|
| speciesism
We are speciesists, because we think that we are worth more than non-human animals and other possibly significant objects like plants. We only consider the well-being of non-human animals and plants, when we derive something from the consideration or the consideration and the actions that follow from it. For example, we might consider a plant's life, because we would like to think of ourselves as good creatures. To show the later, we might consider the well-being of a chicken, because we want to eat a healthy chicken.
This is all very simple and straightforward. In fact, there is no more complication. That is the end of the story.
If you think that animals and plants have some moral consideration besides humane values, I ask what is it? How can you say that there are independent moral considerations independent of our values, when we are capable of only seeing what is good for ourselves? Even between humans, we always put ourselves in another's situation and think that whatever we say has any relevance. I'm not saying that what we say doesn't have any relevance at all but I am challenging whether the content of what we say is good enough to be good judgments or advice.
We can say that some are good judgments, while others are not. However, the judgment of this goodness is limited to within our own scope. To say that our advice can possibly apply to others is pulling strings, that is, to draw a connection. Not saying that this connection is not a good one, but we made the connection. We made advice applicable to more than from one situation, which the advice derived from.
We are specieists, because we think that we are worth more than other non-human animals. It's not that we just think it, but we show it through our actions. We might deny such a position, because we don't want to show that we think we are superior animals. All sorts of motivations underlie such a position. For example, wanting to show one is not superior, since one is always a superior to other people according to human standards like being considered better than other sprinters, because one can sprint the fastest.
We are speciesists.
| | |
| indifferent to indifference
To be indifferent is not necessarily negative. When I first think of the word "indifference", I think about people who don't care and are indecisive. At first glance, it seems bad to be indifferent. I will propose why being indifferent is not necessarily bad.
To be indifferent means a realization that two objects are not better or worse than the other. It recognizes that not all objects can be compared. If I asked you if you like apples and oranges better, it might be easy for you to choose. But remember how people say that you can't compare apples and oranges? That's exactly my point. It's not that you can't choose apples over oranges or vice versa, it's that they aren't "necessarily" comparable.
To be indifferent means that you view standards of measurement as a tool. There are many ways to look at life. You can live a Christian life, following Jesus and devoting a lot of time to prayer. You can live an economical life, following the principles of efficiency and incentives. To be indifferent to these recognizes that each of these kinds of lives is like a tool. You may utilize it whenever applicable. It signifies power not to change things by physically molding them, but by changing your outlook to your needs.
To be indifferent is to be beyond what matters. To be indifferent is an escape from all standards of judgment. There is nothing to condemn nor glorify you, but you are beyond that. It is not that you are higher or greater, but no words can capture what it means to be beyond something. While nothing seems to "necessarily" matter, you can reverse your outlook and think that you are making matters irrelevant.
Finally, to be indifferent to indifference, is to escape from categorizing an indifferent person as an indifferent person. Being indifferent is to be beyond being what being indifferent denotes. There are no limits and there are limits. There is nothing left to say...
| | |
| what it means to have worth.
To have worth is to have some value or weight. This means that something that has worth can be more or less worthy than something else. For some people that can be a bad thing, because how can you claim that something is better than something else? It's like saying if my view has worth, then it is better or worse than your view. We would never get anywhere, that is, we would never agree because we wouldn't want to let go of what we view, if we think our respective views are better. This holding on to your view is like being a stubborn person and no one likes that, because it signifies that you're not open to new ideas. And to be closed means that you are isolating yourself, not physically, but ideologically and that can bring about lonely feelings. It's almost like a crime against everyone else, because you put yourself above others by holding a supposedly better view.
| | |
| Why there has to be a God.
Because there's got to be a beginning? Time is not circular, but linear.
Why the assumption of must having a beginning is not true.
Let's re-think time. Time as we think about it is linear, that is there is a beginning and it continues on infinitely OR there is an end, if you believe in such. Time as we conceptualize it continually progresses or moves forward. Now before we attempt to re-think time, imagine a possible world where time is thought of as backwards. So instead of climbing up the tree, we are climbing down a tree. Instead of clicking a mouse, we are un-clicking a mouse. Instead of running forwards, we are running backwards. Now take for granted that time is infinite in progression. Imagine that the so-called "beginning" of time is when God created the universe. If there were such a possible world where time was backwards, then surely on a linear timescale, there would also be an infinite regression of time.
To illustrate, picture a ruler. The moment in time we are located in is in the middle. To the right represents moments in time of the future. This ruler happens to be infinitely long in that direction. To the left represents moments in time of the past. The ruler happens to be infinitely long in that direction too. If the ruler represented time, then time is linear, but also infinitely long in the past and the future. Arguing this way, then there is no beginning.
| | |
|
