SkepticalSkeeter wrote:Now, in response to your questions:
Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off the weak and helpless? Emotions aside, why or why not?
Generally speaking I believe that it's wrong, although there are some situations where it would be morally acceptable to do so. For example, I have no issue with assisted suicide, provided that there's appropriate oversight to ensure that the patient's wishes are actually being honored.
As for why, I think that morality pretty much comes down to the Golden Rule. The weak and helpless deserve the same level of respect and personal autonomy as anyone else, and human life has value.
I had the
"Golden Rule" conversation elsewhere.
Really, there is no
logical basis for the "Golden Rule". The "Silver Rule" makes
logical sense, but not the "Golden Rule".
Here is a ethical rule that makes sense: "
Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you."
To
logically base your morality as an Atheist upon the "Golden Rule", then you need to articulate in a logically justified manner why it matters.
What makes it logical for you to follow. For it seems to me, the Golden Rule has no supporting basis for us follow unless one admits to it's immaterial reality.
To answer my own question in a manner I believe more coherent and deeper-thinking Atheists may respond.
Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off the weak and helpless? Emotions aside, why or why not?
A: Evolution is all about survival of the fittest. Those unable to adapt must and do die out, leaving the strong behind who will survive. Killing off the weak and helpless is simply natural selection at it's best/worst (whatever your outlook might be about such).
There is nothing inherently wrong will killing a human life which is unable to support itself. If anything, such weakness is a burden and inconvenience to the strong. Such inferior humans may hinder or dilute the strong. Perhaps, the superior stronger humans may find use of weaker ones via domination and enslavery, but where there is no such benefit to be had then they may as well be good as dead.
SkepticalSkeeter wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" for man to rape women? Emotions aside, why or why not?
Wrong.
Again, Golden Rule. Personal autonomy. Our bodies are our own.
Again, what magical strings support this "Golden Rule" of yours?
If I'm a social outcast, ugly or what-have-you, then the only way to propagate my genes may be through raping.
There are many instances of what appears to be "rape" in the animal kingdom. Despite whatever distaste one might have, it is in fact quite natural act. Even say, male hyenas who unable to mate with a female, then deciding to mount one of its cubs to get its rocks off. All this is very natural. It is only some unnatural morality humans have than make it all seem "wrong". Have a read over:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sex ... viour#Rape
Now take the book,
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion written by evolutionary scientists Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. They claim that rape is "
a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "
the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." Rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Thornhill, "
Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter."
They are not alone in their thoughts. Edward Hagen
writing for The Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara (now at the Institute of Theoretical Biology, Berlin) says:
- "A better question is whether or not a rape adaptation in humans is conceivable. Here, I think the answer is clearly yes. That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict. Nature is rife with violent conflict--conflict between members of different species (such as predators and prey), conflict between members of the same species (such as males competing for females), and conflict between males and females (such as the killing of offspring by unrelated males during harem takeovers). Further, many organisms clearly possess adaptations to successfully engage in violent strategies (e.g., fangs and claws). There is no principled reason why animal nervous systems could not be specialized for coercive mating, including rape.
If we overturn this "moral conscience" that evolved in humans, for there is no reason we ought to keep it for ourselves once we realise it simply evolved, then we can just let the natural way of things take place. The strong survive and take what they please, and the weak either adapt or die out.
SkepticalSkeeter wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" to kill off infants? Emotions aside, why or why not?
Wrong.
Golden Rule. Personal autonomy. All human life has value.
And so, since you believe "
All human life has value"...
I take it that you have similar beliefs then to those at:
http://www.secularprolife.org/ regarding human life in the womb? That abortion at any stage where there is human life is wrong?
Or are you here inconsistent, and think it is alright for the convenience of the stronger to off the weak and helpless?
Furthermore, please
logically explain what gives human life "value"? Many deeper Atheistic thinkers would logically disagree with you here. They'd argue that value only comes through function, or what society largely determines to be the case.
SkepticalSkeeter wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Finally, do you believe we are free to make choices and act them out, or is "who we are" purely determined by our physiological make-up?
It's not an either/or issue. We have free will and can make our own choices, but only within the broader context of our social and economic circumstances, physical and mental health, intelligence, education, life experience, and awareness of our options.
Dawkins foolishly responded off the cuff in an exchange that he had with Quinn to affirm "free will" as you appear to here.
But, how is it that "we have free will and can make our own choices" in any sense if "we" are merely reduced to the physical? If we are merely atoms colliding together and bouncing around. Our choices are determined by their arrangement and environmental conditions. Now perhaps our consciousness arose out of this, but to think we are actually "free" and "in control" is in fact illusory.
To understand this point more fully, I encourage you to listen to that exchange between Dawkins and Quinn that I posted earlier (it's only 18 minutes):
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7SfEXAQTkA[/youtube]
Now, if it is true that our actions are determined by our biology and environment, then "morality" is a mute issue. It makes no sense to say that my "stealing" is wrong. For I had no control over my actions. Right and wrong, fairness, justice and all that just get thrown out the window. The murderer is as much as victim as his victim.
Perhaps.
