Another Logical Extension

I didn't want to create a TL;DR situation with my last post, so this is part two of What is our Obligation?.

I think for the people who accept the drowning child scenario I outlined last time, it should be relatively easy to understand a convincing argument based in the Problem of Evil (How could a god that is supposed to omnibenevolent, or at the very least good, be said to exist, alongside the existence of gratuitous evil/suffering?) for how a god/gods likely do not exist. This is different than simply saying, "I don't think there isn't any good evidence to say that a god exists," and is more like saying, "I think the evidence suggests that, in fact, no gods exist."

My argument basically goes like this:

P₁: The Drowning Child Scenario gives us an accurate understanding of our moral obligation relative to suffering/dying human beings in the case where we can easily do something about it.

P₂: If we behave in accordance with what follows from this scenario, we can be said to be behaving morally good.

P₃: Virtually all definitions of Gods include the characteristics of omniscience (all-knowingness), omnibenevolence (all-goodness), and while maybe not omnipotent, at least extremely powerful.

P₄: A God that has these characteristics is, in essence, always walking past a pond with a drowning child, and has no excuse, due to its omniscience and extreme power, not to prevent the horrible gratuitous suffering that is persistent in the world, without sacrificing its omnibenevolent status.

.˙.   At the very least, any person who wants to say a good God exists, is necessarily wrong, unless their God is ignorant of the happenings of the world, or just isn’t strong enough to prevent them. But if that is the case, what is the purpose of calling it a God?

I hope that was clear and concise. Feel free to ask questions or comment about it. I think I'm going to bed now. Good night.

Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.

What is our Obligation?

Imagine one day as you're walking to work, you pass a pond, in which you see a drowning child. You immediately think you should jump in to save her, but then it occurs to you that you're wearing a new pair of shoes that were very expensive. It doesn't take more than a fraction of a second for you to realize that saving the child is unquestionably worth the fact that your shoes will be ruined; not only would it be worth it, but it would be immoral for you not to jump in and save her, since it's a small sacrifice to save the child.

Most people would probably be on board with the statement "If you were in that situation, you would be morally obligated to jump in and save the child." However, if one were to say to them that there is the equivalent of a drowning child whom you could easily help to save, they just happened to be on the other side of the globe, people are much more reluctant to say "of course you would be morally obligated to help". But what is the difference? I think this is something important to consider.

You may correctly guess, that I find this argument compelling, and this has drawn me to donate about 1% of my monthly income to organizations that help try to end absolute poverty. This is money that I certainly will not miss (it's probably the amount I spend on candy or other gratuitous snacks every month, perhaps even less), so I'm not actually sacrificing anything that's even close to a comparable moral significance, to people starving. I urge you to go to www.thelifeyoucansave.com/ to find out more information about what you can do to help

Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.

Just Because It's Alive?

There is an older fellow (between age 50 and 60) in my 18th Century Philosophy class with whom there doesn't seem to be anything I can agree with him on. I have had arguments in the past with him about the Existence of God a few times before. Not only that, but he is very conservative and seems to not even understand the dribble that comes out of people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's respective mouths, because he takes what they say and tries to make it more moderate and less crazy.

To add to the list of things we have polarized views on, yesterday he said something like, "I don't understand why those hardcore vegetarians who hate people who eat meat can tear open a piece of lettuce and see water come out of it and not be upset, because it's alive and the water that comes out is practically its blood."

This is a really inane and idiotic thing to say, and I gave him a simplified explanation of why I (as a transitioning vegetarian) can do just that. Put bluntly, animals suffer and lettuce does not. I may not be able to know it as absolutely as I know my own existence, but it's about as certain as I can be about anything. Animals can display behavior and emotions, and from that we can attain a satisfactory understanding of the types of things that cause suffering and happiness in them. I think this should be practically obvious, but maybe I'm wrong. On the other hand, lettuce leaves and other vegetation, while they do perform biological functions, they don't display any kind of behavior whatsoever, and behavior is the primary way we can tell how an organism is feeling emotionally (e.g. body language). Some plants have mild internal responses to stimuli, but they aren't any more significant than how water reacts when you throw a rock in to it, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks water can suffer (except maybe homeopaths).

In a nutshell, I have no reason to believe that lettuce or, really, any other plant can suffer. It's irrelevant to me whether or not something is technically "alive" in whether or not I think it is immoral to kill it. My skin cells are alive, but I don't think that I'm inflicting suffering upon another mind when I scratch my arm because there is no evidence to support that, but there is a vast amount of evidence to support the fact that animals can suffer (just ask anyone who has a dog or a cat). To think that vegetarians/vegans don't eat animals simply because they're alive, in the vast majority of case, is, frankly, hugely mistaken.

Of course, he said after that he doesn't go out of his way to avoid suffering, especially to animals that caused him to suffer, which I doubt there are more than a few, if any, which I think is also without reason. It doesn't surprise me that his actions are without cause because he is an old, conservative fart. The discussion ended after that. I like discussing things with people I disagree with but that man sure is frustrating.

Have a pleasant day.

Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.