A Public Challenge To Atheists: Is It Wrong For Me To Crush A Flea?
Posted in Atheism, Public Challenges, Quickies, Skepticism on | 1 minute | 17 Comments →
I frequently pick fleas off our cats and crush them beneath my fingertips, and I invite any and all atheists to explain whether they think this behavior is wrong or not.
For the sake of the discussion, let's presume this causes suffering to the flea. Is it wrong for me to crush a flea? Why or why not?
Thanks in advance for comments and thanks especially if you link to this post from your own blog or website.
matty melks
says...Well, I’m no atheist, since I worship the great old one Cthulu, but I’d say it’s only wrong if you don’t eat them afterwards – like a gorilla grooming it’s mate
on the real –
there’s a few of them out there that I personally loose no sleep over killing – if there’s a rat in the house, a black widow in my kids room, mosquitoes, ticks, etc-
go into a bear’s den and see if they get all hung up before they swat you dead
Ebonmuse
says...No, I don’t consider it wrong to crush a flea, any more than I consider it wrong to take antibiotics to kill harmful bacteria. We have the right of self-defense against any living thing that would harm us. That the harm done by any one flea is relatively minor doesn’t change this principle, in my view.
cl
says...“go into a bear’s den and see if they get all hung up before they swat you dead…”
LOL
Brad
says...I don’t believe in correct and incorrect behavior. There are only actions and consequences that we have a limited ability to choose among. Whether or not you think squashing a flea is good or bad is up to you.
Polly
says...I try to avoid stepping on ants and downed bees.
Bloodsucking little parasites, OTOH, receive no mercy from me if they are attacking my pets (not that I have any). It’s my right to defend those near me from agressive action. Nevertheless, we should strive to kill the flea as quickly and painlessly as we can.
Much of what we consider right/wrong or good/bad derives from our ability to enforce rules for the benefit of our tribe. As a consequence, we can kill animals and insects without a second thought. However, when it comes to killing the people in our own tribe, we make a lot of rules because we know our own necks are on the line.
I’m not advocating might makes right. Rather, I say we should expand our moral system to include those who have no channels of retaliation. So far, only retaliatory ability is a factor in our willingness to consider the needs of others. This leads us to make destructive decisions without taking that destruction into account because the ecosystems, niches, broods, dens, nests etc. that we destroy, are inhabited by dumb creatures. Heck, we pobably wiped out (or drove to extinction) the Neanderthals, too.
cl
says...@ Polly, Brad, Matty Melks, Ebonmuse…
thanks for coming by and leaving comments here! I would really like to get a lot more input on this thread. I think these types of questions and exercises will go much further in enlightening both sides of the debate.
Steve Bowen
says...Well, first of all why is the question aimed at atheists in particular. Seems to me that we can all determine relative levels of sentience in biological organisms and with a “reasonable” amount of sensitivity gauge the level of harm we do to them. Crush a flea? sure why not. Maim an ape? no unless it was in self defense. Maim a racist? su.. no I jest. Not sure I see the point in the question. Look: Is this a relative morality thing? I would put atheist ethics against any theist’s any day.
cl
says...Hello Steve..
I’m trying to better understand individual atheists’ basis’ for morality, so thanks for stopping by and helping!
cl
says...Hello Steve..
I’m trying to better understand individual atheists’ basis’ for morality, so thanks for stopping by and helping!
jim
says...Hi! Very nice blog you have here; glad to have discovered it through your postings over at ER. I think my answer to your question might be summed up by a question of my own- wrong according to whom?
cl
says...jim,
Thanks much and thanks for coming through, the blog’s been a while in the making. A major accident and six months’ downtime helps a bit, I have to admit.
To answer your question, well, assuming you’re atheist, according to you – is it wrong to crush a flea? Why or why not? I’m not one of those ignants who claims atheists can’t live moral lives, because that’s patently absurd. However, I am striving to get a better understanding of the atheist’s basis for morality, if that’s sensible at all.
jim
says...Hi, cl. Hope you’re feeling better. To answer your question, then, it’s partly wrong and partly right to kill the flea, because my morality emerges from my feelings, which often contradict. For me, wrong comes down to what I don’t like, and right comes down to what I do like. Of course, it’s never quite that simple, because many decisions have both likeable and unlikeable consequences.
So, perhaps an atheist’s morality emerges from within, while a theist’s comes down from above? But, how does a theist judge what comes down? I guess he can’t, really; he just accepts, and that’s that. Of course, there’s the day to day interpretation to work out in the course of hundreds of daily events. How does he know he’s doing it properly, in every case? Does he really run everything through an exegetical sieve, or does he tend to wing it most of the time, as the rest of us heathen do?
Of course, being an atheist, I believe that morality is derived from the interaction of individuals in a larger society. Basics get codified according to the prevailing milieu. Of course, there will be some universalities across time and cultures; after all, we’re all similar biological organisms. There will also be differences for a host of reasons, which is what we see with the anthropological eye.
I guess that’s about the best I can answer you for right now. Take care.
cl
says...jim,
Hey, three parapgraphs.. thanks man. I’m really hoping to get like 100 responses to this from many different people. It’ll take some time, but we’ll get there.
Great line.
I don’t know how I feel about that. For example, let’s say we both agree it’s immoral to eat Cheerios. We might have different routes of reasoning we employed to reach this conclusion; you might have an elaborate philosophically sound justification, I might simply say ‘God told me not to eat Cheerios.’ But if we both abstain from eating Cheerios, is either of us more or less moral than the other?
And I really don’t understand what you mean when you say, “how does a theist judge what comes down?”
For next time:
If you’ll tolerate just a bit more prodding, what exactly is wrong about it and what exactly is right? Is it wrong simply because you don’t like to inflict pain upon other biological organisms, but right because we reserve the right to remove bothersome or potentially threatening parasites? Something along those lines??
jim
says...“If you’ll tolerate just a bit more prodding, what exactly is wrong about it and what exactly is right? Is it wrong simply because you don’t like to inflict pain upon other biological organisms, but right because we reserve the right to remove bothersome or potentially threatening parasites? Something along those lines??”
I think that sums it up pretty well. Of course, and depending on the circumstances, there might be dozens of little rivulets feeding into the decision stream, but I think you get where I’m coming from.
When I asked, “How does a theist judge what comes down”, I think I was getting at a two-pronged query. First, there’s the matter of real world translation; how are the rules from God applied to everyday, and ofttimes ambiguous, situations. But more importantly, I think I’m asking if a theist runs God’s imperatives through his OWN moral filter, including that matrix of humanistic sensibilities that most of us judge to be morally superior traits, such as sympathy and empathy. Or is it simply THY WILL BE DONE?
You might drop by my blog sometime and look around. I go into the issue as a motivating factor for my particular philosophy, which you might find…unique? LOLOL!
Take care.
sam
says...You should ask a vegan.
Gabriel
says...I would rather ask a flea if it finds morally right or wrong to feed on mammals.
cl
says...Gabriel and Sam,
LOLx2. Thanks, I enjoyed both of those responses!