Jon writes:
It doesn't really change the fact that it is none of our business to get involved and that getting involved, however benevolent it may be, robs the actors of their freedom.
I understand your point, I just don't agree with your conclusions.
Perhaps we simply disagree and that's that.
I'm going to explain my disagreement, however, so feel free to comment again.
...though I really doubt anything such as 'evil' exists for animals...
In the context you're using the term here, I really doubt anything such as 'evil' exists for
humans as well.
The answer is that there's no clear way to categorize such things into right and wrong groups.
This I completely agree with.
There's never a clear way to categorize moral situations. I take that as an indication that it's pretty much all made up in our imaginations.
Of course, this doesn't mean our imaginations are worthless, and it certainly doesn't mean we can't place value upon things from our imaginations.
Again:
It doesn't really change the fact that it is none of our business to get involved and that getting involved, however benevolent it may be, robs the actors of their freedom.
I agree. And I would agree that perhaps it is none of God's business if, say... God did not create us, and/or God didn't care about us, and/or God has better things to do.
However, those things are generally involved when talking about "God." We generally speak of a God that did create us (or had a hand in it...), and one that's supposed to care about us (or, at least, want us to succeed), and that He takes an interest in us.
I fully understand why a God who doesn't care about us wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) interfere.
But given those things, and given that the actors in our situation
are quite capable of expressing their desires where animals are not... I do not see how this idea applies to what I'm talking about.
It is a human problem not because only humans can perceive right/wrong. It is a human problem because it affects humans.
On some sides I see the point here.
On other side, I do not see the point.
Let's try a few analogies:
With humans:
A Canadian man is about to rape a Canadian woman. An American man can stop it. Should he?
I say yes. You say yes, because they're all human?
I just want to point out that someone could say such a thing was a "Canadian Problem" and should be "taken care of by Canadians" with pretty much the same validity as the argument you're using with human/non-human...
With Aliens:
A human is about to rape another human. An intelligent alien can stop it. Should he?
I say yes. You say no? Because the alien isn't human?
With Gods:
A human is about to rape another human. An intelligent God can stop it. Should He?
I say yes. You say no. Because the God isn't human.
It just... doesn't sit right with me. If everyone minded their own business and only helped out their own... then the world would be a lot worse than it is now.
I understand that you're drawing the line at humans because you don't communicate with or understand animals.
Such a line just seems to be arbitrary to me, and be extremely cold to the daughter who's still getting raped because you think God shouldn't intervene when He could.
It sounds like pride and ego are overriding the safety and protection of the innocent daughter.
That doesn't sound right to me.
I don't know why you think it is okay for another agent to remove the power from humans to decide their own destinies.
I didn't say "always".
I'm quite specifically talking about when one human has already decided to remove the power from another human to decide their own destiny. Why shouldn't that hurtful human's destiny be removed from them instead? By anyone/thing capable of doing it?
I think it's okay for another agent to get involved because the hurtful-human has already decided to remove the power of another human's control over their own destiny. If the hurtful human doesn't respect it for others, why should it be respected for them? If you think another human should stop them... I really don't see the problem with having a God stop them. Who cares who or what actually does the stopping if you think it should be stopped?
Your contention is that a dictatorship is a good thing so long as the dictator does what we want him to do.
No, that's not my contention at all.
Did you read the example I provided?
I'm specifically not talking about a dictatorship.
I'm specifically talking about a single situation in which a non-human being can prevent a human-being's evil action.
My contention is that a dictatorship is not a good thing, no matter how good the dictator may be.
I would agree whole-heartedly. Which is why I'm not promoting such a thing. Why are you jumping to this conclusion?
Here's a scale:
Human should stop a human-rape. - we both agree this should happen.
God should stop a human-rape. - I think this should happen, you say no.
God should be a dictator over all human actions. - we both agree this should not happen.
I understand that the extreme is not something to be desired.
I'm just confused as to why the middle ground cannot be considered.
™ Version 4.2
(1)