Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[Strathos]

If 'human well-being' is the only standard, does that mean it's perfectly moral to torture animals like dogs and cats?

 

[Tanj]

If 'human well-being' is the only standard, does that mean it's perfectly moral to torture animals like dogs and cats?

Does torturing dogs and cats have a negative impact on anyone's wellbeing (with wellbeing having both mental and physical aspects)? What would be the overall effect on your family's well being if they found you in the basement with the new family puppy and a flensing knife?

 

[Strathos]

Does torturing dogs and cats have a negative impact on anyone's wellbeing (with wellbeing having both mental and physical aspects)? What would be the overall effect on your family's well being if they found you in the basement with the new family puppy and a flensing knife?

So if no one finds out it's okay?

 

[Tanj]

So if no one finds out it's okay?

An interesting question, I think the answer would be drawn out, mostly around whether a puppy flenser could Dexter his way through life...although having said that look how it turned out for Dexter...but I'll have to think about it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

The 'Veil of Ignorance' is a solid approach to this.

Imagine you're going to be born into a society where you have zero control about the situation you're born into.

Would it be better or worse for you if that society permitted slavery?

 

[NxNW]

If 'human well-being' is the only standard, does that mean it's perfectly moral to torture animals like dogs and cats?

I don't think anyone is claiming it's the only standard. Merely the starting point.

 

[Ken-1122]

Does torturing dogs and cats have a negative impact on anyone's wellbeing (with wellbeing having both mental and physical aspects)? What would be the overall effect on your family's well being if they found you in the basement with the new family puppy and a flensing knife?

So if the entire family were okay with the torture, or perhaps even happy to do it, does that makes it okay?

 

[Tanj]

So if the entire family were okay with the torture, or perhaps even happy to do it, does that makes it okay?

That's just a variation on what @Strathos asked. My answer remains the same.

 

[Sketcher]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively.

Was he actually able to prove that human wellness as a moral principle is an absolute?

I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you."

Quite a few Germans accepted that 80 years ago. It also begs the question, whose wellness takes priority when there is an inverse relationship between one person's wellness, and another's?

Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well."

Quite a few people from authoritarian cultures would disagree with that. Why are they wrong?

This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

I think it's dangerously irresponsible to dismiss those who believe that wellness involves extreme harm for a future goal as "insane." Quite a few dangerous people are not "insane," and that makes them more dangerous.

Furthermore, what future goals are we talking about? Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have a future goal of their interpretation of Islam dominating the planet, and they believe in killing to make that happen. They also believe in killing to maintain such an order, but they believe establishing and maintaining such an order is beneficial. Everyone who would be killed or left alive and oppressed by them disagrees that this goal is beneficial. They will have their own goals that they believe are beneficial that the terrorists believe are harmful. And on it goes.

 

[keith99]

If 'human well-being' is the only standard, does that mean it's perfectly moral to torture animals like dogs and cats?

If you try that with my dogs or cats it will not be good for your wellness!

 

[Ken-1122]

That's just a variation on what @Strathos asked. My answer remains the same.

Strathos asked a question about killing animals like cats and dogs, you replied about the affect of killing the family pet would have on the family. He didn't ask about killing the family pet, I was just trying to get you to answer the question he asked.
So if I understand you correctly, in your view, it is perfectly right to torture cats and dogs as long as the people who know about it enjoy it. Is that your view?

 

[keith99]

Yes, its absolutely not simple. Thats we we see a hundred different flavors of individual vs group morality across various human cultures (and even across various Christian cultures, all of which claim the same absolute basis for morality).

Also, human well being requires certain allowances for individual interests as well as the preservation of the group. There's constant tension there. And it takes real wisdom to discern the right balance that minimizes suffering in an enduring way. Still, the standard is essentially objective: the human well being and the minimizing of suffering in some kind of stable way.

When I was in Grad school I was introduced to utility theory. That uses am measurement of 'happiness' using something called utils. An individual decides which of 2 or more choices is better and by how much. Then it can be determined what balance of stuff is the best for that individual. This was originated to cover risk, which is better a sure thing that yields 10% or a risky investment that would on average yield 20% but could lose money. One person will accept more risk than another. The more utils one has the better they like it. One could say teh more well they are (especially by teh vague definition of the OP).

But the math involved showed that utils are an individual measure. It has been shown that you cannot just add them up and have a measure of overall wellness or happiness by adding up teh individual utils.

That gets to the root of such vague measures. Someone has to decide what is the proper measure of wellness, there is no objective measure over a group. In the real world when times get bad many will choose eating over freedom, and if times are bad enough I might agree with them.

 

[Tanj]

Strathos asked a question about killing animals like cats and dogs, you replied about the affect of killing the family pet would have on the family.

Right, he followed up with what if no-one else in the family knew, you followed up with what if the rest of the family was Ok with it.

Same question, slightly larger circle.

My response was...

An interesting question, I think the answer would be drawn out, mostly around whether a puppy flenser could Dexter his way through life...although having said that look how it turned out for Dexter...but I'll have to think about it.

So if I understand you correctly, in your view, it is perfectly right to torture cats and dogs as long as the people who know about it enjoy it. Is that your view?

Are you still of the opinion you understand me correctly?

 

[keith99]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

After sort of letting this roll around in the back of my mind it came to me that the argument your friend made is not unlike the arguments made by some Christians. They start with their interpretation of Scripture and make the starting point of any discussion that their interpretation is right. And of course if one accepts that starting point their answers are right.

His proof is blindly accepting his positions. As worthless as a proof given to an unbeliever that starts by assuming Scripture has the answer.

This last is meant in the kindest of ways. Think about how you felt about his arguments. Arguments that had as a starting point something you (and I) are not convinced is the one true starting point. Then defining specifics like slavery based entirely on his unsupported opinion that it fits under his arbitrary rule. Remember how you felt and try to guard yourself from doing the same from a starting point you accept that the person yuo are talking to does not.

 

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

Well "God" is just something we all (traditionally) just agree on too. There's no objective God we can show each other. Now that's a bandwagon.

At least with well being as a standard we can observe the effects of various behaviors and see how they cause health/happiness or sickness/misery.

No, bandwagon is me [dis]proving there's a God because a majority of people believe or say there's a God.... unless that's what you're saying

 

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

After sort of letting this roll around in the back of my mind it came to me that the argument your friend made is not unlike the arguments made by some Christians. They start with their interpretation of Scripture and make the starting point of any discussion that their interpretation is right. And of course if one accepts that starting point their answers are right.

His proof is blindly accepting his positions. As worthless as a proof given to an unbeliever that starts by assuming Scripture has the answer.

This last is meant in the kindest of ways. Think about how you felt about his arguments. Arguments that had as a starting point something you (and I) are not convinced is the one true starting point. Then defining specifics like slavery based entirely on his unsupported opinion that it fits under his arbitrary rule. Remember how you felt and try to guard yourself from doing the same from a starting point you accept that the person yuo are talking to does not.

I understand that I was arguing from authority, and that in the end it is irrelevant to the listener if we do not share in the same authority (depending on how we saw 'irrelevant'). But the argument was whether or not one can prove that "human wellness" is intrinsically objective. He stated that yes it was and attempted to prove it by what humans generally agree upon.

 

[Ken-1122]

Right, he followed up with what if no-one else in the family knew, you followed up with what if the rest of the family was Ok with it.

Same question, slightly larger circle.

My response was...





Are you still of the opinion you understand me correctly?

I have to admit I had no idea what you were saying here; perhaps you were using some type of slang terms I’ve never heard of. Puppy flenser? What does it mean to Dexter one’s way through life, and who is this Dexter character? Is dexter a verb or a noun?

I had no idea what you were saying here so I sorta dismissed it; but yeah I admit I did not understand you correctly

 

[Tanj]

I have to admit I had no idea what you were saying here; perhaps you were using some type of slang terms I’ve never heard of. Puppy flenser? What does it mean to Dexter one’s way through life, and who is this Dexter character? Is dexter a verb or a noun?

Interesting.

Flensing is to strip the skin off something. Apart from prepping dead animals it was also a form of torture back in the day.

Dexter is a TV series about a serial killer that hides his crimes from his family.
Dexter (TV series) - Wikipedia
He also only kills murderers that got away with their crime.

I had no idea what you were saying here so I sorta dismissed it; but yeah I admit I did not understand you correctly

Like I said, it's an interesting question, I have to think about it. If someone or someones tortures animals but is walled off from the rest of society so that no-one every finds out about it, is it an issue for me. I am still not sure.

 

[durangodawood]

....That gets to the root of such vague measures. Someone has to decide what is the proper measure of wellness, there is no objective measure over a group. In the real world when times get bad many will choose eating over freedom, and if times are bad enough I might agree with them.

Youre proposing an actual moral accounting czar or bureau. I dont think it works that way. I think its organic and messy. The wise observe and record what works over generations. Moral facts get recorded in stories, songs, divine "revelations", etc.... not in some moral ledger book.

 

[BigV]

The general tone of your post seems quite confrontational. I'm not clear why that is and shall do my best to ignore it.

Well, I can be terse and get to to the point quickly. Up to you on how you take what I write.

What do I believe about morality?

Do you believe secular morality can be objective?

That you ask the question suggests you think I might somehow approve of these. Did you take that from my observation that: "As a social species, survival of a community may require, in the view of the community, "extreme harm" be applied to some members of that community." Obviously, in the view of segments of the European Immigrant community slavery and native American genocide were good things. That does not mean I think it is a good thing.

That's the reason, as I understand it, Matt Dillahunty makes it a point, that first of all, we need to agree that human wellness, and we are talking about all humans, is our goal.

Therefore, extreme harm to a mass murderer can be justified on the basis of preventing extreme harm to innocent people.

Here is Matt and others discussing this: