how you get off mocking Christians about religion and prayer and claiming to be a empiricist. In fact, I will just leave it the argument there as you later state you essentially believe in foundationalism, which is exactly what you have been mocking about me. I will however leave this little side note about prayer. I think you misunderstand what prayer and faith are for Christians. I would not tell the tribes to just pray about it either. But I think it is illogical of you to discount it because it cannot be empirically tested and then say you like somebodies a priori and foundationalistic philosophy.

Yes, I would state that I believe in God based ethics. I would essentially agree with Blackstone in the matter that God has revealed His ethic to us in both general (nature) and specific ( the Bible) revelation, with the further caveat that nature has fallen into sin and as such the Bible is really the only good source of ethics today.

So, have fun that if you care to. I realize that I took too long to reply and if you want to drop it I understand.


Oh, just read Hans Herman-Hoppe's Economic Science and the Austrian Method, and it'll be clear. Sections 1 and 2 pretty much cover it.

"you essentially believe in foundationalism"
That's not true. There's different forms of foundationalism, so I don't see how one is relevant to whatever I've been mocking earlier. Mises might have developed something of that nature, or maybe not. Either way, read the above article, and see what you think.


"God-based ethics"

So how do you deal with the Euthyphro dilemma?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Human worth

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:52 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: The dominant cause is the benefits gained by the exchange of analytical frameworks/tools provided by economics. If this exchange wasn't worth it, we wouldn't see economics in so many fields. That fact that economics is readily applicable and useful to other fields for understanding human action explains the main cause of its spread.

Also, it's not like economics controls things, or substitutes other fields out. It's a complementary good, as in it's used alongside other fields, so I don't see the following as relevant: "the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are."

This is true only because our system is based so heavily upon markets.

Economics doesn't really steer anything, it reflects. BUT, because so many peopel want to see it as the fundamental director, instead of just reflector, it has extremely undo influence.

Economics is of value.. because economics is of some value, because it is of some value and is used to make decisions.. it becomes even more valuable.

What is actually happening is that economics is pushing out any and all other considerations, because it is expedient and is most tied directly to profit, not becuase it is inherently of true value, good or really reflective of an underlying fortune.

The proof of this is the current economic slide.. and the complete and utter flumuxing of economic "answers". Far too many of the "answers" put forward really amount to "ignore all other impacts because economics dictates".


I'd say you're about 67% correct.

You should read some econ books to understand what's happening in the economy and in economic science. Would you care for a reading list?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Human worth

Postby puppydog85 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:00 am

The only reason I continue with this is that I like Austrian economics, stalin. I hate it when arguments devolve into, "well, just read this book, it crushes your argument". I find it to be a fallacious appeal to authority. It essentially is saying that you do not understand your position well enough to engage in discussion using it. (If you are meaning to say that you do not have the time/inclination to finish the discussion, then that is fine just say so when you offer a book that lays out your position.)
Again, you are doing the same thing you mocked me of earlier. You are now just saying, "well, I have this article written that proves you wrong". That is the same straw man you accused me of with the theses.

Well, walk me through the dilemma. I will state that good and wrong is a label applied by humans to the character of God (ie. it is a reflection of what He is and therefore, how he ordered the world).

And let's not have this be a one way street. Where do you say that ethics come from? On what grounds would you state that me finding out your address, coming over and stealing your password and posting that you concede defeat, would be wrong?
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Human worth

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:08 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote: The dominant cause is the benefits gained by the exchange of analytical frameworks/tools provided by economics. If this exchange wasn't worth it, we wouldn't see economics in so many fields. That fact that economics is readily applicable and useful to other fields for understanding human action explains the main cause of its spread.

Also, it's not like economics controls things, or substitutes other fields out. It's a complementary good, as in it's used alongside other fields, so I don't see the following as relevant: "the things we don't understand we simply don't realize how important they are."

This is true only because our system is based so heavily upon markets.

Economics doesn't really steer anything, it reflects. BUT, because so many peopel want to see it as the fundamental director, instead of just reflector, it has extremely undo influence.

Economics is of value.. because economics is of some value, because it is of some value and is used to make decisions.. it becomes even more valuable.

What is actually happening is that economics is pushing out any and all other considerations, because it is expedient and is most tied directly to profit, not becuase it is inherently of true value, good or really reflective of an underlying fortune.

The proof of this is the current economic slide.. and the complete and utter flumuxing of economic "answers". Far too many of the "answers" put forward really amount to "ignore all other impacts because economics dictates".


I'd say you're about 67% correct.

You should read some econ books to understand what's happening in the economy and in economic science. Would you care for a reading list?

Been there, done that. The problem is not that natural resource folks have no economic background, it is that so very few economists really bother with the rest, particularly natural resource issues.

Partly as a result of that, rules essentially drive abuse of resources and encourage companies to pollute/ignore some safety concerns... as long as the impact is not immediate.

No economic theory can fix a child who's brain is harmed by lead, repair a limb that is missing due to hormones, fix watersystem poisoned by frack water, or repair land that is built up with alkilinity/salt, never mind real toxins.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Human worth

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:14 am

puppydog85 wrote:The only reason I continue with this is that I like Austrian economics, stalin. I hate it when arguments devolve into, "well, just read this book, it crushes your argument". I find it to be a fallacious appeal to authority. It essentially is saying that you do not understand your position well enough to engage in discussion using it. (If you are meaning to say that you do not have the time/inclination to finish the discussion, then that is fine just say so when you offer a book that lays out your position.)
Again, you are doing the same thing you mocked me of earlier. You are now just saying, "well, I have this article written that proves you wrong". That is the same straw man you accused me of with the theses.


Honestly, I haven't read that article in years, and I don't intend on re-reading it to win an internet debate.

The action axiom is..... what's it called? "In the effort of disproving it, you actually contradict yourself." So whatever that term is.

It's independent of the empirical in the sense that praxeology (Mises' study) can't be tested to show if it's correct or not. Through self-reflection, the truth of his axiom becomes clear.

Of course, if you want to take the skeptical position about sensory experience, then be my guest, and please start to sincerely doubt the existence of a floor as you get out of your chair to do whatever.


puppydog85 wrote:Well, walk me through the dilemma. I will state that good and wrong is a label applied by humans to the character of God (ie. it is a reflection of what He is and therefore, how he ordered the world).

And let's not have this be a one way street. Where do you say that ethics come from? On what grounds would you state that me finding out your address, coming over and stealing your password and posting that you concede defeat, would be wrong?



"Is it morally good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good?"

If you say, "it is morally good because god commands it," then that's an arbitrary position. If God said that raping your wife on sunday was totes cool, then that would be moral. Joking aside, since the bible is the word of god, and since the morally good is what god commands, then any morally relevant rule within the bible is morally good. So, are you willing to accept that every command and rule in the Bible is morally good?

Your position, "I will state that good and wrong is a label applied by humans to the character of God," can lead to contradictory moral rules. So, how do you know which truly reflect the judea-christian God and which ones don't?


If we agree on the latter part of the dilemma, then this means that morality/ethics is independent of god, and of religion. I'm fine with that. Ethics comes from human interaction and evolves into informal and formal rules. Ethics is derived from feeling and reason, but which is the more influential? I'm not sure. We've seen many societies develop their own ethics which are distinct from our own. Their rules adapt to their own environment. This is self-evident throughout history; it's an irrefutable fact.

For example, to say that the Inuit's (IIRC) practice of having their elderly go off to die is immoral totally misses the point. It's acceptable within that society due to the constraints it faces in such a harsh environment. Life is about trade-offs, and a group's ethics reflect this.


If you wish to say that some portion of the moral rules which are right reflect God, then that's okay, but it's unfalsifiable. I could disagree by saying that "No, they reflect Allah, or FSM, or Thor, but not the J-C God, so you're wrong." That doesn't advance the field of knowledge for humans, so I tend to avoid that discussion.




On what grounds would you state that me finding out your address, coming over and stealing your password and posting that you concede defeat, would be wrong?


It would be wrong on grounds of my "Don't Be a Dick, Man" Philosophy. But seriously, I'm a big fan of property rights. If I didn't give you permission to do so, then it's morally wrong--depending on the consequences. For example, if you were to do get onto my account, and it would somehow save my life, then okay, sure, that was morally good. So, it depends on the consequences.

For me, I like libertarianism, but I'm not arrogant to say that libertarianism is a must for all societies. Really, it depends on their tradeoffs, their own distinctly developed rules, and yada yada yada.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Human worth

Postby puppydog85 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:57 am

Ok, from work here just some quick questions. Why should I care about your consequences? It would be good for me so who care right? Are you not rather arbitrarily deciding that a good consequence is what makes things right? How would you argue against me saying that Hitler was doing what he thought was right for his people and we only thought it was bad because we were not as advanced thinkers as he was?
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Human worth

Postby pmchugh on Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:46 pm

I wanted to reply to this thread but it appears to have been ruined. All I am going to say is that the question is ambiguous enough to allow you to answer that all humans are equal, or that they are not. So the fact that BBS picks to stick up for not equal shows that he wishes people to be not equal, he wants to look at others and say, "I am better than you". Good for you BBS. ;)
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
User avatar
Colonel pmchugh
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Human worth

Postby Gillipig on Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:44 am

pmchugh wrote:I wanted to reply to this thread but it appears to have been ruined. All I am going to say is that the question is ambiguous enough to allow you to answer that all humans are equal, or that they are not. So the fact that BBS picks to stick up for not equal shows that he wishes people to be not equal, he wants to look at others and say, "I am better than you". Good for you BBS. ;)

Completely false!
In order to say that all humans have equal worth you need some sort of justification for it. And if you're not willing to go to some random crap written in a holy book you won't find any. And since BBS isn't religious it makes sense that he doesn't claim that humans have equal worth. Atheists that claim humans have equal worth must either not understand what the implications of that are, or be deluded enough to think that there's some sort of justification for it. Mind me, you can perfectly enough say that it's good for humanity that we delude ourselves and aim to treat everyone as if they have equal worth. But that doesn't make it true. It's almost like believing in belief. You don't believe in it but you believe in the concept.
And to me that is fine, as long as you recognize that there's no universal de facto equal human worth.
If you are under the premise that there's a none religious justification for why humans have equal worth, I'd like to hear it.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Human worth

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:05 am

pmchugh wrote:I wanted to reply to this thread but it appears to have been ruined. All I am going to say is that the question is ambiguous enough to allow you to answer that all humans are equal, or that they are not. So the fact that BBS picks to stick up for not equal shows that he wishes people to be not equal, he wants to look at others and say, "I am better than you". Good for you BBS. ;)

I think you are the one being arrogant, now. (though, yes, there is a fair measure from BBS as well).

You might find it interesting to view some of the other "God" threads -- Is there proof of God, etc.

But, I challenged you earlier on your notion that God even sets up equality. You never answered.

The facts are that whether we wish it or not, people are not equal. Even in a theoreticial sense, people are only "equal" in worth to the extent they follow their specific boundaries.. boundaries that differ for each. Men are not the same as women, don't have the same expectations in the Bible. Biologically, we are not the same. People have different talents, different "gifts". Nor are people given anything close to the same circumstances to begin.

If you say that it is God's design that all are equal, then how do you explain this great disparity. Sayinng "we are equal in worth" is a rather diengenuous argument, when it has absolutely no basis in reality. It is a good place for humanity to start, simply because we are so very, very, very poor at assessing what human is actually "worth" more than another. For us, then, the best base paradigm is to begin as if all humans start out equal.. and then let their actions and abilities evidence/dictate. That never truly happens, but it is a good theory.

To claim that God set that out, though is to say that the world we have now is not laid out by God, because our current world does not have anything close to equality. It is also to say that the Bible is wrong, because the Bible does not say equal in any sense. It says that God loves us all, but that is not the same as equal.

Finally, you fundamentally ignore evil. That gets spun off into the netherlands of debate, but a very Christian concept is the idea that good things come from evil, that evil is a necessary part of who we are. Does that mean a rapist is equal in value, perhaps even more than someone like Mother Teresa? We would find that idea repugnant. Yet, if we look at how the world works.... it took a drunk hitting a child to create MADD, it took a girl who was blinded and deafened by measles to bring on much reform and understanding in the field of blind and hearing impaired education. The examples are multitude. You cannot have great heroes without great tragedy. Humans would not, mostly choose those routes. Yet, it seems God did. So, God does not set people up as equal, not at all.. nor even does he give us all what we "deserve", here on Earth, not really, not on its surface. As Christians, we take it deeper and look to the soul and say that yes, in the end things do work out. That is a belief, (and one I certainly hold) but the bare surface facts/evidence of humanity on Earth tends to indicate other.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Human worth

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:10 am

Gillipig wrote:If you are under the premise that there's a none religious justification for why humans have equal worth, I'd like to hear it.

I gave it above, but bogged down in another argument.

We need to ACT as if humans begin equally, because we are so very, very, very poor at desiding real worth in any measure. So, for humanity the best default is to begin with "we are created equal"...and then move on to let circumstances dictate. It is a very imperfect system.

Just to give a "classic" counter.. if you have a child who is gifted in math, another in basketball and a third in acting, do you insist that the actor play basketball as much as his sibling? No, but if you are good parent, chances are you start out by trying to expose each child to the basics of as wide a range of activities and experiences as possible. Then, as they get older and/or as circumstances dictate, you allow them to follow their passions. Whether you will act, play basketball or be an engineer, you need to read, write, and should have a basic understanding/exposure to music and sports. BUT... not every community has all those available and, if your child absolutely hates basketball, then finding another kind of physical activity serves their overall health well.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Human worth

Postby Gillipig on Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:24 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Gillipig wrote:If you are under the premise that there's a none religious justification for why humans have equal worth, I'd like to hear it.

I gave it above, but bogged down in another argument.

We need to ACT as if humans begin equally, because we are so very, very, very poor at desiding real worth in any measure. So, for humanity the best default is to begin with "we are created equal"...and then move on to let circumstances dictate. It is a very imperfect system.


Player player player. If you read the context again you'll see that I didn't ask for a reason why we should act like humans have equal worth. I even went out of my way to say that I'm okay with someone acting like it's true even though he knows it's not.
What I asked him to do was to give none religious reasons as to why it's True. Not why it "would be nice if it were true and therefore we should pretend like it is.". I think we're on the same page on this really.

Gillipig wrote:Mind me, you can perfectly enough say that it's good for humanity that we delude ourselves and aim to treat everyone as if they have equal worth. But that doesn't make it true. It's almost like believing in belief. You don't believe in it but you believe in the concept.
And to me that is fine, as long as you recognize that there's no universal de facto equal human worth.
If you are under the premise that there's a none religious justification for why humans have equal worth, I'd like to hear it.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Human worth

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:27 am

Gillipig wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Gillipig wrote:If you are under the premise that there's a none religious justification for why humans have equal worth, I'd like to hear it.

I gave it above, but bogged down in another argument.

We need to ACT as if humans begin equally, because we are so very, very, very poor at desiding real worth in any measure. So, for humanity the best default is to begin with "we are created equal"...and then move on to let circumstances dictate. It is a very imperfect system.


Player player player. If you read the context again you'll see that I didn't ask for a reason why we should act like humans have equal worth. I even went out of my way to say that I'm okay with someone acting like it's true even though he knows it's not.
What I asked him to do was to give none religious reasons as to why it's True. Not why it "would be nice if it were true and therefore we should pretend like it is.". I think we're on the same page on this really.


NO, because if there is not some fundamental basis of belief in that, it won't "fly". People don't argue "we need to act as if...". In fact, I am saying almost the opposite. People need to believe we are created equal.. because else we will act even less as if we are, and misjudging, make very poor decisions.
Gillipig wrote:Mind me, you can perfectly enough say that it's good for humanity that we delude ourselves and aim to treat everyone as if they have equal worth. But that doesn't make it true. It's almost like believing in belief. You don't believe in it but you believe in the concept.
And to me that is fine, as long as you recognize that there's no universal de facto equal human worth.
If you are under the premise that there's a none religious justification for why humans have equal worth, I'd like to hear it.
[/quote]
I don't believe people are equal. Start with that. The idea persists because it is beneficial to society/humanity, just as essentially all ideas that persist do so for that reason.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Human worth

Postby Gillipig on Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:32 am

](*,) Stop disagreeing with me lol. We're saying the same thing with different words. Neither of us believes in equal human worth but realize it's important that the "stupid masses" believes it to be true.
Are you just looking for an argument or what? If it's the case you can just tell me ;).
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users