We use intelligence as an indicator for value of life because it's better than any other one. It implies that the organism is capable of complex emotions, thoughts and even reason. By your logic, it's okay to slaughter humans. Hey, it's all arbitrary, right? :downs:


Are you daft? If value of life is defined (at least partially) by intelligence, then dumb animals are worth less, and are therefore a more acceptable sacrifice.

Even if you used every piece of the dolphin there's still other, more domesticated solutions to every problem there, and as a bonus YOU DON'T KILL INTELLIGENT BEINGS.

That is unless you're like Obi and like killing babies, but they're arguably not intelligent til later.

This is why I think hunting is stupid, with the exception of population control. Or the extremely rare case when the hunter actually eats the animal.

To be fair, it depends on where you live and your lifestyle. I know a lot of hunters around here who bag a deer every other weekend and, while they don't eat everything, they do eat a majority of it (venison, deer jerky, et al)

Well that's fine. I just think killing something for no reason other than "sport" is stupid.

Well, it's nice to know that the age-old art of meaningless celebrity demonstration hasn't been forgotten.

True, and I agree, I'm just providing an example to people who believe that it's right because it occurs in nature.


Why should we be above that and what is above? You need to justify your logic with a few moral suppositions. You're just appealing to emotional reaction to justify your claims.



Better? BS. You just made that up. Why is it better?

I'm not working from your premises, I'm coming from a position where morality is defined by God. It's up to you to justify your own standard, which by the logic you have not yet refuted, can't even condemn the slaughter of humans.

Well, from a deep, philosophical standpoint, it is very difficult to argue that any one state of existence is better than another. E.g., that it is better to be alive than dead or never born. God (or any other deity or spiritual path or existence) is a convenient cop out to this problem.

All we really have is what evolution has designed for us. Intelligence implies the ability to actively change the world around you, which is why I value it more than anything else. Obviously, unintelligent creatures have a large impact, too, but are incapable of recognizing it and incapable of thinking on their own. It's difficult for me to put it into words beyond that, and I'm leaving to go shopping in a few minutes.

Essentially, I'm saying all of my morals are derived from how life and social systems have evolved over billions of years. I hope someone else can understand what I'm trying to say and better explain it.

evolution hasnt designed anything for us. if you think it has, your concept of evolution is a little flawed.

furthermore, im not buying you guys' rationalizations for not killing dolphins. logically, i see no reason why chimps/dolphins should not be on the slaughterblock. it is in my own self interest that i find murder to be unacceptable; i could become a retard someday, and i dont particularly like the idea of being killed. the same goes for why genocide is bad. someone might decide people of dutch decent are bad one day... but i will never be a dolphin, so i really don't care.

i think you guys are trying to take god based morals, take out the god, throw in "evolution" or some such nonsense, and still have it work. but it doesnt work. youre just trying to rationalize your emotions.

It's only a cop out if He doesn't exist.



Evolution doesn't design anything, it's simply a process by which fitter organisms or societies are made more fit through the elimination of less fit species or societies. As for as societes go, the European destruction of the primitive American Indian societies is actually a good example of this.

I mean I personally don't believe that the evolution of species and societies is necessarily wrong, but human development should be governed by God given moral codes.



There's no reason a nation shouldn't get together and decide to make the killing of dolphins illegal because they enjoy their presence and don't want to make them afraid of humans, but there's no moral imperative to.

hey we all gots to eat something

Which, from Emon's standpoint (as far as I am still aware), is the case.



Actually, it's not. First of all, the process I believe you're referring to is natural selection. Also... are you really a social Darwinist?



I sure hope not...?



The problem in this case is the "should." Humans, being fallen, naturally turn away from God. So, although the best of worlds may be one of universal Christian virtue, we do not live in that world currently and hoping/chatting about it will not likely bring the Kingdom any closer.



What about when God made us custodians of the Earth and its creatures (Genesis)? Is there not the implication that we should be caretakers instead of senseless murderers? Certainly killing is necessary for survival, but there is far easier and more accessible game (sources of nutrition) than dolphins.

Anyways, back to my dolphin sandwich. Also, absolutely no offense to Emon, but am I the only one who noticed that as soon as he went atheist, Emon became a LOT more long winded about moral questions?

You know, you're right about rationalizing our emotions, but our emotions are there for a reason. Valuing dolphins not only because there's intelligence in them, but because there's thousands of reputed stories of them helping sailors, surfers, divers, etc etc. They're friendly, and smart enough to somehow know we don't (or rather, most of us) mean them any harm and to help us from being attacked by more basic creatures who just want food.


If that's not bait, I don't know what is. Listen, there's no rational proof he exists, and if you want to continue this argument, feel free to PM me, but I'm saying there is NO LOGICAL PROOF GOD EXISTS. The entire religion of Christianity relies on faith. I'm not saying every Christian's an idiot, but if you think logically (which some do, some believe to choose in higher powers, whatever), then there's no reason to take God or any other "higher power" into account. Then what do you have? A bunch of (excuse me, but this is an athiest's point of view, not necessarily the RIGHT one, whatever) made up words from some guys who wanted money and power; ie Catholic Church. Where's God play into that guy's life? You may say "nowhere and that's sad" but think about it this way--he thinks the same exact thing about you.

ONCE AGAIN, DO NOT LET THIS THREAD DEVOLVE INTO STUPID "god exists" "lol no he doesn't" rhetoric. If you wanna continue it, please just do it in PMs or something.


That's an example of two DIFFERENT, not necessarily better/worse, societies. The Native American's society worked--technologically it didn't thrive, but it didn't collapse after so many years either. In fact, the best societies tend to be more basic, and less about progeny and industrialization. Children are more often considered gifts from god in that situation, and special rather than commonplace like "Oh so and so's pregnant."


See above.


To you. But I personally think there is.

chimps do it socially, not to procreate. there are even cases of homosexual intercourse between previously observed hetero chimps.

This is why nobody likes the Japanese.


Except, you know, fat guys in sweat-stained hello kitty tee shirts.

know why japanese people like to eat dolphins?

they taste like australians. lol.

I'm just saying, if I had to give up Japan or dolphins it's a pretty easy choice FWIW

This thread is going in a lot of different directions.....

Anywho, got to love the half hearted celebrity demonstration. Surf out there, get hit with a stick, head back and cry about "We just couldn't do more." Well, as bastardly as it sounds, plenty of people out there are willing to do more for a cause, including facing death. Guess she really isn't a "Hero" after all...Pun completely intended.

After skimming some of your posts I thought I might discuss, in colorless, long-winded manner, one of the positions I assume some of you have, and a counter position you might consider.

The position I assume some of you have is one expounded by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Lewis argues that there is a "Moral Law" that is subconsciously known to every human because there is evidence of repeating morals in every society. The Moral Law can obviously be ignored, but deep down every human knows they should be moral, whether that means just, or compassionate, or brave. He concludes that the Moral Law must have been created and instilled in us by God.

The counter position also argues there is a moral law in the sense a normal human feels his or her actions should follow a certain standard, but what divides it from Lewis's is his vast leap to God; this counter position argues that these moral feelings are instilled by evolution for the survival of the species.

One assumption might be that evolutionary morals would only champion brutality or murder or greed or any other self-centered negative act. That is to ignore that humans are social beings, that society improves propagation of a species, and that justice, compassion, bravery--many of the cherished Christian values that Lewis says we all feel--are socially beneficial. Thinking that compassion is good ensures man builds mutual respect, which allows team-work and basic societies, which allow the progress of the species. Thinking that justice is good has allowed man to create laws and governments, creating a stable fertile society.

None of this is to argue that God does not exist, but to reason, which puts trust in the validity of the laws of nature, and then reach a point where you leap to a solution outside the laws of nature when there is a natural answer--to do this is absurd, and you might as well as abandon science.

And there endeth my great philosophical essay. Can I get a high five?

I really disagree with this. She is hardly using her celebrity for the cause. The video doesn't even mention her until the very end, and even then she hardly says much. She just happened to be part of the group. By your logic, every time a celebrity does anything from buying toilet paper to neutering their dog they must be promoting something.

Maybe she should use her celebrity on this.

Dolphins are smart. They play with each other, they communicate, they are friendly and helpful towards human. They should not be slaughtered like this. Anyone who is okay with this seriously needs to reevaluate their beliefs.

Irony!

Evolution is ABSOLUTELY a design process. It's merely design by selection rather than by an intelligent being.


In scientific literature, this is called penis fencing. I'm not kidding.


Are you seriously suggesting that morality does not exist without god? Do you think humans just ran around killing one another before Christianity or Judaism? Morals manifest themselves naturally in many species for a variety of reasons. Empathy naturally occurs in many animals of relatively higher intelligence. Primates have been shown to go out of their way to help a human for no reward at all.


The emotions themselves are not necessarily rational, but the reasons for why they have developed are.

Ugh... I'm glad I wasn't witness to the scene of skittish giggling ***gotry surrounding the coinage of this sterling addition to scientific nomenclature...

Whatttttt, no one gave me a high five

I would have but I was asleep.

*high fives*

NOBODY SAVED THE BUFFALO.

*******s.

They are fish guys. If they are endangered fish then HELL NO. But fish all the same. Yeah it's kind of sad to me to see Flipper bobbing about with blood running down his snout, but that's because I grew up with dolphins being like dogs to me.

Also if they are just killing dolphins to kill dolphins I am also pissed. I don't even believe in killing spiders unless you have a good reason (being scared of them is not one).

But if they are fishing and using the whole dolphin I think people are being stupid about it.

they arent fish. they are mammals.

No they aren't. They're mammals.

Okay thanks for the correction, I guess I knew that.

Does that change anything?

It does change the fact that they cannot breathe underwater. However, it doesn't really relate to the issue at hand.

Hey, now I just feel like that gleeful retard kid everyone feels obliged to hug back. :\

Agreed.

This essay assumes that morality is someone derived from a source other than within. Morality is not necessary for survival of a species, since morality is not a universally defined principle. Although some of today's moral laws in society are beneficial, they are not always needed and are not practical if they needed to be applied in certain situations. Brutality, a characteristic that is not in a moral code in today's era, is just as important, for without it, one would not be brave since it is left undefined without it.

Also, you failed to define justice.

We're just mammals too. (arguably) Evolved monkeys walking the earth with no intent or purpose other than to survive. So why don't we kill each other?

Because everyone is self-aware, intelligent, caring, and has values that extend otherwise. Also because we can defend ourselves if absolutely necessary--but it shouldn't be.

The difference as I see it? Dolphins don't have cities, dolphins don't have doctors or scientists. They seem to be useless to OUR existence.

But what about their own? I'm not a greenpeace kinda guy or anything, but we're talking about dolphins, not chicken, not tuna, not anything so stupid that is easily utilized for our own survival. Not only are they defenseless, but they're killed by beings they, for some reason, trust.

Why would you feel the compulsion to kill them, and why would you condone this act?

Also the oceanic ecosystems of which they are an important part.

Even the people who are doing it think it's wrong. They don't feel bad for doing it, of course, but they want to hide it from the public so they can save face.

But this is Japan we're talking about. The only country that still conducts whale hunting, and to save face in the international community they lie and call it 'scientific whaling.' Sorta like 'scientific racism' and 'scientific ephebolphilia' and 'scientific cannibalism' I guess.

What? A little prodding and they regard us as stupid savages at best and firewood at worst. What are a few dolphins to stand in the way of the might of glorious nippon?

Bender: Who wants dolphin?
Leela: Dolphin! But dolphins are inteligent!
Bender: Not this one, he blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.
Leela: Oh. Pass me the blowhole.
Professor: Toss me the speach center of the brain!

Stick it to the man! Bring down the establishment!

After rereading my essay thingie I realized I did a bad job explaining everything.

This essay provides two positions. Both positions argue that humans feel they should act a certain way. The Lewis position argues that these feelings are given us by God and should be followed. The evolutionary position argues they are formed by evolution and does not argue that these feelings should be followed, but simply states that the impulses are not necessarily unchristian.

Whether or not the impulses *should* indeed be followed is a completely different issue. If you have Lewis's view, then they should indeed be followed if you want to be happy, because if you don't you'll go to hell. If you have the evolutionary view, they should be followed if you think that preservation of the species is desirable, and you think the impulses are beneficial to survival and not simply unhelpful mutations.

I personally have the evolutionary position, but I think the best moral system is one that ensures happiness and not simply preserves a species.

The only way these moral systems would work, though, is if they rationally attempted to meet their goals, something no one seems to understand.

p.s. that was also a pretty ****ty explanation, so I'm going to stop trying to write while I have a fever