sweep

from what I understand of some theist positions, scientific sources concerning human dynamics, evolution, genetics remove the human essence, which, according to Pope JOhn paul 'grounds the dignity of a person' a provides an ontological leap unobservable by science.

Forced to view human nature in an extremely reduced form, one can see that it is easy to equate life with machines, which have no higher purpose or meaning. There are other obvious implications which many of you will be well aware: questions concerning the afterlife and absolute morality etc.

If there is no god, or no plan, according to god, then we are alone and responsible for our own actions including what we like. IN this way a person might abandon ethics altogether, taking the stance of an 'amoral egoist' in that: "the ends justify the means" - "the winners write the history books" or as the little boy points out in the cartoon strip 'calvin and hobbes':

"Its a dog eat dog world so i'll do whatever i have to , and let others argue about whether it's 'right' or not"

The cat figure in 'calvin and hobbes' then pushes the little boy in a pool of mud: "hey why'd you do that?"

"You were in my way. the end justifies the means"

The little boy replies: "I didn't mean for EVERYONE, you dolt! JUST ME!"

so when we see ourselves as having no value, looking objectively at 'the other robots', they're all robots just like us, and that is the basis on which proper moral living begins: 'better not to shove and not to be shoved than to shove and to be shoved'. Of course, if we are special, then other things aren't special yielding the 'right' to abuse animals and the like.

no, but I often make the mistake of projecting my own emotions into spiders or even worms, making them seem more human than they are. I wouldn't hurt a fly, but I have done as a boy.

Jamie_L

If by "intrinsic" you mean "objective", i.e. independent of human valuers, then I'd wager most most naturalis/atheists would say nothing. They'd probably say (like I do) that humans don't have any intrinsic value.

Because we are humans, and we value ourselves more than other creatures. Most parents prejudice in favor of their children over strangers in another country. How can that be justified? Do those kids have more intrinisc/objective value than the strangers. No. But few would questions the parents being justified to value their own children more than other people.

Kurtz argued that humanism provides a basis for morality, and did not defend nihilism.

There is no "value yardstick" independent of humans and animals on which we are above, below, or even equal to animals. Such a value ruler simply does not exist. Humans have more value than animals to other humans (in most cases).

Of course not. It makes you a person. Everyone builds their own value system. I have wondered sometimes if I would kill a stranger in defense of my pet dog. Given all the dog has done for me, and I expect will continue to do for me, I might say yes.

People used to get hung for steeling cattle, because people placed the value of the cattle, and the law protecting them, above the life of the people committing the crime. Human interaction is full of these kind of relative value judgements.

Jamie