Herptiles: Where do you draw you lines? Is it ok, when one is legitimately threatened, to kill:

Mosquitos?
Fire Ants?
Ticks?
Spiders?
Sharks?
How about Cancer?
How do you feel about the use of anti-biotics?

JV: Stop Making Sense.

There are two ways I know of to judge an action. Either you can judge an action based on some inherent or objective criteria. Or you can judge an action based on the outcome.

To judge an action with the first method - based on some inherent or objective criteria - you have to first establish the validity of the criteria with which you will judge the action. So to try to judge the action this way we have to ask What is inherently or objectively bad about killing snakes? Because you are presenting a case against this person or action, the burden of proof rests with you to establish that the killing of a snake is objectively, morally, ethically, or legally wrong.

For you Darwinists or Atheists I would think this would be hard to do in this case.

For a Darwinist - this man is merely fulfilling the laws of natural selection. Even if by this man's actions, the entire copperhead population became extinct, or even the entire snake population, there can be no wrong - only what IS. (basically you have no legitimate claim to any law except the law of the club and fang - those who have the power to do something have the right to do anything - what is, is right.) You may not like it but you would have to establish some type of authority over the actions of this man (even if it were the artificial authority of human law) before you can condemn this man or his actions.

For an Atheist - this man is doing something he judges to be right. What biases do you have to claim that he is doing wrong? What authority condemns him? Is it the authority of the masses, or of the cultural elite, or your own authority? All those sources of authority by definition are subjective and ultimately subject to the author and his view of reality. Who are you to tell him his reality is not real, or his righteousness is not right? Are you trying to make yourself god?

The other way to judge an action is by the outcome. So you have to ask the question What happened because of what this man did?

This is a lot easier to answer. A couple of snakes died. No one else has been hurt apparently as far as I can tell from the post. The hard part about this method is you can only compare the actual outcome to a bunch of what-ifs. What if the snakes had bitten a little girl that night? What if after being moved those snakes bit someone at another location or came back to the same location a few weeks later and bit someone? Of course we have not established that it would be bad or wrong for a snake to have killed a human. Sometimes I almost think some of you would rather see a couple of humans die then see a couple of snakes die. And of course you are entitled to your opinion until someone can provide an objective standard for saying that would be wrong.

If the author had left all the snakes alive an outcome from that action or lack thereof could have been that no snakes died and none of those snakes had killed any humans later on? It could of happened. Would it have actually happened? We will not know, the author made the decision to not have to find out. But I am willing to bet that there is no one on this forum that can prove objectively that this outcome would have been better then the one that exists now. You can of course say that - subjectively - you or a group of people would like it more, but you will not be able to provide a reason that can establish that this outcome would have in fact been objectively better.

So, even if we allow an unknown to be assumed that if the snakes had been left alive they would not have killed any people during the rest of their lifetimes. (Like I said, we are assuming an unknown.) Can anybody say that this is objectively better then four dead snakes? Wouldn't you just be getting in the way of natural selection - allowing the weak and the unfit to survive artificially?

Unless I establish some authority over you I can only tell you what I think, what I would have done, or what I think I would have done. I think it was good for you to kill the snakes. I think it would have been good to find a way to not have to kill the snakes. I can not say which would be better. I have seen critters that caused me fear and/or discomfort that I have found a way to deal with that did not include killing them. (There was a small rattler in a tree at head level on a trail to a very popular swimming hole and waterfall, we moved him off the trail a good distance.) I have killed my fair share of critters that cause me fear and/or discomfort. (I will commonly remark after turning a mosquito into bloody pulp that I have done my good deed for the day.) I think it is silly of you to post this story on a forum full of people that envision the day that some wonderful catastrophe leaves the world 'reborn' with only themselves and forty beautiful virgins left alive of all mankind to start over again. But then again, if you - and others like you - did not post these sorts of things there would be nothing to read for entertainment on this site. :wink:

And let's not pretend that theists are somehow off the hook here -- the euthyphro dilemma and all that.

Sorry guy I had to give you a little pile of C--- for that post.

One entry found for intersubjective.
Main Entry: in•ter•sub•jec•tive
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-s&b-'jek-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : involving or occurring between separate conscious minds [intersubjective communication]
2 : accessible to or capable of being established for two or more subjects

One entry found for intersubjective.
Main Entry: in•ter•sub•jec•tive
Pronunciation: "in-t&r-s&b-'jek-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : involving or occurring between separate conscious minds [intersubjective communication]
2 : accessible to or capable of being established for two or more subjects

M-W.com

I had to look it up. I had not heard that one before.

You did not explain yourself very well. You may be relying on 'common knowledge' to support a very profound argument - but I can't see it. It is equally possible that you sounded very scholarly, so you just have got to be right. Whatever it was that you said.

Could you provide some sort of explanation of how a judgment based on intersubjective criteria would be decided in a case like this? Do you think you can determine if something is morally, ethically, or legally right or wrong based on intersubjective criteria? Please explain.




I have to admit I had to look the euthyphro dilemma up on google. I still can't quite make out what you are trying to say.

The "let's not pretend that theists are somehow off the hook here" makes me think that you think based on something that has gone on in the thread the theists are on a hook. (for everyone else, a theist is someone who holds to a belief in some form of higher power - not necessarily a Christian but all Christians are by definition theists.) I don't see that they are. The addendum about the euthyphro dilemma is odd. I can't see how it ties into what you just said. ( The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernized version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” - Source: First Hit on Google http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/euthyphrodilemma.html ) Are the theists on a hook because of the Euthyphro dilemma? I don't see it. How does this apply to killing snakes?

By the way, I don't see the Euthyphro dilemma as a true dilemma, although it is a good question. I think the correct answer is: morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. He made the game he gets to make the rules. He made the story he gets to write the book. If His Word is sufficient for Creation, Redemption, Salvation and Glory then His Word is good enough for Judgment.

If a theist were on a hook the way to get off of it is to rely on the authority of God's word, and the ability of God to speak for Himself - Because there is a God and He is not silent.

There are numerous references to the "law of the lord" in the bible. While these may not say specifically that without God there is no law, or only because of God there is, the plain reading of the word shows that it is His law that He has formed and created just as surely as He created the rest of this universe for us to inhabit. Furthermore He did not do this for us, but to bring Himself glory, and to that end He will, ultimately, be successful.

Isaiah 45:5-9, 18-24

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. "Drip down, O heavens, from above, And let the clouds pour down righteousness; Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit, And righteousness spring up with it. I, the LORD, have created it. "Woe to {the one} who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making {say,} 'He has no hands'? …
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it {and} did not create it a waste place, {but} formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else. "I have not spoken in secret, In some dark land; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek Me in a waste place'; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, Declaring things that are upright. "Gather yourselves and come; Draw near together, you fugitives of the nations; They have no knowledge, Who carry about their wooden idol And pray to a god who cannot save. "Declare and set forth {your case;} Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear {allegiance.} "They will say of Me, 'Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.' Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame.

1] i like how most of the "dont ever kill snakes" people are f---ing yankee's who've never lived around snakes.

good god.

1] i like how most of the "dont ever kill snakes" people are f---ing yankee's who've never lived around snakes. jay, you are excepted, i THINK, though you do live in a big enough city that there arent snakes.

2] i *also* like the redneck comments. i think they're sweet. so i'm gonna continue in that vein with "damn yankees."

3] to those who think they're never a reason to kill a snake.... have you ever had a water moccasin drop into your canoe? i didnt think so. moccasins WILL get aggro on you. and can certainly be deadly, especially the small ones.

4] also concerning water snakes... actually they can move faster than 4 mph. go watch one sometime.

5] as has been stated MANY times already, del and marty's is somebody's yard for christ's sake. he can kill any snake he wants.

6] that story on the second page was charming, but unfortunatly snakes do not "hear," per say, so that f--- a lot of it up. they feel vibrations and taste the air.

7]tenndawg, i liked the picture.

8] jay, if you propose that copperheads wont f--- with you if you wont f--- with them, what exactly do you call trying to pick it up with a hoe and put it in a trash can? i think if i was a snake i'd think you were f---ing with me.

9] snakes are excellent grilled. with garlic.

10] oh, also copperheads don't care for their young. they give live birth, dont "sit on" eggs or anything, and the babes are fully venomous at birth and are on their own. so f--- your story about the little snake "family."

11] copperheads dont mate for life, they change partners every breeding season, so f--- your story about the little snake "family."

google "copperhead mating behavior" "copperhead young" and "do copperheads mate for life" for lots of good information that allows me to say, f--- your story about the little snake "family."

People who kill snakes out of fear are s---. Simple as that. I grew up in Tennessee.

DMT

That's the short version, but if you really want to understand, you've got 900+ pages of Habermas to read. I suggest buying a helmet now if you don't already have one, you're going to need it.

landgolier


Gosh man 900 pages... wow. And you read them all? Or did you just see it in a bookstore once and decide "nah I don't actually have to read it - I can just tell every one who wants to argue about intersubjective criteria that they have to read the book before we can discus it?" You can't just give some sort of description of what the theory is all about? I don't know what kind of argumentation or debate you have been involved in, but just quoting a name of an author does not win arguments when I was doing debate. And the helmet - do I need it because I am about to be assailed with an immense pounding by brutally clear logical arguments, or just a bunch of dismissing names?

Which book is it that you think I should read? Did Habermas only write one? I am interested in this and am doing my best on google to try and find a description of the ideas you refer to.

First off, I am not a bible thumper. I was simply using the bible to prove a point to memory_hole. The point I used the bible to prove was that theists (at least theists that hold to the bible as the Word of truth) don't seem to be on a hook where the euthyphro dilemma was concerned.

Thanks. 8^)

I am interested and I might take a class. It would probably be problematic for me to take too many classes though. I would end up arguing with the professor . I think I will probably have to stick to the hard sciences where at least they are mostly modernists - who still assume that there is some sort of true 'reality' - instead of postmodernists - who have successfully undermined the validity of their own works by using reason to get to non-reason.

The only reason it is a waste of time to argue philosophy over the internet is because people make it a waste of time. The medium is just fine. You just made a self-fulfilling prophesy though when you determined that it is a waste of time and then made it into a waste of time by not actually discussing the issue but skirting around it, saying a bunch of stuff but not actually presenting any kind of argument. (I am open to debating the validity of your statement about philosophical discussions being a waste of time on the internet :twisted: )

I still don't get the joke.