"However, I do profoundly dislike guns and people who like them, and I am most definitely not a strong supporter of the military."When the morally impaired take such a position, watch out. Pigliucci has long been promoting himself as a virtue ethicist and as a major, albeit brand-new professional philosopher (teacher) for some time now. What he actually is might be better classified as a contrarian - contrary to whatever anyone else thinks. That's how philosophers gain their notoriety: by being against. It doesn't matter against what, because each one is against everything everyone else might be for, including - especially including - other philosophers who are also vying for notoriety.
A philosopher cannot be original by accepting someone else's position; a philosopher must actively attack all that has gone before and then present his own original thoughts, which of course are contrary to all possible previous thoughts. It's a difficult position for an entry level philosopher since there have been lots of previous thoughts and positions and that leaves an ever narrowing field. Many just try to outdo Marx and Nietzsche.
"You can quote me as saying that the Democrats are far too conservative for me."But just declaring oneself to be elite is always the place to start, and then to attack all the cultural norms. That's required just to get past the bouncer and into the philosophers club. Then head for the left side and out the left door, across the left parking lot and over the left cliff.
In fact, pretty much the only social issues that ought to unite every atheist are the separation of Church and State and the rights of unbelievers. Not even a defense of science and critical thinking are really “atheist” causes, since there is a good number of atheists who buy into all sorts of woo (just not the particular woo featuring a white bearded male who sits high in the sky and spends a lot of time watching people’s sexual habits) — trust me, I know a number of them.Never one to attack a real oppositional position (I can attest), Pigliucci props up the childish cartoon for ridicule, not at all worried that it makes him look foolish in front of his readers, because they are dialed right in to that behavior.
"Clearly, plenty of abortions do not carry any moral problems at all (e.g., fertilized zygote, recently implanted embryo, and so on until a fuzzy line where the fetus is complex, responds to stimuli and most importantly feels pain). The current wording reflects my intended meaning."And as a virtue ethicist, Pigliucci confers upon himself the moral authority to declare the morality of killing humans at stages he approves.
Pigliucci is not really dangerous overtly. He is dangerous in the manner that Nietzsche was dangerous, long after his death: the influence of contrarian hate is contagious, especially in unstable cultural climates. Again it should not be forgotten that Nietzsche was the official NAZI philosopher and a strong influence on Lenin. The influence of contrarian hate is a significant influence in historical disasters.
6 comments:
Stan,
"However, I do profoundly dislike guns and people who like them, and I am most definitely not a strong supporter of the military."
Funny how someone who is secular is ignorant of historical secular bloodshed. He wants to disarm the population. I am reminded of a small debate I had on FB with someone who was anti-religion. He went on about how religion was lethal, etc...even giving him facts wasn't enough...here is the exhange. (I have withheld my name and his to protect anonymity):
Me: ..According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (Phillips and Axelrod), of the 1,763 major conflicts in recorded history, only 123 of them can be classified as having been fought over religious differences. That’s less than 7 percent.
The encyclopedia also explains that the number of people killed in these conflicts amounts to only two percent. This means that even when wars have been fought over religious disputes, they tend to be less bloody than when they are fought for other reasons.
Him: You clearly don't understand the meaning. Full blown religious wars perhaps, but ongoing conflicts all over the world between religious groups continue to plague the majority of the world. Look at Israel and Palestine, oldest territorial dispute between 2 groups of people who claim religious right over it. The numbers don't tell the story...I'm not going to fight you on this buddy. Enjoy your day and God bless!!
*I guess University stumps intellectual development...
Ah, it's so good to see unambiguous "logical" argumentation from such a self-esteemed virtue ethicist! (Let's agree to ignore the redundancy of "virtue" coupled with "ethicist". After all, what kind of ethicist would be "unvirtuous"?)
Let's just examine the "virtue" of this attributed paragraph:
"Clearly, plenty of abortions do not carry any moral problems at all (e.g., fertilized zygote, recently implanted embryo, and so on until a fuzzy line where the fetus is complex, responds to stimuli and most importantly feels pain). The current wording reflects my intended meaning."
And the last shall be first...
Would anyone try to assert "The current wording does NOT reflect my intended meaning."?!? If not, then what the heck is the point of using the "current wording"? Is it possible that Mr. Pigliucci is hinting that even he doesn't know what the heck he intended, or is he just incapable of finding adequate wording to convey his intended meaning?!?
And the first shall be last...
On atheism, where is there any "fuzzy line" at all? Is that as nonexistent as the "red line" stopping the Russians at the border of Crimea?
Let's address the three specifics regarding the "fuzzy line":
(1) "the fetus is complex"
Complex in what sense? I think our current knowledge of biology is sufficient to state that a zygote is an extremely complex entity. In fact, it is so complex that we have NO CLUE about how to even start to duplicate one.
(2) "the fetus responds to stimuli"
Is that in response to any stimuli? If so, then the fetus responds in the embryonic stage to stimuli. Reducing the kill period to the embryonic stage would certain have the abortionistas gnashing their teeth in fury.
(Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_movement) - Not exactly a theistic source of information.
(3) "the fetus [most importantly] feels pain"
So, if the "thing" exhibits reactions that are consistent with pain responses in fully human beings, then it must be "alive" in the requisite sense and therefore cannot be killed? Why the concern over a little pain? Why is this the MOST IMPORTANT consideration? Surely we have reached the capability to introduce drugs that will eliminate any feeling of pain. Or is it a simple mater of: No pain [for the fetus, because WHO CARES?!?], no gain [for the abortionist].
In short, Mr. Pigliucci seems to be a little too squeamish to run with the "true" atheist crowd, who (absent any compunctions about behavior other than "Eat, sleep, reproduce, die") cannot see any moral persuasion concerning a little pain on the part of a "nonentity" who doesn't contribute anything to the collective herd except as another mouth to feed and house, who will most likely reproduce even more worthless others who will not contribute to the collective and who will eventually die.
So where's the "virtue" in all THAT, Mr. Ethicist?!?
Coupla things to add here.
Leftists aren't ignorant of Atheist mass murders; they rationalize them away: Not real Atheists like we are; Not done "in the name of" Atheism; the carnage was "religiously done"; and other non sequiturs stacked up as if they have actual meaning. At bottom, they don't care that Atheism enables the worst in humans; they want what they want, regardless.
And the ethicist is actually a triple PhD, which makes the rational lapse all the more egregious... yet understandable in today's academia. Never having left the cloister, the highly credentialed inside the cloister come to believe their own self-image of spectacular authority on everything.
Exactly Stan. The moment I read "The numbers don't tell the story..." I knew it was hopeless. There is an expression..."Flies are attracted to Honey but retreat from Vinegar."
It means to me that if you reveal actual numbers that casts doubt to the idea that "Religion causes conflict"...and the person is too stubborn to change his biased view...then to him its like drinking vinegar. It hurts his preconceived notion or in other words "Popping the safety bubble".
Is it hard for certain people to admit that religion has built and advanced western civilization (Science, medicine, Art, universities, Hospitals, morality)? I guess so...eek!
One cannot compare the atrocities of Communism to the entire history of Christendom and say "Religion is more lethal". 100 years of Communism did more damage than the entire crusades/inquisitions/etc combined. I hoped to educate the person I was chatting on FB but alas...nothing went through...
"One cannot compare the atrocities of Communism to the entire history of Christendom and say "Religion is more lethal". 100 years of Communism did more damage than the entire crusades/inquisitions/etc combined."
Not to defend Mao et al, but what if christendomian inquisitors had all the technology and social advances (i.e. state bureaucracy, social institutions, etc) of the XX century? won't you tell me they could be as bad as XX century dictators? And what about Mao being the dictator of an overtly populated country, plus a lot of years in charge? not that it makes him any better, just asking.
And what if it turns that you (are you self procalimed christians?), happen to spend more time defendind christendom (a human invention invoking the name of christ) than bringing the good news of Christ (which is not necesarily related to all things you hold so dear: western civilization, christendom, capitalism, apologetics, USA jingoism, conspiracy, etc.
mountainguy asks:
"Not to defend Mao et al, but what if christendomian inquisitors had all the technology and social advances (i.e. state bureaucracy, social institutions, etc) of the XX century? won't you tell me they could be as bad as XX century dictators?"
Of course you are defending Mao, it al. Where did you get the idea that the inquisitors wished to wipe out many cultures and subcultures? Where did you get the idea that the inquisitors turned their youth into murderous mobs focused on adults? Where did you get the idea that the inquisitors brought widespread famine upon their own people? All of these things were available to the inquisitors; they did not do them. Only Atheist totalitarians did them.
"And what about Mao being the dictator of an overtly populated country, plus a lot of years in charge? not that it makes him any better, just asking."
Four books to help with understanding:
1. Mao; by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday.
2. Stalin; by Robert Service;
3. The Black Book of Communism; a Harvard compilation.
4. Death By Government; by Rummel.
If you attended government schools since 1980, you have not been exposed to actual AtheoLeftist history because the curriculum has been biased by AtheoLeftists to whitewash actual historical facts.
Post a Comment