Faladorian said:
thedoclc said:
Faladorian said:
thedoclc said:
You've essentially proven what I said correctly, since what I was saying is that the only true innocence is the inability to choose an evil path. And never did I say that humans are terrible. The point I was trying to make is that we are only superior because we made up our own superiority complex in which we man the top. In no way are we actually better than anything else, because just as the world could do without fleas and the food chain would not be too violently interrupted, the universe [or even the solar system] would not see much of a change if humans were wiped off of the face of the earth (nor would it benefit the universe, don't mistake me for a misanthropic doomsayer). So, if we already perceive ourselves as superior to cows and chickens because of an arbitrary complex, why not one more animal? If we amongst ourselves feel superior to each other in one of many ways (smarter, sexier, more talented, greater-than-thou conscience that we could do without, but is part of human nature) then not much will stop us from feeling superior to an alien creature of matched intelligence. In fact, humans are notorious for their xenophobia. It's in our blood to be afraid of new and foreign things, it's a good instinctual reflex. You shouldn't trust something you don't know. Humans sometimes take it a step further and feel superior to the alien just because it's an alien. With that said, the killing of other creatures for the sake of survival is justified, and is how nature is designed. So, while I would have my reservations, yes I would attempt to eat the creature. If I fail and die, that's fair enough.
The first point is I disagree entirely with your premises, but as this is not a disagreement about facts about the world but instead about principles, there is no argument there except to agree to disagree. I stand by my comment that that is an incredibly boring view.
"The point I was trying to make is that we are only superior because we made up our own superiority complex in which we man the top." This idea is not logically sound at all. If I make up yard-stick for measuring certain qualities, pointing out that the yard-stick is self-serving or arbitrary is by no means establishes the yard-stick is invalid. Denying this premise causes the rest of the argument to collapse.
Also, the entire argument can easily be taken down by pointing out that it commits the "Is-ought" fallacy, specifically an "appeal to nature" type of the Is-ought. Likewise, the argument extremely smugly concludes it is proven without mentioning the many, many times it has been argued against on various grounds, from moral, religious, utilitarian, to the amusing, "So fucking what if man is the measure of all things - sapience is needed for comparison and as the only sapient beings known, our standards are correct." No one "proved" anything here.
Additionally, the statement "nature is designed" is quite incompatible with evolutionary theory and naturalism, so unless you're advocating creationism, the statement is out of place. If you are advocating creationism, you must also explain this apparent lack of absolute standards in the face of god. I'd suggest maltheism.
The Is-Ought Fallacy: the false belief that a statement about how something is ("xenophobia, it's in our blood, etc") is how it ought to be ("therefore I should do this.") More technically, descriptive statements are not normative statements.
If i was implying creationism, why would I say that humans are insignificant? I feel the only reason to be religious(in fact, I'm an anti-theist. I think religion is just a stupid reason to kill people who disagree with you) or even optimistic is to deny the fact that we are not even specks of dust on the universe. And as for your Is-Ought fallacy argument, you are suggesting that since something is sapient, it ought to be held in higher regard than other forms of life. This is wrong. The only thing that cares about life is life itself. If a human dies, a human might care, or their pet may care, etc. If a cow dies, their owner will care. If any animal dies, does a plant care? Does an asteroid care? No. So the only reason killing anything is considered wrong is because we say so. This is simply a matter of culture, as if a human is not raised to believe that killing is wrong, they probably won't think too much of the act of murder. Some cultures, like ours, say that cannibalism is wrong. Others such as the Maui disagreed, and would eat their foes after battle to gain their strengths. To them is cannibalism wrong? No. And in the broader view of the matter, they are still just eating another animal to survive (Which, as far as the circle of life goes, is justified). That said, eating the sapient creatures to sustain life only objects to the moral complex of the individual. I would attempt to eat one; others would not.
You completely missed the point of why I brought up the is-ought fallacy. Nor is it "mine," and the fact that you call it mine forces me to ask whether you understand how the word fallacy is use or if you can be troubled to take two minutes to look something you don't understand up. It's "Hume's," if anyone's. You also missed the point of the "nature is designed" comment, which was to undermine the style of argument that "nature is meant to be like so-and-so."
The statements you've made are all presented as premises without support. For example, you claim that religion only exists to so folks can deny they are but specks in the universe. Now, I am an atheist. However, I am not willing to set up straw men and deny a VERY simple and obvious truth.
Most religious folks genuinely believe what they say. When they say they believe, they are saying it because they do. Fake belief in religion would not be able to provide the comfort you claim their religion is designed to do. Hence, it should be taken on good faith their motives our genuine.
They aren't trying to dodge some sense of futile nihilism. They genuinely believe what they are professing. Nor am I willing to casually dismiss aspects of the spiritual life of billions of human beings with a cocky - and quite confused - statement of why that religious view is wrong. In addition, it is complete logical absurdity; the idea that people "believe to avoid feeling like specks of dust" is not only insulting (and wrong!), but it is entirely logically consistent with a world-view which claims, "God exists."
The statement, "The only thing that life cares about life is life itself," is tautological and as such, meaningless. As a criticism, it does not impact a thing I have stated. By definition, a being that cares must be sapient, and as such, alive in some sense. (Insert obligatory, and boring, argument about sapience v. biologically alive here. I'll leave it as something which passes some threshold of sapience is in some sense alive, whether synthetic or supernatural, to include the deity should one exist.)
"Some cultures, like ours, say that cannibalism is wrong. Others such as the Maui disagreed, and would eat their foes after battle to gain their strengths. To them is cannibalism wrong? No. And in the broader view of the matter, they are still just eating another animal to survive (Which, as far as the circle of life goes, is justified)." This not only is again falling into is-ought (for goodness' sake, look it up, since you did not understand it when I wrote "descriptive is not normative") It is also self refuting cultural relativism. Nor can you logically at all go from, "people have practiced this in the past" to "this is morally permissible or correct."
"If i was implying creationism, why would I say that humans are insignificant?" Because you do not take into account the possibilities of deism or maltheism.
By now you're posting your statements without support, showing you do not understand the criticism leveled at them, and falling into inconsistency. I said earlier we disagree on premises, and I am quite willing to leave it at that.
