Life boat ethics

Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Life boat ethics

Random question, what do you guys think of garret hardins lifeboat ethic? if you don't know what it is here is the full summary

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

 

here is a much shorter basitidised version.

 

Rich nations are compared to life boats in an ocean.

poor nations are compared to the drowning people

 

in this ocean there is a life boat with a maximum capacity for 60 people and there are 50 people in the boat already. there are 100 people in the ocean drowning.

Do we let them on? if so how many? Please note the life boat has limited supplies other than just a max people it can fit and you don't know how long it will take for rescue. Obviously you cannot let them all on or you will all drown and die, the boat cannot hold 150 people. So maybe you just let 10 on so it gets to max capacity, this has 2 problems, firstly there is a safety factor, obviously everyone will try get onboard and secondly, there is finite supplies and bringing those 10 on will use up those supplies quicker and you don't know when you will be rescued. So what do you do? Safe bet is to take no one.

 

Things to consider,

the earth has finite reasources

And rich nations can only support so many people

taking it out of the metafor adds one very important thing, reproduction

rich nations populations increase slower than those of poor nations

 

to put this into non metafor. should the rich nations help the poor nations?

If they were to do so completely then it would obviously cause total devistation, this would mean taking them all onto the boat. You would have to share all your money equally among all the nations in the world. I think the number is every american would have to split there money into 8 parts and give 7 of those parts away.  even if the countries could survive like this it would lead to the rachet effect. this basically says, if you give poor countries more aid, there population will go up (more food, less people die because of the better conditions etc.), and they will have a larger number of people to take care of with the same capacity as they had before the aid. So they will be in a worse position than before. So you give more aid and you will just keep making the problem worse. And more and more people will have to suffer when the aid runs out and it will as poor nations population rises quicker than rich nations and the world has finite reasources

 

Why to not help just some, the safety concern, they all try climb on the boat. I guess he means illegal immagrates. Countries let some people in, the ones they don't will just do so illegally. rather prevent all from coming in. if someone want to fil in that part feel free. But more importantly it also will lead to the rachet effect just in those places.

 

By increasing the population you are causing more harm in the long run then merely leting the people now suffer. A larger amount of people will suffer as the populations will be bigger.

 

please note this is a very cut down version that I cannot vouch for as it is just off the top of my head and I havent read about it in like a year. but it should convey the basic message.

 

So what do you think. agree or not? do you let the poor nations starve or no?

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Without reading the article,

Without reading the article, the metaphor doesn't work.  We can adapt our lifestyles, we can change methods of production, we can help poorer societies better themselves internally and become self supportive, help reduce population growth, etc...the lifeboat metaphor is too static.

 

This could be an appropriate metaphor for straight food aid though.  If taken as that more direct metaphor, then sure, but only as part of a larger package to get other nations to be self sufficient.  Direct aid isn't anything but a stopgap measure.  But we certainly have the capacity to give as much food aid as we want.  We could feed the whole world if we really wanted to, there is a vast amount of land that is untapped.  It would be expensive though and the political reality being what it is the lives of poor humans aren't worth much more than gestures to the zeitgeist of our collective industrialized societies.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Ugh!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

                        After reading your post &   the link you supplied   I would have to say that I totally and with out reservations have to say without doubt and with great surerity be affirmed to agree with any and all who said  they agreed with me on my sortta acclimation and dissertion on the topic at hand.

 

 

                        Now who could disagree with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!            

 

 

 

 

                    edit{:   Now don't make me repeat  myself,   or else.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Without

mellestad wrote:

Without reading the article, the metaphor doesn't work.  We can adapt our lifestyles, we can change methods of production, we can help poorer societies better themselves internally and become self supportive, help reduce population growth, etc...the lifeboat metaphor is too static.

I agree the metaphor isnt a good one. but that doesnt mean what it translates to is bad.

mellestad wrote:

This could be an appropriate metaphor for straight food aid though.  If taken as that more direct metaphor, then sure, but only as part of a larger package to get other nations to be self sufficient.  Direct aid isn't anything but a stopgap measure.  But we certainly have the capacity to give as much food aid as we want.  We could feed the whole world if we really wanted to, there is a vast amount of land that is untapped.  It would be expensive though and the political reality being what it is the lives of poor humans aren't worth much more than gestures to the zeitgeist of our collective industrialized societies.

you say we have enough food and you are right, but you forget, if they have that food there population will increase and worsen there situation. this would make it harder to gain that self suffiency as they now have more people. basically it would be easier to gain sulf suffciency if you let the few suffer now compared to the greater number later. Unless you want to have them reliant on food aid untill all land is tapped out? the more people the counrty has the harder it will be for it to support them.  Example, if south africa had half its current population we would be in a good place financially, everyone would have a job and would be able to get food. but if you doubled the population with the current economy or a slightly improved economy we are a sinking lifeboat. and yes it is likely that it will take a very longer time for poor countries to get to the point they are sulf sufficent even for there current population.

 

Now as a stop gap measure, the same stil holds just on a smaller scale.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:mellestad

mellestad wrote:
...but only as part of a larger package to get other nations to be self sufficient.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:mellestad

mellestad wrote:

mellestad wrote:
...but only as part of a larger package to get other nations to be self sufficient.

 

there isnt a nation on earth that is self sufficient... well besides maybe north korea and im sure people even trade with them

I know you are not talking about that kinda of self suffiency though.

 

I disagree with the guy on to many levels to actually disagree with you though.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
The only problem I see with it...

The only problem with the metaphor is that there is an abundance of resources on this planet, enough food to feed every human and then some. The problem we face is the way we distribute the resources we have. The rich nations consume a much larger proportion of the resources, by not only wasting much of it, but also feeding a large portion of plant foodstuffs to animals for a smaller amount of meat.

The metaphor would be more accurate to the state of the planet if the life raft had enough to hold everyone, but a small minority of the people on the raft (the rich nations) took much the space and resources on the raft directly produced by those in the water (the poor nations).

The only reason many of the poor nations in the world have starving populations is because their food resources are squandered to feed the small, but gluttonous, portion of the rich population in the world.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:there isnt a

Tapey wrote:

there isnt a nation on earth that is self sufficient... well besides maybe north korea and im sure people even trade with them

N.K. gets food aid and electricity from other countries. They are especially not self sufficient. If N.K. ever goes to war with a U.S. ally, we could cut off food aid and create a starvation crisis in that country. I don't understand why we put up with their shit so much when they depend on us so much.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Tapey

Jormungander wrote:

Tapey wrote:

there isnt a nation on earth that is self sufficient... well besides maybe north korea and im sure people even trade with them

N.K. gets food aid and electricity from other countries. They are especially not self sufficient. If N.K. ever goes to war with a U.S. ally, we could cut off food aid and create a starvation crisis in that country. I don't understand why we put up with their shit so much when they depend on us so much.

I believe we put up there shit because they have enough biological weapons to bury south korea under 12 feet on 6 legged mice. with nuclear ones on the way.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Oh Shit! It's Herbert

Oh Shit! It's Herbert Spencer and Friedrich Nietzsche's retarded baby....life boat ethics!

What's good about this discussion is Atheists recognizing the limits of morality without God. Not to imply that Atheists are inherently immoral. But with secular morality, all you are left with is moral relativism based on a rejection of Christian pity. That's good that you all accept that.

From my perspective, humans are created in the image of God. Now, laugh all you want, but the Imago Dei is the Christian foundation for morality and human equality. Thus, I reject your question. Service of the poor is a moral imperative due to the intrinsic equality bestowed upon all human by their Creator.

Boom!

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:From my

Christos wrote:

From my perspective, humans are created in the image of God. Now, laugh all you want, but the Imago Dei is the Christian foundation for morality and human equality.

So if it turned out that we were not in the image of God, you would have no objection to harming other people? Any atrocity is justifiable if we are not in the image of God?

 

Christos wrote:

So what do you think. agree or not? do you let the poor nations starve or no?

We were talking about ultra-poor people in the third world. Their countries are unable to provide enough food to feed them. They have the highest population growth rates in the world. If you give them food aid, the size of their next generation is that much larger and that much more reliant on outside aid for survival. You create even more starvation by giving them food. So helping them is best done by reducing their population size. The worst thing you could do to these people is give them a lot of food. If you could somehow get them to agree to large population decreases, then you could give them food knowing that you aren't creating much more starvation in the future. But the things you can do to cut down of population growth don't work on these nations. Educating women and giving access to birth control is key to reducing population growth. These nations tend to not want educated women and don't want contraceptives.

I guess my answer to that question is: only give them food IF that will not result in even more of them who are even hungrier.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to take a "Scrooge attitude" towards this...

"Let them die and decrease the surplus population!"

Economy is far too vital to be wasted on every open palm and starving, deprived belly in the world. Developed nations consume a lot and waste quite a bit at the same time, but "Think about all the starving children in Buttfuck, Nowhere" is hardly sufficient justification for developed nations to start babysitting the supposedly malnourished, underprivileged populations of the world -because their problems are far more complex and run much more deeply than not having enough food to keep themselves vital and not enough medicine to maintain a largely over-rated, often self-defeating existence.

To continue my black-hearted, misanthropic "Life isn't fair..." rant along it's natural course: "Why waste compassion on so many 'talking monkeys' that will NEVER amount to anything in their entire lives?"

Our best bet is "let the other human cultures fend for themselves!", for once. Watch the weaklings of their society die off en masse, and then give the beneficial members of their society room to actually flourish and prosper in the wake of the demise of their weaker neighbors.


To pinch a few lines from A Particularly Well-Written Classic Star Trek Flick:

"We 'VOLUNTEERED'!"

"There is an old Vulcan proverb: only Nixon could go to China"

"How could you *vouch* for me? That's... arrogant presumption!"

"My father requested that... "

"I *know* your father is the Vulcan ambassador for crying out loud! But you know how I feel about them..."

"They're animals!"

"Jim, there is an historic opportunity here."

"*Don't* believe them! *Don't* trust them!"

"They are dying..."

"LET THEM DIE!" [...] "Has it occured to you that we've done our bit for King and Country?"


 

My advice to the not-so-wise members of a species that's rapidly populating and consuming itself into extinction: reserve your kindness, respect, and 'aid' for those who deserve it, not an unwashed populace that is STRUGGLING to catch up to the 21st century.

(Yes, I am actually this ruthless, elitist, and apathetic towards the suffering of strangers and foreign populations most days. Chalk it up to an upbringing in a family and society that values the needy peoples more than it does the capable individuals of society. But I still have my mental integrity, so SUCK IT!  )

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I /will/ laugh all I want...

Christos wrote:

Oh Shit! It's Herbert Spencer and Friedrich Nietzsche's retarded baby....life boat ethics!

What's good about this discussion is Atheists recognizing the limits of morality without God.

Atheism and Agnostic nonbelievers have more than enough bleeding hearts and sympathetic idealists to keep "morality" alive and kicking without the help of some imaginary friend or Sky Buddy watching over them. In fact, it's Christians that have proven themselves increasingly morally bankrupt in the 20th and 21st Centuries, rather than Atheists. (On Christian grew up hating Jews and instilled himself as Germany's Chancellor before blowing his and his wife's brains out when he saw his defeat at the hands of Soviets)

The only "Limits of Morality" are the ones created by obsessing needlessly over what happens to people after they die.

Meanwhile, (most) Atheists seem to genuinely give a shit what actually happens to them and their world, as opposed to Bible-Thumpers who want to  serve "The Grace of God".


One other thing before this thread also gets trashed and derailed by some stupid, pseudo-intellectual theist:

I find it depressing how much compassion and sentiment many atheists seem willing to WASTE on needy, useless lumps of human flesh. I maintain that this is one excessive ideal that our species WON'T be able to afford in the coming decades.

And also...

you aren't paying attention to the current numbers

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Oh Shit! It's

Christos wrote:

Oh Shit! It's Herbert Spencer and Friedrich Nietzsche's retarded baby....life boat ethics!

What's good about this discussion is Atheists recognizing the limits of morality without God. Not to imply that Atheists are inherently immoral. But with secular morality, all you are left with is moral relativism based on a rejection of Christian pity. That's good that you all accept that.

From my perspective, humans are created in the image of God. Now, laugh all you want, but the Imago Dei is the Christian foundation for morality and human equality. Thus, I reject your question. Service of the poor is a moral imperative due to the intrinsic equality bestowed upon all human by their Creator.

Boom!

I'm going to borrow my response from CJ.

 

This isn't even a moral question, this is a political question.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Oh Shit! It's

Christos wrote:

Oh Shit! It's Herbert Spencer and Friedrich Nietzsche's retarded baby....life boat ethics!

What's good about this discussion is Atheists recognizing the limits of morality without God. Not to imply that Atheists are inherently immoral. But with secular morality, all you are left with is moral relativism based on a rejection of Christian pity. That's good that you all accept that.

From my perspective, humans are created in the image of God. Now, laugh all you want, but the Imago Dei is the Christian foundation for morality and human equality. Thus, I reject your question. Service of the poor is a moral imperative due to the intrinsic equality bestowed upon all human by their Creator.

Boom!

Shhh, adults are the talking.  This op had nothing to do with religion or god, your comment is completely out of place little one.  Here we are trying to make sense of such difficult issues, and there you go coming up with substance less ansers and arguments that do NOTHING to help the issue at hand.  There are a couple threads now being had on morality and god, go post your poor arguments there.  But before you do watch this 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l69QN7ixmM   (1 of 10) Watch all 10

A debate between Willian Lane Craig and a moral philosopher " Shelly".  This will give you a solid foundation of why your argument doesn't stand up and will save me alote of time explaining to you why, shelly does a good job of articulating it and it's a well presented debate.  After watching this and you revise your argument to make better sense, then come post about our moral "limits" without god non-sense in a related thread. 


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Shhh, adults are the talking.  This op had nothing to do with religion or god, your comment is completely out of place little one.  Here we are trying to make sense of such difficult issues, and there you go coming up with substance less ansers and arguments that do NOTHING to help the issue at hand.

I love ad hominem attacks to begin an argument!

I realize that the thread wasn't about God....I was referencing God as a foundation for morality in the Imago Dei. As a result, I rejected the original question: should we feed the poor? Of course you feed the poor, because each human is equal and loved in the eyes of their creator.

Second, I was stating my pure enjoyment that the thread recognizes the limits of morality without God. You see, this discussion of feeding the poor is only possible within a secular, social darwinistic framework. This discussion is not possible in a framework of Christian ethics. 

Third, do you know who Spencer and Nietzche are? You're an atheist...so you should.

Fourth, here is a nifty youtube clip to prove my point without making an argument!

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:We were

Jormungander wrote:

We were talking about ultra-poor people in the third world. Their countries are unable to provide enough food to feed them. They have the highest population growth rates in the world. If you give them food aid, the size of their next generation is that much larger and that much more reliant on outside aid for survival. You create even more starvation by giving them food. So helping them is best done by reducing their population size. The worst thing you could do to these people is give them a lot of food. If you could somehow get them to agree to large population decreases, then you could give them food knowing that you aren't creating much more starvation in the future. But the things you can do to cut down of population growth don't work on these nations. Educating women and giving access to birth control is key to reducing population growth. These nations tend to not want educated women and don't want contraceptives.

I guess my answer to that question is: only give them food IF that will not result in even more of them who are even hungrier.

I agree that birth control and contraceptives are important to reducing ultra-poor population totals. Now, not giving them food to reduce population is very problematic. What you're essentially doing is reducing people to animals, and the refusal to provide food is a form of social darwinism. You're reducing the value of human life by trying to weed out the weak and helpless.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Economy is far

Kapkao wrote:

Economy is far too vital to be wasted on every open palm and starving, deprived belly in the world. 

To continue my black-hearted, misanthropic "Life isn't fair..." rant along it's natural course: "Why waste compassion on so many 'talking monkeys' that will NEVER amount to anything in their entire lives?"

Our best bet is "let the other human cultures fend for themselves!", for once. Watch the weaklings of their society die off en masse, and then give the beneficial members of their society room to actually flourish and prosper in the wake of the demise of their weaker neighbors.


(Yes, I am actually this ruthless, elitist, and apathetic towards the suffering of strangers and foreign populations most days. Chalk it up to an upbringing in a family and society that values the needy peoples more than it does the capable individuals of society. But I still have my mental integrity, so SUCK IT!  )

This response is troublesome in two ways. First, you're placing economic interests above human needs. You are willing to sacrifice people's lives for the good of GDP. Second, you're reducing a human being to just another animal (even more so than other posts). You are willing to allow death and suffering as a result of your allegiance to a "survival of the fittest" worldview. You are flatly rejecting the fundamental truth that human beings are equal.

Also, your thing about "talking monkeys," might considered by some to be racist (myself included). You should stop with that kind of rhetoric.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: This

Christos wrote:

This response is troublesome in two ways. First, you're placing economic interests above human needs. You are willing to sacrifice people's lives for the good of GDP. Second, you're reducing a human being to just another animal (even more so than other posts). You are willing to allow death and suffering as a result of your allegiance to a "survival of the fittest" worldview. You are flatly rejecting the fundamental truth that human beings are equal.

Also, your thing about "talking monkeys," might considered by some to be racist (myself included). You should stop with that kind of rhetoric.

 

A gentle suggestion: Take Kapkao with a grain or two of salt - maybe some lime and Tequila as well.  Helps.  He's in the middle of a depressive episode, he'll be better soon.

Forgive the upcoming sci-fi reference.  I'm an old geek.  But the life boat ethics problem reminds me of the Kobayashi Maru test in Star Trek.  Like Kirk, I want to come up with a least a third option.  Build more life rafts out of floating flotsam and jetsam perhaps.  Call for a chopper or two.  (Wouldn't you hang on to your cell phone if at all possible in a ship wreck?) 

I agree with you that not feeding people in order to forcibly reduce their population is treating them like animals.  I am put in mind of the elderly lady who lived across the alley from us at one point.  She put out enough food for the local feral cats that there were three litters for each unspayed female cat every year.  Old ladies should be licensed before they can buy cat food.  (She was in her mid-eighties, I ain't that old yet.)

If I remember correctly, anthropologists have estimated that hunter-gatherer women had no more than one child every five years due to lack of body fat.  As humans became agriculturists, women had more body fat and the children were needed to farm.  As agriculture become more efficient, those children moved to cities and/or worked in factories.  If you can't farm or don't have jobs, you won't have enough food.

So people are animals - in the sense we are subject to the same biological laws and requirements as every other critter on the planet.  Not enough food, therefore not enough body fat, therefore no children.  Biological realities.

Should we feed those people?  I have a friend whose family is not African, but some of them live in Africa and build and provision schools providing information so the people can learn to help themselves.  Unless people are in danger of starving to death (I realize some are in that situation), I think this is a better solution than just throwing rice at the problem.  I have heard of other similar programs - education, birth control, infrastructure.  All would help.

To jump to the other side for just a minute.  The human population needs - must - be reduced world wide.  I don't think letting people starve or shooting them or nuking them is a humane solution.  But we really truly do not need to have as many people on the earth as all the "grains of sand in the oceans."  Really.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:I realize

Christos wrote:

I realize that the thread wasn't about God....I was referencing God as a foundation for morality in the Imago Dei. As a result, I rejected the original question: should we feed the poor? Of course you feed the poor, because each human is equal and loved in the eyes of their creator.

An opigion on the issue at hand would have been a little more mannerly, no?  Atleast join the conversation before you start preaching.  Acting this way warrants attitude, which is why you'll get it, you  "reep what you sew" as it were. 

Christos wrote:

Second, I was stating my pure enjoyment that the thread recognizes the limits of morality without God. You see, this discussion of feeding the poor is only possible within a secular, social darwinistic framework. This discussion is not possible in a framework of Christian ethics. 

Really, I see this thread showing that humans are discovering morals truth without god.  So the questions stands to you, what would YOU do in this situation.  Stop the preaching and think as an individual even if it is a christian individual and imagine it was your children in the boat and people you didn't know in the water, make a postion and make acutal conversation, preaching will get you no where. 

Christos wrote:

Third, do you know who Spencer and Nietzche are? You're an atheist...so you should.

Mildly the ethics of evelution etc...   As an athiest theirs nothing I am "suppose" to know, but I am  always looking to further my knowledge, I could certainly look into it. 

Christos wrote:

Fourth, here is a nifty youtube clip to prove my point without making an argument!

Yes, well I could certainly spend 6 pages explaining what I think about "moral truth," morals in general and where they "come from."  But It would be out of place in this thread so I saved my fellow readers the eyesore and directed you to something that I would say Is a pretty good representation of my thoughts on the matter and asked you to meet me in a more proper environement for the "moralilty comes from god" discussion to be had.       

Edit:  What do you mean by "nifty" clip.  This is a more recent public, official 1.5 hour debate with William Lane Craig, a person many christians say is the best or one of their best representatives on the debate circuit.  This is not some 3 minute clip of Venomfangx or some handicapped theists making a fool of himself, this is a proper debate beteen 2 fairly brilliant men. 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:This response

Christos wrote:

This response is troublesome in two ways. First, you're placing economic interests above human needs. You are willing to sacrifice people's lives for the good of GDP. Second, you're reducing a human being to just another animal (even more so than other posts). You are willing to allow death and suffering as a result of your allegiance to a "survival of the fittest" worldview. You are flatly rejecting the fundamental truth that human beings are equal.

Also, your thing about "talking monkeys," might considered by some to be racist (myself included). You should stop with that kind of rhetoric.

You wouldn't know this if you didn't hang around here but, Kap's nuts, uno in a good way like the Irishman in braveheart.   


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Let me preface by saying I

Let me preface by saying I like this theory alot... shear gaul to say you shouldn't feed hungry people. ethics at its best imo. and unless you think about it for a bit it can seem quiet logical. at least i thought so.

 

For me there are a few problems

 

first, the metaphor is absolute crap and as a result you cannot compare it to nations.

life boats are isolated. nations are not.

In the analgy if you don't get on the life boat you are dead... this is not the case with nations. you can live in a poor nation. This kinda screws up a large part of his analagy.

a life boat has fixed reasources like food. nations can continually grow more.

 

Im also not so sure if about the rachet effect? Is giving food really going to make lots of babies. maybe i duno sure it can alow them to survive but i duno if that is going to cause a significantly increased population? Maybe there are some studys on this. I would just question this.

 

It pretty much totally ignores all political elements.

 

there are more reasources than just food... give them food and condoms education or whatever is needed to keep population in check.

 

And finally. If you buy into it think about this.

 

if it can be used to argue that nations should not help poor nations. can it not be argued that it could be used to argue that the rich in a country have no obligation to help the poor of that country? it seems to follow like it does with nations.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Kapkao

Christos wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Economy is far too vital to be wasted on every open palm and starving, deprived belly in the world. 

To continue my black-hearted, misanthropic "Life isn't fair..." rant along it's natural course: "Why waste compassion on so many 'talking monkeys' that will NEVER amount to anything in their entire lives?"

Our best bet is "let the other human cultures fend for themselves!", for once. Watch the weaklings of their society die off en masse, and then give the beneficial members of their society room to actually flourish and prosper in the wake of the demise of their weaker neighbors.


(Yes, I am actually this ruthless, elitist, and apathetic towards the suffering of strangers and foreign populations most days. Chalk it up to an upbringing in a family and society that values the needy peoples more than it does the capable individuals of society. But I still have my mental integrity, so SUCK IT!  )

This response is troublesome in two ways. First, you're placing economic interests above human needs. You are willing to sacrifice people's lives for the good of GDP. Second, you're reducing a human being to just another animal (even more so than other posts). You are willing to allow death and suffering as a result of your allegiance to a "survival of the fittest" worldview. You are flatly rejecting the fundamental truth that human beings are equal.

Indeed. You flatter me with your assessment.

Humans are mainly useful as pawns, bishops, knights, and of course.... ROOKS. Anything else besides "chess piecing" others... is simple denial of their inherent utility.

Most humans alive today would NOT even know what enlightened self-preservation *WAS* if it smacked 'em in the face!

 

Quote:
Also, your thing about "talking monkeys," might considered by some to be racist (myself included). You should stop with that kind of rhetoric.

You should stop worrying about what 'offends' other people. I'm strictly referring to the human race - as worthless and self-destructive as it has become.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
A couple of corrections...

Christos wrote:
What's good about this discussion is Atheists recognizing the limits of morality without God. Not to imply that Atheists are inherently immoral. But with secular morality, all you are left with is moral relativism based on a rejection of Christian pity. That's good that you all accept that.

Christian pity? Like this?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/cr_list.html

You have no objective basis for your morality either, since you base your morality on a 2,000 year old book written by genocidal, bigoted goat herders. All morality is a social construct, and you are not special in any way on this front. You just like the morality of one culture more then others.

Christos wrote:
I realize that the thread wasn't about God....I was referencing God as a foundation for morality in the Imago Dei. As a result, I rejected the original question: should we feed the poor? Of course you feed the poor, because each human is equal and loved in the eyes of their creator.

What about all those who the Israelites were commanded by "God" to kill and rape? Doesn't seem there was much "Christian Pity" there.

Christos wrote:
What you're essentially doing is reducing people to animals

And? We are animals.

Christos wrote:
You are flatly rejecting the fundamental truth that human beings are equal.

So Hitler and Caligula and John Wayne Gacy are equal to you? That's interesting to know how you value yourself!

Christos wrote:
Also, your thing about "talking monkeys," might considered by some to be racist (myself included). You should stop with that kind of rhetoric.

I agree, it was wrong to say that... he should have said "talking APES". Sheesh, some people, right?

Christos, your morality has a much shakier foundation then secular morality, since the secular basis of it allows it to improve due to new information, your morality cannot. You are just deluded into thinking that it has some "objective" basis for it.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:A gentle

cj wrote:
A gentle suggestion: Take Kapkao with a grain or two of salt - maybe some lime and Tequila as well.  Helps.  He's in the middle of a depressive episode, he'll be better soon.

Taking anyone with a grain of salt is one of the more wiser, practical things to do in any part of Internet discussions. Disregarding/invalidating what they say solely on the basis of them currently being in a bit of a slump is downright insulting.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:A gentle

dp


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:life boats are

Tapey wrote:

life boats are isolated. nations are not.

The 'life boat' is all first world countries. We are not isolated, but if we equally shared resources with third world countries their populations would expand to the point that we could not sustain them.

 

Tapey wrote:

In the analgy if you don't get on the life boat you are dead... this is not the case with nations. you can live in a poor nation. This kinda screws up a large part of his analagy.

'Not in the life boat' in this analogy means 'little cultural carrying capacity.' Hardin also liked writing about cultural carrying capacity rather than biological carrying capacity. Are you willfully misinterpreting this analogy, or are you just playing dumb?

 

Tapey wrote:

a life boat has fixed reasources like food. nations can continually grow more.

We will NEVER increase our ability to grow food faster than ulta-poor third world residents can reproduce. And in portions of the third world, their ability to grow crops keeps reducing. So even if they didn't have more people, the would still have a food problem. Reality works out the opposite way from what you are describing in that quote.

But, if we could stop them from increasing their population size, then we could give them food aid every generation with no problem.

 

Tapey wrote:

Im also not so sure if about the rachet effect? Is giving food really going to make lots of babies. maybe i duno sure it can alow them to survive but i duno if that is going to cause a significantly increased population? Maybe there are some studys on this. I would just question this.

Are you joking or something? The nations with the highest population growth rates have the most hunger and are ultra-poor. Their population growth rates are many times higher than that of the U.S. (Liberians average 7 babies per woman) and that is with all the starvation and disease. Giving them modern medicine and food makes it even worse.

That's another thing: modern medicine. With only the best intentions, Westerners can go to a region and really cut down on infant mortality rates. But, when your average Liberian woman has 7 kids, their population basically relies on most children dying. Making most live gives them massive population growth rates that can not be sustainable.

 

Tapey wrote:

there are more reasources than just food... give them food and condoms education or whatever is needed to keep population in check.

Now you are ignoring politics. Some cultures actively reject birth control and educating women. They absolutely refuse any attempt to slow down reproduction. You can't just say 'it'd be swell if they'de all just use condoms and only have 2.1 kids per couple.' If that were the case then this wouldn't be a problem.

 

Tapey wrote:

if it can be used to argue that nations should not help poor nations. can it not be argued that it could be used to argue that the rich in a country have no obligation to help the poor of that country? it seems to follow like it does with nations.

These 3rd world countries lack the ability to feed their populations and in some cases can grow less food every year. In the U.S. we have way the hell too much food and we could support massive increases in our population. If we give unlimited amounts of food to our poor, it will not harm us. Our population growth rate is so low and we make so much food that there is no long term problem caused by ending hunger in America. But the population growth rates of 3rd world countries prevent the same from being true for them. So: false analogy.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
A gentle dp?  Geeze Kap. 

A gentle dp?  Geeze Kap.   

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:A gentle

mellestad wrote:

A gentle dp?  Geeze Kap.   

Ah... see what you did. You made me crack a grin.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:Christian pity?

B166ER wrote:

Christian pity?

That's a Nietzche term from "The Antichrist." His characterization, not mine.

B166ER wrote:

We are animals

Obviously. Yet we should accept that human beings deserve compassion and mercy in a way other animals do not.

B166ER wrote:

I agree, it was wrong to say that... he should have said "talking APES". Sheesh, some people, right?

Christos, your morality has a much shakier foundation then secular morality, since the secular basis of it allows it to improve due to new information, your morality cannot. You are just deluded into thinking that it has some "objective" basis for it.

Yep, that's racist.

You can't honestly say that Christianity has a shakier moral foundation. This whole discussion of secular morality implies moral relativism. I'm promoting a moral system that is more absolute. Moral relativism is by definition a shaky moral foundation.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:A gentle

cj wrote:

A gentle suggestion: Take Kapkao with a grain or two of salt - maybe some lime and Tequila as well.  Helps.  He's in the middle of a depressive episode, he'll be better soon.

Thanks for the heads up.

cj wrote:

I agree with you that not feeding people in order to forcibly reduce their population is treating them like animals.  I am put in mind of the elderly lady who lived across the alley from us at one point.  She put out enough food for the local feral cats that there were three litters for each unspayed female cat every year.  Old ladies should be licensed before they can buy cat food.  (She was in her mid-eighties, I ain't that old yet.)

If I remember correctly, anthropologists have estimated that hunter-gatherer women had no more than one child every five years due to lack of body fat.  As humans became agriculturists, women had more body fat and the children were needed to farm.  As agriculture become more efficient, those children moved to cities and/or worked in factories.  If you can't farm or don't have jobs, you won't have enough food.

So people are animals - in the sense we are subject to the same biological laws and requirements as every other critter on the planet.  Not enough food, therefore not enough body fat, therefore no children.  Biological realities.

Should we feed those people?  I have a friend whose family is not African, but some of them live in Africa and build and provision schools providing information so the people can learn to help themselves.  Unless people are in danger of starving to death (I realize some are in that situation), I think this is a better solution than just throwing rice at the problem.  I have heard of other similar programs - education, birth control, infrastructure.  All would help.

To jump to the other side for just a minute.  The human population needs - must - be reduced world wide.  I don't think letting people starve or shooting them or nuking them is a humane solution.  But we really truly do not need to have as many people on the earth as all the "grains of sand in the oceans."  Really.

All good points. We cannot allow starvation, but we also don't want to "throw rice at the problem." I agree that population must be reduced, but only by contraceptives not by allowing people to starve or die from disease.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:A

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:
A gentle suggestion: Take Kapkao with a grain or two of salt - maybe some lime and Tequila as well.  Helps.  He's in the middle of a depressive episode, he'll be better soon.

Taking anyone with a grain of salt is one of the more wiser, practical things to do in any part of Internet discussions. Disregarding/invalidating what they say solely on the basis of them currently being in a bit of a slump is downright insulting.

 

I didn't say to disregard you, just to cut you some slack.  At least that was my intent.  A grain or two of salt and the rest of the concoction helps when you are manic as well.  Sheese.  And if you want to get inclusive, when ANY of you on the forum start sounding like the entire human race should be armageddoned, I ignore whichever of you is off.  You all get over it.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:All good

Christos wrote:

All good points. We cannot allow starvation, but we also don't want to "throw rice at the problem." I agree that population must be reduced, but only by contraceptives not by allowing people to starve or die from disease.

 

I believe it is possible, even likely, that we will soon have no choice in the matter.  People may starve and/or die from disease and/or from overcrowding generally with most of us in the same boat and unable to help each other.

Friday by Robert Heinlein delves into the possibility of a major disease outbreak - he goes for the black plague - that just about wipes off the human race currently living on Earth.  That was before Ebola hit the headlines.  I don't know what it might be, but the over crowding and the way we raise our food and we are "cruising for a bruising".

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ah-ha!

cj wrote:

I didn't say to disregard you, just to cut you some slack.  At least that was my intent.  A grain or two of salt and the rest of the concoction helps when you are manic as well.  Sheese.  And if you want to get inclusive, when ANY of you on the forum start sounding like the entire human race should be armageddoned, I ignore whichever of you is off.  You all get over it.

Therein lies your error: "should". I don't see anyone suggesting that. I do recall myself suggesting that population crises and consumption crises could come to an abrupt and chilling end, because... well... that's what the math clearly suggests. We can't keep populating ourselves into the 8 and 9 digit figures; there simply isn't enough arable land on Planet Earth. We can't keep wasting finite resources on people and localized cultures who don't actually contribute to the bigger picture, because that means less for actualy consumers and the productive workforce. We can't keep treating the right to reproduce for granted, because that means more hungry mouths to feed and less land from which to feed them. And lastly...

...we should destroy the ridiculous myth of "equality for all", because there's never been an ounce of supportive data to indicate that it's a realistic goal for humanity.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: cj wrote: I

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

I didn't say to disregard you, just to cut you some slack.  At least that was my intent.  A grain or two of salt and the rest of the concoction helps when you are manic as well.  Sheese.  And if you want to get inclusive, when ANY of you on the forum start sounding like the entire human race should be armageddoned, I ignore whichever of you is off.  You all get over it.

Therein lies your error: "should". I don't see anyone suggesting that. I do recall myself suggesting that population crises and consumption crises could come to an abrupt and chilling end, because... well... that's what the math clearly suggests. We can't keep populating ourselves into the 8 and 9 digit figures; there simply isn't enough arable land on Planet Earth. We can't keep wasting finite resources on people and localized cultures who don't actually contribute to the bigger picture, because that means less for actualy consumers and the productive workforce. We can't keep treating the right to reproduce for granted, because that means more hungry mouths to feed and less land from which to feed them. And lastly...

 

Ah, expressed like this, I am 100% in agreement with you.  We do not have the resources to keep on like we are.  And that means most of the people in the water and a many who are in the boats will die at some point - catastrophically. 

 

kapkao wrote:

...we should destroy the ridiculous myth of "equality for all", because there's never been an ounce of supportive data to indicate that it's a realistic goal for humanity.

 

 

If by "equality for all", you mean that everyone should get the same stuff, that makes no sense.  It also makes no sense if you mean everyone has the same internal stuff - same talents, same aptitudes, same attitudes, same intellect.  We don't.  We never will. 

I usually prefer "equal opportunity".  We should have the same opportunity to make the most of what we have.  All people should be paid on merit and not on gender or ethnicity or skin color or hair texture.  All people should have the chance to have a peaceful life with the necessities - clean food, air, water, shelter, basic medical care.  All people should have a chance at education.  This is not to say that everyone will take the same advantage of these things, but the opportunity to do so should exist.  That's an awful lot of "should's".

I think we could do it.  By "we" I do not mean the US, or US+Canada, or US+Canada+Europe+Australia, or all-the-Christians, or all-the-atheists or any other combination of entities, organizations, or governments.  I mean every last human on the planet is involved.  And we all work towards making it a sustainable system for everyone.  And that will include population reduction.  And probably a lot of other unpleasant realities that require hard decisions. 

And I don't believe it will ever happen.  But I can wish it is someone's goal as well as mine.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
But then again...... 

But then again......

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Christos

Christos wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Shhh, adults are the talking.  This op had nothing to do with religion or god, your comment is completely out of place little one.  Here we are trying to make sense of such difficult issues, and there you go coming up with substance less ansers and arguments that do NOTHING to help the issue at hand.

I love ad hominem attacks to begin an argument!

I realize that the thread wasn't about God....I was referencing God as a foundation for morality in the Imago Dei. As a result, I rejected the original question: should we feed the poor? Of course you feed the poor, because each human is equal and loved in the eyes of their creator.

Second, I was stating my pure enjoyment that the thread recognizes the limits of morality without God. You see, this discussion of feeding the poor is only possible within a secular, social darwinistic framework. This discussion is not possible in a framework of Christian ethics. 

You have it backwards - the evolved urges to empathic behaviour and cooperation in social groups are the inspiration for religious moral teachings.

You are seeing the limitations of any form of naive moral 'rules', regardless of how they are derived, when faced with large problems like this.

We do need some grownup ideas here, not the childish stuff of religious dogma.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Actually...

Christos wrote:
Obviously. Yet we should accept that human beings deserve compassion and mercy in a way other animals do not.

Why?

I don't see any sane or logical reason(s) for human exceptionalism, besides the claims made by books that have no evidence to back them up.

If you want me to take you seriously, why don't you give me some answers for your statement on human exceptionalism. Is there a reason I should treat a "Hitler" better then a "Rex", since I can tell you, "Rex" has done a lot less damage to everyone and everything. Humans are just another creature in this cosmic scheme of things, so why should we think of ourselves as the center of the universe and worthy of much more then anything else? Oh yeah, that's right, your little book of yours, written by human beings, that teaches "objective morality".

Christos wrote:
Yep, that's racist.

Dude, I work with ARA (Anti-Racist Action) and Antifa, so I confront racism WHERE EVER I see it, and I saw none of it. Kapkao was in no way singling out groups of people who have historically had the moniker "monkey" given to them (by Good Christians), he was using it to discribe our entire species! You really need to learn about context, since you obviously are trying to discount his statement by just pulling out the "he hurt my feelings" category.

Christos wrote:
You can't honestly say that Christianity has a shakier moral foundation. This whole discussion of secular morality implies moral relativism. I'm promoting a moral system that is more absolute. Moral relativism is by definition a shaky moral foundation.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You have just picked another human created morality and called it "divined by god". Talk about arrogant! There is nothing absolute in morality since ALL moral systems are created by social animals. The only difference between our differing moral systems is that we understand ours is a social construct and you claim absolute knowledge from some cosmic dictator! People made up the "moral" system of the Abrahamic faiths, you just are too naive and brainwashed to realize it.

And to call ANYTHING from that "good" book of genocide, rape and slavery "moral", shows that your morals are about as shaky as they come!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Even if a 'morality' based

Even if a 'morality' based on the edicts of a God was defensible, it is all totally subjective, since we have no objective confirmation of the existence of a God, or that any given text is unambiguously an edict of such a being, or that such a being, if it exists, is actually making pronouncements in our interest.

It is not just on 'shakier ground', it is groundless, ultimately based on human subjective assessment of which edicts really come from God, and how to interpret them.

At least secular morality has a clear basis, even if there will be differences of opinion.

Of course, all religious beliefs are in perfect agreement about all things..

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
 B166ER wrote:I don't see

 

B166ER wrote:

I don't see any sane or logical reason(s) for human exceptionalism, besides the claims made by books that have no evidence to back them up.

If you want me to take you seriously, why don't you give me some answers for your statement on human exceptionalism. Is there a reason I should treat a "Hitler" better then a "Rex", since I can tell you, "Rex" has done a lot less damage to everyone and everything. Humans are just another creature in this cosmic scheme of things, so why should we think of ourselves as the center of the universe and worthy of much more then anything else? O

When you turned humans into just another animal you eliminate any justification for human equality, and you're left asking questions like, "should we feed the poor?" You also turn life into an arbitrary pursuit of pleasure. Epicurus would be proud!

B166ER wrote:

You have just picked another human created morality and called it "divined by god". Talk about arrogant! There is nothing absolute in morality since ALL moral systems are created by social animals. The only difference between our differing moral systems is that we understand ours is a social construct and you claim absolute knowledge from some cosmic dictator!

You see, I was making a basic point about moral relativism based on secular moral foundations is shakier than moral absolutism (regardless of the validity of absolutism's foundation).

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: When you

Christos wrote:

When you turned humans into just another animal you eliminate any justification for human equality, and you're left asking questions like, "should we feed the poor?" You also turn life into an arbitrary pursuit of pleasure. Epicurus would be proud!

 

I like Epicurus.  You have him wrong.  Epicurus was about the avoidance of pain.  And overindulgence brings pain.  Lots of pain.  So Epicurus was about moderation in all things.  Do not deny yourself pleasure, but do not overindulge.  And that goes for emotional and spiritual pain as well.

Are you going to tell me that preaching to the ungodly doesn't satisfy your need to be self-important?  That it isn't pleasurable to show off how intelligent you are, how religious you are?  Isn't it pleasurable to feel so superior to us unwashed atheists?  Take Epicurus' advice - don't pursue your pleasures to the point of pain.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3909
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: By increasing

Tapey wrote:

 

By increasing the population you are causing more harm in the long run then merely leting the people now suffer. A larger amount of people will suffer as the populations will be bigger.

 

please note this is a very cut down version that I cannot vouch for as it is just off the top of my head and I havent read about it in like a year. but it should convey the basic message.

 

So what do you think. agree or not? do you let the poor nations starve or no?

 

Basically it's let some starve now or even more starve later. And even in the so-called rich countries, the governments have massive debt and hungry people.

 

I say offer food in exchange for vasectomies and getting tubes tied. But this would include the rich and powerful not just the unwashed masses.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The metaphor of the article

The metaphor of the article is false. Better said, I have another article.
All the world’s nearly one billion hungry people could be lifted out of malnourishment on less than a quarter of the food that is wasted in the US, UK and Europe."

It is possible to save everyone from hunger and still have surplus of food. But it would require to stop wasting the resources. It would require to change shopping and eating habits. Also, the stupidity of commercialism and marketing must be recognized. Food, water and other Earth's resources are more valuable than money, because money can be created on stock market out of nothing, but resources can't be created out of nothing. So wasting them for endless money is a bad idea.
I believe that simplicity and minimalistic sufficiency is the way of the future. We waste resources on dozens of products of the same kind, just because people in marketing must come with crazy and cheap ideas to feed their families.
With crazy, cheap and environmentally destructive products their colleagues designed and were paid for.

This system makes people that have money shit factories. Nothing valuable is produced, everything is made to be bought, consumed and turned into shit. So it will be known in future history textbooks, the Shit age. If there will be any textbooks.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.