Human worth

[PLAYER57832]

](*,) 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 .

No, you asked for an atheistic justification for why people are equal. I gave it.

I think the fact that I said "belief" is the stumbling block here? Atheists have beliefs, too...

But anyway... yeah, we are "arguing" over a point we basically see the same anyway.

[Gillipig]

](*,) 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 .

No, you asked for an atheistic justification for why people are equal. I gave it.

I think the fact that I said "belief" is the stumbling block here? Atheists have beliefs, too...

But anyway... yeah, we are "arguing" over a point we basically see the same anyway.

No, no, no, you gave an none religious reason as to why people "should believe in it", not why it's true. A big difference! Indeed you can't possibly give a reason to why it's true, because you don't believe it to be. Again you misinterpreted me. (either willingly or unwillingly)

[PLAYER57832]

](*,) 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 .

No, you asked for an atheistic justification for why people are equal. I gave it.

I think the fact that I said "belief" is the stumbling block here? Atheists have beliefs, too...

But anyway... yeah, we are "arguing" over a point we basically see the same anyway.

No, no, no, you gave an none religious reason as to why people "should believe in it", not why it's true. A big difference! Indeed you can't possibly give a reason to why it's true, because you don't believe it to be. Again you misinterpreted me. (either willingly or unwillingly)

Yes... and no. (at any rate, it was definitely intentional)
Someone who believes this to be true will believe so for the reasons I gave above. I don't necessarily agree.. but then, I am also not atheist. I am Christian. Its a "devil's argument". I am not arguing my own point, but that I know others hold. But, I confuse the issue by admitting I don't, myself believe this.

[pmchugh]

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.

I already attempted explain.

>Free will does not exist
>Objective morality does not exist
>Humans are the products of their environment and genes
>Can you really blame a human for the way they act?
>Nope.
>All humans are organic machines which evolved to survive
>Some humans are better at performing tasks.
>But morally all are equal in my eyes, as they are mere consequences of past events.

I don't think I am explaining well, but basically I think that you take the concept of a human too concretely.

[puppydog85]

So, if I understand you correctly, you two (pmchugh and Gillipig) are saying that you really have no moral problem with a Hitler or the like?

[pmchugh]

So, if I understand you correctly, you two (pmchugh and Gillipig) are saying that you really have no moral problem with a Hitler or the like?

Just me. I would not wish to punish Hitler (logically anyway). Don't get me wrong, I would fight against "injustices" I just don't blame people. If you view people as (or part of) a logical survival machine it doesn't make sense to.

[Gillipig]

So, if I understand you correctly, you two (pmchugh and Gillipig) are saying that you really have no moral problem with a Hitler or the like?

If you look at it objectively and from a evolutionary perspective, there's nothing wrong with killing other human beings. Especially humans that are different from yourself. It would however be stupid to kill your own family members. But as far as I know Hitler didn't do that so from an evolutionary perspective he's done nothing wrong. Don't misstake me for saying that I think what he did was okay, I'm just saying that when you look at it objectively (which we rarely do) he's not a monster. Indeed it's impossble to be a "monster" in evolutionary terms. You're either succesful, average or not succesful.

[puppydog85]

Hitler was all about evolution as I understand it. He was trying to create the uberace (sp?). And if you read medical journals, thanks to his euthanasia and forced sterilization programs the German people have some of the lowest genetic problems in the world. And it might not be considered stupid to kill your family. Look at how many animal species do it. Survival of the fittest and all that.


Further, why do you have to have an evolutionary viewpoint to make it ok? I mean, animals rape and murder without reasoning through it and as I understand you we are no different.

[AndyDufresne]

Unfortunately I don't think the Full Article is available online yet, but I read through it in a library a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ooperation
Why We Help: The Evolution of Cooperation


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

Indeed it's impossble to be a "monster" in evolutionary terms. You're either succesful, average or not succesful.

Except, a key difference between human evolution and other is that we have survived precisely becuase we look beyond these "basic facts", which actually are not basic evolutionary facts at all, by any demension. Humanity survives primarily becuase we actually care about one another, and not just family, not just those who are "like" us.

In fact, even in animal evolution, the idea that killing anyone other than family is OK is just wrong. Many animals have kinds of societies that are not as complex as humans, but that do depend upon some kind of "altruism".

The idea that there is only "successful" or "average" or "not successful" is an afterward assignment. In fact, whether a species survives or not is often as much a matter of chance as "survival of the fittest". Further, this ability to care about others, not just family, and to consider killing "bad" may well be a key reason for some species to survive. It absolutely is part of why humanity has survived.

OOPS, see Any beat me to it:

Unfortunately I don't think the Full Article is available online yet, but I read through it in a library a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ooperation
Why We Help: The Evolution of Cooperation


--Andy

but, that is hardly the only article.

here are a few more:
http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20100922/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/books ... wanted=all

http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/evolution/

[PLAYER57832]

Hitler was all about evolution as I understand it. He was trying to create the uberace (sp?). And if you read medical journals, thanks to his euthanasia and forced sterilization programs the German people have some of the lowest genetic problems in the world. And it might not be considered stupid to kill your family. Look at how many animal species do it. Survival of the fittest and all that.

I have heard this before.. most notably when I went to see an orthodontist in Scandinavia who insisted that Americans have bad teeth because we are so "mixed". BUT.. that ignores another well known fact from animal breeding. Namely, that mutts tend to be much stronger and healthier than pure breds.

The real problem with Hitler, with any such plan, is that we are so very poor at deciding what "good" really is, genetically or otherwise. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, we still cannot even condone letting parents, a mother decide not to bear a child with extremely serious issues.

Further, why do you have to have an evolutionary viewpoint to make it ok? I mean, animals rape and murder without reasoning through it and as I understand you we are no different.

Actually most animals don't really, not without purpose. The wolverine, a couple other species and humans are the only ones known to kill for reasons other than defense or food. Rape? To be rape, the act must be forced in a way that is not considered normal for the society. I don't think you can view what happens in the animal world in that regard as being akin to rape or consent. Its at once simpler (sex is based on changin hormones, which are biologically "timed".. if the timing is mismatched between partners is that truly "lack of consent?" or a biological mismatch?) and more complex (procreation is necessary for the proliferation of the species, but many animal species do not live male-female together like we do. You have variation from the black widow to bears to some species that do mate for life).

When you start trying to tie humanity to other animals too closely, you get into trouble, largely because there is just such great variety in all things within animals. It can be philisophically interesting, but not too informative in a factual way.

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

Consequences matter because good intentions (or good moral arguments that are valid and sound) may still cause negative unintended consequences. If one completely disregarded the consequences, then they wouldn't understand that their good intentions could be creating harm. Since such negligence is not good, then we should seriously consider 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?

(1) The people affected by your decisions would care, so "not exactly."

(2) I'm not sure where you're going with this question, so here's a few responses:

(a) I'm not the only one deciding what is right and wrong.
(b) It depends on the results of a cost-benefit analysis, but the problems of "intractibility," subjective valuation, and the inability to make interpersonal comparisons of utility lead me to this conclusion: normative/value judgments are taken as given at the onset and then applied to the analysis, and this can lead to contradictory results. In other words, I can sidestep normative arguments by illuminating consequences from a positive science approach (i.e. not a normative science approach).

Then, we live in a world of uncertainty. The counterfactual of a series of policies can either lend support, thus moral justification, for one's means, and it could diminish support.

So, for example,
"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?"

I'll take the normative attitude that initiating conflict against others is wrong except in cases of self-defense. Then, after a cost-benefit analysis, which I need not get into detail (genocide and starting a world war?), I can conclude that the actions of Hitler were morally wrong.

How advanced was his thinking? Huh? It doesn't matter because one still needs to defend one's policies in order to show that the policies were morally correct. We could setup a standard for reasons which we can deem as good. Was genocide a good reason for Hitler in order to consolidate his control over a country and promote the growth of a particular group of people? Sure, to him, but not to me and most other people--mainly because it isn't right to suppress and exterminate particular groups of people on piss-poor grounds (e.g. Aryanism is teh best! or Jews are ruining our country!, which wasn't true).

[BigBallinStalin]

Hitler was all about evolution as I understand it. He was trying to create the uberace (sp?). And if you read medical journals, thanks to his euthanasia and forced sterilization programs the German people have some of the lowest genetic problems in the world. And it might not be considered stupid to kill your family. Look at how many animal species do it. Survival of the fittest and all that.

Further, why do you have to have an evolutionary viewpoint to make it ok? I mean, animals rape and murder without reasoning through it and as I understand you we are no different.

In order to justify eugenics or the building of the UberMensch, I'd require really strong evidence.

"the German people have some of the lowest genetic problems in the world."

(1) I'd love to see the article on that.
(2) How does this claim sync with the generations of immigrants into Germany who became "the German people"?
(3) After clarifying what "the German people" are exactly, then how does one account for other causes, e.g. accumulation of wealth, government/private healthcare provision (post-1950s), etc.?
(4) How do other peoples compare? How did they collect the data on that?

[puppydog85]

A quick look around and I could not find it, stalin. But anyone with a mind can see that it would work. If a disease is genetic (take mental retardation) and you sterilize all gene carriers, then you would see a reduction in that problem. Anyway, Stalin and player, I was not really talking to you with those questions. I was addressing Gillipeg and pmc who made some very interesting observations.

[puppydog85]

Stalin, where I was going was asking why you assume that just because something has a "good" consequence (in whatever terms you want to view "good" eg. cost benefit) it therefore should be the "moral" or right thing to do? You assume that it is best not to die, maybe the samurai code is best and we all need to seek honorable death in combat. This is of course leaving the whole question begging aside as to why cost-benefit is the supreme code of right and wrong.