If man is simply another animal.....

[Dimmesdale]

If man is simply another animal, what right have we to complain that he acts in an animalistic way? Could we say that he acts worse? On what basis? If we stick to our guns in condemning actions in ourselves, we seem to borrow from the idea that there is such a thing as sin. But materialism alone can’t furnish us with this notion of sin. Or can it? But then, if we are consistent, should we not then condemn the animal kingdom’s violence as well?

Counterpoint and Response:

One might say that human beings, as opposed to other animals, can conceive of the moral law and are thus to be held accountable, by virtue of their knowledge. But if this is just due to our biological hard-wiring then why say either following the moral law or breaking it is good or bad? In other words, what is the basis for judging our judgments? One might say, “because we are a judging animal.� But is that really strong enough? What if I genetically engineer a person and cause him in such a manner to judge a certain way that was deviant from the norm, and make that person feel as passionately in the right regarding their “bad� judgments as we may feel about our “good� judgments. Wouldn’t, by that definition, that person be as “right� as we are “right�?

[Divine Insight]

If we stick to our guns in condemning actions in ourselves, we seem to borrow from the idea that there is such a thing as sin.

Why call it "sin"? Why not just call it "human disapprovall" and also recognize that different individual humans disapprove of different behavior. So it's all relative to subjective opinion.

But materialism alone can’t furnish us with this notion of sin. Or can it?

If the actual notion is simply subjective human disapproval then materialism alone has this covered.

But then, if we are consistent, should we not then condemn the animal kingdom’s violence as well?

I don't approve of the behavior of many animals just as I don't approve of the behavior of many humans. I don't really see a difference other than the argument that humans should be intelligent enough to know better. But apparently some humans aren't.

Counterpoint and Response:

One might say that human beings, as opposed to other animals, can conceive of the moral law and are thus to be held accountable, by virtue of their knowledge. But if this is just due to our biological hard-wiring then why say either following the moral law or breaking it is good or bad? In other words, what is the basis for judging our judgments? One might say, “because we are a judging animal.� But is that really strong enough? What if I genetically engineer a person and cause him in such a manner to judge a certain way that was deviant from the norm, and make that person feel as passionately in the right regarding their “bad� judgments as we may feel about our “good� judgments. Wouldn’t, by that definition, that person be as “right� as we are “right�?

Well, now you are assuming that there exists some absolute philosophical "right".

Actually within this universe what right do humans have to say that harming, or killing anyone is "wrong". Obviously the natural universe has no problem at all harming and killing anyone.

So the whole concept of what is "right" is a subjective human opinion to begin with.

I think where your entire thesis runs into problem is with your assumption that there already exists such a thing as an absolute, universal, or objective "right or wrong".

Unfortunately, reality seems to indicate that the entire notion of "right or wrong" is a human subjective opinion to begin with. And obviously all humans cannot even come to a consensus on precisely what constitutes "right or wrong". Even the most devout theists cannot come to a consensus on this between themselves.

This is even true within specific sects and demoninations of the same religious groups. Even congregations of a single church will not agree on all concepts of what's "right or wrong'.

So all that truly exists in terms of moral values are subjective opinions. Period.

There is no problem in this from a materialistic worldview. The only problems that result from trying to create an absolute objective moral system are problems that arise from theists who cannot even agree on what they would like to be the ultimate moral guidelines.

Secularists realize that it ultimately comes down to subjective consensus. For this reason we should be careful to only classify things as being moral or immoral (right or wrong) when we can obtain a very strong consensus. And when a strong consensus cannot be reached on a specific issue, then perhaps we would be better off to classify that behavior as "amoral" (i.e. neither right or wrong).

After all, does every behavior need have a moral value associated with it?

Should it be more or less moral for me to be a Car, versus a Truck, or say a Motorcycle? I would say that these are all "amoral" choices.

In other words, every actions doesn't even need to have a moral value associated with it. And this may also be true for things like gender identity, sexual preferences, and even relationship arrangements. For example, who's to say that polygamy should be considered to be immoral? Clearly not everyone thinks so.

So I think the very concept of right or wrong is often nothing more than human subjective opinion. In fact, it may always be nothing more than human subjective opinion.

Is torturing a baby immoral? Most humans would agree that it is. But clearly the universe doesn't give a hoot about baby humans. Natural disasters will destroy a human baby just as quickly as a human will slap a mosquito.

Is it moral to slap a mosquito?

[Dimmesdale]

So all that truly exists in terms of moral values are subjective opinions. Period.

Well, what if someone killed someone you loved? What if he said his personal subjective opinion was that it was perfectly fine to do what he did. You would still seek out justice though, woudn't you? Or would you just want to put him away so that others wouldn't be harmed by him, thinking pragmatically?

I think I would seek out justice because I think there is an "intersubjective" consensus on what is "right" even if it's not objective, which I kind of find a meaningless concept...

[Divine Insight]

So all that truly exists in terms of moral values are subjective opinions. Period.

Well, what if someone killed someone you loved? What if he said his personal subjective opinion was that it was perfectly fine to do what he did. You would still seek out justice though, woudn't you? Or would you just want to put him away so that others wouldn't be harmed by him, thinking pragmatically?

I think I would seek out justice because I think there is an "intersubjective" consensus on what is "right" even if it's not objective, which I kind of find a meaningless concept...

Why call it "justice" and proclaim that you are in the "right"?

Why not just call it vengeance and leave it at that?

Or would you just want to put him away so that others wouldn't be harmed by him, thinking pragmatically?

Personally I think that putting him away so that he can't harm others would potentially be a far greater "punishment" if you want to think in terms of punishment. Especially considering that he probably wouldn't be put away in a very 'nice' place.

If I had killed someone I would much rather be put to death myself than to be sentenced to life imprisonment. I see capital "punishment" as actually letting someone off the hook. Different people are obvious going to view this differently.

But yeah, in a civilized society it make practical sense to deal with people who are a threat to the social way of life.

Let's not forget that humans are just animals. We are a 'social' species. There are many other animals that are social species too, and from what I understand they too have social "rules" that they must follow or be chastised by others in their society. Obviously, they don't have legislators, courts, lawyers, and written documents containing their laws. But they have unwritten laws none the less.

So humans aren't unique in the animal kingdom in terms of dealing with unruly "citizens". It simply make sense in terms of a social species to cooperate among themselves.

So in this sense man is "simply another animal".

[Dimmesdale]

Why call it "justice" and proclaim that you are in the "right"?

Why not just call it vengeance and leave it at that?

Kind of, like, Ahab's vengeance against Moby Dick? Is that what our personal vendettas amount to? Seems a little.. unreasonable..

[Divine Insight]

Why call it "justice" and proclaim that you are in the "right"?

Why not just call it vengeance and leave it at that?

Kind of, like, Ahab's vengeance against Moby Dick? Is that what our personal vendettas amount to? Seems a little.. unreasonable..

Seeking vengeance is unreasonable. But humans often have a strong desire to do it anyway. Emotions often overrule rationality.

There are examples where people who have lost loved ones to horrible criminals have openly forgiven those criminals for their horrific deeds. Is that unreasonable? If so, then we can certainly point to an entire religion based on a fellow who taught people to do precisely that very thing. Even though, ironically, he was apparently not willing to practice what he preached.