|
Author
|
Topic: What is the Purpose of Life? (or is there one.)
|
CoramDeo
Member
Member # 1441
Member Rated:
|
posted April 07, 2005 08:55 PM
Thank you for your reply, Seakin.
If you do not see any moral difference (ethical, as you were describing) between killing a gopher and killing a human, what reason would you offer for why our legal system convicts and prosecutes individuals who harm or take the life of another human being, but do nothing to those that would kill gophers, rats, mice, insects, etc?
In believing that nature is sacred do you also think that equal justice should be wrought upon humans that kill these creatures as humans who murder another human?
That's question one, the second one is, do you ever eat animals? If not, do you eat vegetables? Do you distinguish in the value of life between the two, and is there any moral difference between killing a piece of fruit by picking it off the tree vs. killing a cow for it's meat?
Heather
--------------------
"A thief can justify his own theft, but can't stand being stolen from."
~Augustine
Posts: 233 | From: Santa Cruz | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
jgun
Member
Member # 1014
Member Rated:
|
posted April 08, 2005 08:55 AM
Heather wrote "I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in worshipping a particular human? If you're referring to Christ, we don't regard him as mere human, but as God "veiled in flesh" (Immanuel: God with us.)"
![[Smile]](/all/20050410214543im_/http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/forums/smile.gif) Well, there you go then Heather- just what do you mean by "a mere human"? He was either a human being or he wasn't. The fact that you may "regard" him as "GOD, veiled in flesh" certainly carries no more credibility than any other people's choice of a mortal man to worship. IMO- when people start worshiping "middle-men" instead of God, they have lost their way.
Remember this- the path to Hell is strewn with good intentions...
--------------------
Don't believe everything you think!
Posts: 2516 | From: santa cruz | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
CoramDeo
Member
Member # 1441
Member Rated:
|
posted April 08, 2005 03:11 PM
Jgun,
The theological term for it is called the hypostatic union, which is the belief that He was both fully God and fully man at the same time; that God came down to accomplish for us in the form of a man what we could never accomplish for ourselves, which is forgiveness for our sins that separated us from God.
As I said on the other thread, you've expressed clearly what you personally don't believe. This is in response to answering what Christianity does. As always, I respect your person, mind, and right to believe what you're inclined to.
Heather
--------------------
"A thief can justify his own theft, but can't stand being stolen from."
~Augustine
Posts: 233 | From: Santa Cruz | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
CoramDeo
Member
Member # 1441
Member Rated:
|
posted April 08, 2005 03:18 PM
Now if you're wearying of all this Christian talk, I'd still be really interested in hearing and trying to understand where your viewpoint comes from in the question about the ethical/moral difference between taking a human life vs taking the life of an animal, reptile, insect, plant or other vegetation.
What do you think about this?
Can I add also the question I asked Seakin about what you think of law enforcement only applying to the taking of human life, and whether or not you think it should be enforced upon those that take even the life of gopher if there is no moral or ethical difference in killing them vs. a human?
I'm not trying to be clever; you obviously know where I stand on the matter of human life. I am interested, though, in understanding the rationale behind a different view, if yours is different.
Respectfully,
Heather
--------------------
"A thief can justify his own theft, but can't stand being stolen from."
~Augustine
Posts: 233 | From: Santa Cruz | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
seakin
New Member
Member # 1412
|
posted April 08, 2005 03:26 PM
Heather wrote:
" If you do not see any moral difference (ethical, as you were describing) between killing a gopher and killing a human,"
Wow, Heather, that is an obtuse distillation of my answer about killing a human vs. killing a gopher. You should be careful about not painting someone's opinion/answer into your particular corner just because you are uncomfortable in other areas of the room. I laid out clearly that I personally felt a big difference between killing a human vs. killing a gopher. If you don't like the answer, cease to ask the question. Giving me a rhetorical question which is nearly identical to the first time you asked it, is probably not going yield what you want to hear. you seem to want to define my personal moral/ethical/primal distinctions.
You still have not attempted to give me your definition of "moral" and "primal"
Your question........."what reason would you offer for why our legal system convicts and prosecutes individuals who harm or take the life of another human being, but do nothing to those that would kill gophers, rats, mice, insects, etc?
".........is a bit simple-minded and inaccurate. Once again, I would offer to you that the realities of our world are not so black and white. Try to open up your mind a little bit more, cut the umbilical cord to your bible, look around, and think about these (in regards to your first question):
*(GOPHERS)- If I killed Ground squirrels (commonly known as gophers) on federally protected lands of the northern great plains, where the gophers provide essential habitat for burrowing owls I could be prosecuted and convicted.
*(RATS) - If I killed a Californian Riparian Woodrat, or a Key Largo Woodrat, or a Silver Rice Rat, I could be prosecuted and convicted.
*(MICE) - If I killed a Santa Rosa Beach Mouse I could be prosecuted and convicted.
*(INSECTS) - If I killed an American Burying Beetle, or a Delta Green Ground Beetle, or a
Mission Blue Butterfly (hey! your favorite anti-evolution critter) I could be prosecuted and convicted.
* Not all killings of humans result in prosecutions and convictions.
It is true that by and large the penalties for killing a human are greater than for killing other species. I think this parallels what I wrote before about the strong, inherent, genetic connection we have to each other as humans. In a general sense, and in most cases, we naturally value our own species more than other species. Our country's constitution also puts high value on human life (each and every human). The same constitution that specifies a seperation between church and state. The same constitution that provides the foundation for our legal system.
By the way, Heather, you should put prosecution before conviction when discussing our legal system.
Here is another persoanl example about me, might give you somr more insight to me:
I have no problem swatting and killing a mosquito or tick that is on my body because they threaten me with pain and dangerous disease agents. When I find spiders (other than black widows, or brown recluses) in my house, I catch them and place them outside the house, unharmed, if possible.
Your second question, Heather, is a good one............"do you ever eat animals? If not, do you eat vegetables? Do you distinguish in the value of life between the two, and is there any moral difference between killing a piece of fruit by picking it off the tree vs. killing a cow for it's meat?".............I have thought about this a bit, and act upon it as ethically and naturally as possible. As far as animal meat, I only eat species who have evolved to be naturally eaten by apex predators and which have less than a year left to their natural lifespan (Wild Salmon which are beginning their spawning migration, trout, trap caught prawns, Loligo squid, sardines). I occasionally eat uncaged chicken and chicken eggs, but not often. I also eat some of the fish we catch during the course of our research, so that the meat is not wasted down a garbage disposal. I eat a lot of different vegatables. Most all vegetables are fruiting bodies, not an entire living plant (sort of like hair on a human, it grows and naturally falls off - I wish mine would stop falling off ) I have no problem eating grass seeds (rice, wheat, barley, etc.) since their have evolved to be eaten and have a very short lifespan. I do not place much "life" value on vegetables or grass seeds. I think they are very dissimilar to animals. I am adding an addition to my home in a way that does not require me to cut down any of the oak trees that surround the house. it would actually make the remodel addition easier if i cut one of the Oaks down.
I do not distinguish a moral (ethical) difference between killing a plant to eat and killing an animal to eat if that animal is a natural prey species. I think a lot of factory farming practices here and in other countries is very unethical, and unhealthy.
I think the book 'Fast Food Nation' should be a required text in our schools.
Peace and Truth
Seakin
Posts: 28 | From: Santa Cruz | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BillBo
Member
Member # 1431
|
posted April 09, 2005 07:40 AM
<"GOPHERS- If I killed Ground squirrels on federally
protected lands of the northern great plains, or, If
I killed a Californian Riparian Woodrat, or a Key Largo
Woodrat, or a Silver Rice Rat, or a Santa Rosa Beach
Mouse, or an American Burying Beetle, or a Delta Green
Ground Beetle, or a Mission Blue Butterfly I could be
prosecuted and convicted.>
Not if you don't tell the UCSC crowd.
My friend wanted to replace his old dock on San Francisco
Bay with a new one so that he could moor his big boat near his
house. The "Ecology Nazis" prevented that. They maintained
that his dock might interfere with salmon migration in the Bay.
I'm sorry, but, it's a little dock in a big bay. It's also an example
of the true level of their "Faith in Science". There really are people
who seek opportunities to hassle other people. It's about jealousy.
And, to sledge hammer this argument back into the "Purpose of
Life" question, what's their trip?
Furthermore, what's up with "Leadership" needing to take
over the local Performing Arts Biz? Isn't it enough that they
have seized so much raw power for themselves? Don't they
get enough payola under the table? We don't need greedy
selfish little local political tyrants giving us their version of
the "Purpose of Life" by controlling the local Performing Arts.
"Leadership" should keep its dirty political hands off the
piano keyboard. "Stand up", you craven political hacks,
cronies, sycophants, ideologues and fellow travelers, get
your butt off that bench "you're hurting the piano's feelings."
Posts: 149 | From: Watsonville | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
matty
Member
Member # 1111
|
posted April 09, 2005 10:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BillBo:
<"GOPHERS- If I killed Ground squirrels on federally
protected lands of the northern great plains, or, If
I killed a Californian Riparian Woodrat, or a Key Largo
Woodrat, or a Silver Rice Rat, or a Santa Rosa Beach
Mouse, or an American Burying Beetle, or a Delta Green
Ground Beetle, or a Mission Blue Butterfly I could be
prosecuted and convicted.>
Not if you don't tell the UCSC crowd.
My friend wanted to replace his old dock on San Francisco
Bay with a new one so that he could moor his big boat near his
house. The "Ecology Nazis" prevented that. They maintained
that his dock might interfere with salmon migration in the Bay.
I'm sorry, but, it's a little dock in a big bay. It's also an example
of the true level of their "Faith in Science". There really are people
who seek opportunities to hassle other people. It's about jealousy.
And, to sledge hammer this argument back into the "Purpose of
Life" question, what's their trip?
Furthermore, what's up with "Leadership" needing to take
over the local Performing Arts Biz? Isn't it enough that they
have seized so much raw power for themselves? Don't they
get enough payola under the table? We don't need greedy
selfish little local political tyrants giving us their version of
the "Purpose of Life" by controlling the local Performing Arts.
"Leadership" should keep its dirty political hands off the
piano keyboard. "Stand up", you craven political hacks,
cronies, sycophants, ideologues and fellow travelers, get
your butt off that bench "you're hurting the piano's feelings."
.....and there went another 90 seconds of my life, wasted.
--------------------
Miss Gulch: Mr. Gale, I want to see you and your wife right away about Dorothy.
Uncle Henry: Dorothy? Well, what has Dorothy done?
Miss Gulch: What she's done? I'm all but lame from the bite on my leg!
Uncle Henry: You mean she bit you?
Miss Gulch: No, her dog!
Uncle Henry: Oh, she bit her dog, eh?
Miss Gulch: No!
The Wiz
Posts: 1728 | From: california | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
CoramDeo
Member
Member # 1441
Member Rated:
|
posted April 09, 2005 11:09 AM
To answer your question Seakin:
"You still have not attempted to give me your definition of "moral" and "primal""
I define primal as our basic intincts and moral as our conscience. I disagree that they are one in the same, or a lofty blend, even within you.
I think there is a clearly objective difference in each person.
If a man oppressed with poverty sees a another man obliviously drop a $100 bill, he is going to experience a primal instinct to take it to provide for his family and contribute to his own survival. His morals (conscience) may overrule this and cause him to give it back to the man who dropped it.
If a child is asked whether or not they did something mischeivious, they will experience a primal instinct to lie to cover themselves and protect themselves from unpleasant consequences (adults, too, actually!) but their conscience may overrule this and cause them to confess the truth.
A man very angry with another person may experience a primal instinct of attack (or even killing) that we see in animals who feel threatened. But his conscience my overrule that and cause him to exercise self-control.
(You may observe at this point that what I am bringing up are some of the ten commandments: You shall not steal, you shall not kill, you shall not lie.....) God says he has "written these laws on the hearts of mankind" whether they are of faith in him or not, which is why people universally are able to agree on the tenets of what makes a civilized society.)
In some cases people DON'T overrule their primal instincts and go ahead with a crime, but our legal system supports what humans already know, that there is an objective right and wrong on scenarios given above and as a civilized society we uphold right and punish for wrong, because it's mutally understood that the individual is guilty by nature of the fact that they knew it was wrong, but went ahead and stole, lied, killed, etc. anyway.
We don't prosecute animals for this because we don't perceive them to have a conscience. They have primal instincts only. They kill when they are hungry or threatened and don't have a conscience that tells them not to.
So far your only reason given for seeing a difference between between killing animals, insects, or humans is one of survival on either a life or quality of life realm, or in other words along the lines or primal instincts. It doesn't appear from what you've said up to this point that you see any objection from a purely conscience point of view to killing a human over a animal if has nothing to do with bettering or threatening your own life.
If a young child killed a beetle for no other reason than to be cruel (in other words, there was no threat to his well being, no reason primal to object to the beetles existence) would this be as much of an offense as a human who arbitrarily killed another human?
I absolutely discourage my children from random killing of such insects or animals, citing that we are called to be good stewards of the life around us and that it actually says in the Bible we are to treat animals with kindness (in several places.)
But being that you don't distinguish clearly between moral and primal drives, and don't believe in the Bible, what reason would you give for not convicting an adult that arbitrarily killed your average beetle (not an endangered one) with the same severity as you would an adult who arbitrarily killed another human being?
My question is really not to "paint" as you say or to create a false dichotomy, but to simply hear what you are trying to say about the specific question I am asking.
Survival reasons aside, speaking of just random, unthreatened killing for the sake of being cruel, do believe the severity is the same in stepping on an ant out in the forest on purpose and crushing another person to death? Are they one in the same from a moral, ethical standpoint?
Please note, too, that the question is being asked sincerely and with an invitation to answer sincerely, and with courtesy, or at least neutrality.
I've seen at various points in your posts, even ones to me, a side of communication that is thoughtful and excited about what you're saying, and this is the side I am interested in talking to and best able to hear.
Kindly,
Heather
--------------------
"A thief can justify his own theft, but can't stand being stolen from."
~Augustine
Posts: 233 | From: Santa Cruz | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ecliptic
Member
Member # 1484
|
posted April 09, 2005 11:28 AM
Well said, Heather.
I was wondering about the commandment "You shall not kill."
My understanding is that ancient Hebrew had many words related to "killing." For example, a fairly general word best translated into English as the generic "kill," and others best translated as "slaughter" (an animal, in order to eat it), "execute" (a person for a crime as sanctioned by societal institutions) and "murder" (that is, perform a socially unacceptable killing).
In that light, I've been led to believe that the commandment is best translated as "You shall not murder." That is, you shall not kill a person other than as is considered legitimate by society. This interpretation would proscribe murder but allow execution for criminal offenses and killing in war.
Am I missing anything?
Posts: 153 | From: Santa Cruz | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
