Reasonable Faith Forums

Archived => Moral Argument => Topic started by: John Prytz on October 17, 2016, 04:49:24 am

Title: Animal Morality
Post by: John Prytz on October 17, 2016, 04:49:24 am
Evolution explains morality quite nicely since morality can be observed in the animal kingdom. I can cite a personal example. I have two cats. They absolutely hate each other. I can count on there being several cat-fights a day. However, there are certain occasions when there is a mutual truce in force. No cat will attack the other cat when the other cat is eating, going to the bathroom, or sleeping. Some sort of moral code is in play under those circumstances.

There are many examples of animals coming to the aid of other animals. One case I can cite is a cockatoo tangled up in some wires. Other cockatoos brought the entangled bird food. It had a happy ending when humans came to the rescue and freed the bird.

Stories of dolphins protecting humans from sharks are legendary. Dogs guarding and defending a companion dog that's been injured, even against humans who are coming to help the injured dog, are a well established natural moral phenomena. You don't have to dig too far into the literature to uncover lots of examples of members of one species behaving morally toward other members of the same species even when they don't have to and they derive no benefits by doing so.

Cats, cockatoos, dolphins, and dogs haven't read the Bible. The concept of God and God's [alleged] morality is meaningless to them. They didn't get their morality from God.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on October 17, 2016, 12:54:14 pm
Be careful to not conflate morality itself with moral behavior or attitudes.

Talk of "morality" refers to properties such as goodness, evilness, rightness, wrongness, virtuousness, viciousness, and so on. It does not refer to the patterns of behavior that we typically deem good, or to opinions about what is good, or the like.

Craig think that moral properties are ontologically dependent on God, or that they are in some way constituted of theological properties (e.g., being commanded by God, or being in some way or anther like God). Craig does not think that we need God to be good people or behave morally, or that we need God to have beliefs about morality or knowledge of morality. And while Craig does think that God is responsible for our being moral and our ethical attitudes, this is only because he thinks that God is responsible for everything in creation. But it is perfectly consistent with his argument that God is not responsible for giving us our patters of moral behavior, or our attitudes about morality.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on October 22, 2016, 01:51:42 am
Evolution explains morality quite nicely since morality can be observed in the animal kingdom. I can cite a personal example. I have two cats. They absolutely hate each other. I can count on there being several cat-fights a day. However, there are certain occasions when there is a mutual truce in force. No cat will attack the other cat when the other cat is eating, going to the bathroom, or sleeping. Some sort of moral code is in play under those circumstances.

There are many examples of animals coming to the aid of other animals. One case I can cite is a cockatoo tangled up in some wires. Other cockatoos brought the entangled bird food. It had a happy ending when humans came to the rescue and freed the bird.

Stories of dolphins protecting humans from sharks are legendary. Dogs guarding and defending a companion dog that's been injured, even against humans who are coming to help the injured dog, are a well established natural moral phenomena. You don't have to dig too far into the literature to uncover lots of examples of members of one species behaving morally toward other members of the same species even when they don't have to and they derive no benefits by doing so.

Cats, cockatoos, dolphins, and dogs haven't read the Bible. The concept of God and God's [alleged] morality is meaningless to them. They didn't get their morality from God.

And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on October 23, 2016, 08:36:51 pm
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on October 23, 2016, 08:47:05 pm
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.

And what makes humans moral agents if we are ALL just animals?
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on October 23, 2016, 08:58:05 pm
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.

And what makes humans moral agents if we are ALL just animals?

We have knowledge of morality, and we're capable of reasoning through the moral significance and the consequences of our actions.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on October 23, 2016, 10:01:02 pm
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.

And what makes humans moral agents if we are ALL just animals?

We have knowledge of morality, and we're capable of reasoning through the moral significance and the consequences of our actions.

Who is we? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea? Mao? Pot?
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on October 23, 2016, 10:55:22 pm
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.

And what makes humans moral agents if we are ALL just animals?

We have knowledge of morality, and we're capable of reasoning through the moral significance and the consequences of our actions.

Who is we? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea? Mao? Pot?

Yup, all of us.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on October 23, 2016, 11:19:42 pm
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.

And what makes humans moral agents if we are ALL just animals?

We have knowledge of morality, and we're capable of reasoning through the moral significance and the consequences of our actions.

Who is we? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea? Mao? Pot?

Yup, all of us.

The same Hitler who thought it wasn't wrong to to gas and kill 6 million Jews/homosexuals and mormons?
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on October 30, 2016, 09:22:51 pm
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.

And what makes humans moral agents if we are ALL just animals?

We have knowledge of morality, and we're capable of reasoning through the moral significance and the consequences of our actions.

Who is we? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea? Mao? Pot?

Yup, all of us.

The same Hitler who thought it wasn't wrong to to gas and kill 6 million Jews/homosexuals and mormons?

Are you having trouble understanding what "all of us" means?
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on February 26, 2017, 05:01:45 am
And what about when a pack of ducks pack rape another duck? Is that wrong?

What about when a bear eats there own off spring? Is that wrong?

No it's not, ducks and bears are not moral agents.

And what makes humans moral agents if we are ALL just animals?

We have knowledge of morality, and we're capable of reasoning through the moral significance and the consequences of our actions.

Who is we? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea? Mao? Pot?

Yup, all of us.

The same Hitler who thought it wasn't wrong to to gas and kill 6 million Jews/homosexuals and mormons?

Are you having trouble understanding what "all of us" means?

If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on February 27, 2017, 10:13:04 am
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: alex1212 on February 27, 2017, 04:17:17 pm
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.

I agree. Often times it seems like some theists just appeal to incredulity/ignorance when it comes to morality and God. I mean, there are so many non-theistic theories of ethics that don't invoke God's existence.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on February 27, 2017, 05:44:49 pm
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.

You going to answer the question?
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on February 27, 2017, 05:45:25 pm
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.

I agree. Often times it seems like some theists just appeal to incredulity/ignorance when it comes to morality and God. I mean, there are so many non-theistic theories of ethics that don't invoke God's existence.

You going to answer the question?
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on February 27, 2017, 06:51:38 pm
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.

You going to answer the question?

Nope.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on February 28, 2017, 12:35:57 am
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?

Have you ever read a book on ethics? If you can't see it then you've probably never looked.

You going to answer the question?

Nope.

So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on February 28, 2017, 09:54:37 am
So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on February 28, 2017, 05:44:21 pm
So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.

So under naturalism, humans are special? LOL.

As WLC puts it perfectly

"After all, what are human beings on an atheistic worldview? They are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short period of time. Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why on atheism is he wrong when he says, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”1 This is what, on an atheistic view, human beings are reduced to."

Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: aleph naught on March 01, 2017, 02:11:15 pm
So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.

So under naturalism, humans are special? LOL.

As WLC puts it perfectly

"After all, what are human beings on an atheistic worldview? They are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short period of time. Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why on atheism is he wrong when he says, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”1 This is what, on an atheistic view, human beings are reduced to."

Notice, you laughing hyena, that none of this entails that humans are not morally valuable.

But some humans are certainly special. Some have special needs, for example. And some people think that naturalism is incompatible with humans being morally valuable. Those people are special too.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: Rostos on March 01, 2017, 04:20:57 pm
So it stands, under naturalism, humans are nothing special especially when compared to other creatures.

No it doesn't, you couldn't support your assertion even if you wanted to. And, even if you could, this wouldn't support your claim that if God does not exist then we are not morally valuable. You simply have no argument.

So under naturalism, humans are special? LOL.

As WLC puts it perfectly

"After all, what are human beings on an atheistic worldview? They are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short period of time. Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why on atheism is he wrong when he says, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”1 This is what, on an atheistic view, human beings are reduced to."

Notice, you laughing hyena, that none of this entails that humans are not morally valuable.

But some humans are certainly special. Some have special needs, for example. And some people think that naturalism is incompatible with humans being morally valuable. Those people are special too.

LOL, no they arent...its just speciesim to think humans are special. Its an illusion that they actually are.

Not many people can look at there atheism square in the face and you seem to be one of them.
Title: Re: Animal Morality
Post by: jayceeii on January 24, 2020, 09:54:42 am
What we seem to be missing here, is humans agreeing a poor man needs not only one meal a day and a cot on the coldest nights, but a good home, an education and job opportunities. You cite examples of morality on the animal plane, but I trip you up if you say there are examples of morality on the human plane. Men don’t care for their fellow men. Oh yes, for brief instances there seems to be care, but these tend to be cases of “heroism,” where there’s an immediate kickback in renown. After that chance fades so does the care. An excellent example is the hard legal battle by those whose lungs were injured after the fall of the twin towers. The whole world was prepared to drop them.