CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Conscious life, in and of itself, is equal in importance to any other conscious life. However, the genius chimp probably would provide more benefit to others and itself than a retarded human would and thus we would value it's life as more important.
"Not all conscious life is equally important to me, a conscious life."
In your subjective estimation, or relevant to your self-interest.
"neither the chimp nor the person is important to me."
That's interesting, I remember you saying "I hold human life as my highest value. My life is my primary value. The recognition that others value their own the way I value mine produces in me a high valuation for all human life." in my highest value debate. How do you reconcile these positions?
"If I shot and killed the chimp, what crime would you charge me with? Now what if I shot and killed the person?"
I completely appreciate that the law treats these acts as immensely different, however this is an argument from law (ethos), rather than an argument from a factual or logical (logos) basis. If there was a law declaring that murder was OK, this would not be an argument that murder was in fact OK.
In your subjective estimation, or relevant to your self-interest
“Subjective estimation” is redundant. All valuations (measures of importance) are relevant to self-interest. A monkey cannot be considered important without someone for it to be important to.
That's interesting, I remember you saying "I hold human life as my highest value”...How do you reconcile these positions?
If an individual dies without that death having any effect on me whatsoever (meaning I don’t know about the death or any negative effects derived therefrom) then I obviously did not value that individuals life. People die all the time and it is no difference to me.
A value is that for which one would take action to gain or keep. I value human life above all else. That means I would take action for my life (first) and any human life I come in contact with (though not all equally). If someone may loose there life within my sphere of influence, I’ll take action, even for a stranger, because I value human life. When I hear about the loss of human life elsewhere, I feel bad.When I don’t hear about it, nothing happens, and I don’t act. My valuation of human life is conceptual, and can only possibly apply to a limited set of particulars.
I completely appreciate that the law treats these acts as immensely different, however this is an argument from law (ethos), rather than an argument from a factual or logical (logos) basis. If there was a law declaring that murder was OK, this would not be an argument that murder was in fact OK.
Our laws are derived from moral logic and reasoning. If all murder was legal, which death would you be more concerned with, given you are equally familiar with both subjects?
As it is, I am personally equally unfamiliar with either the monkey or the person. As such the only matter of importance to me is how my society approaches the matter. Regardless of how an individual relates to either, the most important thing for me and everyone is that society values the human life above that of any given animal. I know some people who would rather watch a stranger die than suffer the death of their pet. That’s not important. What’s important (for human society) is that we don’t put any given pet, including a smart chimp, above any given person. This is appropriately reflected in our laws.
"All valuations (measures of importance) are relevant to self-interest. A monkey cannot be considered important without someone for it to be important to."
I disagree, I don't see importance as only subjective, for example, if consciousness ceased to exist, I would view this as objectively important, because nothing in the universe would have any meaning/significance anymore. Nothing would matter at all because there would be no observers/experiencers. I also view conscious experience as objectively important/significant since one cannot change the significance of one's own experience. If you don't eat you will suffer and die and as such it is important that you eat (unless of course the alternative is worse). I laid out this logic in my moral nihilism debate where you appeared to agree with me. Perhaps a clearer example would be that it's objectively important whether reality is a heaven or a hell.
"People die all the time and it is no difference to me."
Of course, yet is the death of a conscious entity of significance? We know, after all, from our own experience, that conscious experience is of significance.
"...I value human life..."
Why do you value human life?
"Our laws are derived from moral logic and reasoning."
They are, yet because something is enshrined in law does not make it correct.
"If all murder was legal, which death would you be more concerned with, given you are equally familiar with both subjects?"
It would depend on many factors, including the suffering of the death, their expected quality of life if they survived, their effect on those around them and so on. I've personally mourned the death of pets I've had strong connections to with greater zeal than the deaths of relatives that I wasn't particularly connected to and for whom death was a mercy. An old man's death, when on his way out and living a life of suffering, is a gift. A young puppy's death, that would have enjoyed a good quality of life while enriching the lives of those around it, is a tragedy. If all factors were the same I might mourn the human more, I don't know, but would it be correct to? Why?
"As it is, I am personally equally unfamiliar with either the monkey or the person. As such the only matter of importance to me is how my society approaches the matter. Regardless of how an individual relates to either, the most important thing for me and everyone is that society values the human life above that of any given animal."
To you it's important to set a precedent that advantages humans? I can understand why you would, due to self interest, hold this position. I can't understand how in and of itself the conscious experience of a human is more important than the conscious experience of an animal though.
"I know some people who would rather watch a stranger die than suffer the death of their pet. That’s not important."
Sure, but the death of a stranger can be the better outcome of the two for conscious entities as a whole.
"What’s important (for human society) is that we don’t put any given pet, including a smart chimp, above any given person. This is appropriately reflected in our laws."
Why? Also we imprison people for animal abuse, which would be putting an animal before a human.
I don't see importance as only subjective, for example, if consciousness ceased to exist, I would view this as objectively important, because nothing in the universe would have any meaning/significance anymore
If nothing in the universe had meaning or significance, then it would matter specifically to no one at all.
Importance isn’t only subjective. But it is always relative. The monkeys life is always important to the monkey, but it cannot be considered more or less important to no one in particular.
I also view conscious experience as objectively important/significant
It’s importance is relative to itself. And not beyond it. Valuation is a product of life. Anything that is valuable, is valuable to something or someone. While a thing can be objectively valuable (valuable regardless of ones opinion), it cannot be valuable to no one in particular. A thing cannot be valuable to someone who is not affected in any way.
I laid out this logic in my moral nihilism debate where you appeared to agree with me.
I agree that things can be objectively valuable. But relative is not the same as subjective. I am not aware of all the countless things that take place in my body which are essential to me. They are not part of my subjective experience. Thus they are not subjectively valuable to me. But they are still valuable from my position, objectively speaking. They are valuable to me. Objectively.
is the death of a conscious entity of significance?
To someone. To the entity itself. Not necessarily to me.
We know, after all, from our own experience, that conscious experience is of significance.
Conscious experience creates conscious experience. It is not significant beyond itself. Is water wet?
Why do you value human life?
Because I’m human. If I were an ant, ant life would be more important to me.
If all factors were the same I might mourn the human more, I don't know, but would it be correct to? Why?
Yes. Because you’re human. The whole process of life and evolution, the conscious world itself, relies on a natural calculus wherein species advance to ever more complex states of experience through a process of effort directed to the benefit of themselves and their kind as their nature dictates. Even your affinity for organisms of conscious experience is an expression of this calculus as such organisms are more akin to your kind.
I can't understand how in and of itself the conscious experience of a human is more important than the conscious experience of an animal though.
In and of itself is the only way in which a human conscious experience is more important. Valuation is relative.
Sure, but the death of a stranger can be the better outcome of the two for conscious entities as a whole.
Better outcome for whom? The only way to affect the whole is to affect each and every. The death of one before the other is of no importance for the ant on the other side of the world. Thus, it is not better or worse for conscious entities as a whole.
Also we imprison people for animal abuse, which would be putting an animal before a human.
No. A person who abuses animals is detrimental to his fellow humans. Baby mammals are cute to people. This is evolved. The kind of person who tortured animals is the kind of person who will act detrimentally to his fellow humans, if his behavior is left unchecked. But while we condemn the cruel simpleton who bashed puppies with a bat, we happily clean our counters, sending countless microorganisms to their chemical death.
"If nothing in the universe had meaning or significance, then it would matter specifically to no one at all."
To be clear, does this mean that you hold that it doesn't matter whether consciousness exists? While conscious entities are necessary for significance, I hold that this is because without consciousness nothing is significant. Is it not of importance that the universe contains consciousness?
"It’s importance is relative to itself."
Yet we can appreciate that the suffering of others is of significance without it being significant to us.
"Anything that is valuable, is valuable to something or someone... While a thing can be objectively valuable (valuable regardless of ones opinion), it cannot be valuable to no one in particular. A thing cannot be valuable to someone who is not affected in any way."
Perhaps, but value and significance are different. I only used the word value once in my original post, as a synonym for judge. Things certainly can be significant to no one in particular, or if you prefer to consciousness as a whole, for example it is significant whether reality is skewed more towards suffering or pleasure.
"To someone. To the entity itself. Not to me."
So objectively speaking does it not matter if people suffer and die?
"Conscious experience creates conscious experience. It is not significant beyond itself. Is water wet?"
The generation of significance and meaning is not significant? I don't understand how? Is water wet? It depends on the definition of wet.
"Because I’m human. If I were an ant, ant life would be more important to me."
My reasoning for why I value human life is that whether the human is consciously experiencing or not is significant.
"Yes. Because you’re human. The whole process of life and evolution, the conscious world itself, relies on a natural calculus wherein species advance to ever more complex states of experience through a process of effort directed to the benefit of themselves and their kind as their nature dictates."
This explains why we have this view: evolutionary biological drives, but it doesn't explain whether the view is morally correct to hold.
"In and of itself is the only way in which a human conscious experience is more important."
I don't understand. When I was saying in and of itself, I was talking about if we were to take away reasons we might judge that a human's consciousness more important, such as the effect they have on the wider world.
"Better outcome for whom?"
I said: "for conscious entities as a whole".
"The kind of person who tortured animals is the kind of person who will act detrimentally to his fellow humans, if his behavior is left unchecked."
This is likely, but does this mean that you'd be perfectly fine with letting people torture animals as long as there was no risk to humans? Perhaps allowing such sadists to pay to lose their freedom permanently in exchange for being allowed to torture animals all day? Further, criminal animal neglect (not abuse, a separate crime) is a crime (Source 1), and the reason given by the government for such laws is along the lines of prevention of suffering.
"But while we condemn the cruel simpleton who bashed puppies with a bat, we happily clean our counters, sending countless microorganisms to their chemical death."
We have no reason to believe that microorganisms are conscious, though they may well be. We believe a brain is necessary for consciousness, for example, though this may not be true. Animals appear conscious in every way that we can test (consciousness of course is not testable).
I should apologize. I attempted to edit my post for clarification before your response, but I was too slow. If an alteration is relevant, I’ll include it in my response below.
does this mean that you hold that it doesn't matter whether consciousness exists?
It matters whether consciousness exists because it already exists. The idea matters to us only because we’re conscious. If there was no consciousness at all, who would it matter too?
I hold that...without consciousness nothing is significant.
Exactly.
Is it not of importance that the universe contains consciousness?
Importance is a conscious notion for conscious beings. Consciousness in the universe is important to me, and presumably conscious beings in general. But nothing can be important to no one in particular.
Yet we can appreciate that the suffering of others is of significance without it being significant to us.
Yes. We appreciate it because we know for ourselves what it is to suffer, and we can imagine someone else’s suffering being our own.
But if unknown person dies from unknown issue in unknown location without affecting you in the slightest, you cannot say you ever valued unknown persons life. You can only say you value life in general and as such, you can see importance in unknown persons situation, but only after hearing about it (thus being affected by it).
Perhaps, but value and significance are different.
Things can be significant in a lifeless, conscious-less universe insofar as they can have a great affect. But they cannot be important. And they cannot hold value. Significance becomes importance only when conscious beings are affected.
Things certainly can be significant to no one in particular, or if you prefer to consciousness as a whole
Significance is not the same as meaning or importance. Nothing can be important to consciousness as a whole without being important to each conscious being, which is specifically everyone in particular. If there are 10 conscious being in an isolated other dimension of the universe, then the destruction of all other consciousness leaving those 10 unaffected would not be important to them (though it would be a significant event). And they would now represent consciousness as a whole. You can not argue for the importance to them without arguing for some kind of effect.
for example it is significant whether reality is skewed more towards suffering or pleasure
If this question could be made meaningful, how can you say this is significant to no one in particular?
So objectively speaking does it not matter if people suffer and die?
It does not have to matter to me if they die for it to objectively matter in fact. Those people do not want to suffer and die. It matters to them. That’s an objective fact. It objectively matters.
The generation of significance and meaning is not significant? I don't understand how?
Consciousness does not generate significance, and its existence is significant. But consciousness does generate importance. It generates meaning. If there was no consciousness, the universe would be significantly different. But this difference wouldn’t matter as there would be no one for it to be important to. In only matters from the perspective of a conscious being.
My reasoning for why I value human life is that whether the human is consciously experiencing or not is significant
When a star implodes so far away that it has no observable affects, it is significant, but it’s not important to anyone on this planet. We cannot possibly value anything about the situation. Whether a particular human is consciously experiencing or not is important to you only insofar as it affects you in some way. Otherwise it’s impossible for it to matter to you. You still haven’t mourned the loss of unknown person.
This explains why we have this view: evolutionary biological drives, but it doesn't explain whether the view is morally correct to hold.
There’s a popular misconception that you cannot derive am ought from an is. This isn’t true. When something is identified and it’s function understood, ought can be derived from is.
Through evolution, light detection slowly became an eye. The eye helps us survive because provides sight. Though sight is subjective, we know some sight to be better than other sight, objectively. We know this because we know the function of the eye.
Similarly, morality is an evolved trait (morality in this sense is a code of conduct. All conduct whether social or individual) It is an essential replacement for organisms with relatively fewer guiding instincts, a reduction that occurs as brain processes become more complex. Morality evolved, like anything else, to help us survive. When we survive well, we thrive. Knowing the function of morality provides the means to derive ought from is. Thus, there is an objective standard for determining the moral correctness of a given moral code, just as there is an objective standard for determining the visual accuracy of a given eye. Some moral constructs, values, acts etc actually assist us in surviving and thriving. Some actually don’t.
If your moral code elevates the value of everything above yourself and your kind, it is morally incorrect.
When I was saying in and of itself, I was talking about if we were to take away reasons we might judge that a human's consciousness more important, such as the effect they have on the wider world
Human consciousness is important in and of itself, not necessarily beyond itself. It is not important in and of ant consciousness, which is important in and of itself. Shmu consciousness is not important to anyone at all because shmus don’t exist. You cannot take away all the things that make a thing important (namely the thing itself) and expect it to remain important. In the case of consciousness, if you took away all human consciousness, it would only be important to those creatures whose conscious experience was significantly affected by the existence of human consciousness (positive or negative). And that importance would be based on their own valuation of their own (and their kind’s) conscious experience as more important than others, which it is (in and of itself).
I said: “for conscious entities as a whole".
The only way to affect the whole is to affect each and every. There is no such thing as consciousness as a whole if it is not the total of the consciousness of each.
but does this mean that you'd be perfectly fine with letting people torture animals as long as there was no risk to humans?
No, but only because I’m already human. If torturous people were no risk to humans, then we wouldn’t be humans as we are today, which is the kind that is troubled by torturous humans. Perhaps we would be more like cats, who gleefully torture their food without any qualms. As a person, I’m disturbed by the torturous cat who toys with the poor little mouse. I may intervene on the mouses behalf. But I won’t judge the torturous cat, whose nature cannot and should not be like my own.
criminal animal neglect (not abuse, a separate crime) is a crime (Source 1), and the reason given by the government for such laws is along the lines of prevention of suffering.
Right, because we don’t want those animals to suffer. Because if we were ok with making animals suffer we would be detrimental to our kind. This goes for the people who write laws as well. People often do not reflect on the psychological and evolutionary foundations for what their emotions tell them. It doesn’t mean those foundations are not there.
We have no reason to believe that microorganisms are conscious, though they may well be.
You wouldn’t be so callous toward your fellow living organisms if they were sufficiently like you enough to be conscious. Even with conscious creatures, their value to you is scaled by their similarity to you. Flies have a brain, they are necessary for our health and well-being, and are rarely detrimental beyond being an annoyance. But we swat them all day.
"If there was no consciousness at all, who would it matter too?"
Once again, I don't hold that things have to matter to something in order to matter. As I said before, whether consciousness exists or not objectively matters. Do you believe that objectively nothing matters and if so, why do anything? To answer my own question, it is because conscious experience itself matters. You might say "it only matters to me", but why does it matter to you?
"Exactly."
Because conscious experience objectively matters. It is of significant consequence.
"Importance is a conscious notion for conscious beings. Consciousness in the universe is important to me, and presumably conscious beings in general. But nothing can be important to no one in particular."
Does this not mean that objectively it doesn't matter at all whether the universe exists or not?
"Yes. We appreciate it because we know for ourselves what it is to suffer, and we can imagine someone else’s suffering being our own."
Because suffering is a significant event.
"But if unknown person dies from unknown issue in unknown location without affecting you in the slightest, you cannot say you ever valued unknown persons life."
I agree.
"You can only say you value life in general and as such, you can see importance in unknown persons situation, but only after hearing about it (thus being affected by it)."
Later you distinguish between importance and significance and so I will use the word significance from now on for clarity. The suffering of the person has significance whether I acknowledge it or not, or to rephrase, it is of significant consequence. My, or anyone's subjective judgement of the significance of something has nothing to do with it's actual significance.
"Things can be significant in a lifeless, conscious-less universe insofar as they can have a great affect."
Please elaborate, I think that this train of thought may lead us to agreement.
"Significance is not the same as meaning or importance..."
Let's drop the word importance and focus on significance, as it is the word I also prefer. In the past I've insisted on using the word "significance" to avoid confusion over what I mean.
"If this question could be made meaningful, how can you say this is significant to no one in particular?"
Conscious experience itself is significant, as we are aware by our own conscious experience. As such, any effect on conscious experience would also be significant.
"It does not have to matter to me if they die for it to objectively matter in fact. Those people do not want to suffer and die. It matters to them. That’s an objective fact. It objectively matters."
This is exactly the point I'm making, conscious experience itself is significant, it isn't just the creator of significance. Conscious experience objectively matters.
"this difference wouldn’t matter as there would be no one for it to be important to. In only matters from the perspective of a conscious being."
In my view being objectively significant and objectively mattering are the same thing, are you speaking of subjectively mattering here?
"...You can not argue for the importance to them without arguing for some kind of effect."
You distinguished between importance and significance earlier, and I'm fine to make the distinction, but then why are you replying to my statements about significance with statements about importance?
"If there was no consciousness, the universe would be significantly different. But this difference wouldn’t matter as there would be no one for it to be important to."
This conflicts with "Consciousness does not generate significance, and its existence is significant". I think our wires are getting crossed due to the fact that things can subjectively matter, just like they can be subjectively significant. I don't hold this to be true because the experience of being conscious itself is significant.
"When a star implodes so far away that it has no observable affects, it is significant, but it’s not important to anyone on this planet... You still haven’t mourned the loss of unknown person. "
I only mentioned significance and not importance in this paragraph. You're speaking of subjective valuations, and I agree about those, still I hold that things can be objectively significant (which you seem to agree with to some degree). I appreciate that this is my fault as I used the word importance a couple of times, albeit to state that it was important because it was significant.
"There’s a popular misconception that you cannot derive am ought from an is. This isn’t true."
I agree.
"Some moral constructs, values, acts etc actually assist us in surviving and thriving. Some actually don’t."
Is your moral code solely concerned with survival, and if so, does this mean that if I should do whatever is necessary for my survival? Does this mean that when George Soros was rounding up fellow Jews in Nazi Germany he was morally justified because it allowed him to survive and thrive? We are, after all, biologically wired to prefer ourselves over our species.
"Human consciousness is important in and of itself, not necessarily beyond itself. It is not important in and of ant consciousness, which is important in and of itself..."
It feels like we're talking about different things here (I was talking about judging the difference between a chimp's consciousness and a human's), but maybe I just don't understand?
"In the case of consciousness, if you took away all human consciousness, it would only be important to those creatures whose conscious experience was significantly affected by the existence of human consciousness (positive or negative)."
You'd agree that human consciousness disappearing would be objectively significant, though? Do you hold that things can be significant without the involvement of consciousness and if so how?
"that importance would be based on their own valuation of their own (and their kind’s) conscious experience as more important than others, which it is (in and of itself)."
Subjectively more important? I personally think that if something is objectively significant or objectively matters, that it is, as a result, objectively important.
"The only way to affect the whole is to affect each and every. There is no such thing as consciousness as a whole if it is not the total of the consciousness of each."
How would you describe the aggregate effect of a stimulus on a group? How would you rephrase, for example, "capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole"?
"If torturous people were no risk to humans, then we wouldn’t be humans as we are today, which is the kind that is troubled by torturous humans."
We could get sadists off the streets by allowing them to be voluntarily imprisoned in exchange for being allowed to torture animals all day. This would reduce the number of intensely sadistic people in society which would theoretically decrease the amount of humans harmed by them. Assuming that it worked (and I see not why it wouldn't work), would you support such a measure? Further, would you support the blanket removal of restrictions on animal testing/experimentation?
"As a person, I’m disturbed by the torturous cat who toys with the poor little mouse."
Does this have anything to do with the suffering of the mouse?
"Right, because we don’t want those animals to suffer. Because if we were ok with making animals suffer we would be detrimental to our kind."
Why is the first sentence not sufficient reason? I am aware that suffering is horrible, and thus I want to prevent suffering.
"People often do not reflect on the psychological and evolutionary foundations for what their emotions tell them. It doesn’t mean those foundations are not there."
I don't see how awareness of the negativity of suffering is not sufficient reason to want to alleviate it. If we speak of the underpinning foundations of morality, is it not possible that subconsciously this awareness of the horror of suffering is part of why we are moral? Perhaps this is part of why we evolved empathy.
"You wouldn’t be so callous toward your fellow living organisms if they were sufficiently like you enough to be conscious. Even with conscious creatures, their value to you is scaled by their similarity to you. Flies have a brain, they are necessary for our health and well-being, and are rarely detrimental beyond being an annoyance. But we swat them all day."
I certainly agree with this for most people. I, however, make every effort to spare the lives of flies, catching them and releasing them (virtue signal activated). I sometimes kill mosquitoes as they pose me harm, but even then I feel guilty.
I think the importance of something is subjective, so the question doesn't make sense. (WinstonC, I know you disagree, but we've had this conversation before)
Who's life is more important, a mentally retarded human or a genius chimpanzee?
Somewhat related point: The average IQ for a 'standard' chimpanzee is projected be between 40-50, while a 'genius' chimp may be around 60 IQ, or so. Then, to map this onto human cognitive abilities:
-IQ 40: Severely Mentally Disabled-- "Limited ability to communicate, eat, bath, dress and toilet. No academic skills."
-IQ 50: Moderately Mentally Disabled-- "Some independent self-help skills and very basic academic skills."
-IQ 60: Mildly Mentally Disabled-- "Usually able to dress/bath independently and can do simple jobs. Elementary school academics."
So a drooling wheelchair bound proto-human that can't wipe it's own anus is just as valuable as a fully functioning sentient being that can actually survive without everyone going out of their way to preserve it's existence? not to mention a genius chimp is truly special, whereas a "special" human is just another occasional fuck up.
So a drooling wheelchair bound proto-human that can't wipe it's own anus is just as valuable as a fully functioning sentient being that can actually survive
Hello Logical:
I'd LIKE to be ON the commission that DECIDES who's valuable, and who's NOT.. When we got around to you, you might NOT make the cut..
So, in order to AVOID having killing commissions like that, we, as a nation, decided that EVERYBODY has rights..
When we got around to you, you might NOT make the cut..
It depends if what you consider valuable is based on actual value or just arbitrary morality. If things like intelligence, productivity etc. are what you base the decisions on, I would do better than most retards I assume. But if your goal is to make sure that the weak and stupid are given resources and coddled for no reason based on your superstition called morality then I would probably be screwed.
we've decided that EVERYBODY has rights..
Don't make me laugh you domesticated turkey fucker. Your "rights" would be more accurately described as privileges. You need a government's constitutional amendments and bills to give you these privileges and they can be taken away from you the second you displease your precious nation's overlords.
No, Democrats decided everybody has rights if they are old enough. Democrats and those who elect them support testing for and killing those viable Special Need's babies for merely being diverse and different.
You support the killing commissions that test for perfection in our late term babies.
Neither has a life that is important to me at all. What is important to me is living in a society that values human life first and foremost. As such, if a person kills both the chimp and the retarded person, it’s most important that they only receive one count of murder.
Neither has a life that is important to me at all.What is important to me is living in a society that values human life first and foremost.
That's exactly the opposite of what I am going to be using you to demonstrate. My point in creating this debate is that just being human does not automatically make you the most valuable thing in the universe, in fact humans are often the worst thing in the entire universe in terms of their capacity for destruction and insanity. When you say that neither has a life that is important to you, and that you only care that society values human life, you are saying "I have no genuine care for the lives of others or empathy, I merely want their to be an arbitrary rule that MY species in particular is the most important thing on earth so I can carry on consuming and producing waste like every other meaningless biological mechanism on this giant ball of shit we call a planet."
It's fortunate that you worded your post as you did, because it clearly demonstrates the folly of man. Humans don't create these social constructs because they are "right", they create them to protect their own weakness, so that themselves and their genes are sheltered from natural selection. Without the RARE humans who have produced all the technology, infrastructure and medicine that keeps the average human afloat, the majority of the human race would be exposed as pathetic domesticated self important apes and they would die. There was a time when this was not the case, what you call an average human is actually borderline subhuman and retards are fully subhuman if I do say so myself. What we are preserving is not humanity but the downward progression of humanity when we consider neurosis and deformity to be more valuable then other life simply because the neurosis and deformity is somewhat human.
You and every other domesticated human desire an arbitrary social construct to be programmed into everyone from birth that tells them that you can't be killed, but it's okay to kill other species not because it is "right" but because your own survival is more important to you then beauty, strength and intelligence. In other words you are an abomination to natural selection that would never survive without social constructs and tools that other people invented. This especially goes for the retard, which objectively should be less important to you, because it is less.
I always appreciate when little murderous nobodys like you get seething mad at humanity. Your impotence is so clearly highlighted.
My point in creating this debate is that just being human does not automatically make you the most valuable thing in the universe
Valuable to whom? For what?
in fact humans are often the worst thing in the entire universe
I think you should lead by example in your struggle against humanity.
you are saying "
When you quote someone with things they didn’t say, it’s because you are not competent or articulate enough to address what they actually said.
Humans don't create these social constructs because they are "right"
We created them because we are social creatures. Social constructs naturally arise in social creatures.
their genes are sheltered from natural selection
If a species’s genes are “sheltered from natural selection”, then its traits are superior and have thus been naturally selected.
Without the RARE humans who have produced all the technology
Without the social constructs you keep bitching about, these rare humans would never be able to realize their remarkable potential. They would be busy struggling with an existence that is nasty, brutish, and short.
You and every other domesticated human desire an arbitrary social construct to be programmed into everyone from birth that tells them that you can't be killed, but it's okay to kill other species not because it is "right" but because your own survival is more important to you then beauty, strength and intelligence
First, social constructs aren’t arbitrary. Second, I don’t care what animals you consider strong and beautiful etc because impotent zoophiles like you won’t be doing anything for me to be concerned with.
In other words you are an abomination to natural selection
You don’t seem to understand natural selection. Nature doesn’t abide abominations.
that would never survive without social constructs and tools that other people invented
You speak with authority about matters you cannot possibly know about. While all the best tools for primitive survival have likely been invented, you cannot know my level of skill or innovation in any given circumstance.
This especially goes for the retard, which objectively should be less important to you
Neither has any importance to me.
because it is less.
Not to the mother of the retard.
The reason humans need to tend and care for the environment is because humans have to live here. The reason humans value animals is because we see qualities that we identify with as humans (that’s why we cry over some animals and not others). The reason we devalue acts of destruction against animals is because people who act that way are less conducive to human social order. The reason people loose sight of the reasoning at work is because we have emotionally internalized these values. The reason we have emotionally internalized these values is because they are a product of evolution. It’s the reason baby mammals are cute. Nature is clever like this.
Sometimes overly emotional and irrational people get wrapped up in their emotional valuation of non-humans. When an emotional, irrational person is also socially inept or fails at human centric endeavors (such as love, friendship, business etc) they sometimes elevate the non-human above their own species, failing to see that the fault for their failure lies with themselves. If these type of people decide to act on their misguided beliefs, it becomes necessary for others to remove them from the equation. In the end, therefore, nature wins. Evolution triumphs. And you loose.
Yes yes, I know how subjective value is, that is why it's so subjectively pathetic that humans actually believe they are objectively the most valuable thing in the world and that you are some kind of monster if you don't believe that, even if the human in question is a subhuman retard with a lower IQ than a chimpanzee.
I think you should lead by example in your struggle against humanity.
It's not humanity per se that I have a problem with, it's the average modern human specifically.
When you quote someone with things they didn’t say
I translated what you said.
Social constructs naturally arise in social creatures.
Not necessarily, they arise in creatures that are both social and superstitious. Believing that money has value or the government has authority is superstitious.
If a species’s genes are “sheltered from natural selection”, then its traits are superior and have thus been naturally selected.
Not always, that is just your way of twisting my words. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said that humans are sheltered from the pressures of natural selection that cause a species to evolve. Humans got to this point because of our intelligence, but now the species is being weakened because we have bypassed the darwinian struggle entirely. In our current state, selection is arbitrary, the inferior are protected and given resources and the superior are often oppressed because they are incompatible with the artificial social fabric of modern society and do not conform, or because they have ideas that are ahead of their time. The average human does not exhibit the intellect that got us this far, they are entirely subjective robots programmed with conceptual superstitious drivel that has no basis in reality which enslaves them to institutions and ideologies. Becoming less and less capable of sustaining itself as it adapts to the growing influx of technological conveniences which most humans don't even understand. Yet you call them superior for simply being given things they could never create to the detriment of the entire fucking ecosystem.
Without the social constructs you keep bitching about, these rare humans would never be able to realize their remarkable potential. They would be busy struggling with an existence that is nasty, brutish, and short.
You don't need social constructs to have a civilization.
social constructs aren’t arbitrary
Yes they are. If you believe that money has value that is the same as believing in a religion.
impotent zoophiles
You missed the point entirely. Everything you say proves that you don't understand a word I am saying because the average human does not live in reality. You cannot let go of your weak morality that causes you to value weakness above all things and realize that the only reason you subjectively and arbitrarily value human life is because you are a human. It is not "right" because morality cannot be objective and humans are in fact the biggest disease on this planet.
You don’t seem to understand natural selection. Nature doesn’t abide abominations.
Actually, you are just too stupid to understand anything that comes from nature and are an entirely subjective conceptualized human robot that lives within it's own superstition and social inter-subjective paradigms. Nature doesn't abide abominations, which is why we need natural selection, but since the average human is exempted from natural selection by things they could never understand or produce they have become an abomination. And now we have arrived in the era of artificial food laced with IQ reducing poison being fed to obese autistic children who where raised by TVs and computers.
you cannot know my level of skill or innovation in any given circumstance.
I know that you a retard that would look like a fool compared to any cro magnon if you tried to survive during an ice age with nothing but primitive tools.
Neither has any importance to me.
Not to the mother of the retard.
Are you noticing a pattern here dumbass? value is subjective, it doesn't matter who doesn't care about this and who values that more than this etc. What is objectively true is that the average human being is the most delusional and parasitic form of life on this planet and they are not inherently superior or more valuable than an animal.
To end you once and for all I will now translate the final statement of your reply.
"Sometimes overly emotional and irrational people mistake cold hard logic with emotion and irrationality and get wrapped up in their emotional valuation of humans. When a logical, rational person fails to conform to arbitrary socially normative thought patterns about morality average modern humans like amarel automatically assume their mommy must not have loved them enough. when you sometimes elevate the non-human above your own species and admit that humans are not inherently this special precious thing that must be protected in all circumstances even to the detriment of everything else on the planet, Amarel will fail to see that the fault for his stupidity lies with himself and will assume that if you don't agree with him you must be a failure. If non-domesticated types of people decide to not believe in arbitrary superstitious crap, it becomes necessary for thought police to remove them from the equation. In the end, therefore, nature loses. Evolution fails. And the weak and foolish prevail."
I value human people of any ability, and while I support your right to say that, I hate all eugenics. Life and death are a human's right to choose, and if they can't choose, the law should favor life.
I think both lives are important. But to those who choose one or the other, they have a process or belief that helps them determine that.
So I guess the question is, who chooses which one is more important and what qualifications are they basing this choice on?
Is it a belief that all life is important? Is it a belief that life restricted only to same species is important? Or is it a belief that one will contribute something more than the other?
So in the case of a dog and a person who abuses the dog, do you think the human that is actively torturing the animal is more important than the animal?
While a genius chimp is something to be accounted for, a retarded human is still a human. They are more important maybe not legally, but morally.
Look back to 2016, when the three-year-old fell into Harambe's enclosure. There were plenty of cries for Harambe because he was shot to death, but the human's life was more important. In the end, humans contribute (most of the time) to human society.
Thanks for your contribution here--I can understand and appreciate your concern. Though, it seems you have inserted the part about "killing", as the debate title itself does not inherently support murder for either the person or the chimp--nor does it seem to present an ultimatum, from what I can tell, at least.
Yes, thanks for "contributing" your endless rants about special needs babies, saying the exact same things about the exact same things paragraph after paragraph. We truly value your parroting about abortion FromWithin, please give us another pointless wall of text soon.
Go back and read my recent debate called "Dems test for and kill Special Needs Babies, so if they had a late term test for being Gay?"
This person created this debate because of mine. He definitely supports killing people who are Special Need's, just as the Democrat party supports the testing and killing of viable late term Special Need's babies.
FromWithin how many times to I have to tell you that it has nothing to do with being "different". Retards are not just different, they are cognitively impaired, they cannot function as a productive member of society or survive without extensive support. Being different doesn't matter to me, being a useless burden is what I have a problem with. FromWithin is just another special needs baby that should have been aborted.
What's so sick about people like you is that you don't care of the many high functioning Special Need's children, or how impaired they might be.
You as with the Democrat party support testing and killing any special need's or normal viable baby. You posses no moral humanity when it comes to such things. NO TOLERANCE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT.
It's all about convenience with totally self consumed losers like your self.
No it doesn't. Sure you have a right to say whatever you want, just as the people who down vote have the freedom to express their dislike of any particular comment. But it certainly doesn't violate freedom of speech. That would be more akin to denying you access to this site all together with zero basis for such an action.
WHOA whoa whoa, you need to drop the attacks there. I just said you have the right to say what you want, and down voting is NOT censoring you. I can still read your responses even with a down vote. Meanwhile you use the ban button like a kid takes candy from the candy dish, THAT is censoring people.
I had a friend, very much like her, that had MS. She would go from normal to......baffling...in the span of a few minutes. I'm not saying NK has this particular disability, just that there is a pattern that is familiar to me. :)
So it was you. I am too good to play your little game and censor your free speech, but fuck off bitch for censoring mine. You must be one of those liberal atheists I was talking about. Debate my OP, or I will ignore yopu.
What was me? What the heck are you even talking about? I asked you how down voting something is denying your speech and now you're accusing me of something?
If you want to see if someone is down voting you can check their reward points. If you check mine you can CLEARLY see that I didn't down vote anything in this particular debate.
I never dowmvoted anyone here yet you did regarding me and also banned me from most your debates , how can you claim to be a Christian and constantly lie ?
Here we have it folks Foamwithin whining about abortion again yet applauding it when it’s done in gods name ,
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Hey it’s all good once the big fella is doing it 👌