I think I can live with this...

[DRSmith]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but if you clarify I'll take a shot.

Animals by instinct tend to what is best for their group, humans tend to do things that harm the over all seeking their own personal interests to the damage of others.

[mardi gras skin]

Even those of us who don't see humanity as anything more special than the other animals who inhabit the Earth still have morals. If we didn't we'd probably be called psychopaths.

Another person, though, could agree with you that humans are no more special than other animals. They could conclude that hunters are murders and they could take steps to stop the murders. They might even kill hunters in order to keep fellow animals from being killed.

I would see this person as mentally unwell. But if humans have no intrinsic value, this person could reasonably be viewed as mentally healthy and acting in a morally upright way.

[Spec138]

Animals by instinct tend to what is best for their group, humans tend to do things that harm the over all seeking their own personal interests to the damage of others.

I'm not sure what kind of evidence there is supporting this, seeing as the human "group" has absolutely dominated the Earth. Not only that, but we are able to cooperate to break the limits of our Earth, our moon, and our star. Humans may act selfishly in petty situations but the truth is the majority of people do not rape, pillage and murder.

[DRSmith]

I'm not sure what kind of evidence there is supporting this, seeing as the human "group" has absolutely dominated the Earth. Not only that, but we are able to cooperate to break the limits of our Earth, our moon, and our star. Humans may act selfishly in petty situations but the truth is the majority of people do not rape, pillage and murder.

We did not explore space out of a desire to work together it was done to give one nation superiority over another.

We did not seek the best interest of all humans just that which made some feel better and benefitted one part of the population.

Much like when dictators that dealt harshly with people were put in power not because of caring about the whole Earth and all people just for some, self interests over the interests of all.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Whatever ethical limitations they decide to endorse and abide by of their own accord.

So basically anything goes?

There's a difference between believing that human life has no intrinsic value and believing that human life has no value whatsoever. The latter represents an undeniably dangerous frame of mind and one that is essentially only held by true sociopaths, the former is more or less a different interpretation of the status quo.

If human life has no intrinsic value, then the only value that it can be said to have is subjective value; meaning the value that one person places upon life that can and will differ from one person to another. You call them sociopaths but under the OP philosophy they are no more wrong or right than anyone else in doing the things they do, unless you're going to argue for majority rules, and even then the value in majority rules is wholly arbitrary as it in itself has no intrinsic value therefore the rule of Stalin and Hitler are just as righteous as the rule of our government. That's where seeing life as having no intrinsic value gets you, and you can feel free to argue against the slippery slope, but I have history on my side.

---------- Post added February-10th-2011 at 10:11 PM ----------

I think this argument can be made for anyone... there have been religious people who have believed others different from themselves have no value.

Irrelevant, intrinsic value is not dependent upon anyone person's recognition of that value regardless of whether or not that person has faith...intrinsic value is by definition valuable in its own existence not because someone says it is so, so if a person of any faith says that certain life has no value they are wrong.

[Spec138]

We did not explore space out of a desire to work together it was done to give one nation superiority over another.

We did not seek the best interest of all humans just that which made some feel better and benefitted one part of the population.

Much like when dictators that dealt harshly with people were put in power not because of caring about the whole Earth and all people just for some, self interests over the interests of all.

I'm not going to start talking about these topics because I think we have gotten far off the original topic. Your main point was that humans work in their best interests, which they do, and they do it making the whole worse off. This simply isn't true and it's illustrated by the dominance we have over all other species.

---------- Post added February-10th-2011 at 11:43 PM ----------

Another person, though, could agree with you that humans are no more special than other animals. They could conclude that hunters are murders and they could take steps to stop the murders. They might even kill hunters in order to keep fellow animals from being killed.

I would see this person as mentally unwell. But if humans have no intrinsic value, this person could reasonably be viewed as mentally healthy and acting in a morally upright way.

Humans have a capacity to suffer in many more ways than any other animals which is a reason I don't think that logic is reasonable.

[techboy]

In 2004, a tsunami in the Indian Ocean killed 227,898 people (according to Wikipedia, precision is not important to the point).

Nobody, I think, would call the tsunami "evil", though. It was simply the inevitable result of a particular set of natural forces in combination, cause and effect, most of which we can even explain and pinpoint.

If the naturalistic world view is true, there is nothing beyond the material. My thoughts, and therefore actions, are simply the inevitable result of a particular arrangement of atoms in my brain, and that arrangement is the inevitable result of a particular set of natural forces in combination, cause and effect, ultimately going all the way back to the Big Bang. The system is much more complex, and so perhaps not as predictable as a tsunami to us, but that doesn't make it any less deterministic.

On this view, there is no "evil". Hitler (and Stalin, and Mao, and Jerry Jones) was just another wave.

So, assuming that the premise of the OP (there are no gods) is true, then yes, there is no purpose, and no good, and no evil, and no value in human life, and no anything else.

You can't really even "make your own purpose", though, because there's no free will either.

Of course, most people reject the idea that there is no evil, even most atheists (who one hears object that they don't need to believe in God to be a good person, which is totally true, and also totally misses the point), and I do, and so I have to disagree.

---------- Post added February-10th-2011 at 11:07 PM ----------

Humans have a capacity to suffer in many more ways than any other animals which is a reason I don't think that logic is reasonable.

If humans have no intrinsic value, who cares how much any particular human suffers?

[Spec138]

If humans have no intrinsic value, who cares how much any particular human suffers?

Already talked about this once.

Luckily humans evolved a form of empathy that can also be seen in our Bonobo and Chimpanzee cousins. Social animals that are weak on their own really require trust in those around you to thrive; it's not surprising at all that we developed morality. Even those of us who don't see humanity as anything more special than the other animals who inhabit the Earth still have morals (though I do admire the large differences in intellect and other human features over our animal counterparts). If we didn't we'd probably be called psychopaths.

I do have a naturalistic world view and even if your speculation is all true, why does that matter? We can't assign value to humanity simply because the alternative is troubling.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Interesting. So, in a world where each person decides whether or not humanity has value, some mentally healthy people will obviously decide humanity does not have value, right?

There are undoubtedly some healthy people who will decide that humanity has no value. Humanity is an over-arching and rather nebulous concept, though. It is actually possible to place no value in humanity as a whole and still value the company of other individual human beings.

Why? Some people are inclined to play by rules because they value rules, but others don't. There's nothing about following rules that, in itself, indicates mental health. If I think I can get away with stealing, raping, and killing without suffering consequences, why wouldn't I?

Maybe I'm more creative than others, but can think of any number of ways to take advantage of people around me. I would never do it but fear of personal danger is not a motivating factor.

I said that people will play by the rules "to a certain extent". There's no guarantee that they will strictly abide by them but if they are of sound mind they will be hesitant to do anything too drastic so as not to suffer punishment by or expulsion from their society. As far as a consequence free scenario goes, the only thing that would stop you at that point would be empathy for your potential victims.

So basically anything goes?

Sure.

If human life has no intrinsic value, then the only value that it can be said to have is subjective value; meaning the value that one person places upon life that can and will differ from one person to another.

I would say that this is demonstrably true.

You call them sociopaths but under the OP philosophy they are no more wrong or right than anyone else in doing the things they do,

The sociopath reference was perhaps an example of me conflating a few different ideas running through my head to poor effect. As empathic, social beings we're bound to place value in the life of at least one other human besides our own selves unless, of course, our internal wiring isn't quite right (e.g., sociopathy). It's our eagerness to seek out others of our kind whom we can relate to and work in unison with that lends itself to the inevitable creation of a moral code.

The important thing to keep in mind is that right, wrong, morality, and ethics are merely terms. They are subject to interpretation just as much as anything else in this world is. Sociopaths are not dangerous because they are wrong in any absolute terms, they are dangerous simply because they act purely out of self-interest and care not for the lives of others.

unless you're going to argue for majority rules, and even then the value in majority rules is wholly arbitrary as it in itself has no intrinsic value therefore the rule of Stalin and Hitler are just as righteous as the rule of our government. That's where seeing life as having no intrinsic value gets you, and you can feel free to argue against the slippery slope, but I have history on my side.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're making here. Are you saying that life without intrinsic value gets you Stalin and Hitler? What exactly is the slippery slope? How is history on your side?

You can't really even "make your own purpose", though, because there's no free will either.

Sure you can. Even if everything before you is written out well in advance you still have to live through it and make that choice about your purpose, even if it isn't really a choice.

Determinism is fun :pfft:

If humans have no intrinsic value, who cares how much any particular human suffers?

People who place completely arbitrary value in that particular human.

[RansomthePasserby]

I think this argument can be made for anyone... there have been religious people who have believed others different from themselves have no value.

And in doing so are directly contradicting religion, and are therefore a poor example of a religious person (assuming by "religion" you mean Christianity.). I would even go so far as to say they are non-religious by definition. After all, Jesus explicitly said there is no commandment greater than "Love God and love others as yourself."

[PokerPacker]

Agree/disagree?

that's my philosophy

[edgun88]

There are so many religions with so many different gods all saying that their god is the god that you must believe in to get into an eternally peaceful afterlife. SO ALL OF THOSE RELIGIONS HAVE TO BE WRONG EXCEPT FOR ONE!!! RIGHT??? Well, which one is it? Nobody knows....they just believe that the religion they follow is the right one...so are trillions and trillions of people that have died since the beginning of time getting ****ed when it comes to the ultimate decision by god(s) if they are worthy of a peacefully eternal life? Well, according to all religions...yes. :jerk:

Thats one of the many reasons why I don't believe in god(s). But, on the contrary, I don't fault people for being religious or believing in god(s) because I strongly believe there is nothing wrong with it. I mean I believed in Santa and the Easter bunny when I was a kid. Its pretty much the exact same thing. I think it is harmless and, no, I'm not being condescending.

[mardi gras skin]

There are undoubtedly some healthy people who will decide that humanity has no value. Humanity is an over-arching and rather nebulous concept, though. It is actually possible to place no value in humanity as a whole and still value the company of other individual human beings.

I said that people will play by the rules "to a certain extent". There's no guarantee that they will strictly abide by them but if they are of sound mind they will be hesitant to do anything too drastic so as not to suffer punishment by or expulsion from their society.

Ok, I think I understand you now. You believe that mentally healthy people can come to the conclusions that humans have no value. Those people are only held in check by punishment from the State.

Here's where I come out. Humans have inalienable value. I do not agree with you that human value is grated by the State (law). In my view, action by the State to deny human value is in conflict with value intrinsic to humanity. If all governments everywhere decided that Africans or Jews or women are subhuman, government would be wrong because humans have intrinsic value. And any person agreeing with the State that some group of humanity (or humanity as a whole) has no value has lost an essential element of their own humanity.

[Hunny]

Disagree.

Simply put - I believe there's more to life than what I can see. I don't believe I was created to fully grasp the meaning of life at this point.

In my humble opinion, right now all I should be concerned about is giving back to this world, and loving others. I don't believe in hedonism.

I don't believe that I'm being naive or avoiding the reality of finality.

I don't really know what to expect after death, and I don't know that there's only one, straight-forward, black and white path to salvation.

But I do know that I believe there's a God, and there is a purpose. It's just not all-together clear to me what the end result is.

I can live without knowing and still be happy.

To add onto this:

Trying to rationalize the finite details of human life, our purpose, and our destiny would just drive me bat-**** crazy. I don't believe there is one clear answer, and if there is there's certainly no way of knowing what it is. So, I've learned how to accept that we as human's don't have all the answers. Life is too abstract for that.

[Conn]

Why is it so threatening to some, to entertain the idea that humans are merely the most highly evolved and complex creatures on the planet, with the highest brain function? Is it really that scary to admit that we might not have a purpose, or that there isn't any meaning behind our existence? I've always seen religion as a direct response to this, a way to combat the "why am I here, and for what purpose?" questions that inevitably come along with having that human brain. And its developed from there.

Edit: This isn't directed at anyone in particular.

[mardi gras skin]

Why is it so threatening to some, to entertain the idea that humans are merely the most highly evolved and complex creatures on the planet, with the highest brain function? Is it really that scary to admit that we might not have a purpose, or that there isn't any meaning behind our existence? I've always seen religion as a direct response to this, a way to combat the "why am I here, and for what purpose?" questions that inevitably come along with having that human brain. And its developed from there.

Edit: This isn't directed at anyone in particular.

Strange for this to come up in this thread as I haven't seen anyone express fear in entertaining ideas.

I don't know why people would be scared of ideas. Likewise, entertaining new ideas isn't really a sign of bravery. Some ideas just aren't that good.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There are undoubtedly some healthy people who will decide that humanity has no value. Humanity is an over-arching and rather nebulous concept, though. It is actually possible to place no value in humanity as a whole and still value the company of other individual human beings.

To what end? If there is no value in humanity then there is no value in the company of human beings, to say otherwise is a contradiction. If you still find value in the company of humans then you find value in some small part of humanity as a whole. If you find no value in humanity then there can be no value in the company of humans.

I said that people will play by the rules "to a certain extent". There's no guarantee that they will strictly abide by them but if they are of sound mind they will be hesitant to do anything too drastic so as not to suffer punishment by or expulsion from their society. As far as a consequence free scenario goes, the only thing that would stop you at that point would be empathy for your potential victims.

What right has any society got to punish anyone who doesn't play by their arbitrary rules? You're advocating the tyranny of half plus one, or the tyranny of the strongest (might makes right).

Sure.

You do realize that "anything" means anything right? Thus the example of Stalin, Hitler and the sociopath are all perfectly legitimate expressions under this philosophy and cannot be rightly judged by anyone as being wrong...because after all there is no wrong.

I would say that this is demonstrably true.

All you can prove is that human life has subjective value, you cannot prove that it has no intrinsic value, all you can rightly say is that you do not recognize the intrinsic value of human life, which in the end is not a statement regarding the reality of the intrinsic value.

The sociopath reference was perhaps an example of me conflating a few different ideas running through my head to poor effect. As empathic, social beings we're bound to place value in the life of at least one other human besides our own selves unless, of course, our internal wiring isn't quite right (e.g., sociopathy). It's our eagerness to seek out others of our kind whom we can relate to and work in unison with that lends itself to the inevitable creation of a moral code.

Ahh, don't back peddle from the sociopath on my account, because in order for your system to work it must take into account the life of the sociopath. You say their "wiring isn't quite right", and to that I'd say under your system, "Says who?" Their wiring is just different, and no judgment can be made regarding the results of said wiring differences. As for the last sentence in the previous quote, I don't think I've ever seen a more faith-laden statement outside of the church in my life. Because I can just as easily say that is because of the intrinsic value in each human life that leads us to seek out others to relate to others and to work with others as reflected in the moral code.

The important thing to keep in mind is that right, wrong, morality, and ethics are merely terms. They are subject to interpretation just as much as anything else in this world is. Sociopaths are not dangerous because they are wrong in any absolute terms, they are dangerous simply because they act purely out of self-interest and care not for the lives of others.

In secular ethics sure those are just terms, and they are terms used by the oppressing majority. They oppress the sociopath through no fault of his/her own because they do not agree with the life of the sociopath, and instead of recognizing the legitimacy of the sociopath they restrict him/her and thus make arbitrary judgments upon his/her life; judgments that have no more meaning than a grain of sand, but judgments that are still enforced by the tyranny of the majority.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're making here. Are you saying that life without intrinsic value gets you Stalin and Hitler? What exactly is the slippery slope? How is history on your side?

I'm saying that if one does not recognize the intrinsic value of human life then one cannot rightly judge Hitler and or Stalin (or any other mass murderer for that matter). The slippery slope you're left defending is saying that Hitlers and Stalins don't have to happen; i.e. people can stop before they ever reach that point, and how I have history on my side is that history is chock full of people just like Hitler and Stalin.

[Conn]

Strange for this to come up in this thread as I haven't seen anyone express fear in entertaining ideas.

I don't know why people would be scared of ideas. Likewise, entertaining new ideas isn't really a sign of bravery.

The overall idea of that post was that more people might believe it, if they weren't afraid of the idea. Religion calms those fears for many. So, in my eyes, I think that many people are in fact afraid of entertaining the idea.

Some ideas just aren't that good.

Nice little jab at the end here, which isn't really necessary. I'm saying that I don't believe in a God or gods, sure. But I'm not belittling your views. Just saying that I think many people embrace religion because it gives them an answer to those hard questions.

[lavar1156]

Why is it so threatening to some, to entertain the idea that humans are merely the most highly evolved and complex creatures on the planet, with the highest brain function? Is it really that scary to admit that we might not have a purpose, or that there isn't any meaning behind our existence? I've always seen religion as a direct response to this, a way to combat the "why am I here, and for what purpose?" questions that inevitably come along with having that human brain. And its developed from there.

Edit: This isn't directed at anyone in particular.

It comes down to the fact that I don't think I would exist if there wasn't a God. I'm not talking about human existence, I'm talking about the ability to understand that I have a life.

[Conn]

It comes down to the fact that I don't think I would exist if there wasn't a God. I'm not talking about human existence, I'm talking about the ability to understand that I have a life.

You have the ability to understand that you have a life, and the ability to question "why?" like this, because you have a highly evolved brain that allows for such thoughts. Why is that harder to believe than the existence of a completely absent creator?

[HOF44]

I love these kind of threads. Go ConnSKINS26 & EA!

[mardi gras skin]

But I'm not belittling your views. Just saying that I think many people embrace religion because it gives them an answer to those hard questions.

No, you're belittling the REASON people like me hold my views.

Cute.

Don't throw stones and then play the victim. The broad brush pop-psychology thing is boorish. It enables you to dismiss people who disagree with you because of a motive you've ascribed to them.

I don't know why you are predisposed to deny the intrinsic value of humans and I'm not not going to ascribe "fear" or "arrogance" or any other descriptor to your motivation. I don't know you or the formation of your psyche. I can only read your words and attempt to understand your ideas.

[Mr. Sinister]

:munchout: Oh boy

[techboy]

Already talked about this once.

Yes, you did, but you didn't answer the question, which is why should I care about suffering? The idea that human evolution has led to empathy doesn't mean we should make use of it.

Evolutionary biologists, for instance, tell us that stress evolved in human beings as a survival mechanism to avoid immediate danger. The lion's going to eat me, stress kicks in, hormone and adrenaline levels shoot up, I act, I live, the stress ends.

In the modern world, though, stress can be constant. My job can stress me for weeks on end, without pause. This isn't healthy. It causes ulcers, mental strain, all manner of problems.

So, what do we, as humans, do? We use a variety of stress relievers. We go to counseling. We take psychoactive drugs. We ignore the evolutionary pressures, and even work against them.

Likewise, the fact that evolutionary pressures might lead to our moral code doesn't mean we should or have to follow it. So, I ask again:

Why should anyone care if humans suffer more than animals?

I do have a naturalistic world view and even if your speculation is all true, why does that matter?

It's not speculation. It's the rock-solid, unavoidable conclusion that follows from materialism. The only speculation that might exist there is the speculation that there is no god, and I granted that to explore the consequences.

We can't assign value to humanity simply because the alternative is troubling.

No, I totally agree. If atheism is true, humanity has no value. It's a fallacy to argue by consequence.

I can thus totally respect the atheist that follows this to its logical conclusion, and actually acknowledges that there is no right, no wrong, no inherent human value, none of it. It's very rare, but you can see it in the writings of Nietzche, or some of the existentialists like Sartre.

What often happens, though, is that as I noted, the most people recognize that there is right, and that humans do have intrinsic value. This is even true of many atheists, who try to sneak that knowledge in the back door without acknowledging that it is contrary to their world view. Sometimes they're inconsistent, like Richard Dawkins who will in one passage write that there is no right and wrong, and in another argue that the religious are committing "child abuse" and need to be stopped.

I'd argue that you might have been falling into this trap as well, by appealing to human suffering.

If you're going to bite the bullet and argue that there is no intrinsic value to human life, then own up to all of it, like Nietzsche.

Sure you can. Even if everything before you is written out well in advance you still have to live through it and make that choice about your purpose, even if it isn't really a choice.

If it's not a choice, it's not a choice. You're the prisoner of a certain configuration of atoms in your brain.

People who place completely arbitrary value in that particular human.

Yes, I thought someone might answer me that way.

What I mean by "who cares", of course, is why should I care?

Apparently, your answer is that I shouldn't, but are you willing to take this to its logical conclusion?

There are so many religions with so many different gods all saying that their god is the god that you must believe in to get into an eternally peaceful afterlife. SO ALL OF THOSE RELIGIONS HAVE TO BE WRONG EXCEPT FOR ONE!!! RIGHT???

This isn't necessarily true, since not all religions are mutually exclusive, but it's true enough. Still, it's illogical to jump from that to this...

Thats one of the many reasons why I don't believe in god(s).

... because it is fallacious to suggest that since most people are wrong, none of them can be right. That simply doesn't follow.

We can see this by expanding your group to include atheists: "Lots of people believe lots of different things about gods, and whether or not they even exist, or can know they exist, and only one group can be right. The rest have to be wrong, right? Therefore I reject all religions, atheism, and agnosticism."

Your view refutes atheism too, and leads to a kind of radical skepticism of knowledge that is untenable.

Perhaps a simpler example is this. For thousands of years the best thinkers of the day thought that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. When the alternative was proposed, most people were still wrong. Does that mean Copernicus was wrong too? Of course not.

If 99% of the world thinks that 2+2=5, it's still true that 2+2=4.

You have the ability to understand that you have a life, and the ability to question "why?" like this, because you have a highly evolved brain that allows for such thoughts. Why is that harder to believe than the existence of a completely absent creator?

Evolution is a blind mechanism that rewards survival.There is no reason to believe that this mechanism alone in blind fashion would lead to the ability to correctly philosophize about the world and our place in it.

[mardi gras skin]

You have the ability to understand that you have a life, and the ability to question "why?" like this, because you have a highly evolved brain that allows for such thoughts. Why is that harder to believe than the existence of a completely absent creator?

You are assuming that lavar1156 believes there is a completely absent creator. His view that there is a creator (maybe even an active and present creator) is not unreasonable. You may disagree with the reasoning, but you should at least understand and acknowledge the worth of those ideas you disagree with before assuming their point of view is simply based on fear or lack of information.