I get it - I was trying to work within your metaphysic. I was saying that the implication is that you can't defend the child from fire ants because they would involve valuing one being over another.

I'm not trying to disprove you here. I'm just running with your system here.

It's not personally something that I would really entertain.... in fact I don't think the vast majority of the planet would entertain it because it leads to actions/consequences which most of the population would consider not only completely absurd but also extremely contrary to human nature and our day to day lived experience.... but if you want to plant your flag on this worldview then more power to you. I just don't care enough to argue with you about it. If you want to consider the life of your child or mother the same as that of an ant or a mosquito then you be you. I take it swatting away or killing mosquitos is again immoral to you because they are infinitely valuable. Enjoy your life with this worldview, it'll be an interesting one. — BitconnectCarlos

It may look ridiculous - the thought that an ant/mosquito is of equal value as a mother or child - but, forgive my stubborness, it isn't. If a pecking order in morality is a sensible idea, you should be ready to be treated by a "superior" being in just the way you treat an "inferior being" and drawing from how humans have treated supposedly "inferior" life, it's defintely not going to be a pleasant experience for us. In fact, by treating mosquitoes and ants as equals to my mother and child, I'm actually ensuring their wellbeing in the hands of our "superiors". If I didn't then I would have nothing to go on to make the case that my mother and child shouldn't be harmed. I'd say such a view can be considered far-sighted.

be treated by a "superior" being in just the way you treat an "inferior being" and drawing from how humans have treated supposedly "inferior" life, it's defintely not going to be a pleasant experience for us. — TheMadFool

Nobody is saying to treat "inferior" animals like dogs or horses or cats badly. Everybody should be against animal cruelty, but we don't let animals vote or treat them the exact same as humans. We should obviously protect animals and treat them well. Mosquitos are a different story.

Unfortunately, you have to make decisions. Tics attach themselves to your dog. Do you kill the tics or leave the dog to die? Same with leaches on a dog or person. What do you do. These decisions reflect our value system.

Nobody is saying to treat "inferior" animals like dogs or horses or cats badly. Everybody should be against animal cruelty, but we don't let animals vote or treat them the exact same as humans. We should obviously protect animals and treat them well — BitconnectCarlos

Ok.

Mosquitos are a different story. — BitconnectCarlos

:chin:

The instant an hierarchy is developed, we'll have a place in it and I wouldn't count on us being in the upper echelons; somewhere around the lower rungs, maybe. That being the case, we must pray and pray hard that our planet isn't discovered by an alien life who are as different from us as we are from mosquitoes. What's frightening is that aliens that "superior" might be on the verge of discovering Earth and we haven't put our house in order yet. At best, it might be a big embarrassment, at worst, we might be farmed for our meat.

The instant an hierarchy is developed, we'll have a place in it and I wouldn't count on us being in the upper echelons; somewhere around the lower rungs, maybe. That being the case, we must pray and pray hard that our planet isn't discovered by an alien life who are as different from us as we are from mosquitoes. What's frightening is that aliens that "superior" might be on the verge of discovering Earth and we haven't put our house in order yet. At best, it might be a big embarrassment, at worst, we might be farmed for our meat. — TheMadFool

Congratulations! I don't know if anyone has specifically delineated the "appeal to aliens" in the list of fallacies. If you hurry, you can claim credit for it!

The instant an hierarchy is developed, we'll have a place in it and I wouldn't count on us being in the upper echelons; somewhere around the lower rungs, maybe. — TheMadFool

Can you just answer the question of what should be done if two "infinitely valuable" life forms are placed into a situation where one must die for the other to live - say, tics on a dog or mosquitos feasting on a human and spreading malaria. We can also go with a tapeworm nesting itself into a human.

It seems to be that the upshot of this is that there are no correct answers because everything is infinitely valuable - so in effect we get moral nihilism here. It doesn't matter if the value is infinity or zero - it's all the same.

Can you just answer the question — BitconnectCarlos

No. He can't. He never does. He won't start now.

Congratulations! I don't know if anyone has specifically delineated the "appeal to aliens" in the list of fallacies. If you hurry, you can claim credit for it! — Pro Hominem

It doesn't make sense to people who think they're at the top of the food chain.

It doesn't make sense to people who think they're at the top of the food chain. — TheMadFool

Of course not. Believing humans are at the top of the food chains is as absurd as believing in cannibalistic aliens.

Can you just answer the question of what should be done if two "infinitely valuable" life forms are placed into a situation where one must die for the other to live - say, tics on a dog or mosquitos feasting on a human and spreading malaria. We can also go with a tapeworm nesting itself into a human.

It seems to be that the upshot of this is that there are no correct answers because everything is infinitely valuable - so in effect we get moral nihilism here. It doesn't matter if the value is infinity or zero - it's all the same. — BitconnectCarlos

I'll put my money on God's one approach that seems to be the cause of much consternation for the faithful and also a source of vindication for many atheistic comedians - the no intervention policy.

Of course not. Believing humans are at the top of the food chains is as absurd as believing in cannibalistic aliens. — Pro Hominem

Aliens eating us would not qualify as cannibalism. I'm trying, in some sense, to make the case that all predation actually is - we're all equals.

Aliens eating us would not qualify as cannibalism. — TheMadFool

It would if they were time-traveling humans who have come from the future to save their interstellar society from our primitive mistakes by eating us.

No. He can't. He never does. He won't start now. — Pro Hominem

He must really feel terrible about all those poor, innocent, infinitely valuable malaria-spreading mosquitoes that have been killed lately. I wonder if he'd consider creating a sanctuary for them.

He must really feel terrible about all those poor, innocent, infinitely valuable malaria-spreading mosquitoes that have been killed lately. I wonder if he'd consider creating a sanctuary for them — BitconnectCarlos

Keep in mind, the point he started this whole bizarre journey from was that a being whose primary stated purpose is to pass judgment actually sees all things as equal. The internal inconsistency is jumping up and down yelling "LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!!" but it's like two invisible wizard-ghost deities passing in the night.

It would if they were time-traveling humans who have come from the future to save their interstellar society from our primitive mistakes by eating us — Pro Hominem

Yes, but I'm talking about aliens, not time-travelers and also there's no guarantee that we could call each other the same species, in which case cannibalism would be true. Our ancient hominid ancestors aren't considered human.

Yes, but I'm talking about aliens, not time-travelers and also there's no guarantee that we could call each other the same species, in which case cannibalism would be true. — TheMadFool

Sure there is. When they kidnap us for sexual experiments, if they produce viable offspring who are themselves capable of reproduction, then we're the same species. I mean, this has already happened - look at the Ancient Egyptians. You think they built those pyramids without help?

Our ancient hominid ancestors aren't considered human. — TheMadFool

"Hominid" and "human" are directly derived from the root "homo", meaning man. You are entering on a slippery slope here. Homo Neanderthalensis were "human", but they were not "homo sapiens".

God, since he loves bacteria and parasites equally as he loves us, can't take sides and so won't intervene. Compare this with the notion of a good parent - loving all his/her children equally, without a hint of partiality; a good parent is expected to be completely impartial on sibling rivalry whatever form it assumes. — TheMadFool

First time poster, so please be patient:
How are you able to argue that each living organism is of equal worth? Isn’t one of the pillars of humanity the distinction of what is right and wrong, regardless if an individual chooses to do the right thing or not? One of the major characteristics that separates humans from other biological organisms is morality. What I mean by this is biological organisms operate on instincts (e.g. killing, mating, using other bodies as hosts, etc.) It is something that is not taught to these organisms but rather an innate quality to ensure survival. On the other hand, humans act on complex emotions in which (for most individuals) they consider the impact of their decision (whether it is right or wrong). Yes organisms and humans are able to share similar qualities, but what separates these behaviors from other organisms is the reason why they choose to act a certain ways.
To conclude: Organisms act out of instinct and not off of a basis of morality. Animals don’t invent ways in harming others or set up objects as an idol, humans do. In my opinion, roping together biological organisms with humans does not convince me that they are equal since a human actions are not entirely instinctual . Do you care to expand on your assumption?

There's a good metaphor that relates to elements in your post I've been made aware of. It's largely a theological musing however there are parallels that are not exclusive to the metaphysical.

You remember how in old stories (and later, movies) when people enter a supposedly haunted house everything's normal enough at first, save for perhaps a few odd occurrences or visions that are quickly shaken off with the skepticism of others. It's only when someone does or "unleashes" something the house seems to "turn" on them. Windows and doors close trapping everyone (and everything) inside. Anyone tries to break either there's an "unseen force" that stops them, often quickly and terribly. And if some do manage to get outside natural elements seem to make quick work of them.

Seems like pure, unadulterated horror right. The stuff of nightmares. Pure evil!

The idea that was suggested to me was it's not actually anything about the house that's evil, it's just been "enchanted" to seal a true evil that was locked away somewhere inside from ever getting out into the world if released. The people in the stories are simply random, unfortunate victims (or as is the usual case, responsible parties, be it by ignorance or not). They cannot be allowed to escape because whatever else is trapped inside with them can easily possess any one of them or even multiple.

Long story short, sometimes what seems to be scary or evil in the myopic eyes of a single individual who knows little more than what their own short life has taught them can sometimes be the sole thing standing in the way of a true, remarkable evil.

Is it this type of god, the "omni-benevolent" kind, that is fair and equal in its treatment of its creations? And why then would life be the focus? Just because it's living and breathing makes it more important that stars, rocks, water, chemicals, forces, (etc. etc.)?

And parents pick favorites. Parents can prefer the child that is friendly and happy over the other child that is murderous, conniving, and mean. Inequity, inequality, and injustice could arise from the partiality of the creator.

Human

Do you care to expand on your assumption? — freewhirl

There are differences between humans and animals, that's obvious but there are also similarities. One unifying motif that brings together almost all moral systems is hedonism (pleasure/pain, happiness/suffering).

Hedonism is universal in prevalence - all animals, even plants, exhibit pleasure seeking and pain avoidance in one form or another. This is not surprising given the fact that morality, as of necessity, must be based on what's common between us instead of what's unique to each one of us. After all, ethics is about how to live a life in a community. The bottom line is good/bad, right/wrong are concepts that can exist only in a community.

That being the case the lowest common denominator in a community will be the ideal ecological niche for morality - it must appeal to the majority if it's to do its job well. What's the lowest common denominator? We're still in the grips of morality with a hedonistic theme - as of now, only life capable of experiencing pain/joy matter for existing moral systems.

Nonetheless, there's a trend that needs mentioning. Ecological sciences are, in my humble opinion, tentacular extensions of existing moral systems that are just that tiny bit not self-serving to merit the pronouncement that morality has begun to look beyond mere hedonism and now is in the preliminary stages of reaching the lowest of the lowest common denomniators - life itself. A time will come, far in the future, when all life - microscopic viruses to gigantic blue whales and everything in between - will be equal in terms of moral worth but this only applies to us. In god's eyes we're all already of equal moral value.




:up:

Good point although I would add that while it's completely plausible that small evils, like small fires that prevent major conflagrations, prevent severe moral failings, it's also possible that they serve as convenient doorways to hell.

That said, your comment makes me wonder if we shouldn't rejoice in our good fortune that the evil we see around us is of the tolerable type - much like the mild symptoms we experience when we get vaccinated for some deadly disease. Possibly, the evil prevalent in the world today are part of god's vaccination plan for humanity - we suffer mildly but it'll stand us in good stead when real and pure evil descends upon the world.

Is it this type of god, the "omni-benevolent" kind, that is fair and equal in its treatment of its creations? And why then would life be the focus? Just because it's living and breathing makes it more important that stars, rocks, water, chemicals, forces, (etc. etc.)?

And parents pick favorites. Parents can prefer the child that is friendly and happy over the other child that is murderous, conniving, and mean. Inequity, inequality, and injustice could arise from the partiality of the creator. — dimension72

Indeed, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that inanimate matter could, one day, be considered as having moral value. Of course, the million dollar question is, is there anything that isn't alive?

New to the forum, but hoping to add some value here.

From my understanding of your post, this is the general layout of your argument.

If God is omnibenevolent, then he does not play favorites with his creation
If he doesn’t play favorites with his creation, then he will not intervene in situations of natural evil.
God is omnibenevolent.
Therefore God does not play favorites with his creation (MP 1,3)
Therefore God does not intervene in situations of natural evil (MP 2,4)

After reading some of the initial comments, I am under the assumption that the God you are referring to is the Christian God. If my assumption is correct, then your first premise (as I have laid out) seems to be the easiest to refute, and thus the rest of the argument breaks down.

Christians do believe that God is omnibenevolent, yet God definitely seems to play favorites with his creation. This can be clearly seen in the creation account, where God says, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Gen. 1:26). God is essentially saying, “Okay, I’m gonna create humans in my own image AND y’all are gonna rule over everything else I’ve created”. Favoritism? I think so.

For argument sake, let's assume that god does not play favorites. Assuming one accepts all of your claims, it still seems like the strongest conclusion you can draw is that “God does not intervene in situations of natural evil”. It still doesn’t explain the issue of why natural evil exists in the first place. From your argument, if god is the creator, then he would have created everything with natural evil as the foundational force, where one creature's benefit is almost always at the cost of another. And a god that initiated this sort of natural evil definitely doesn’t seem to be an omnibenevolent god. Final note, if you hold firmly to your argument, the Jainist deities seem to fit much better with the god you described.

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." — Daniel Ramli

Between what is entailed by the above and god's omnibenevolence, Christians have a clear choice:

1. either believe that god wants us to "rule of the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground" and conclude that god isn't omnibenevolent

OR

2. god is omnibenevolent and the above statement is false

For my money, people, Christians too, would rather give up 1 than 2.

The only theistic g/G consistent with this world - ravaged by gratuitous suffering (i.e. deformities, deprivations, laments/griefs, disasters) that's completely useless to every self-aware sufferer - is either a SADIST or a fiction. 'Worship' of the latter is fetishistic (anti-anxiety placebo) superstition but 'worshipping' the former entails immorality par excellence (i.e. "Satanism" or predatory psychopathy).

Sadist or fiction or neutral. Imagine yourself to be a parent and you'll know how painful it is to take sides when your children get into a fight. You can't hurt either, so you can't aid either. Just to make it more dramatic, a good parent wouldn't mind being called all sorts names, including but not limited to sadist and fiction, if it meant not hurting faer children.

Hi TheMadFool,

I am also new to the forum so please be patient! :)

I don’t think I understand the necessity for Christians to choose between the belief that God wants for us the “rule of the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” and the belief that God is omnibenevolent. It seems to me as though it is possible for both beliefs to be compatible. I believe it is possible for mankind to rule over all animals kindly, and I believe that is what God’s intention is when He speaks about the role of mankind in the world. Obviously, we ran the show differently than it was intended. My point however is that our ruling of the animals on earth does not take away the possibility that that role God intends for us is God’s way of being benevolent to the animals as well. I believe there is a possibility mankind can at its best think for the greater good, which would also benefit animals who can only think in a survival mindset.

I believe some indication this compatibility is actually possible is that we live by morals and are able to think rationally, and are self-aware, etc. The fact that we are able to see the bigger picture and wonder what is actually best for animals (whether it’s us ruling them with kindness or letting them be, etc.) shows that we are at least able to care for them. Obviously, we took the separate route of mostly eating them, but regardless, we are still able to care for them. On the other hand, animals are unable to think about the greater good and live instinctively. So, even though mankind has evidently not done a good job benevolently ruling animals on earth, that does not mean God’s omnibenevolence towards animals could not include our role in ruling over them as He intended for us.

I am unsure whether I understood your point correctly. If I did not, please let me know! Otherwise, let me know what you think :) Pleasure discussing with you.

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc? — Pfhorrest

No predation = overpopulation = suffering. No parasitism = suggestion that some lifeforms are less deserving of life than others due to the nature by which they survive = inequality. Every organism parasitises resources or the prosperity of other organisms to some degree. Parasitism is a relatively arbitrary concept when you consider that in a broad sense most organisms have some sort of parasitic relationship to one another; for example we parasitise chickens for their unborn embryos for food: something obviously detrimental to the reproductive potential of the species but this is offset by the fact that we also rear chicken populations greatly beyond the natural population that would occur normally if we left them be in the wild.

You can’t have a state of endless creation and no destruction. You can’t have positives without negatives to balance them otherwise the positives quickly themselves become negatives. I believe if such a god exists the “good” we refer to isn’t an egocentrically founded “human good” based around how we believe the world should work but rather “good” in the sense of stability and equilibrium and the capacity for change to be graduated and controlled rather than completely chaotic and reckless.

Hey TheMadFool, hope you are well. I appreciate the post about the problem of natural evil, as I find it fairly difficult to reconcile with the omnibenevolence of God in a traditional sense.
You posit that:
P1) An omnibenevolent God does not “play favorites” with creation
P2) What we believe to be “Natural Evil” to humans may be a “Natural good” for other organisms (like bacteria and parasites)
P3) God permits these “Natural Evils” because they are not evil for all and he chooses to not intervene
C) The problem of natural evil is no problem at all

I agree with you that the Free Will defense doesn’t help us here, but I see some problems with the argument above.

I guess I’d start by questioning P1, the idea of equality amongst all creation might seem like a good thing to ascribe to God, but I feel as though it might not be true in reality. If God views each creature with rigid equality, then does God “value” any of them at all? Does value not implicitly convey some sense of “greater” or “lesser” ergo comparison amongst created things. In most religions I know of there are serious assertions that humans are not equal in value to other animals, and that certain animals are not equal in value to inanimate objects. (Think about realms of reincarnation in some of the Asian religions or the Abrahamic religions’ emphasis on the Imago Dei.) I think that this comparative value is a great thing and that by being “higher” up on this value list we actually have a responsibility to look after the life “lower” in value to us. If we afford the same rights and privileges to plants, mosquitoes, flesh-eating bacteria, and these things come into conflict with one another, are we really to do nothing and allow the eradication of a species because it benefits another? Are our hands really tied, Or is there a middle ground, found through parsing out the reason and logic for certain decisions, that helps both survive? I also think that this “inequality in value” has its limits.

You have made several points elsewhere on this post to say that certain morally bad things, like racism and slavery, “must exist to give meaning to value” if we are claim that not all of God’s creatures are equal. Which, I think is actually kind of spot on, but maybe not for the reason that you mean. We can recognize that racism is a belief about value itself, that some races are more valuable than the other, and then make a value assessment of said belief to determine that it is worse than non-racism. Racism exists and we can say it’s bad, yay!

Hey TheMadFool, hope you are wel — DPKING

Thanks for the concern but, no, I'm not well :sad: but for the record, that's not important, it never was, never is, never will be,

If we afford the same rights and privileges to plants, mosquitoes, flesh-eating bacteria, and these things come into conflict with one another, are we really to do nothing and allow the eradication of a species because it benefits another? — DPKING

When I say that all creatures, big and small, are equal in god's eyes - we're all faers children - I mean that god won't intervene in our squabbles, disagreements, conflicts, wars, etc. We, on the other hand, are free to resolve differences in the way we see fit - most, some might even say all, of the time this will involve some form of force rather than reason but god will not take sides no matter what it is that we do to each other. This is the gist of what I'm trying to get across.

As for, your question regarding whether we are to "...really do nothing and allow the eradication of a species because it benefits another?" I'd say it all depends on how farsighted we are. If we're looking in the short term then sure, kill and eat other animals, spray pesticides and annihilate all pests and vermin, in short, do anything to anything that you consider not human enough. However, in the long term this strategy of do-as-we-wish will come back to bite us for it sanctions a superior life-form to treat us exactly in the same way as we treat those we consider less-than-human.

You have made several points elsewhere on this post to say that certain morally bad things, like racism and slavery, “must exist to give meaning to value” — DPKING

I don't recall saying that.

Too, the very notion of value understood in your terms doesn't make sense. To think higher and lower values are essential for value to be meaningful sounds very much like saying slavery must exist and that misogyny and that racism must exist to give meaning to value. That doesn't sound right to me. — TheMadFool

My entire quote was,
"You have made several points elsewhere on this post to say that certain morally bad things, like racism and slavery, “must exist to give meaning to value” if we are claim to that not all of God’s creatures are equal." or as you said, to think higher and lower values are essential to the meaning of value

No comment.

It seems to me as though it is possible for both beliefs to be compatible. I believe it is possible for mankind to rule over all animals kindly — Joaquin

The kindest act would be to not "...rule over all animals..." Freedom is a necessary condition for genuine wellbeing.

we live by morals and are able to think rationally, — Joaquin

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?!

I fully agree that on this planet, the only species capable of taking up the mantle of guardian of all life is us, homo sapiens. However, the qualities that make us suitable for this task/ role - rationality and empathy being crucial - doesn't, shouldn't, license us to create a pecking order among the living with humans at the top and other animals arranged in a caste-like manner below. To do this, establish a value hierarchy in the living world, is to immediately disqualify ourselves from the position as life's guardian.