The “other options” would be other things one might consider as general guidelines for moral decision making. In spite of what you just wrote, you haven’t offered any other principles for moral decision making besides sentience and suffering.

About your undergrad in English—good show. Now this is not a requirement or anything for posting here, but for what it’s worth, not using the shift key makes it harder for the rest of us to read what you write. It has the appearance of something you’re doing for your own convenience, regardless of how it might affect readers. I don’t know if that’s what really on your mind, but still you might want to think about that if you want people actually to read and understand what you write. But that’s your choice.

i gave this comment more as just a piece of information to help the greater thread-conversation along in terms of information (and hopefully to foster some understanding of folkbiology)

It’s a little tough for me to understand how that was helpful, too. Apparently you don’t put much stock in what you had to say on it, and you didn’t posture it as “folkbiology.” If it’s a red herring you intended to write, you might as well have said so, or else not have bothered to throw it in there.

Please read the discussion policies, esp. #5.

Noted. piece of advice: if you could place a more noticeable link in your menu bar (or elsewhere), it would be appreciated (hadnt found discussion rules before). funniest part: i have my undergrad in english.

1. Why is sentience and suffering the only moral category you apply, j.? Where does it come from? How does it become chosen over other options?

the first question: if im to understand, i would respond by saying its not the only moral category i apply. second question: it comes partially from fostering a concept of empathy, which though not necessary, in my mind, is hard to argue against without saying “we’re cool with some things being in pain and suffering”. third question: im not sure what other options you are referring to. the option to eat meat? see answer to question two.

2. The difference between boy and fish – pig – monkey is the image of God in humans, and the unique relationship God has with humans—especially in the Incarnation.

ill give you this at face value, but i fear that at face value it can be made to posit differences that dont exist between creatures, and further, to justify inhumane behavior against animals for our convenience (again, i lean heavily toward concepts of biblical stewardship)

race is a social construct, *not* a genetic one. however, there does appear to be some genetic differences between boys and their dogs.

i gave this comment more as just a piece of information to help the greater thread-conversation along in terms of information (and hopefully to foster some understanding of folkbiology).

you said there is a difference between fish – pig – boy (lets throw monkey in for fun). im asking you where you believe this differences lies in terms of both sentience and suffering.

1. Why is sentience and suffering the only moral category you apply, j.? Where does it come from? How does it become chosen over other options?
2. The difference between boy and fish – pig – monkey is the image of God in humans, and the unique relationship God has with humans—especially in the Incarnation.

Later:

race is a social construct, *not* a genetic one. however, there does appear to be some genetic differences between boys and their dogs.

Why do genetics determine whether a construct matters to groupings? Why can’t appearance? Race may not be a genetic construct, and it certainly isn’t one with hard boundaries, but it is nevertheless a real construct. If I ask you to picture in your mind the differences between people with African, Asian, European, etc., heritages you will undoubtedly form mental pictures of each grouping with considerable accuracy. You and I can both do that even while bearing in mind the large variations that also exist within each such group.

So we have groupings, that term which Paul has never yet in this discussion defined. What difference is there how we group them, whether by visual appearance or by genetics?

Please read the discussion policies, esp. #5. I see you’re not big on using the shift key, but I want to remain consistent with these guidelines.

Further to my last comment on your response to Deuce…
According to you we now have a situation where Evolution creates our values – necessarily. It sets up and provides inequality (differentially valued lives), it creates varying degrees of equality, it creates varying degrees of treatment of equals/unequals, it creates a variable equality to fluctuate over time and between people, etc. As you defend, Evolution is not merely silent on the issue, but actually, necessarily, determines it.

But you also recognize that the reality created by Evolution, the IS (our values), is not to be confused with the OUGHT. So once again we see that no moral value is right or wrong in your system and you undermine even your own claim to be able to say that relativistically, for you, other values are wrong. Again you show us why you can’t say this – without obvious inconsistency (I do think hypocrisy the better word) – because you happen to know the source, Evolution, and know that it does not create OUGHTS. So animals have the same value of life as humans, and animals don’t have the same value of life as humans, humans outside of certain groups are equal and humans outside of certain groups are not equal. Therefore, racism, a value created by evolution, and egalitarianism, a value created by evolution, are equally right (or wrong, or neither). Not just in an ultimate, absolute, sense, but in a relativistic sense, TO YOU, because you know their source and you know that source says nothing about OUGHTS.
Morality is at best an illusion but it is one that you have seen through.

This result, of course, has been concluded and pointed out before. But now you have given an evolutionary framework to the conclusion that there is no such thing as moral progress and no basis for moral judgment (again, in your system).

I’ll quote me again.

Evolution itself provides for and sets up inequality between members of different groups. Evolution does not provide for nor set up equality outside of one’s group. [according to Paul]

Thanks again.

Galatians 3:28:
There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.

I wish you well.

That sign doesn’t sound so wonderful to me.

Me neither. I don’t recall any pro-choice sign being wonderful. First thing I though in response to the sign was, why don’t you ask the mother discarding her unwanted child that question?

Some people, created through the process of evolution, think animals are equal to humans, and some people, similarly created, disagree.

How is this saying anything other than that you believe evolution is the process by which people came to be? As such, as the only significant and ultimate force, it simply has to be responsible in some way for what you observe.

In fact, the mere creation of a group – that is, the boundary that separates a group from everyone/everything else – does both necessarily. Equality is created among the members within the group, and inequality is created between the members of the group and everyone else.

You are jumping several steps here. How can you claim that the creation of a group necessarily creates equal value of the lives among the members? What kind of animal are you talking about here, have you any experience with animals, and do you really think that animals in a group value one another’s lives equally?
And how is it necessary that the animals (human or otherwise – human preferably, since those are the creatures peopling PETA) value non-members any less than members? Isn’t this merely a restatement of a select data set? As counters, have you never noticed that some animals will place very little value on the lives of some members of their group? They will eat their own young, they will kill members of their same sex, they will chase them from the group, they will torture them to death, etc. On the other hand, they can also protect and aid non-members in ways that they don’t their own groups.

Me[Paul]:

Evolution doesn’t say that animal and human life are equal, nor does it say that they are unequal.


Charlie:

Now you are saying that the is of evolution is mute


Paul: What happened to the fallacy of the excluded middle?

Nothing. It refers to an excluded middle. There is no middle between “evolution doesn’t say A and evolution doesn’t say not A”. If says neither it is mute on the subject of A, not A.

What if evolution implies multiple answers, each operating only in its context? Relativistically?

Well then you can show some way this happens relevant to your position, demonstrate why, given this position, evolution does not imply inequality among humans, and show why this does not undermine your claim to equality as an overarching principle of your relative morality. But if it does, in fact, give multiple answers then there is no basis for your telling Tom that none of those answers, in none of those contexts, is that people and animals are of equal value. Since your version of what evolution tells us is merely to restate what is already observed (some people think this, and evolution took care of that, and some people think that, and evolution, again, is responsible) then there is absolutely no foundation for your claiming that it is not a straightforward inference from materialistic evolution to the equality of humans and animals.


I just heard the sarcasm in your initial reply.

Your ears are as deceptive as your eyes. You called my presentation tangled and I told you it wasn’t.



When you want to discuss this with me without the sarcasm, let me know.

Quoth Charlie:

That is easy. Since I always deal with the substance of your arguments the interesting point doesn’t really have much relevance though. But there are many other ways to avoid dealing with the substance, aren’t there?

If (as you said) evolution causes the inequality between the value of various groups, then state your context(s) so we can discuss it. In what context are the values equal and in what context are they unequal?

see my post immediately above.

Furthermore, if evolution deems them equal/unequal in a given context then isn’t this a necessary result of materialism?

I think I agree. The given context is crucial, making everything relative to the specifics of the context.

Me:

Not at all.

This denies Tom’s assertion, but it doesn’t claim solely the opposite. There are, I think, more possibilities than just Tom’s claim and its logical opposite. That is, evolution creates organisms who vary in their equal treatment of other organisms (some do, some don’t, some change, etc.), and this applies to humans as part of the process of evolution. So you just can’t say that evolution does single thing regarding equality, everywhere, for all time, for everyone. It creates multiple situations regarding equality (see below).

Me:

Evolution provides for very strong group bonding (which means not bonding with others outside the group), which sets up inequality.

Just because evolution set up inequality, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also set up equality. In fact, the mere creation of a group – that is, the boundary that separates a group from everyone/everything else – does both necessarily. Equality is created among the members within the group, and inequality is created between the members of the group and everyone else.

Furthermore, even just considering whether humans are equal to animals, evolution doesn’t require equality nor inequality. Some people, created through the process of evolution, think animals are equal to humans, and some people, similarly created, disagree.

What happened to the fallacy of the excluded middle? What if evolution implies multiple answers, each operating only in its context? Relativistically?

I think Charlie is granting you that already. If (as you said) evolution causes the inequality between the value of various groups, then state your context(s) so we can discuss it. In what context are the values equal and in what context are they unequal?

Furthermore, if evolution deems them equal/unequal in a given context then isn’t this a necessary result of materialism? For reference, I’ll put your original comment below…

TOM: 3) And it seems to me that equating human and animal life is a fairly straightforward inference to draw from materialistic evolutionary theory.

PAUL: Not at all. Evolution provides for very strong group bonding (which means not bonding with others outside the group), which sets up inequality.

race is a social construct, *not* a genetic one. however, there does appear to be some genetic differences between boys and their dogs.

I can’t imagine what it was in my last post that presumably led you to think that I would have some pronouncement on the absolute equality or lack thereof between Asians, Africans, boys, dogs, or whatever.

Err, this isn’t especially complicated, and I’m being generous when I say that.

It’s simple: Tom says that if materialism is true, then boys are equal to dogs. You responded by saying that no, evolution makes different groups unequal via group bonding, so that boys and dogs aren’t necessarily equal. I point out that if this is the case, then it means that different human races are also not equal. You respond by pretending to be confused by this.

It would appear that you are not a materialist (one who believes that only material things actually real) after all, but a mapolicorrecterialist (one who believes that only material things that are politically correct are actually real)

On another point: on what basis to you claim that animals suffer in the same way humans do, i.e., what is the basis for the equivocation on the point of suffering? That is a very valid and fair question.

i would make a distinction, that rorty used (inb4 moral relativist), and say that humans suffer in a slightly different way in that we conceptualize the future (thus feelings of dread, guilt, etc), and so we have a somewhat different cognitive way of suffering. however, again, i would point to the fact that creatures with central nervous systems *feel pain*, this includes humans, kittens, fish, etc.

stevek,

you making me laugh wit your landkitten and abortion comments. though i did see a wonderful pro-choice sign the other day:

“how many unwanted children have you adopted?”

Evolution doesn’t say that animal and human life are equal, nor does it say that they are unequal.

Charlie:

Now you are saying that the is of evolution is mute

What happened to the fallacy of the excluded middle? What if evolution implies multiple answers, each operating only in its context? Relativistically?

I just heard the sarcasm in your initial reply.

The basis of my questions is not tangled. You can work more on it if you like and it shouldn;t be too hard.

When you want to discuss this with me without the sarcasm, let me know.