"Why do humans need a rational objective basis for favoring humans?"

I dunno, Ken. Ask mountain_man: he seems to think humans have such a basis.

May 28, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:

Why do humans need a rational objective basis for favoring humans? Dogs like dogs. Humans like humans. Neither dogs not humans bother to reason it out. As social animals, our liking for our own species is instinctive.

My dog likes humans, not dogs.  Her rational objective is, dogs don't feed her.

"So, not surviving has a 'rational objective benefit'?"

I'm afraid that that's poor logic, mountain_man.  I have not implied that not surviving has rational objective benefit. Instead of addressing the contrary of my point, why not address the point itself?

"Obviously evolution does not see it that way. The "sentimentality" you are thinking of has no place in evolution. Evolution is an unemotional process. It's not about individuals but populations of genes. Our purpose is to pass on our genes and to make sure those that carry our genes survive to pass those genes on to the next generation."

Is that an attempt to show that your and your childrens' survival has a rational objective benefit?  As far as I can see, it does no such thing.  You latched onto the word, "sentimentality" and ran.  What about addressing the point?

"Evolution is an unemotional process."

In the abstract that is true, but some of its products display emotion, and sentimentality too.  So it does perhaps have some place in evolution. But that is uterly irrelevant to the argument.

"Our purpose is to pass on our genes..."

Interesting. You use the phraseology of purpose.  But what is the purpose of passing on our genes?  We pass them on, our children pass them on, our grandchildren pass them on and so on and so on and eventually our world dies when the sun becomes a red dwarf.  If we've managed to colonise other stars, eventually the universe dies a heat-death.  So just remind we what the non-sentimental purpose of passing our genes on was?

May 28, 2012 -- 11:01AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

Ken:  You, however, are a Christian. You are obliged to consider it wrong under all circumstances. So why don't you?

   Where are His protests that capital punishment is wrong objectively?  Hell, supposedly our sins wouldn't be forgiven had He succeeded in getting rid of capital punishment!  Our religion DEPENDS on the fact He was shot down!  I hear so many Christians tell me He couldn't just jump in front of a speeding Roman chariot to accomplish His goals of saving us, nor could He let Jewish authorities stone His ass ... no, He HAD to be crucified! 

But he didn't say Christians should do it.

Jesus told Christians to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, not judge, not condemn, and forgive "up to seventy times seven."

May 28, 2012 -- 12:00PM, Lavengro wrote:

"So, not surviving has a 'rational objective benefit'?"

I'm afraid that that's poor logic, mountain_man.

Yes, it was a rewording of your poor logic.

Is that an attempt to show that your and your childrens' survival has a rational objective benefit?

No, I was just practicing my typing.