More atheism addressed.

You are starving and you kill an animal to eat. That's good for you and bad for the animal. But what if the animal escapes instead? That's good for the animal and bad for you.

The point is, the nature of "good" and "bad" and duality in general is relative to the subject. What's good for you is often bad for someone or something else and vice versa.

Aaron wrote:

You are starving and you kill an animal to eat. That's good for you and bad for the animal. But what if the animal escapes instead? That's good for the animal and bad for you.

The point is, the nature of "good" and "bad" and duality in general is relative to the subject. What's good for you is often bad for someone or something else and vice versa.

I think that's probably a bad example, animals not having equal rights with man IMNTBHO.

Now what if you killed a man and took his wife? Yes, it would be bad for him, and while it may be "good" for you, you would still be evil, and the wife is an unknown depending on how she reacts. The point is that bad and evil aren't necessarily equivalent, but there is no duality to the evil. There are some gray areas of course, but cases such as this are objectively, universally, black & white immoral.

Not to mention the rot one subjects one's soul to with the commission of evil, if such people have a soul to begin with.

Schizo wrote:

I believe that the most important historical fact is that government has done more bad than good and is responsible for most of the evils in the world.

Ditto.

Quote :

I have faith that free people behave better than they do when they are enslaved by government. I fear that government could get so powerful that it could never be destroyed and freedom could become impossible.

I think you address your own statement about faith in free people:

Quote :

Libertarians want the government to behave like a Deist god(only do what is absolutely necessary to ensure our freedom to answer our own prayers) and everyone else wants government to behave like a Theist god(enslave us just enough to answer all our prayers).

We give up just enough freedom and put our own shackles on just enough, and it's too late. Only then do people finally become willing to fight to regain what they sold themselves out for. There haven't been very many tests of people having freedom and then selling it back to the government. Usually they never get it in the first place. But when they do, the bread and circuses are an opiate we can't resist until we loose that along with the rest.

It's so much easier to surrender our emotional core to that pipe than to take the risks necessary to maintain our freedom--and our own identities. I think only a percentage of libertarians are the ones that fully understand this, but are a small minority. As Gandhi said, "Truth is a majority of One"--for all the good that does. I've often wondered if that imbalance is a natural consequence of creation. >>>> <<<<

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Aaron wrote:

You are starving and you kill an animal to eat. That's good for you and bad for the animal. But what if the animal escapes instead? That's good for the animal and bad for you.

The point is, the nature of "good" and "bad" and duality in general is relative to the subject. What's good for you is often bad for someone or something else and vice versa.

I think that's probably a bad example, animals not having equal rights with man IMNTBHO.

Your NTBHO might be different if you were a pig rather than a human.

From an objective point of view the only thing that gives us a higher position regarding rights is our intellect which puts us in a position at the top of the food chain. Even that position is relative however. For instance, stick a starving naked man in a cage with a starving naked lion and see who comes out on top and how much our superior human rights mean.

Aaron wrote:

For instance, stick a starving naked man in a cage with a starving naked lion and see who comes out on top and how much our superior human rights mean.

Who stuck the starving man in the cage with a starving (naked???) lion?

Quote :

From an objective point of view the only thing that gives us a higher position regarding rights is our intellect

More than just our superior intellect, it's our self awareness--the only thing that makes all the rest innocent.

Quote :

You are starving and you kill an animal to eat. That's good for you and bad for the animal. But what if the animal escapes instead? That's good for the animal and bad for you.

The point is, the nature of "good" and "bad" and duality in general is relative to the subject. What's good for you is often bad for someone or something else and vice versa.

Ah, we've had this interesting discussion several times before.

Unlike Aaron I believe there is, in fact, a universal good and bad that is non relative.

Perhaps to put it in another perspective, there is only one truth. What I mean here is that through the ages no matter what mankind thought of the relationship between the earth, moon, sun and stars, the "truth" never changed regardless of what we thought about the relationship. IN fact the truth was there before our species was born.

I propose that there would be universal truths out there that govern relationships between sentient species in a logical manner.

These universal truths would apply the more sentience (or freedome of choice) that a species is capable of.

Thus if a human toyed with a lion causing it to suffer, he would be more guilty of evil than if a lion did the same thing to a man. Because the man had choice in the matter.

Helium wrote:

Thus if a human toyed with a lion causing it to suffer, he would be more guilty of evil than if a lion did the same thing to a man. Because the man had choice in the matter.

The lion, not being sentient, is innocent and merely follows its instinct. Man has free will which justifies superior inherent worth, but that also comes with the responsibility for being humane and choosing to kill only for necessity and not simply for pleasure.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Aaron wrote:

For instance, stick a starving naked man in a cage with a starving naked lion and see who comes out on top and how much our superior human rights mean.

Who stuck the starving man in the cage with a starving (naked???) lion?

I did as a hypothetical in response to the statement that "animals don't have equal rights with man" to show that there are situations when "natural law" favors animals "rights" over human "rights". IMO it is in fact we humans that place ourselves above all other animals in regards to rights, not "natural law".

Yes, it is we humans that do so. Certainly the animals can't advocate for their own rights. But your example doesn't show that natural law favors animals rights over human rights in that situation. It only shows that natural law often favors one thing over another in a given circumstance.

A boulder tumbling down a hill at an inauspicious moment would obviously crush a human in its path. Does that mean we have a situation where natural law favors the boulder's rights over the human's? Do rocks have rights?

Animals don't have rights, we merely have, by virtue of our sentience, the imperative to be humane to animals that can experience fear and pain.

Paineful,

For the most part I agree with you but I think animals have rights too because if not then why should we be humane to rightless objects? One reason I believe they have rights is because they fight for them. Animals fight for their food, offspring, territory, and most importantly their lives. I just think things shouldn't go as far as saying," Meat is murder!"

Schizophretard wrote:

Paineful,

For the most part I agree with you but I think animals have rights too because if not then why should we be humane to rightless objects? One reason I believe they have rights is because they fight for them. Animals fight for their food, offspring, territory, and most importantly their lives.

We should be humane because they are innocent, and causing unnecessary pain to an innocent animal is a character flaw within ourselves. I believe someone who receives gratification from inflicting pain in animals, receives the same gratification from inflicting pain in humans.

In principle, I agree somewhat, but what rights do animals have and how do they differ? A cat toying with a wounded prey is only following his instinct, not violating the rights of the mouse. In relation to humans, some have the right to humane treatment, while others not. Should I feel any twinge of guilt from going out of my way to kill a mosquito or cause a roach a prolonged death by bug spray? You could even take this argument to defending plant's rights.

I believe humans have equal rights, and certainly no one (other than PITA members) would argue that animals/plants have equal "rights" with humans or even each other. How would you define such rights other than the humane treatment of the higher functioning animals (dogs of course being at the top )

Painful,

Only things that are capable of being guilty can be considered innocent. Is a rock innocent and should you be humane to it? Being innocent as a human means you are free to practice your rights and being guilty means society will prevent you from practicing them. If animals are innocent then they have rights. I would say that animals in relation to their own kind have the same rights as we do. All dogs are created equal! I don't know exactly how to gage the rights of animals in comparison to other animals and us. Maybe the higher you go up in the food chain the more important the creatures rights are compared to the creatures lower than them? Like a cat and a mouse have the same rights but the cat's rights are more important. Maybe every time a creature eats another creature it is violating it's food's rights but the food has the responsibility to defend it's right to live? Since it failed at defending itself it got it's right to life taken away. Maybe all animals have the same rights, they are constantly competing to keep their rights, we fought for our rights so well that we evolved to be the best at defending them from other animals but still have trouble defending them from other humans, and we will eventually evolve to the point that our rights will never be violated? In other words, maybe the wild is anarchy and we are evolving out of it into a more civilized type of behavior? I don't know though. I just hope I never get the death penalty for eating at KFC!