Subject:
|
Re: Are humans animals? Are humans MORE than animals?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Aug 2000 19:44:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
311 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Taking this tack, why the heck would it matter if you ate meat or not, and why
> would eating meat be evil, if nothing we do matters to the total reaction?
Well, that's a perfect example of why I don't take that tack. Even if it's
true, we don't gain by accepting no free will. And if it's wrong, we lose a
_huge_ amount (like everything that humanity is) by assuming the contrary
incorrectly.
> > 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.
>
> Wow, something we CAN agree on!
It's funny. I guess you're just worked up over the last few posts, but I bet
we agree on most things. That's one of those things I don't get...most people
are more similar than they are different. So why are there wars and such over
such trivial differences?
I don't get it.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
