Only if the swat comes from your own conscience. Punishment is not a conscience. It is tool for dealing with those whose conscience is lacking or nonexistent.
Normal humans feel guilt and remorse. **That** is morality.So unless you, robertliguori, get “swatted” for your action, that action is not considered wrong? In other words, the deed may be morally objectionable – but only if you can’t get away with it?
Great googly moogly.
Well, according to Genesis all animals all had the “breath of life” which I’ve always taken to be equivalent to a soul. Also, what would the point in sacrificing them be if they didn’t?
Well, what happens when you do Wrong, anyway? If nothing bad happens to you, then how wrong can it be? If it does, then you have been swatted, either with a conscience, a rolled up newspaper, or jail time.
Suppose nothing bad happens to you, but does to someone else?Imagine this - a man beats his wife because dinner isn’t ready on time. His conscience doesn’t bother him, because he believes he is perfectly justified in doing so. His wife doesn’t even tell anyone about the beating, so he doesn’t get any jail time. Nothing bad has happened to him, but avoiding punishment doesn’t make the action less wrong.
and back to the dog on the table:
This is a big assumption. It’s at least as likely that the dog simply knew that no one was near the kitchen, or that it was the first time he tried to jump up on the table.
Re-Genesis
Adam and Eve eat the fruit and “knew that they were naked”. They gain knowledge of good and evil. No similiar statement is made about animals.
Re-Animal Sacrifice
God makes it very clear to Abraham that He does not want human sacrifice. But, sacrificing that ram caught in the bushes is acceptable. The difference being that rams, bulls, etc have no souls.
And you believe that a conscience is inherent to humans?
Can you show that all people feel bad about the same things (in the same way that a smile is universal)?
What about the people who experience shame and guilt for cultural reasons?
We have inherent propensities for learning language, but it doesn’t develop unless we’re exposed to other individuals who use it. We may have inherent propensities for conscience as well, but I see no reason to conclude that we could develop it without the influence of others.
Good points. I was going to adress these in an earlier post but it became rather lenghthy and meandering.
From The Diagnostic And Statistical Manual edition IV
It seems that sociopaths are born with a gene whose expression is affected by environment. So, I'm standing by position that an average human is born with a capacity for empathy and remorse. Together these form a conscience.
I do not hold that morality is universal in the same way facial expressions are. Many taboos are unique to a culture (If I eat pork, I feel guilty. ;j If Polycarp can eat the same meal without a problem). Some cultures also teach, or taught, that morality did not apply to outsiders. Some things cause no guilt unless a child is taught that they are wrong. Which behaviors you should feel guilty about must be taught. But, the capacity to feel that guilt does not.
The ability to acquire language is a better analogy. All normal humans are born with it. But, it is shaped by environment. EG I cannot roll my r’s as my friends who grew up speaking Spanish can.
It’s times like these I wish I could find my textbooks.
Good points. I was going to adress these in an earlier post but it became rather lenghthy and meandering.
From The Diagnostic And Statistical Manual edition IV
It seems that sociopaths are born with a gene whose expression is affected by environment. So, I'm standing by position that an average human is born with a capacity for empathy and remorse. Together these form a conscience.
I do not hold that morality is universal in the same way facial expressions are. Many taboos are unique to a culture (If I eat pork, I feel guilty. ;j If Polycarp can eat the same meal without a problem). Some cultures also teach, or taught, that morality did not apply to outsiders. Some things cause no guilt unless a child is taught that they are wrong. Which behaviors you should feel guilty about must be taught. But, the capacity to feel that guilt does not.
The ability to acquire language is a better analogy. All normal humans are born with it. But, it is shaped by environment. EG I cannot roll my r’s as my friends who grew up speaking Spanish can.
It’s times like these I wish I could find my textbooks.
No offense, but I see no reason to accept that particular interpretation. It strikes me as reading into the text, rather than genuine exegesis.
A symbolic gesture and a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice to come. See the Epistle to the Hebrews for details.
Oh, for pity’s sake.
According to your worldview then, if you somehow manage to escape punishment, then you didn’t really do anything wrong. By that logic, if someone were to rape your mother, and if that person was never caught or identified, and if that person bore no pangs of guilt over this act, then you would not consider this person to have done anything wrong.
I wonder how your mother feels about that opinion of yours, child. I wonder how pleased she would be.
Re: Morality is the recognition of authority
I would say that theres a difference between shame – feeling bad because you know someone else would disapprove of something you did – and guilt – feeling bad because you disapprove of something you did. When you have a conscience, you’re the relevant authority figure, and your punishment for wrongdoing is guilt, not just shame. There’s a difference between feeling that you did something wrong and fearing punishment or disapproval. So, the question is then: “Do animals regard something as ‘wrong’ only because they believe others will disapprove of it, or do they have a personal morality of their own?”
Re: It’s not wrong if you don’t get punished somehow.
Only if you believe in a fundamentally just universe, or that there’s no such thing as objective morality. I reject the first possibility based on the available evidence. Anyway, I think that what robertliguori meant was that punishment (possibly in the form of guilt) is what makes something wrong, not that doing something wrong causes someone to be punished. That may well be a perfectly consistent viewpoint, but I don’t think that’s how most people define right and wrong.
Or did he maybe just mean that the individual who performs an action doesn’t personally regard it as wrong unless there is some form of punishment (again, possibly guilt)? That would make sense.
Re: Do animals have souls?
Another Simpsons quote seems appropriate:
Marge: So, what did you kids learn about in Sunday school today?
Bart: Well, among other things, apes can’t get to heaven.
Homer: What? Those cute little monkeys? That’s terrible. Who told you that? I can understand how they wouldn’t let in those wild jungle apes, but what about those really smart ones who live among us? Who roller-skate and smoke cigars?
I think Homer makes a good point here! Don’t a lot of us know some animals who deserve souls more than some people we also know? Where’s the justice?
The Bible clearly indicates that Man is set apart from the other creatures, but I don’t think we can infer that humans have souls but they do not. I guess it partly depends on what you mean by “soul”. How frequently is that particular term even used in the Bible?
297 times, and the ones I skimmed were all in reference to humans.
Your first point reminds me of people who value animals (particularly their own pets) above humans because after all animals are innocent and love unconditionally. This seems to me a misinterpretation of “innocent” and “love”, but I guess that’s what this thread is about.
297 times, and the ones I skimmed were all in reference to humans.
Your first point reminds me of people who value animals (particularly their own pets) above humans because after all animals are innocent and love unconditionally. This seems to me a misinterpretation of “innocent” and “love”, but I guess that’s what this thread is about.
Apologies in advance if this doubles-- I got the loading attempt failure dealio.
JThunder, remember, I don’t believe in blinking neon lights in the sky labeled “Right” and “Wrong”. Said mother-raper may have been acting in line with his/her morality. However, since the odds of such a person being smacked in a definitive and long-term way would be increased by such an action, I would view it as immoral.
Not to mention, theft, of life, limb, innocence, or property, is a bad idea, as it encorages others to do the same, to the detriment of society and its members. It is therefore moral, in my book, to respect property rights. The man who steals to feed his starving children has a different view of morality, and the people who go all “Thou shalt not steal” on the other person have yet another view of morality.
People can be bastards. Animals can be bastards. People can be cool. Animals can be cool. So, why restrict standards of morality and ensoulment to people?
You are now contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said that an action is wrong IF punishment ensues. Now your’e saying that it’s immoral if the odds of “being smacked” are “increased by such an action.”
Either way, I think that’s a terrible worldview. Are actions only immoral if they (a) do result in punishment, or (b) would likely result in punishment? Either viewpoint smacks of saying, “If I think I can get away with it, then it’s not really wrong.”
That’s not morality, Robert. It’s sociopathy.
This Biblical quote seems to imply that birds, at least, do not have souls:
“And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” Matthew, 10:28-31
“Re-Animal Sacrifice
God makes it very clear to Abraham that He does not want human sacrifice. But, sacrificing that ram caught in the bushes is acceptable. The difference being that rams, bulls, etc have no souls.”
So Jesus didn’t have a soul?
"This Biblical quote seems to imply that birds, at least, do not have souls:
“And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” Matthew, 10:28-31"
I’m very slow today - can you show me where that implies that they don’t have souls?
So are we considering morality to be the ability to internalize external value judgments?
If it’s not the content of the moral code which defines morality, but the existence of the code itself, why don’t we consider a dog who obeys a precept when not in the presence of his masters to be moral?
Is there a point in there, JT? I claimed that morality was behaving in a way not likely to cause you harm. You said (I paraphrase), “No, it’s not.”
And? Can you give a conclusive definition of morality that would preclude self-interest as its basis? Can you demonstrate that morality is absolute, rather than situational?
And before you go all judgemental, I consider being guilty and/or being chased by the police for felony sexual assault a punishment.