This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
hatman555
Okay, look at it this way Sold;
sure it was done for survival
, but the fact that they resorted to cannibalism is one of the reasons why people look back on this with horror. It doesn't matter at all that it was to save the lives of those who were starving, they still ate people, and that's just plain wrong.
So yes, nothing is black and white, but if you do evil, no matter how you dress it up, you are still just as evil as the act is, and that's not a 'moral' thing.
That's the problem though Adamsm. Eating people is wrong,
if you do it with out their permission
, if you kidnap people and cook them in a pot. Eating people to stay a live is shocking because it shows to what extent people will go to stay alive.
Donner Party is an older example, but
Flight 571
is a more modern one with with the same basic concept. Its why in both articles you will see words like "resorted to" and "found no choice but too". Its not like as soon as a person died in these situations the remaining people said "Hell yeah, tonight we are going to feast!" or "Blah I can wait till this person dies, lets just kill him now so the meat will be tender." On the other hand, in both situations, especially in Flight 571 it was the last choice. They went back to the bodies as a last result, and they were still edible because the snow preserved them enough.
Sure its shocking, sure its gross, but its not morally wrong. You say "that's just plain wrong" and to me, that makes me think that you would never do such a thing. I'm not going to put words in your mouth to say whether you would or would not, but I think that if you were facing the similar choices you would eat a dead person.
I joke with my girlfriend that if we were on a desert island and she died, I would eat her to stay alive. She is shocked and would say that she would never do such a thing. I tell her that if I were the one to die first I would want her to stay alive for as long as possible. I think its just a mater of realist perspective. I KNOW that if the situation came up, that it would be my last option, and I would need to do it. She doesn't see that far ahead so to her its something that she would never do. But you get hungry enough, and everything changes.
Not if you had to. Let's say I was raised into a cult, and the cult leader forces children in the cult when they are at a certain age to kill some random person they kidnapped, and if the child refuses he or she will be killed, how the hell can you judge me for killing that person? How does it make me less than good? I had no choice. Sometimes a good person is forced to do something evil, and that doesn't make them any less good. The only thing you can judge me on is whether or not I felt any remorse.
This example its a good one if you look at it at 10,000 feet. Someone is giving you the choice. Kill another person or be killed yourself. That is truly a moral question. You kill the person its immoral. You let yourself be killed you took the moral high ground, but now are dead.
The problem with the details that you put in this example Sold, is that because you are raising the kid in the cult, you are changing his scene of morality. Outsiders raised in a world that shares our similar morals will see the choices clearly. The child raise in a cult of kill or be killed will not have the same morality as morality is not human nature. That kid is going to kill the person, and not lose a single night sleep about it.
People will still judge that kid for killing the person, but the kid won't care, to him he made the right choice.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
hatman555
Moderator note
Hey guys.
So I went through and I read all the pages of this topic. I have seen a couple things, that should probably change before debate continues.
Less personal confrontation
There should not be teams in this threads. People can agree on common ideas, but when 2 or more people "gang up" on another, debate breaks down, and defensive actions are taken by the other party, and the whole thread goes to hell in a hand basket.
Stop the bickering.
Put yourself in the other persons mindset
You don't agree with the person. That's fine, but don't let your disagreement blind you from the point they are trying to make. Look at things with an open mind and maybe you will find something you didn't see before.
Do your best to answer questions if they are asked of you.
If a question is asked, do you best to answer it in a way that expresses your beliefs and feelings.
If you need more clarification before you can answer a question, ask for it.
If clarification is asked, don't just spout back the same question more aggressively, try and reword it.
I'll be taking an active roll in the moderation of this thread, and probably in the discussion as well.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
asakawa
I've been having something of an internal debate recently about the morality/ethics of eating meat and I wonder if anyone has any feelings on the matter?
I like eating meat and I'm not particularly squeamish about the process whereby meat gets to one's plate but I find it difficult to morally defend the idea of eating meat in this day and age where humans can live perfectly healthy lives with perfectly balanced diets without the need to use animals in this way.
We've eaten meat forever and it's clearly the way that we have evolved to live but those points sound like an appeal to tradition and a naturalistic fallacy, respectively. So, is there a moral basis or defence for eating meat?
I'm not ready to go vegetarian (or vegan since if eating animals is immoral, is exploiting them for things like milk any better?) yet but it's an internal discussion that I've been having with myself off and on for quite some time now.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
@Boronidze, animals are
sentient
. Plants are not.
@Soldrethar, you're describing what I pointed out as a
naturalistic fallacy
.
Logical fallacies aren't necessarily and immediately incorrect, they're just examples of poorly drawn lines of logic and debate. In this case the fact that it is natural doesn't equate to it being moral.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Okay, look at it this way Sold;
sure it was done for survival
, but the fact that they resorted to cannibalism is one of the reasons why people look back on this with horror. It doesn't matter at all that it was to save the lives of those who were starving, they still ate people, and that's just plain wrong.
So yes, nothing is black and white, but if you do evil, no matter how you dress it up, you are still just as evil as the act is, and that's not a 'moral' thing.
That's the problem though Adamsm. Eating people is wrong,
if you do it with out their permission
, if you kidnap people and cook them in a pot. Eating people to stay a live is shocking because it shows to what extent people will go to stay alive.
Donner Party is an older example, but
Flight 571
is a more modern one with with the same basic concept. Its why in both articles you will see words like "resorted to" and "found no choice but too". Its not like as soon as a person died in these situations the remaining people said "Hell yeah, tonight we are going to feast!" or "Blah I can wait till this person dies, lets just kill him now so the meat will be tender." On the other hand, in both situations, especially in Flight 571 it was the last choice. They went back to the bodies as a last result, and they were still edible because the snow preserved them enough.
Sure its shocking, sure its gross, but its not morally wrong. You say "that's just plain wrong" and to me, that makes me think that you would never do such a thing. I'm not going to put words in your mouth to say whether you would or would not, but I think that if you were facing the similar choices you would eat a dead person.
I joke with my girlfriend that if we were on a desert island and she died, I would eat her to stay alive. She is shocked and would say that she would never do such a thing. I tell her that if I were the one to die first I would want her to stay alive for as long as possible. I think its just a mater of realist perspective. I KNOW that if the situation came up, that it would be my last option, and I would need to do it. She doesn't see that far ahead so to her its something that she would never do. But you get hungry enough, and everything changes.
Realist perspective sure; but a lot would disagree that it's a good moral choice.
Post by
Nathanyal
Honestly, I don't think there is a moral basis or defense for eating meat.
In the past we would have to eat certain types of meat to get the right vitamins and other essential things to have a healthy diet. But with the advancement of science they can extract the oils and vitamins without having to eat animals. You can go to a smoothie place and get all of that stuff in a 16 ounce drink and be set.
The only reason to eat meat now is because it tastes good. And even then, with the right ingredients you can make a shoe taste good.
Even then, eating red meat can be a bad thing. I have something called gout. I was advised against eating a lot of red meat because it can make my gout worse.
On the flip-side, getting meat is probably cheaper than getting all those vitamins and oils separate. Easier to go buy a pound of fish, chicken, or beef with all the essential vitamins, oils and proteins than it is to to buy the equivalent to that.
Post by
hatman555
Well I can tell you one thing hat, I'm not trolling, I honestly don't understand this relativistic viewpoint, and I'm trying to point out the flaws in the arguments. Like saying that, in the trolley scenario, there is no right answer. Well, its either you or the other 5 people on the train die, or just one of you dies.
You have a history of trolling. You are going to need to work against.
I find most of these questions to be easily answered, basically.
Then you have a good handle on your own morals.
Yes I agree that there are grey areas and grey actions (like killing, its right or wrong depending on who and why) but I don't agree that morality itself is inherently subjective, and I think that believing that there is no objective right and wrong is a flawed and dangerous viewpoint that can only lead to justifying immoral behavior (pedophilia, rape, violence).
You DO think that morality is subjective. Most of your opinions are supporting the fact that you think morality is different between people. Were as you would make the quick choice of 1 death is better than 5 deaths. Another people would never be able to make that choice because to them they would feel responsible anyways for the 1 death. They would say "Who are they to choice who lives and dies?" were you say "1 death is always better than 5". That's the inherent problem with the example.
Realist perspective sure; but a lot would disagree that it's a good moral choice.
You would disagree that its a good moral choice. I would say that the choice is tragic last hope for life, but not immoral.
I've been having something of an internal debate recently about the morality/ethics of eating meat and I wonder if anyone has any feelings on the matter?
This should be its own topic, since its such a good conversation. I love meat! I also understand how the need for efficiency and the economic demand for a profit has turned the food industry into a pretty heartless place.
The mistreatment and living conditions of domesticated animals, can be pretty harsh sometimes. I think that it would be much harsher if people didn't so fervently fight for their rights.
As for my own actions with animals. I shop at the big box supermarkets for something things, but for other things I tend to go a little less main stream. We have family friends of a local farmer that raises free range chickens. He has a chicken farm with around 200 chickens, but they reside in over 10 acres of property. Much more space than the 2 square feet some chickens get in large egg collectors. The free range eggs are amazing too, they are about 15 cents an egg more expensive than store bough, and a little smaller, but the taste is completely different. Feed, and general activity of the chickens makes the eggs taste much better, always fresher too.
As for chicken itself, I buy at the supermarket. Price can not be beaten when your dealing with a mass supplier. Its just a reality of our economic world.
Will I ever become a vegetarian or a vegan? No, I like meat too much to do that. Will I be persuaded to buy from a more human supplier if I hear about the miss treatment of animals? Sure, even if its a bit more expensive sure.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
571832
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You would disagree that its a good moral choice. I would say that the choice is tragic last hope for life, but not immoral./shrug Agree to disagree then hat; I feel that way about a lot of the 'do this to survive' ideals: Kill or be killed, let someone else die so you live; to me nearly all of them are the wrong moral choice since someone is going to end up dying no matter what.
Post by
hatman555
I honestly never really thought about it like that. Your right, I am very quick to say I would never eat you. But if I was in the situation and its been a couple weeks since I ate anything i'm sure the idea of eating a person to stay alive would become much more realistic, and i would probably eat them. It's easy to say no until you are actually in the situation and are starving. Sooo gg babe. Point made <3
I think in your mind you see me asking you to get in a pot or something, and that you would be probably tastier if I had some ranch dressing! lol
In all fairness, if you died with me on an island first I would probably be too devastated even to think about eating your for survival. Probably would go to the other side of the Island to get away from seeing you like that.
<3
Dave
edited your post so that the quote box wasn't as huge. When you hit the quote button, you can delete stuff that you don't want to quote.(##RESPBREAK##)136##DELIM##hatman555##DELIM##
Post by
571832
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
hatman555
You would disagree that its a good moral choice. I would say that the choice is tragic last hope for life, but not immoral./shrug Agree to disagree then hat; I feel that way about a lot of the 'do this to survive' ideals: Kill or be killed, let someone else die so you live; to me nearly all of them are the wrong moral choice since someone is going to end up dying no matter what.
I hate the "agree to disagree" statement. At the end of the day we might walk away disagreeing, sure I get that, but debate me a little more about it before you just shrug off what I'm saying with such a blasé response.
Eating a person in both those examples was not a "kill or be killed" situation. You are
not
letting the person die so that you can stay alive. They are dead, you did everything you can to save them, and now 1 week later and you doing the last thing you possibly can to stay alive. You are not looking at them face, and while you do what needs to be done, you are probably crying in sadness.
Letting someone else die so that you can live is Immoral, but that's not the situation here.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
571832
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.