Are humans always morally equally valuable?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Numerous times you've proclaimed a desire to see this world change, specifically the behavior of people. Those proclamations imply that such changes would be good, as opposed to bad.

Yet here you proclaim that humans are "no more morally valuable than a grain of sand".

I'm having trouble reconciling these things. Hence, my question.

That's if your seeking out cosmological ends to explain human morality. Consider it a cosmological constant that "life" as it's called is not valuable to the whole of the universe. Then our existence is only of value to us. If we look at it from a 3rd perspective, what if we were ants, does one ant hold more value than the next, not really. On the other hand, if you are an ant, you may disagree.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

That's if your seeking out cosmological ends to explain human morality. Consider it a cosmological constant that "life" as it's called is not valuable to the whole of the universe.

"Value" is irrelevant to the "whole of the universe". To say that the universe does or does not "value" something is ridiculous. The universe has no capacity to accept or reject values. "Value" is only applicable to living things.

Then our existence is only of value to us.

Basically, yes. But what does this demonstrate? Just because we value our existence and the universe does not, how does this mean that morality isn't "cosmological"? It's like suggesting that gravity can't be "cosmological" since the universe doesn't give two shits whether or not the atoms that comprise our bodies are held together.

If we look at it from a 3rd perspective, what if we were ants, does one ant hold more value than the next, not really. On the other hand, if you are an ant, you may disagree.

We aren't ants. You cannot prove something by saying "if we were ants, then we would be like ants, and maybe this or maybe that". It's childish hyperbole.

An ant cannot "disagree". That implies all sorts of functions alien to ants. Humans, however can. Humans can hold and assess values. Humans can then act to achieve those values, or act to reject other values. They make choices guided by morality, a code of ethics by which men act in the process of achieving their goals. The validity of that morality will dictate their success or their failure at achieving their values.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

"Value" is irrelevant to the "whole of the universe". To say that the universe does or does not "value" something is ridiculous. The universe has no capacity to accept or reject values. "Value" is only applicable to living things.

The universe is a living thing.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

The universe is a living thing.

How so?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

How so?

Are you serious?

Cosmo

catefrances wrote:

if it were in my power to save the human then i would do it. if it came down to an equal chance of saving the dog or the human, again i would pick the human. why? cause i am human. it's as simple as that. i place a higher value on a human life than i do any other animal.

...
That's all things being equal... regarding the physical attributes (distance to each life, dog or human, etc...). But, toss in a few variables and it may affect the outcome, depending upon the person.
Example: The Human in trouble is a perfect stranger... the dog is your pet. Does the outcome change?
or... the dog is your neighbor's dog... the human is the ex-convicted sex offender that moved into the house on the corner. Does the outcome change or remain?
The value of life and our morality changes as the situation changes. The same way I argue to people who claimn that it is wrong for Amnericans to value the lives of americans over the lives of people of other nations. It is relative... the same way my life has less value to you than yours. If given the choice of sparing your life.. the life of your spouse, your child, family member or friend or mine... I'm a goner in every case. Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? Who's to say?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

"Value" is irrelevant to the "whole of the universe". To say that the universe does or does not "value" something is ridiculous. The universe has no capacity to accept or reject values. "Value" is only applicable to living things.

More specifically, value is only applicable to humans.

Basically, yes. But what does this demonstrate? Just because we value our existence and the universe does not, how does this mean that morality isn't "cosmological"? It's like suggesting that gravity can't be "cosmological" since the universe doesn't give two shits whether or not the atoms that comprise our bodies are held together.

It's two different perspectives of looking at it. From inside the species each one of our moral value systems is different and we all believe our's is the correct one. From a 3rd person perspective, moral value is non-existent, meaning none of these individual value systems matters. Just as the worker ant is different than the others, within his community he has different values, but to us, they are all just ants.

We aren't ants. You cannot prove something by saying "if we were ants, then we would be like ants, and maybe this or maybe that". It's childish hyperbole.

An ant cannot "disagree". That implies all sorts of functions alien to ants. Humans, however can. Humans can hold and assess values. Humans can then act to achieve those values, or act to reject other values. They make choices guided by morality, a code of ethics by which men act in the process of achieving their goals. The validity of that morality will dictate their success or their failure at achieving their values.

Hey, I detect some condescension in your text, thought that was banned from the MT?

Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

More specifically, value is only applicable to humans.

Not really, no. Value is only applicable to life. Value implies three things: a subject that holds and recognizes a value, an object that is valued, and a purposeful condition that relates the two things.

My dogs value food, just as I do and for the same reasons, albeit in different ways.

It's two different perspectives of looking at it. From inside the species each one of our moral value systems is different and we all believe our's is the correct one. From a 3rd person perspective, moral value is non-existent, meaning none of these individual value systems matters. Just as the worker ant is different than the others, within his community he has different values, but to us, they are all just ants.

So the murderer's morality is no better or worse than your own? It has no more or less validity?

Hey, I detect some condescension in your text, thought that was banned from the MT?

I don't believe condescension was banned from the MT.

Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants.

Hehe...ok. I'll eagerly await your posts lamenting the abuses and sufferings of ants, just like the ones you make about people.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Not really, no. Value is only applicable to life. Value implies three things: a subject that holds and recognizes a value, an object that is valued, and a purposeful condition that relates the two things.

My dogs value food, just as I do and for the same reasons, albeit in different ways.

Aha, so the cosmos value gravity, because without it there would be no cosmos? See, what separates life from non-life? Organic matter, but it is still matter, it just has some unique properties.

So the murderer's morality is no better or worse than your own? It has no more or less validity?

Not particularly. However, the murderer may not be a fully functioning agent.

I don't believe condescension was banned from the MT.

Aha, so it's just me that gets shit on for it.

Hehe...ok. I'll eagerly await your posts lamenting the abuses and sufferings of ants, just like the ones you make about people.

But, I am not an ant.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Aha, so the cosmos value gravity, because without it there would be no cosmos? See, what separates life from non-life?

No. The cosmos can't value anything because it has no means to recognize and hold values.

Organic matter, but it is still matter, it just has some unique properties.

One of those unique properties is the absolute-ism of life. Life is unique because it has a purpose and can act to achieve that purpose. You can break life down all you want into matter and particles, but the division will lose the attribute of living.

Not particularly. However, the murderer may not be a fully functioning agent.

Huh? If there is no difference between man and ant, how can there be "fully functioning" agents?

Aha, so it's just me that gets shit on for it.

No. You get shit on for lots of reasons.

But, I am not an ant.

Are you sure? You just said this:

"Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants."

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

No. The cosmos can't value anything because it has no means to recognize and hold values.

How do you know?

One of those unique properties is the absolute-ism of life. Life is unique because it has a purpose and can act to achieve that purpose. You can break life down all you want into matter and particles, but the division will lose the attribute of living.

What's the purpose? Is a uranium-235 isotope not purposeful, does it not purpose to decay into lead?

Huh? If there is no difference between man and ant, how can there be "fully functioning" agents?

A semi-functional agent in my intent was someone who has brain damage.

No. You get shit on for lots of reasons.

One reason! People don't agree with me. Unfotunately for them, I'm speaking fact, and it is something they will need to acknowledge in the very near future. Very near future. By 2029, Neuroscientists expect to have a complete map of the brain and a full understanding of the brain software. They are already able to interfer with brain processing, to the point that they've radio-controlled mice and bulls.

Are you sure? You just said this:

"Men or ants, there is no difference. We are all driven by universal mathematical laws. Our movements, thoughts, and vital systems are all a result of atoms behaving in particular ways, which occured due to prior causes. Our choice is limited, just as the ants."

I am not an ant, therefor ants do not matter to me, as I am a human, humans matter to me.

boxwine_in_hell

Binaural wrote:

Catefrances' thread has inspired me

So, thoughts?

Morality is a human invention.

Ahnimus

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Morality is a human invention.

Precisely!

Kann

I think morality is the name given to the instincts necessary to have a sociable life, and are absolute for our species as we are meant to socialize. But not everyone is equal as some are born with defects, a lack of those instincts and are unable to live a "normal" social life.

Ahnimus

Kann wrote:

I think morality is the name given to the instincts necessary to have a sociable life, and are absolute for our species as we are meant to socialize. But not everyone is equal as some are born with defects, a lack of those instincts and are unable to live a "normal" social life.

Instincts like killing each other (Caveman), spitting in someone's face because your in disagreement (Victorian Times), etc..

Morality IMO, is not an instinct and there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

How do you know?

I don't, actually. I simply have no reason to believe it can.

What's the purpose?

Trillions of living organisms answer this question every day: survival.

Is a uranium-235 isotope not purposeful, does it not purpose to decay into lead?

No, it exists and in time will decay into lead. A uranium-235 isotope, however, cannot act towards that purpose. It cannot act against that purpose. It cannot recognize or hold a value attached to the process of decaying.

A semi-functional agent in my intent was someone who has brain damage.

What does "brain damage" have to do with it when humans and ants aren't even different?

One reason! People don't agree with me. Unfotunately for them, I'm speaking fact, and it is something they will need to acknowledge in the very near future. Very near future. By 2029, Neuroscientists expect to have a complete map of the brain and a full understanding of the brain software. They are already able to interfer with brain processing, to the point that they've radio-controlled mice and bulls.

Dude, few people agree with me here either. But I'm treated very differently than you are. I know you're into this whole "I can't be responsible for anything since I'm a robot but everyone else can be responsible despite the fact they're robots" thing you've got going on, but perhaps you might want to examine your inputs.

I am not an ant, therefor ants do not matter to me, as I am a human, humans matter to me.

Oh, I see. But I bet when science starts radio-controlling ants, they'll definitely matter to you.

Kann

Ahnimus wrote:

Instincts like killing each other (Caveman), spitting in someone's face because your in disagreement (Victorian Times), etc..
Morality IMO, is not an instinct and there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Well since humans started to live together there always have been sets of implicit rules. Such as refraining from killing each other as it's not good for survival. Or taking care of your children, it's better for the survival of the species etc. In fact all the instincts wich I'm referring to are sets of rule designed to help you and your specie to survive. This need is stronger than any other one and so rules wich keep social lifestyles + survival a coherent equation are more than natural.
edit: I'm talking of a limited set of morals, basic ones. Not more complicated ones wich change following historical eras.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Trillions of living organisms answer this question every day: survival.

Do you choose to survive? How can you make that choice?

No, it exists and in time will decay into lead. A uranium-235 isotope, however, cannot act towards that purpose. It cannot act against that purpose. It cannot recognize or hold a value attached to the process of decaying.

Neither can living beings. They eat, sleep and procreate because they have to.

What does "brain damage" have to do with it when humans and ants aren't even different?

Now your taking the analogy too literally.

Dude, few people agree with me here either. But I'm treated very differently than you are. I know you're into this whole "I can't be responsible for anything since I'm a robot but everyone else can be responsible despite the fact they're robots" thing you've got going on, but perhaps you might want to examine your inputs.

I suggest you examine your inputs, that is nothing I've ever said. I do not take responsibility/accountability away from people or myself. I'm simply stating facts. See, the major difference between theology and science, is that theology believes what it wants to believe, science believes what actually is. I'm reading a book with interviews with many of the leading philosophers and scientists studying consciousness. When asked "Do you have free-will?" in the sense I've described they all say "No". When asked "Would you prefer to have it?" they all say "Yes.".

Sue: Are you happy with that?

Bernard (Baars): No, I wish it weren't so; but one of the points that Freud makes about science is that science is always forcing people into believing things that they would rather not believe - and that goes back to the Copernican solar system. People were very upset about that; after Darwin's Descent of Man people were enormously upset. I think that one of the reasons why people have difficulty dealing with consciousness as a scientific issue is because it's terribly upsetting to many people that we don't have free will, that it's all due to these funny little cells firing in our heads, and all that sort of thing; and I sympathize with that. Some sort of godlike being, platonic connection to the infinite would be a rather wonderful thing to have; I just don't know of any evidence for it. (Conversation on Consciousness, Susan Blackmore, Pg.18)

Oh, I see. But I bet when science starts radio-controlling ants, they'll definitely matter to you.

Not sure what that means, but I think you misinterpreted something.

Ahnimus

Kann wrote:

Well since humans started to live together there always have been sets of implicit rules. Such as refraining from killing each other as it's not good for survival. Or taking care of your children, it's better for the survival of the species etc. In fact all the instincts wich I'm referring to are sets of rule designed to help you and your specie to survive. This need is stronger than any other one and so rules wich keep social lifestyles + survival a coherent equation are more than natural.
edit: I'm talking of a limited set of morals, basic ones. Not more complicated ones wich change following historical eras.

Well, there is some biochemical basis, but it's mutual and goes both ways. In order for one caveman to trust another, he'd need to be the subject of an act of trust. Alternatively an act of distrust can lead to a brutal fight to the death. Perhaps, well, I'm not really sure what caveman would act like, but if we look at families of dogs or cats, we can get a good idea of what caveman might have acted like, monkeys may be a better study group.

Jeanie

farfromglorified wrote:

Sorry, I didn't intend that to be condescending or anything. It's just that if "Nothing is always", that would mean "there are always no constants". It's like saying "there are no absolutes" when that statement would be an absolute

I didn't take it as condescending ffg, so no need to be sorry.

I was just trying to alert you that I take a bit longer to understand some concepts.

Like this one for instance!!!

I think yes, you are correct in your reasoning above, but I did mention death and taxes didn't I?