Evolution, religion, animals, and Slavery - Page 5 - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

Evolution, religion, animals, and Slavery

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

06-13-2013 , 01:36 PM

#101

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

No i am not saying its morally wrong, i am saying its unjustified.

So? In a non-moral framework it doesn't need to be justified.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 01:44 PM

#102

RollWave

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 12,570

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

No I am not saying what you should do,

yes you are, your agenda was laid out here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

First step to such evolutionary or technological change is

You want to get to "we should change to ...", so you start by proposing that the status quo is unjustified.

suppose it were conceded that treating species differently isn't justified - so what? can you justify treating them the same? if not, what's the point?

Quote

06-13-2013 , 01:45 PM

#103

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

So? In a non-moral framework it doesn't need to be justified.

Yes this is why i thought you were trying to help.

I am simply making the observation there is no scientific and therefore no logical justification for treating humans this way (no slavery not eating), but not animals.

For anyone who has said I have no justification to suggest its immoral is arguing something I did not wish to say.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 01:46 PM

#104

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

For anyone who has said I have no justification to suggest its immoral is arguing something I did not wish to say.

If it's not immoral against which framework does it have to be justified?

Quote

06-13-2013 , 01:53 PM

#105

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

If it's not immoral against which framework does it have to be justified?

I am not suggesting it does. I am pointing out is it not.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 01:57 PM

#106

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

I am simply making the observation there is no scientific and therefore no logical justification for treating humans this way (no slavery not eating), but not animals.

Sure there is: One has a genome of X, the other has a genome of not-X.

You try to gain something by pointing out that while one has a genome of X the other has a genome of not-X-but-very-similar.

Before this turns into something tangible, you would have to introduce a (scientific/logical) principle that gives us scientific/logical reason to treat not-equal-but-similar things equal (or at least similar).

Quote

06-13-2013 , 01:57 PM

#107

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

If it doesn't have to be justified what are the disadvantages of not? If it's not morally wrong why should we care?

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:09 PM

#108

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

Sure there is:

One has a genome of X, the other has a genome of not-X.

This is an observation.

Quote:

You try to gain something by pointing out that while one has a genome of X the other has a genome of not-X-but-very-similar.

Theres nothing here that justifies anything.

Quote:

Before this turns into something tangible, you would have to introduce a (scientific/logical) principle that gives us scientific/logical reason to treat not-equal-but-similar things equal (or at least similar).

similarity and equality are not the same subject.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:12 PM

#109

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

If it doesn't have to be justified what are the disadvantages of not? If it's not morally wrong why should we care?

I point it out because many atheists and scientists think they are scientifically and therefore morally justified.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:13 PM

#110

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

This is an observation.

Theres nothing here that justifies anything.

similarity and equality are not the same subject.

Precisely my point.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:28 PM

#111

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

Precisely my point.

so when man feels slavery should be abolished because all men are created equal this is fully a religious belief.

Science maybe cannot prove immorality of slavery perhaps, but we have shown it certainly cannot divide humans from animals in this regard.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:44 PM

#112

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

Here you are lying again. In this thread you accuse those who don't treat humans like other animals of being hypocritical, being guilty, of suppression, and other moral terms. You were not just making the observation that there is no scientific justification for this action.

I would be charitable and assume this was just a mistake, except you have done this exact thing before when someone shows that your claims are false.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:50 PM

#113

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

I point it out because many atheists and scientists think they are scientifically and therefore morally justified.

So scientists and atheists believe that the treatment of other animals merits scientific and moral justification. They have considered it and found that treating other animals differently is morally justified.

You don't think treating other animals differently needs to be morally justified.

Which position values other animals more.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:50 PM

#114

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

no. saying we have no justification to go one way should not imply we are obligated to go the other.

I should point out again I eat meat.

Quote

06-13-2013 , 02:57 PM

#115

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

So scientists and atheists believe that the treatment of other animals merits scientific and moral justification.

No, but to treat them differently in regards to slavery suggests a motivation to do so.

Quote:

They have considered it and found that treating other animals differently is morally justified.

You would think so, since there would be a motivation behind the distinction.

Quote:

You don't think treating other animals differently needs to be morally justified

I don't think it is justified by science or logic.

Quote:

Which position values other animals more.

We don't have a context for this.

(I'm not sure I understood and of your questions)

Quote

06-15-2013 , 08:04 AM

#116

Piers

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

If we take evolution as a fact aren't we guilty of making slaves of and eating our equals (when directed towards animals)?

Only for a specific and rather odd use of the words slave and equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

Knowing we can spend time and technology evolving species to our 'level' isn't it really just suppression that we don't?

I don't know that we can evolve species to our level. Maybe later, but for some reason I can't help thinking of the augmentation of Androgums in the two doctors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy1234

Is there scientific justification to this or is it just religious?

Huh

Quote

06-15-2013 , 01:04 PM

#117

newguy1234

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 3,101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piers

Only for a specific and rather odd use of the words slave and equal.

I don't know that we can evolve species to our level. Maybe later, but for some reason I can't help thinking of the augmentation of Androgums in the two doctors.

Huh

Id def explain but I feel like you didn't read any of this because much of this is explained already.

Quote

Page 5 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 5 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last