MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 4:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 1:05 am
a)You will look in vain for that conclusion in
Torah. "Stewardship" is not practiced through destruction.
b) Well,
Torah does hold that when God created it, it was good; but it also definitely asserts that, in its present, fallen state, it is not all good, and that its present condition is, in some ways, actually evil and reflective of the destructive nature of sin. You'll recall that with the Fall, death and decay enter this "good" world; and interestingly, it's at that point that Law also becomes expedient. Prior to that time, there was but one law: do not partake of the knowledge of good and evil. It's only after mankind has polluted itself with experiencing both good and evil that the Law is eventually given.
c) So there's no command or mandate that suggest we "owe a fair share" to "non-humans" at all. At most, we could say, "Don't behave destructively." But that's a commandment only binding on Jews and Christians, and not on secularists -- and most of the people here will describe themselves as secularists, I think.
a --- implied by the meaning of "stewardship"
You'd better look that word up. You seem totally unfamiliar with the concept.
One does not have "stewardship" over what one has destroyed. One "stewards" things that are to be retained and even multiplied. If they're gone, nobody can "steward" them. That should be obvious: I can't believe I'm even having to explain it.
b --- Well you KNOW we would not be in agreement about the "Fall" (Jews vs Christians --- the origin of "moral knowledge" vs the origin of "sin", except of course Jews would hold that without moral knowledge sin does not exist)
Not quite true. It's clearly not the case that if a person doesn't know murder is wrong, there would be no murders. But there would be no Law that would impart to him the moral knowledge of why what he was doing was so bad.
But we will proceed with your interpretation, with the Fall creation, creation with humans PLUS creation without humans ais no longer "very good".
No, let's stick with
Torah. That's what
Torah says, in fact. Neither my opinion nor yours will change that, obviously.
WHY do you think that implies B, which was divinely declared good, has lost its status of good?
Because
Torah says so. Is it not quite plain to you, given the Genesis narrative? I can't imagine why.
Seems to me you are arguing A is the problem.
That doesn't make sense. Why would the existence of, say, a poisoned fruit make all fruit "the problem"? The problem's in the poison, and in the fact of the poison's presence among the good fruit. That seems a much more logical conclusion.
You are opening yourself to the argument of the "voluntary extinction" folks,
I cannot imagine how you're thinking that.
c --- You more or less asked me to provide a religious basis, and I selected one. Unlike you I don't think appealing to just Jews and Christians, as people who believe in religions often recognize conclusions of other religions (if not the basis -- who said bases necessarily unique).
Which "other religions"? Islam? Baal worship? Satanism? Or do you recognize the difference between truth and falsehood, in relation to religions?
BUT unlike you I would never try arguing with a secularist using any religious basis.
Again, you have to stop misrepresenting me. I did not say any such thing. Not one thing I asserted used any religious premise. Secularism cannot warrant any moral perspectives. That's demonstrably true, whether or not any other religion can, and whether or not any religion at all is true. Secularism's fault is it's own first premise.
Let's look at it in syllogistic form:
P1 -- The world came into being without divine action, by accident. (Secularism)
P2 -- Accidents do not have moral status: they're accidents. (by definition: and as by the assumption of evolutionism or Materialism of another kind.)
C -- Therefore, the world does not have moral status.
Now, which of the above premises is religious? P1 is Secularism's own fundamental belief. It can't be excluded. The second, is so obvious as to be nearly circular, depending on nothing other than the concept "accident," as opposed to "divine action." And the conclusion, if the first premises are true, becomes utterly inescapable, logically. It cannot possibly be wrong, then.
Where's the religious content? It's not there. In fact, the whole syllogism is a complete denial of religous content, not dependent on any at all.
So it's
the secularist who tries to moralize who is being irrational. He's self-contradicting.
As for me, my beliefs are not even in view there. Secular moralizing collapses by its own Secular standards, not mine.
Asking me to produce an argument acceptable to both you and a secularist is asking the impossible.
I didn't. I just pointed out to you that your whole audience here is largely Secular. And if you want to talk to renegade Jewish folks of your own stripe, you've maybe got a case you can make. But if you're talking to Secularists, or to me, you have to provide the premises that make sense of your claim that we have moral responsibility to "non-humans" and "the environment." I haven't seen you do that yet.
Yes...it's so convenient just to claim "no why to be answered." But there's always a why to be answered; and on that answer, the power of your moral instruction absolutely depends.