 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 10:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>>> following
>>> some type of religion.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
>> beneficial results."
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>
I don't think that is what he meant. It is Science Vs Religion and you
take one side or the other. So in a way the belief in Science becomes a
matter of faith.So you denigrate the other side because that is what
people do.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> > On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> >> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
> >> following
> >> some type of religion.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
> > beneficial results."
> >
> >
> > Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>
It's certainly not entirely scientific.
Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
"beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>
> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>
>
I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
1. maximize well-being
2. minimize suffering
3. ???
These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 10:26 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>>
>> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
>> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>>
>>
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike
OTOH, humans aren't the only animals to experience psychoses.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-3-2017 23:33, Stephen wrote:
> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>
Oops. :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> > It's certainly not entirely scientific.
> >
> > Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> > "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
> >
> >
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike
You're just mixing a salad out of mathematical terms and your own moral
intuitions.
This isn't a bad thing. There's a lot to be said for moral intuition. From a
materialist[1], evolutionary perspective, ignoring one's moral intuition is
equivalent to walking around with one's eyes closed.
So, you can make a compelling argument based on moral intuition, but you can't
make absolutist claims based on it. In other words, you can't be a snob about
it.
[1] Materialist as in "believing the brain is the sole source of consciousness
(i.e., no soul)."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.03.2017 um 20:44 schrieb Shay:
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
Cell harvesting is not a matter of science vs. religion. It is a matter
of technological progress vs. morality.
Unfortunately, some people don't know the difference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.03.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>>> following
>>> some type of religion.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
>> beneficial results."
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>
> Mike
There is no religion in any such statements /per se/.
But once you try to define "beneficial", you inevitably leave the realm
of science and enter the realm of ideology.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
I tremble with laughter. ;)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>
> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>
>
>
I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
