| Subject: It's hard to argue with irreducability |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/11/02 6:53pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Indeed, but somewhat puzzling to me." on 12/11/02 5:59pm
>>Why is it
>>okay to euthanize little kittens but not humans? Why
>>is human life intrinsically worth more than feline
>>life?
>
>Various philosophical reasons could be given, some you
>would flatly reject. Being made in God's image, for
>example, and having some argument flow from there.
Yeah, I'd have to reject that. If we are made in God's image, then yes, we are more special, but that has yet to be proven to me.
>Yet it may be much simpler than that. It could be an
>irreducible truth. That is, a truth that cannot be
>further reduced into other axioms to support it. A
>possible example: can you prove the law of
>noncontradiction? Probably not. It is nonetheless
>objectively true, however.
Yes, I agree. But this analogy doesn't prove your point. It is useful only in illustrating your point. The underlying truth of whether or not human life is sacred by some universal truth must be demonstrated to me. Sure, it _could_ be true. Anything _could_ be true. But _is_ it true?
> Another possible example,
>can you prove that homicide is morally wrong? Perhaps
>not, but it is nonetheless objectively true.
I don't think homicide being wrong is an objective truth. I think it's relative to our culture. In our culture, we all agree that homicide is wrong. Certainly, it is good if we all agree to this. It protects our society from chaos. But I cannot agree that this is an objective, absolute moral truth.
>Unfortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the
>case that all irreducible truths are so easily
>perceived or agreed upon. Perhaps it lies also with
>the value of a human life, though that can
>understandably be disputable.
Well, if it's an irreducible truth, you'd think it would be easy enough to agree on. Otherwise, it comes down to a belief again.
>>Well, the whole idea of "person" is very vague, I
>>think.
>
>It is perhaps easier to recognize than to define. I
>am a person. You are a person. Murdering you is an
>unethical act. Murdering me is an unethical act.
You still didn't answer my question. What about the example I gave of the severely retarded person's life versus the life of the very intelligent, helpful dog? Which one's life is more valuable? By your definition, the human's life would be more valuable simply because he's human, but by any objective estimation, the dog's life would be worth more, since it contributes more to society.
>There may be instances in which recognizing something
>as a person is fuzzy. Yet persons exist.
Well, I think the word "person" is just something we use to describe the individuality of another human being. Much like the word "dog" describes a particular dog. It doesn't really obligate me to any action.
> Unjustified
>murder of persons is objectively unethical. Thus, if
>an unborn child is a person, killing the unborn child
>for the purposes of birth control is unethical.
Again, I don't agree that murder is _objectively_ unethical. I think it's a matter of practicality that we aren't allowed to murder each other. It keeps our societies together and functioning. I see no universal law that says murder is wrong. Tell a wolf not to kill a deer if he gets the chance. Nature is tough. Since God created nature, why don't we just look to nature for our morality? They kill whenever necessary, and for various reasons. Why would God have them do this if not to help us know the natural way things should be done?
>I'm speaking from a standpoint where the immorality of
>homicide is an axiom, a given. Few would dispute that
>terminating pregnancy justifies homicide, even if we
>can't think of a proof demonstrating why it is wrong.
>You believe, as I do, that homicide is morally wrong,
>even if you can't precisely explain why.
I completely disagree. The immorality of homicide is not an axiom in any sense. 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatic, the the immorality of homicide is culturally derived. The very reason it _isn't_ axiomatic is what you have listed... we can't think of a proof demonstrating why it is wrong. We simply _feel_ it is wrong.
I am starting to see why you are able to hold onto your beliefs if you accept such things as axiomatic and irreducible. Your criteria for these things is much lower than mine.
>We have to be careful on what we call “biases.” True,
>it may not be proven. But it is possible to
>rationally accept beliefs without proof or evidence.
Again, it's becoming more clear how you are able to maintain your beliefs in an invisible, untestable being.
>See my above comments. Nonetheless, I do agree that
>these are very good questions to be asking. I myself
>have asked these questions on more than one occasion.
Good. What did you conclude?
>>I don't really see how feeling pain is all that
>>important.
>
>Well, consider what we have here. The ability to feel
>pain implies sentience, and sentience implies life.
>It is my belief that killing a sentient human being
>for the purposes of birth control is an unethical act,
>and I am unable to see any point of view that would
>dictate otherwise.
Then by your logic, you must certainly believe the same thing about cats and dogs, which clearly feel pain.
>>3) I (and you) may have some inherent biases by
>>virtue of being human that are so deeply ingrained,
>>they simply seem like absolute moral truths.
>
>Quite correct. I would like to point out, however,
>that there exists the possibility of these “biases”
>being correct, even if we can’t explain why (though I
>suppose you are already aware of this possibility).
Yes, there is that possibility. But I don't usually base strong beliefs on possibility.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 