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
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
@Adamsm
But they're neither sentient nor living at that point. Doesn't remove what they used to be.
So are you a vegetarian?
Hat
No, I'm not; but I don't count farm animals the same way I do humans.
Post by
Squishalot
Is that from a sentience point of view?
Post by
Adamsm
Is that from a sentience point of view?
To a point, especially considering how smart pigs are.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
@Pikey
Yes, this is what I've tried to do. Brits might be aware of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's (and I bet the Americans reading will enjoy that name ^_^ ) campaign for getting people to pay more for chicken only buying free range meat and eggs from "happy hens". It was a bit of a band-wagon but it did have an effect on how we buy meat.
I greatly respect someone so in touch with their meat eating that they are willing to (or have had to in their life) kill and prepare their own meat. I think that there's too many people who are happy to think that meat comes, not from animals but from supermarkets.
Also the situation you described is one of necessity and I think this touches on what Fenomas says. The naturalistic argument I think holds a
lot
of weight when it comes down to necessity. When not eating meat means that we don't eat or even just that we don't get a rounded diet.
If we don't
need
to eat meat do we have the right to take the lives of animals when it's simply for our pleasure?
In Fenomas' example, if we didn't need to "poop", if it was a choice, then that comparison might be more applicable. Or perhaps it's already applicable - we've created a safe way to deal with the process of excretion that also removes much of the unpleasantness. Now, if someone has access to proper toilets is it then immoral to go in the middle of a public street, a street where children play perhaps? I think it probably would fall under the umbrella of "immoral".
Post by
gamerunknown
Oh I'd just like to point out that there are a few problems with hypotheticals: namely ecological validity (how well the test predicts someone's behaviour in their natural environment). There are two factors which contribute to lowering the ecological validity. The first is unrealistic scenarios, where behaviour would not have the same outcomes in reality. In real life, it's highly unlikely that a man would be fat enough to stop a tram from killing five people - at least predictably. He'd also be hard to shift. Such physically impossible scenarios can damage validity even if the reliability of tests remains intact. Another is socially desirable results: people want to have a harmonious view of themselves as "good". They'll say they'll be helpful and friendly in greater proportions than they are helpful and friendly when not being observed.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
hatman555
What good do you think moral relativism can accomplish? Like honestly, what is the point of this belief? All it does is let people justify immoral behavior by saying nothing is objectively right or wrong, so why don't we all just do whatever the hell we want? Why have laws, why be kind to others? Why don't I just break into some woman's home and rape and murder them? Why not, why should I feel bad? Why should I be punished? I could say I did nothing wrong from my point of view, and there is no right or wrong anyway, so who gives a ^&*!
Some of the people that do those things feel bad about it, but others don't. Just because we say that morality is subjective and different from person to person, doesn't mean we support them and say "Oh, don't mind him stabbing you, he just thinks its moral ok." No, the morals of the great numbers make the laws, and others need to abide by them. I don't think its morally right that more money from my taxes goes towards the US defense budget than to the education budget, but I don't control the laws, I only have a small small influence on them, and the majority of the people have decided that defense is more important than education.
Do you or any other moral relativist honestly believe that your view can do anything other than create anarchy? Oh wait, anarchy being bad is subjective, MY BAD. Oh, that's subjective too.Cute =P
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Moral apathy is the idea that nothing has morals, so you don't do anything at all.
Morals are meaningless if they're subjective, because two opposing moral views (rape is okay, rape is not okay) cannot coexist.....You realize of course Sold, is that there are people out there
who don't believe rape exists
.....
Post by
OverZealous
I don't personally support people going around stabbing others, even if they find it morally acceptable - but that doesn't change the fact that morality is inherently subjective. You can accept that morals are relative without being a person that shrugs of everything as different morals, such as the people you describe in your example(s).
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Morals are meaningless if they're subjective, because two opposing moral views (rape is okay, rape is not okay) cannot coexist.....You realize of course Sold, is that there are people out there
who don't believe rape exists
.....
And those people are completely retarded.
And that isn't subjective? :P
Post by
Adamsm
Morals are meaningless if they're subjective, because two opposing moral views (rape is okay, rape is not okay) cannot coexist.....You realize of course Sold, is that there are people out there
who don't believe rape exists
.....
And those people are completely retarded.
Retarded or not...that punctures a massive hole in your whole 'morals are not subjective' argument....like a hole you can drive a Super Star Destroyer through.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is why morals are subjective, to match reality.
Post by
Azazel
Morals are meaningless if they're subjective, because two opposing moral views (rape is okay, rape is not okay) cannot coexist.....You realize of course Sold, is that there are people out there
who don't believe rape exists
.....
And those people are completely retarded.
And that isn't subjective? :P
Reality is subjective.
Aren't morals real?
Post by
588688
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.