It makes sense to do this right? — TiredThinker

Of course. No one that is able to work should be struggling to make ends meet. They deserve a livable wage.

What I mean by rigorous logic is reasoning without any fallacies.

What do you mean by civilization ? The possible attributes for civilization would belimited by the definition of civilization. If for example social stratification is part of what you consider civilization, then total equality would not be possible, even though some may consider equality to be a feature of the best civilization.

Professional philosophers can be biased, they're not completely logical and unbiased beings, because if they were, then they all would have the same beliefs, as they would all necessarily arrive at the same conclusions through rigorous logic. However, they do not all have the same beliefs, so there isn't really any justification as to why their opinions would be more reliable.

If the law is not binding, and there is no remedy, it would be as if the law didn't exist in the first place. If the law exists, then it means that most people, or at least groups and persons affected by it want it to exist, so they wouldn't have commited the crime even before the law existed, for example people would not kill even if the law forbiding killing did not exist. So a binding law is put in place along with remedies if the law is uncontroversial.

If, however, the law is non-binding, then it means there is no established consensus, which means some people think it is right to do what the law recommends not to do, and those people are not obligated to obey the law, so they would not hesitate to do whatever the law recommends not to do.

So, if people end up doing it anyway, then it is as if the law didn't exist. So, I don't think it can be considered as a law, it's more of a recommendation.

As far back as Ancient Greece, certain people were not allowed in academia, the most obvious example being barbarians (people who could not speak Greek).

Ideally, materialism in education would not exist, so I'd say that materialism was a problem in academia since the beginning.

First, to make a mistake, it seems to me, requires a false belief — Bartricks

Why do you think making a mistake requires a false belief ?

That is, to be 'justified' in believing something is for God to favour you believing it — Bartricks

Why do you think so ?

such a God would be lacking in reasoning power which he supposedly is not (condition of omnipotence) — Kenosha Kid

Reasoning is an ability, while knowledge is more of an object, so God having all justified true beliefs does not imply that he is perfectly rational.

Furthermore, if God is unchanging and eternal, his beliefs too would be unchanging, so he wouldn't need reason to establish his beliefs, as he would've believed only true things for an eternity.

My question is, why are these two items - cruelty & dolphins hunting for food - on the same list? — TheMadFool

Because they're both wrong ?

If killing is cruel, necessarily dolphins are cruel — TheMadFool

Of course killing is wrong, so you could say that dolphins do is wrong.

However, saying they are cruel is different. Cruelty is the act of killing for pleasure. However, dolphins kill for food, not pleasure.

Yes, humanity has become more compassionate. But when it comes to individual living non-human beings, there doesn't seem to be any change, even though there are far more non-human living beings than human beings.

Furthermore, there is at least one very smart species that I know of that still actively hunts other living beings without questioning why. That is dolphins. They are not cruel, they're just carnivorous.

There are also less intelligent species that seem more compassionate. But it's not because they have beliefs about the sanctity of life, it's because they are herbivores.

Had humans been a carnivorous species, or on the contrary, a herbivorous one, the world would not have been the way it is today.

So, I don't think intelligence makes living beings more compassionate. Other factors, like our diet, are what cause a species to be more or less compassionate.

I was trying to give an example of a property that could give intrinsic value to an object.

Life then, it seems, considers itself to possess intrinsic value. — TheMadFool

But living beings generally tend to only assign value to themselves, but not other living beings. The question is whether or not they value not only themselves but also other living beings.

It seems we do not agree on the definition of value and nature. So, I'll clarify:

Nature: Anything that is alive.

Intrinsic value: desirable to attain, to protect, or preserve

Instrumental value: desirable as a means to an end

Now, a better way to word the initial question would be:
"Do living beings deserve protection/preservation, and can/should we use them to achieve our goals, whatever these goals are?"

Something important. Or do you have a proposition?

But does the rest of nature have the same value as us then?

That still leaves a lot of things that could give nature value. For example, beauty could give nature value, and that's just for intrinsic value.

So the question now extends to humans too

Well, guess I was wrong then

I think the authority of the Bible comes from the belief that what you're reading is the actual word of God, written down by sages. So, the authority comes from the personal beliefs of the reader, and the assumptions that you have when reading.

Another important observation is that when you have finished reading the Bible partially or completely, you may have additional beliefs. And it is very likely that you adopted them because of the authority you assign to the source material, that is the Bible.

Also, these new beliefs can be called divine revelation, as they were adopted because of the reading and perceived authority of a religious text.

And your personal beliefs about the authority of the Bible have then indirectly caused you to accept its contents. This indicates that what an individual considers divine revelation depends heavily upon their initial beliefs.

A possible answer to the question of authority, then is that the authority of the Bible comes primarily from assumptions you have when reading.

Sorry if what I said is redundant.

this is a Gettier case, look it up.
But I'm not gonna argue about that, this is not the subject of the thread.

Just like other people in the thread said, it depends on wheter you're interpreting it litterally, allegorically or analogicallly. If you're interpreting it litteraly, it doesn't have much philosophical value, as it becomes more of a history book than a philosophical work. However, if you interpret it allegorically or analogically, it becomes a very interesting philosophical work. It becomes a book about ethics that supports the Golden Rule in the New Testament, for obvious reasons, and offers an early response or even support to nihilism in Ecclesiastes, with passages like: "What profit hath a man for all his toil, in which he toils under the sun?", "Fear God and keep his commandments; for that is the all of mankind. Since every deed will God bring to judgment, for every hidden act, be it good or evil", and "the dead are better off than the living". Also, because of the diversity of views of the people who wrote it, it's a good introduction and starting point to Christian theology and various philosophical views.

What exactly is the purpose of this thread ?

your belief, though true, does not constitute knowledge. — Bartricks

Very questionable. What is your definition of knowledge ?

A little late to the thread, but I think in academia, it'll be studied and researched extensively, because a lot of people still have an interest in it. A minority, but enough people to advance research in the discipline. However, for the rest of society, it will only exist the way it exists today in cognitive science, one discipline among others uniting to study the same subject, mainly because trendy disciplines still need some philosophy to succeed, or at least to form a research paradigm, the same way the physical sciences needed philosophy during the Scientific Revolution to develop their methods.

What about things that are sort of in the middle ? I don't have much physics knowledge but isn't there a state of matter that is between the classical states of matter ? What is the opposite of it ? Itself, just like how the point parallel to another placed on an axis of symmetry is that same point ? Or something else ?

A process with multiple possible outcomes where the final outcome is unpredictable ?