On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:06:56 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi all
>
>IAN:
><some snipped>
>There was a pattern to what occured in Germany during the national
>socialist period. It starts with elevating animals to having the same
>rights as humans. Once you have made this IMMORAL (IMO) step the
>action of treating people as animals becomes a much smaller step.
>
>Human life is SACRED.
>Animal life is not SACRED
>
>JON:
>
>Human life is sacred to humans. No doubt about it. As a human being, it is
>moral of me to consider sacred the lives of other humans. Humans have the
>moral obligation to consider humans more sacred than other life forms. That
>doesn't mean other life forms are not sacred.
Well no, actually words have meanings. Human life is sacred as, in the
Jeudo Christian tradition, it is made in the image of God.
In this tradition other animals are not made in the image of God and
are, therefore, not sacred.
In certain traditions other creatures are *sacred* yet I'm unaware of
a religion that makes all animals sacred. From experience it tends to
be atheists who tend towards this view and atheists do not have
anything sacred, by definition.
>
>Animal life is sacred to animals. Of course animals don't know what the word
>"sacred" means, but they care about their own life in a simple fundamental
>way. When their life is threatened, they care enough to fight or run for
>their life. You can call it instinct, but this instinct is a primitive moral
>code. Each cell in each animal also has a primitive moral code. Our crippling
>dependence on logic sometimes gets in the way of seeing this. We look at
>cells and just see biological functions. We don't see the Morality at work
>under the microscope, but it's there.
No.
That is instinct. If morality is instinct then it's a tortology. The
whole point of MORALITY is the concept of overlaying an ethos of Good
and Bad over the instinctive reaction. It's a necessary thing to
happen for social organisation yet in humanity it has passed the form
of mere instinct.
Witness any number of heroic deeds in war. Where men, or women, lay
down their lives to save the lives of people in whom they have no
selfish gene motivation...
>
>All goes back to my original assertion that Morality is not just a human
>invention. The word Morality is a human invention, yes, just like the word
>"gravity".
Morality is a social construct. Not necessarily a human invention. The
two do not necessarily follow. It does require sentience.
>
>IAN:
>To suggest that because you can make
>anything sacred, everything is sacred is to debase the very concept of
>something being sacred.
>
>JON:
>
>Everything is sacred, but that doesn't mean human beings aren't supposed to
>consider certain aspects of life more sacred than others. As humans, we have
>a moral responsibility to consider those things that relate directly to
>humanity as the most sacred. If we were dogs, we wouldn't have that
>responsibility. As humans, we must consider humanity and human life more
>sacred than anything else.
>
>But to say nothing else is sacred besides humans is wrong. This whole planet
>is sacred.
The word sacred has a meaning. To people who believe in Gaia the earth
could be said to be sacred. Without an association to a religion or a
deity you cannot call anything sacred.
Things related to human need are coded into our moral ethos. This idea
that altruism is actually a valuable survival trait. Saving the planet
because if we don't save the planet we will die is not the same thing
as saving the planet because it is sacred. One is actually a selfish
act and the other is a selfless act.
>The air we breathe is sacred. The creatures we share this planet
>with are sacred. Yes, humanity is the most sacred, but other aspects of
>reality are sacred as well. It's all about caring. Failing to care for the
>world around us has direct ramifications on us, so when we hurt the world, we
>hurt ourselves. Hurting ourselves is immoral, and by failing to care about
>the rest of the world (the non-human aspects of the world), we hurt
>ourselves. So it is Moral to consider all of reality sacred, and this does
>not belittle the word sacred at all.
The whole basis of the above is risk-reward. Hardly what I would call
moral. YMMV It is not normally necessary to code self protection into
a morality as it is a natural instinct. There are exceptions like the
RC ban on suicide but I shouldn't consider it immoral to stick a
pencil in my eye. Simply foolish.
To consider all of reality sacred is only possible if you consider all
of reality as a part of the Divine. Even then it is still kind of
missing the whole point of things being sacred.
>
>Jon
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
regards,
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:44 BST