Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You probably did not value your life. I doubt you did not value all sorts of life. Otherwise, it would be indiferent for you to kill yourself, a tree or anybody else walking in the street. You valued life, but you did not value YOUR SPECIFIC LIVING CONDITIONS.
That was not the point. I tried to say that there are an objectively defined "instinct" in every form of living being that drives them to preserve not just their life, but also to value life in general as something very special. This "instinct" exists objectively in the universe. It's a force that says "LIFE WANTS LIFE".
Ok. I'll suppose you are a very special human being that feels nothing special for life. To you, to throw a rock is the same as killing a child.Dragar said:I don't value people or trees because they're alive. I value them because they're people and trees. More specifically, I prefer a world with people and trees to one without.
I think you're using a different definition 'life' to me. You seem to have almost given it a metaphysical significance.
If what you mean by 'life' is some mysterious quality that living things possess, no, I don't value that at all. I don't even believe such a mysterious property exists.
Ok. I'll suppose you are a very special human being that feels nothing special for life. To you, to throw a rock is the same as killing a child.
But you are not the universe. If you see all forms of life, they want to reproduce, they want to exist. It may not happen with one or two individuals, some of them are even sterile, but it is not the rule. The rule that exists objectively in the universe is that life wants to preserve itself.
Yes I would. "Seem" is the operative word I'm afraid.Zoot said:I wouldn't repent of doing things that seem good to me, no. Would you?
If objectively life acts to preserve itself, and we are a form of life, why we should act to destroy life? Don't you think that somehow we are going against what is pretended?Dragar said:Okay. What are trying to do here is generalise the notion that life will almost act to preserve itself (it makes good evolutionary sense, after all!) into a rule, and then turn the rule into 'should' or 'should not'.
Even if life acts to preserve itself, what does that tell us about what we 'should' or 'should not' value?
Yes, we do. Nobody will say that it's better everybody to be handicapped. We want to be healthy because we are life and "LIFE WANTS LIFE".The strongest of a species will tend to survive to breed, but that doesn't mean we all decide this is what 'should' happen, does it?
life doesn´t act.an7222 said:If objectively life acts to preserve itself, and we are a form of life, why we should act to destroy life? Don't you think that somehow we are going against what is pretended?
I'm not saying that one form of life, to preserve itself, doesn't need to kill other forms of life. I fact it happens. But the point here is that in every form of life, there's a wish of preservation, of existance. Life wants to exist and improve itself. And the more advanced forms of life will eat other forms of life. But yet life wants to exist and improve. This is an objective force of nature and we should not be against it. And if we should not be against nature (since we are part of nature), it can be considered objectively wrong. And if it is objectively wrong, it is an objective moral principle.YWGWYS said:life doesn´t act.
the only thing i can see is a tendency of individuals, groups and species to preserve their own lives, but not (neccessarily) "life" in general or the life of other individuals, groups, species.
nature is by and large based on the principle of eating and being eaten; thus only concentrating on the "preservation"-part seems to be selective perception.
you may argue that "life" (as in the general term for everything being alive on earth) is obviously being preserved by the tendency of nature for balance, but it is gained for the price of countless physical, real deaths.
You could plug just about anything into this statement. You could say: "I don't think that castration is wrong. It maybe wrong to some people but not all people.Zoot said:In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people.
no, life doesn´t "want" anything.an7222 said:I'm not saying that one form of life, to preserve itself, doesn't need to kill other forms of life. I fact it happens. But the point here is that in every form of life, there's a wish of preservation, of existance. Life wants to exist and improve itself. And the more advanced forms of life will eat other forms of life. But yet life wants to exist and improve. This is an objective force of nature and we should not be against it. And if we should not be against nature (since we are part of nature), it can be considered objectively wrong. And if it is objectively wrong, it is an objective moral principle.
If objectively life acts to preserve itself, and we are a form of life, why we should act to destroy life?
Don't you think that somehow we are going against what is pretended?
And if we are going against what is pretended, what is desired, we should not do it.
Yes, we do. Nobody will say that it's better everybody to be handicapped. We want to be healthy because we are life and "LIFE WANTS LIFE".
radorth said:I have another take. Get rid of the "axes of evil" and see how the world changes.
Rad
Zoot said:That's mainly because it seems to you that someone who doesn't believe in objective morality is a person who doesn't have any morality.
For example, you say I'd see myself as having lowered my standards. That assumes a meta-standard against which standards are measured. I don't think such a meta-standard is intelligible, so what you call a lowering of standards is, to me, simply a change of standards.
Another way of looking at the same situation would be to say that I value my life more highly than I value vegetarianism. If I somehow wished that I valued vegetarianism enough that I would rather die than eat meat, I can only imagine it would be because I value vegetarianism over the idea of living, but value actually living over vegetarianism. Sorry. Musing out loud there.
My point is, I really do have ideals. I am just not under the delusion that they are in any way objective. I realise that they are ideals-to-me. I realise that either I didn't choose them, or I chose them based on values I didn't choose. Either my ideals are handed to me by my situation, or I choose them based on values handed to me by my situation.
When one first makes the transition from believing there are objective ideals (or values, or morals, or whatever) to realising that ideals can't be objective, there is a period of thinking this renders ideals utterly meaningless. That is a period of inconsistency, really - one part of one's thinking has not caught up with another part. Then one realises that ideals were always subjective, and that the very idea of an ideal is subjective by definition.
In one sense, it's liberating. After all, I no longer live in a universe that imposes morality and meaning on me; there are no objective demands. I can choose my own narrative, choose my own meaning, choose my own ideals. On the other hand, I am not limitlessly free. I have a horizon. A choice of narrative, a choice of meaning, a choice of ideals cannot be made without some values by which they are evaluated. And so, just as with decision-making, at some point by definition, my values are outside of my control. Either they are handed to me by my situation or I choose them based on values that are handed to me by my situation.
I am a product of my culture. I grew up on '80s cartoons and Christianity and rock music. I value liberty and happiness and consistency (The Value Previously Known As Truth) and justice and I think 13-year-olds are too young to have sex and I think women are equal to men and I think graves should be left alone and I think species extinction is bad and I think greed and hatred are bad.
I have decided to save the world. I am a libertarian socialist. I am a writer.
They're real ideals to me, real purposes, real meanings, real narratives. I recognise that my values are by definition subjective, that there is no value by which values can be evaluated. Yet, they guide my actions. I am not burdened with the issue of whether or not my values are right, because I understand that the evaluation is not possible. When I come across someone with different values, the interaction will change us both. Such is the nature of the story.
I suppose I've ranted on long enough. Time for the signature.
Hence the use of the phrase "for example"JohnR7 said:You could plug just about anything into this statement. You could say: "I don't think that castration is wrong. It maybe wrong to some people but not all people.
- Life wants to preserve itself;Dragar said:You're confusing 'would' with 'should'.
If we are alive, and living things act to preserve themselves, we will act to preserve ourselves.
But that says nothing about 'should'. Only that this happens.
Pretended?
But you're saying that 'All living things do X, therefore we should want X to happen'.
Yes, I do. I think life wants to preserve itself. And not just this, but also life wants to improve itself.Well, with all living things the weakest die out, the strongest survive. Does this mean we 'should' encourage this'?
an7222 said:- Life wants to preserve itself;
- We are a form of life;
- We would rather preserve life because we are a form of life and life wants to be preserved;
- If we don't preserve life, we are not doing what is desired by our own nature;
In this life, we are free (I believe in limited free will) to do almost whatever you want. Although life shows as it wants to be preserved, we can go against it. But the fact that we can go against it does not mean it's the way to go, because nature teatches us that it is desirable for us to preserve not just our life and our life form, but life as a whole.
Based on this, it's very reasonable to say that life is an objective moral value, and that everything that goes against this value is by definition wrong.
Yes, I do. I think life wants to preserve itself. And not just this, but also life wants to improve itself.
After what skeptics have said about some of his comments like "let the dead bury their dead" and "no one comes to the Father except through me" I don't think anyone really believes you.The Bellman said:No, it doesn't. We know as well as you do the things we 'should' (according to christianity) repent of. The fact that morals are relative doesn't change that in any way, because morals are independent of god (and yes, I know you don't believe that, but the OT has god performing any number of immoral acts - immoral in MY opinion, which, since morals are relative, is as good as anyone else's). If Jesus did come back, of course, non-christians could listen to him and, if they deemed it appropriate, repent of what he said to repent of.
And christians don't have a single moral standard (certainly not the Sermon on the Mount) - which is why so many christians disagree on what is moral.
They should; it's quite obvious. The issue isn't what non-christians (once again, 'skeptic' does not equate to 'non-christian' - christians are themselves told by paul to be sceptical) think of Jesus' edicts; it's wether or not they would be able to follow these edicts if he returned.radorth said:After what skeptics have said about some of his comments like "let the dead bury their dead" and "no one comes to the Father except through me" I don't think anyone really believes you.
They don't.radorth said:Oh I think 90% of them do all use it as the standard.
Yes, me. Who says they do? You?radorth said:Who says they don't? You?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?