Faith goes where fact dare not, bridging many a void. — DifferentiatingEgg

How many of those bridges can be crossed safely? Why take that sick child to a hospital if you know that God can make him whole? And if He doesn't, well, God knows best why He chose to gather that child into heaven.

But the best form of self-defense is running away, or simply not getting into situations that might require one to defend oneself. — Tzeentch

That would - or should - also apply to war? If you behave in such a way as to make enemies, or force other people into untenable positions, sooner or later you will have to defend yourself by killing your erstwhile victims.
Churchill and 'moral' don't really belong in one sentence. He was a pragmatic nationalist and not especially gentle in his methods, at home, in the empire or abroad.

Among many other things, cockroaches are disgusting. — Lionino

And humans aren't?

The other antelopes do.
The lions do.
The vultures do.
The bacteria do.
The grass does. — Fire Ologist

No, they don't. The other antelope are lucky to escape, for the moment; they don't 'work with' the loss of a herd-mate. Vultures, bacteria and grass benefit from the death and decomposition of animals. Another's pain is of no use to them.
(BTW, muscle growth doesn't hurt, either. Damage does.)

But if we want to live at all, we’re going to have to work with it. I didn’t say like it, I said work with it. — Fire Ologist

Yes. Thank your God for creating it, since you consider pain good. Job questioned it and Jehovah told him : Because I'm bigger than you. He accepted that and if it's fine for you, be happy. I disagree that there is anything intelligent or benevolent in a system that requires antelope to die in agony, torn apart by lions. They don't get the option of "working with it".

I can smell your farts from here, — AmadeusD

Argued like a scholar and a gentleman.

And, ecologically, these, prima facie, have great functional value. (I should be clear - I have no religious position and do not intend to defend one. I just find your line of reasoning chaotically dismissive). — AmadeusD

It's coherently and consistently dismissive of the idea of intelligent design by a benevolent deity.

As you say, part of the enjoyment of reading is putting the faces and scenes in place while reading, but I still do it even when listening to stories.
Maybe it is because I learned to do it while reading from a book that I continue to do it now, but I am sure that it can still be done even if you have only ever listened to stories. — Sir2u

We humans invented story-telling long before we invented writing. A good story-teller or reader is far more evocative than anything on a printed page. For audio books, they usually hire actors who can really produce individual voices for each character - which may influence your image of them.
My sister-in-law used to record books for my brother when he was driving long distances.
The only potential drawback is that you can do something else while you're listening and have to divide your attention.

Excesses aren't exactly attributable to design. — AmadeusD

Predation, parasitism and disease are.

That said, not sure why you're reducing hte discussion to allow for restrictive points? — AmadeusD

I was responding to specific posts. The discussion is not under my control.

Point to me a situation in which my point is violated? — AmadeusD

That pain causes growth or that all growth is accompanied by pain? I'm not sure I actually get a point about either, but I know that the first is untrue and the second is it is not always true.

Unfortunately, Vera, we live in THIS world in which my statement is completely true.

Whether fortunately or otherwise, Amadeus, THIS world came about through natural forces and evolution. Which accounts for why the design isn't all that intelligent.

And you may simply be unable to comprehend reasoning beyond Human reasoning. — AmadeusD

Oh, no - I've heard ans understand all the excuses and apologetics. I just don't respect them.

Not sure why you'd think you could - or, at any rate, apply human reasoning to the (claimed) omnipotent designer. — AmadeusD

Supposedly made in the bastard's image; able to comprehend his commandments; required to believe his idea of love has some relation my concept of love.
Just not getting that love, y'know?

So you're the omniscient one. — AmadeusD

No, I'm just an ordinary mortal who can smell it when somebody tries to sell her two fish well past their sell-by-date.

See, such are the effects of reading stuff from screens. People easily miss out on what is right in front of them. — baker

Having read it twice more, I still conclude that it differs from my experience of the last hundred years. I agree up to :the same basic education, and Shakespeare played his part in high school Eng. Lit. but intricate math and detailed history has not been forced on every student under 16. I suppose it varies more greatly by country than I realized, and I have heard the European education is more demanding than North American - which is why I spoke from personal observation.

I am sorry, but I simply cannot find a single thing in this monologue which is relevant. — chiknsld

I'm sorry if you didn't understand it. I'll try to be more clear next time.

Of course not. Dictatorships own or control all news outlets and entertainment media. In 'democracies', the press is free op to some point - it varies from country to country, depending on the owners' political affiliation.

The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. — BitconnectCarlos

Just as well you didn't live in India or Africa during the heyday of the British Empire.

First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well. — Benkei

Yessss!!!
Nuclear missiles, too. And all of them are always justified, because somebody was always in danger from somebody for some reason that we don't go into.

Agreed

Much pain is beneficial. End of. — AmadeusD

In nature, yes. In intelligent design, not so end of.

The pain is required for the growth to accrue. — AmadeusD

No, it isn't. It is a side-effect that does not invariably occur.

Given we are pain-perceiving creatures, anyhow. — AmadeusD

If that is a 'given', it was given by that same loving god.

So, either hte position is God imbued us with Pain, and sometimes that's a good thing — AmadeusD

God had an idea that something very unpleasant and sometimes fatal was a good idea. I suspect that a kinder omnipotence would have found a better way to achieve those good ends.

or it is that Pain is a moral wrong, in and of itself. — AmadeusD

It's nothing to do with morals, if it happens through natural evolution. If it's deliberately inflicted, it's at least morally questionable. Or would be, if done by a mortal.

Why would you not assent to the view that pains can be arbitrary or not? — AmadeusD

Of course it's not arbitrary. It's a process of biology and has explicable causes.... unless invented and inflicted by an omnipotent creator, in which case that creator is not deserving or praise.

transfers over five hundred billion dollars of debt to the taxpayers. — fishfry

No, you said that debt was transferred to working-class taxpayers, which is not the case.

You lost me on the fetish bit. — fishfry

I can live with that.

I don't understand how "I exist, but I should not exist" is a contradiction. — petrichor

Not I; everything.
The alternative to your personal existence is your never having been born, which was an option for the universe. You can contemplate what that might have been like in the context of all the non-you things that exist.
Should the universe exist? has no alternative state for the universe to contemplate.

Well, yes, but it's about money, money, money. Local constituencies don't want to lose their federal subsidy for producing something destructive, so no candidate can afford to run on a clean energy ticket, and they sure can't afford to piss off the vested interests that lobby against alternatives. It's the same with other kinds of environmental improvement, like food production and transportation.

Governments that try to steer society toward sustainable sources for our necessities inevitably run into lavishly funded opposition from the vested interests, as well as the working people terrified of their bosses losing money and cutting back on employment. Candidates dare not even mention the possibility of well-off citizens giving up any of their privilege; indeed, they have to be seen at the launching of yet another cruise ship or luxury condo for which they've change the zoning that protected a green belt.

The governments themselves, even if not corrupt, are made up of members who depend on financing by those same vested interests, and there is the constant threat of losing the next election. So they propose a bill that would get us somewhere within spitting distance of the their pathetically inadequate pledge at the last (expensive junket) summit meeting, and then whittle and bargain and chicken-shit even that down to a feeble gesture... which is bood by the opposition as too radical and it will destroy business and cause mass unemployment and widespread famine and maybe summon a demon or two from the pit of hell....

It does not bide well.

What the survivors will do with what's left will have to be on a very basic level, since they'll need to survive in hostile environment - not the vast choice of fertile, food-rich places our distant ancestors had at their disposal. There's been a lot of literary speculation on how they will proceed and whether they eventually become successful and screw it up all over again. They have time to repeat the cycle many more times before the sun burns out.

That undercuts everything you just said about valuing. Is it self-serving or object relational? Is valuing real or not?? — Fire Ologist

I was responding to:

you are not impressed by the purely human. — Fire Ologist

I do not believe there is anything "purely" human.

I was thinking about asking it which theory of truth it thinks best describes what truth is. — Sam26

That's worth a shot. You can read a menu outside on the restaurant wall; that doesn't mean the food's any good.

Not about outcome. About precondition for question. Question chases own tail. Therefore question silly.

I think we are skirting the question of “what is a ‘value’?”or “what does ‘valuing’ mean?” or “how does ‘valuing’ happen or function?” — Fire Ologist

I think those questions have all been answered.

But I disagree that the relationship between yeast and sugar has anything to do with valuing. Same with organisms valuing breathing - that is not valuing. Those relationships are more like the rock that falls downhill. — Fire Ologist

About the yeast, what with its lack of brain cells, you're right. Breathing, for some organisms, can be optional - that is, consciously controlled - though it's rarely considered in isolation the way you introduced it: it's simply a function of being alive. So the choice is not between breathing and not breathing, but between and dying. That is a question of what the subject values in what order of priority.

Valuing still only happens when a mind considers separate objects and choses one over the other. It involves separate objects related in a prioritized way by choice. — Fire Ologist

Of course.

I happen to see only people display this behavior of valuing. — Fire Ologist

You should look around more. A dog wants the bisquit, but wants his human's more, so he waits for permission to eat the bisquit. An elephant enjoys rolling in the grass, but hears another elephant call out in distress and rushes to help, because she values her friend more than her leisure. Other sentient species make conscious, deliberate choices all the time.

Maybe, again, you don’t value evaluation, you are not impressed by the purely human. — Fire Ologist

I can't be impressed by a self-serving fiction.

I'm not sure I follow. "Should" is a question of whether a state should be. — Philosophim

Where "should not" isn't an option, there no alternatives; therefore the question is meaningless and pointless.

I think it's a pretty good answer, what do you think, and what other questions would you like it to answer? — Sam26

It doesn't actually answer the question; it gives you a menu from a 101 textbook on philosophy or art theory. To that extent, it's useful.

No disagreement there, but how does that effect the discussion in any way? This seems irrelevant. — Philosophim

That was the burden of my comment.

1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim

How is there a "discussion" without the given that preexists any possible question of "shoulds" ?

And any suicide doesn’t value breathing at all.
— Fire Ologist
Or values something - e.g. the cessation of pain - more highly than breathing. — Vera Mont


But neither is 'true' in the sense of representing a matter of fact. — unenlightened

How so? It is a fact that people commit suicide.
Some do it for reasons that other people consider irrational. Some do it as a form of escape when there might have been other options. Some have solid, logical reason. In each case, a hierarchy of values is in place. Breathing is incidental to all of them.

a. Assume that there is an objective morality. — Philosophim

You can't assume anything unless you already exist.

So, it's all just fate or happenstance; we have no control?
I can't go along with that view, seeing how many different kinds of social and economic organization humans tried before stratified urban civilization. I don't think they were too stupid to project their actions a couple of generations into the future. Some of those pre-civilized cultures lasted considerably longer than any of the ensuing city-states, nations and empires. We're not stupid, but most of us are credulous to the point of self-immolation and a few are ruthless enough to use that to use the rest of us.

Our great-great-grandparents didn't know where digging up fossils and turning them into plastic would lead. The next generation didn't know where electricity would lead them. Or the automobile, or television, or computers, or the tens of thousands of unique plastic materials would lead them. — BC

Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. There were indications of where industrialization and capitalism were headed two hundred years ago. We choose not to listen; when things get too bad, those who have the power make a few concessions and stay in power. We're happy with a momentary local improvement, until it starts imploding and they throw another war.

We just aren't 'built' to find something nice and new (polystyrene coffee cups, delicious spring water in plastic bottles, plastic siding for our house, cell phones--you name it) and set it aside for 10 years while we research it's long-term impact on society, the economy, the environment, and older products. No, we seize it and rush it into production--the same way we would do if we came across a delicious fruit in the forest --we'd stand there and eat it till it was all gone. — BC

We don't all do those things; many of us simply accept that they are done. Yet, we can wait 10 years for approval of a promising cure (public safety); we can put off indefinitely urban improvements with obvious benefits (money) and when we were warned of the climate change danger, and confronted by a mountain of evidence, we did put it aside for not for 10 years but 100, to study and research, before doing even the minimum in mitigation. This blind fate seems to have an agenda.

But I think you're right, ultimately. We are self-destructive and there is an inevitable outcome.

It would help the conversation if you quoted the entirety of passages instead of truncating them. In any case, the underlined section of your response allows for population reduction so it is not really addressing the question I asked. That is because if the population were levelled off, the present level of total consumption would obviously not be as great. Also by "changing the economic base" I assume you mean a model that involves less consumption and waste, independently of a population reduction. — Janus

I meant that on the present model, no economy is sustainable, not even if waste were reduced (on the present model, it cannot be eliminated), not even if assets were redistributed. The present level of consumption is not the present level for more than a day at a time: for some people it goes down, when inflation or job loss reduces their purchasing power; for some it goes up, when profits and tax cuts increase their buying power. In some parts of the world, war and weather reduce the availability of consumables; in others, a technological breakthrough increases GDP, but not necessarily overall standard of living.

If the current entry level job availability and pay is any indication of a trend, the outlook for youth is pretty grim. Of the 15 well-paid jobs listed there, 12 contribute no material goods or useful services to the population. They all require higher education and, for the children of low earners, crippling student debt. Do they have any future? Who knows? Automation marches on relentlessly.
Anyway, it won't matter that the population is older for a while (until a generation dies off - that's only about 20 years) because the old people hold up better in health and activity than they used to and they contribute a good deal of volunteer work. If the population keeps rising, the number of deaths from starvation, armed conflict and epidemic will also rise - though usually not enough to counter the birth rate. So, lots more people living in crowded, hopeless misery.

If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. — Philosophim

Why?
Because existence already is, we're in it, and we want it going?
But by what standard is an "is" a "should be"?

That is, the condition of the 'natural balance' is just a stalemate between predator and prey. — BC

Yes, that too. Also, the simple inability to dig up fossils and turn them into plastic. The fact is, they don't and can't trash their environment the way we can and have. If we wanted badly enough to survive, we'd make a conscious commitment to establish balance. But I'm not convinced that the will to live is strong enough in humans to choose a different path.

even distribution of prosperity at the present total level of consumption would be sustainable, or anywhere near sustainable. — Janus

Of course it would be, if the economic base were changed and the population levelled off, and we allocated the redistributed resources intelligently.
I mean, a diamond tiara or a $5 million painting won't do an African farmer much good, but an artesian well at a fraction of the cost makes all the difference between starvation and subsistence; a wind generator and irrigation ditches could make the difference between subsistence and comfort.
The valuation of that diamond tiara and painting is completely unsustainable. Corn, pumpkins, peanuts and beans are sustainable.
We need to rethink production and consumption, as well as distribution. We need to re-examine and adjust our system of values. If we want to be viable.

Exponential population growth has been made possible by the exponential growth in technologies, notably medical technology. — Janus

So have birth control and infant and child survival (no need for extra babies) been made possible by technology and medicine. But there are always political and religious factions that block women's right to control their fertility. Even so, increased prosperity and security pretty much always translates to lower birth rate.

nd the question seems to be whether it would have been possible without that wasteful consumption. — Janus

I think so, if we assume that humans are capable of planning more than a quarter ahead. But it doesn't really matter what might have been: we are where we are. Rock the right, hard place to the left, very bad weather ahead.

Every organism is a consumer when it comes right down to it. — Janus

Indeed, but most other organisms live in balance with their ecosystem and put something organic back in; we're the only ones who take natural materials and turn them into indigestible unnatural ones.

Knowledge is power as it actually helps the universe. — chiknsld

How does knowledge gained by a teeny, weeny life-form on a teeny, weeny planet near the rim of an insignificant galaxy help the universe. Helps it to do what, that it could not do otherwise?

What constitutes power depends on the context of the power under consideration. There are many kinds of power. The possessor of knowledge may wield power in one realm, while the possessor of money wields power in another realm and the possessor of his fellow men's trust wields it in yet another.

Some kinds of knowledge can facilitate the acquisition of money, but inherited, stolen or otherwise unearned wealth supplies its owner with more freedom to wield power than someone has who must apply himself to wealth accumulation.

Of course money has no intrinsic value; it is assigned value arbitrarily by the social system that generates and uses it. Knowledge is assigned value according to what is known and who knows it.
I don't see the universe requiring either to function.

An act of valuing, is an act only a person can do. That’s not what valuing means. — Fire Ologist

Any sentient organism can and every sentient organism does place relative values on the things in its environment. There is no 'act' of valuing; we just consider some things more important - at any given time - than other things. We also calculate, consciously or unconsciously, how much effort or energy we can afford to spend on getting what we want and what/how much we're willing to give up for it.
Yeast may not have the brains to prioritize, but beetles do.

And any suicide doesn’t value breathing at all. — Fire Ologist

Or values something - e.g. the cessation of pain - more highly than breathing.

When economic growth is measured, how is it measured? What precisely is growing?
The law of conservation would suggest... strongly recommend?... demand? that something added here must have been subtracted from somewhere else.
When increased population promotes growth, that actually means increased consumption of something, from somewhere, which is being eaten away.
When technology promotes growth, that actually means more stuff is being produced and consumed, but the raw material and energy still has to come from something which loses material and energy.
If a tree kept growing without limit, the Earth would have been consumed already by that single tree.

If the population grows must not the economy grow with it if prosperity is to be maintained — Janus

Prosperity isn't everywhere. The whole point of disparity is that a small percent of the world's population both control and benefit from the world's economy.
There is no need for the population to grow, but if it does, more people will live in poverty and perhaps even fewer will live in luxury, regardless of whether the economy as whole grows or shrinks.

If current consumption was evenly distributed how much of a reduction would average Western consumption experience? — Janus

For the average Western consumer, there wouldn't be a great deal of change - if the redistribution included cutting the waste. In food, water, energy, building material and fuel, the North American system is extremely wasteful. If you include Europe, both the average consumption and waste will decline somewhat. Not because Europeans are smarter (though they are in some things), but because Europe is small: since the end of the colonial era, they haven't had the luxury of unbridled growth.

Would that redistributed consumption be sustainable? — Janus

Yes, if it were done thoughtfully, with all necessary supporting infrastructure in place.

Even if it were, would we vote for it? — Janus

Of course not. Nobody wants to give up a perceived advantage over his rivals.

Example please? — fishfry

Capital, the fetishistic worship thereof.

The value of a single human life? — Gingethinkerrr

Put it in perspective.
Put in all the different perspectives you can imagine.
What is the value of the life of a defective child to its mother? What is its value to the community? What is its value to the society? What is its value to a complete stranger who a) just reads about it in the newspaper b) brought the defective infant into the world c) has to pay for its medical care and special handling d) desires to cleanse all humankind of genetic anomalies e) desires to improve the genetic stock of his fatherland ? Very different perspectives; very different values.

Thing is, there is no objective or universal valuation of anything. Some people think bullocks and chickens and lab rats deserve to live as much as people do; some people think lions and elk exist solely for hunting trophies. Some people think all human life is sacred, while all other life is for humans to harvest. Some people think human lives are sacred, except the ones of which they disapprove.

I believe the individual experiences and safety of every individual on the planet is equal. — Gingethinkerrr

I believe that that's a good thing to believe. Vladimir Putin doesn't. Go, figure!

I don't wish for poor kids to be deprived of an education. — fishfry

Only because you seem to be so vehemently against letting them off some of the accumulated compound interest on their student loans.
And maybe because you seem hell-bent on putting an unfair burden of putative working class taxpayers.
And thirdly, because you pretend that government is responsible for everything it cannot possibly control.
And lastly, because you appear to have a peculiarly skewed view of the working class, even as you advocate for its supposed interest.

My question is....are there any stupid questions?? — Gingethinkerrr

Yes, there are. I think you know which they are, and also that you can formulate intelligent ones.

What interests you? What's burning a hole in your imagination? It doesn't matter if something's been discussed before - some of us are old and forget things; some like to rehash old arguments; almost everyone is up for a new perspective on popular subjects, and if somebody's not interested, they don't have to respond.

So - fire away!