Subject:
|
Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:35:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
270 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Maybe I missed it, but what's free will?
>
> I think it the freedom to exert some control over how you biochemically react
> to stimuli. The opposite is to assume we're part of a complex chemical
> reaction racing forward into the future and what we do, as a product of that
> reaction, doesn't matter since it is inevitable. All my logic suggests the
> latter is true, that is that we have no free will and that it's all a farce,
> but I see no benefit in accepting that.
I'd certainly go for the latter... However, I don't think that either gains
any sort of advantage nor affords any loss. That is, unless you take up the
sadly pessimistic view that "nothing I do matters", and turn into a lazy couch
potato as a result. Perhaps if we KNEW the future, there could be some
emotional consequence, but seeing as we don't, and probably won't anytime soon
(if ever, as Chaos theory suggests), I see no difference in believing either
opinion, free will or not.
> > humans to monkeys to dogs to octopuses to birds to worms to trees to
> > bacteria), the less 'reasoning' power there is. I don't think it's safe,
>
> Um..I think if you get far enough, you do get to an empty capacity for
> reasoning. Bacteria simply react in a chemical/phyisical sense.
Well, it could of course be argued that humans do that too, just on a more
complex scale. Until "reasoning power" is defined perfectly clearly and all
the necessary data is known about bacteria, I don't feel at liberty to say
that bacteria don't reason. I DO however feel at liberty to say that bacteria
reason less than humans (even if they don't reason, I'm still safe)
> I beleive we do have an increased capacity to ignore our instincts.
> We have them, but we have more ability to see reasons that they might not
> always serve us best, and as a result, we build other ways of dealing with
> situations.
>
> > ...the act of thinking BECOMES instinctive.
>
> I disagree. There is no such thing as becomming instinctive. If it becomes
> that way, then you are mistaking reactive for instinctive. It may be that
> thinking is instinctive, but I would more say that problem solving is
> instinctive, but I don't think it becomes instinctive.
Again, we have the whole free will issue mixed in here... what is the
difference between thought and instinct? It could be argued from a purely
scientific point of view that it's all part of the chemical process and that
it's ALL instinct... Personally, I think that thinking is instinctive to
humans anyway. That is to say that humans have the instinctive potential to
become the thinking beings we are, and that we exercise that potential...
Classically, though, you're right-- in philosophy there's always been a
differentiation made between instinct, trained reaction, and carefully thought
out action. And as such, it would be more proper to say that thinking becomes
a trained reaction. Of course, my reaction to that is getting back to the
point, animals have trained reactions as well, making thinking still a trained
reaction. But really, my response would be that it's all a result of:
- our instinct to favor good over bad
- our instinctive capacity to develop reactions based on experience
- our capacity to pre-meditate actions
And as such, it's all based off of instinct.
> So given your rules of morality, do you (or we) have any responsibility to be
> as moral as possible without destroying yourself?
Well, this begs the question of a definition of morality, but:
Do I? yes.
Do we? maybe.
Certainly I feel that I have a responsibility to be as moral as possible. And
in accordance with my morality, my own self-perservation counts for some
degree of morality. It can be outweighed by more pressing moral issues, but I
feel issues like eating meat are outweighed by my own survival.
> But the nature of morality is the central issue in some ways. One thing that
> is uncomfortable for many people is the idea that morality is just a feeling
> and thus is different from person to person. I think that many people would
> say that the actualization of (im)moral behavior varies from person to person,
> but that morality is immutable.
>
> Personally, I waver. I feel and think different things. I feel very moral --
> as mentioned previously I enjoy taking the moral high ground -- but I also
> think that morals are just made up ideas (like the ten commandments) to keep
> society in line and productive.
There's really a couple different schools of general morality, I think (you
seem to mention all of them):
A. Morality is universal-- what is moral for you is moral for me is moral for
everything/everyone.
B. Morality is societal -- what is good for the society is moral for those
living in it.
C. Morality is variable -- what is moral for me is not necessarily moral for
anyone else.
There's advantages and disadvantages to each of the above, but I find that I
go for morality being variable. That's just what makes sense to me... The sad
part is that it gets into needing to judge people by intent (As Lar so often
avoids), which is problematic for judging others, but I feel necessary. After
all, judging solely by actions I just don't feel is fair. I can envision
people whom I would deem innocent committing terrible acts (that's terrible
for me) and being no less moral for their actions.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
