Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 May 2000 19:41:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
987 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> If you expect to be flamed by me, guess again.
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I expected an imminent flame from
you...I was merely acknowledging that some people following this thread will no
doubt vehemently disagree with me.
> >
> > I think that there is a real inherent difference between eating human flesh • and
> > eating other animal flesh, because there is a difference between being Fully
> > Animal, and Merely Animal.
>
> Why does this difference (which I agree exists) have anything to do with being
> murdered?
I'm not sure that I follow your question...do you mean murdering any creature?
I see a difference between killing and murder...killing is an unfortunate part
of the reality of in this world for a great number of creatures...murder is in
cold-blood for no good reason.
> > awareness,
>
> Levels of awareness means what? If it's just a reitteration of intelligence,
> OK. If you are talking about perception, many animals perceive things that we
> don't, in ways that we don't.
True. See my reply regarding transcendentalism.
>
> > emotion
>
> This is unclear. I'm not willing to agree to this. For instance, I have
> observed clearly, expression of all the human emotions that I can think of, in
> cats. If you want to quantify the intensity of it, I think that's impossible
> to know. We certainly have cognitive abilities that help us to work with our
> emotions in ways that other animals do not.
Clearly many animals do express emotion, some to a more developed degree than
others. For lack of a better word, I'd say that cats are among the class of
animals that exhibit a "soulishness; horses, cats, dogs, err...since I've never
been around much livestock I can't give any specific examples, but I'm sure that
others can. Please see transcendentalism.
>
> > ...and transcendental qualities that no other
>
> What's that mean?
I tried to find a short, concise word for that quality that makes humans
spiritually aware, if you will. The great majority of humans have believed in
some sort of creative deity, or have pursued some means to come to terms with
the origin of our universe. I think that one can reasonably argue (not from a
water-tight position of certainty, but nonetheless with at least reasonable
merit) that humans are endowed with faculties of sensitivity and inquiry that
allow us to operate on a higher plane of awareness than all other animals.
>
> > animals on Earth are capable of. Humans are indeed Fully Animal, but not • Merely
> > Animal. I think that this is a powerful argument as to why humans possess the
> > greatest inherent value of any species on Earth - which is not to say that
>
> Value is not objective. That's not how the concept of value even works.
> Things are valuable to intelligences. I tend to value humans more than other
> animals because they can do more for me. OTOH, I value my pets more than I
> value most strangers. I disagree with the very concept of inherent value.
I fully admit that I argue from a presuppositional basis that this world has
been created by a benevolent God; therefore, my conclusions will not doubt be
different from those who hold the impersonal universe worldview. (I am,
however, a believer in creative evolution, but that is probably neither here nor
there for this debate.) As such, I do believe that all created life possesses
inherent value, but those respective values are not equal. Frankly, I believe
that humans possess these transcendent faculties because we have been endowed
with qualities that objectively make us more valuable than other life-forms.
Don't get me wrong: I believe that all other life-forms are remarkable and
wonderful (even creatures such as parasites, when viewed from a certain light).
Anyway, we will no doubt need to agree to disagree regarding the issue of
inherent value, but I think that a solidly reasonable case for it can
nonetheless be made.
> > other living thing does not possess inherent "rights" that must be respected • to
> > some degree - but that in the moral equation, when competing values must be
> > weighed in matters of survival, humans deserve greater consideration.
>
> When survival is on the line, all bets are off. Whoever's survival is at risk
> needs to look our for themselves. Tigers eat humans, humans eat deer, whatever
> it takes is what it takes.
Yes, but do we condemn a tiger because it chooses to kill a deer? We might wish
it were otherwise, but we don't condemn the act. Precious few creatures have
the capacity, innate ability, or even environmental luxury to chose alternative
means to sustain themselves. We humans, fortunately, possess that ability to a
high degree. Even under the extreme circumstances we can chose mercy, we can
chose not to kill. I may seem to be arguing both sides of the issue
here...although I am not a vegetarian, I do have great respect for moral
objections against it.
>
> So, as I mentioned in an other note, if you base this value on intellectual
> capability, in a variety of forms, and that's your explanation for who can eat
> whom, how do you feel about Mensa members picking through the alzheimer ward
> for scooby snacks?
By no means. I believe that the inherent value of a human being is not
contingent upon that human's intellectual ability; in the moral equation, I
believe that a human is a human. I guess to some up my arguments, humans have
the moral and "transcendental" ability to master our biology, if you will, to a
degree that no other creatures on this planet possess. We as a species can't
step out of the food chain altogether, but some of us can give it a go, and I
salute anyone who has the compassion and wherewithall to try.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) being (...) I mean, why does the difference between being fully animal and being merely animal have anything to do with who should be able to victimize whom? (...) I think that murder "is an unfortuante part of the reality of this world" too. (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| I'm rearranging here and there, not to mislead, but to address things in the order that I chose... (...) If you expect to be flamed by me, guess again. First, you are expressing eloquently a very normal belief. It's wrong (at least for me), but I'm (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
