User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-25 at 5:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Morality is not a fact, morality is relative. Acts that are right from one perspective are wrong from another perspective. I don't understand how you could possibly believe something could be objectively right or wrong. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that morality is absolute and not relative?
how can morality be ''relative''.
for it to be relative, there has to be a static reference point for us to refer to and compare its location / coordinate .....
morality is not relative.
its arbitrary, subjective, and sometimes impulsive. -
2018-06-25 at 6:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader how can morality be ''relative''.
for it to be relative, there has to be a static reference point for us to refer to and compare its location / coordinate …..
morality is not relative.
its arbitrary, subjective, and sometimes impulsive.
To a regular person eating meat is moral.
To a vegetarian eating meat is immoral.
Therefore morality is relative.
I guess those other words would work too. -
2018-06-25 at 6:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe To a regular person eating meat is moral.
To a vegetarian eating meat is immoral.
Therefore morality is relative.
I guess those other words would work too.
but to a person who doesnt give a fuck if meats are being eaten or not,
a vegan is just a mere faggot, neither moral nor immoral and relative to nothing. -
2018-06-25 at 6:30 PM UTC
-
2018-06-25 at 6:40 PM UTCThread should be moved to the mongolvoid based on repetitiveness and inability to come to a conclusion after 81 pages.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-25 at 6:45 PM UTCTroll my dick Finny.
-
2018-06-25 at 6:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock impregnated lannys dad nine months before he was born its not only a lifestyle choice…its a mental deficiency.
thats assuming that mental deficiency isnt a result of faulty evolution or the nurture of nature.
tick bites can result in permanent meat allergies :
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/06/25/621080751/red-meat-allergies-caused-by-tick-bites-are-on-the-rise
ie, tick caused inveg.
involuntary veganism. -
2018-06-25 at 7:35 PM UTC
-
2018-06-25 at 8:17 PM UTC
-
2018-06-26 at 4:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Just switch to categorical imperativism like me.
no thx bc imanuel cunt is a homo lol.
P.S. killer at the door lol
Originally posted by Obbe Morality is not a fact, morality is relative. Acts that are right from one perspective are wrong from another perspective.
I disagree, in fact the very meaning of morality that I've put forward in this thread is that the moral status of an act is factual rather than relative.I don't understand how you could possibly believe something could be objectively right or wrong. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that morality is absolute and not relative?
The easy answer here is to say "the meaning of morality as I've used it, is non-relative". To say "that may be wrong from your perspective but right from mine" is to take a different meaning for the words "right" and "wrong" than I and other have been using in this thread so far.
Like I said before, you can take the stance that all actions have neutral moral status and there are a lot of different arguments for a realist meta-ethics (establishing that there is at least one proposition of the form "X is wrong" or "X is right"). Some of the simpler ones are from moral intuition. E.g. when we say murdering people is wrong, we as a society have agreed that we ought to stop murderers. We don't accept "but it was right from my perspective!" as a defense, nor would we tolerate a judge who dismissed cases because it was right from their perspective to do so. Our moral intuitions are that there is some transpersonal (i.e. non-subjective) element of morality. -
2018-06-26 at 4:02 AM UTCP.S. I see you still ducking and diving over there spectral. Don't think I don't.
-
2018-06-26 at 4:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny no thx bc imanuel cunt is a homo lol.
P.S. killer at the door lol
The way I see it, I have absolutely no reason not to lie to the killer. If and I wouldn't be held morally responsible for a choice I made in good faith but turned bad due to circumstances beyond my control.
If I apply my moral system:
- If I was the intended victim, I wouldn't want someone to help the murderer violate my rights, I'd rather have them lie and try to do something rather than just giving me up.
- If I was the murderer in that very moment and somehow retained my morals, I too would want someone to lie to me and try to stop me so I wouldn't give up my right to life.
Kant goes off the deep end a little by building up, so I tone it back a bit to keep it reasonable. -
2018-06-26 at 5:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain The way I see it, I have absolutely no reason not to lie to the killer. If and I wouldn't be held morally responsible for a choice I made in good faith but turned bad due to circumstances beyond my control.
Except for your duty to not lie, which is a direct consequence of the categorical imperative per kant. -
2018-06-26 at 8 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Except for your duty to not lie, which is a direct consequence of the categorical imperative per kant.
Yeah, I don't agree with Kant's hard line approach. Obviously lying doesn't obliterate society, we already do it on a case by case basis when convenient. I don't think the maxim that I will do unto others as I want done to myself, necessarily entails never lying. As shown above. -
2018-06-26 at 11:50 AM UTC
-
2018-06-26 at 12:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny no thx bc imanuel cunt is a homo lol.
P.S. killer at the door lol
I disagree, in fact the very meaning of morality that I've put forward in this thread is that the moral status of an act is factual rather than relative.
The easy answer here is to say "the meaning of morality as I've used it, is non-relative". To say "that may be wrong from your perspective but right from mine" is to take a different meaning for the words "right" and "wrong" than I and other have been using in this thread so far.
Like I said before, you can take the stance that all actions have neutral moral status and there are a lot of different arguments for a realist meta-ethics (establishing that there is at least one proposition of the form "X is wrong" or "X is right"). Some of the simpler ones are from moral intuition. E.g. when we say murdering people is wrong, we as a society have agreed that we ought to stop murderers. We don't accept "but it was right from my perspective!" as a defense, nor would we tolerate a judge who dismissed cases because it was right from their perspective to do so. Our moral intuitions are that there is some transpersonal (i.e. non-subjective) element of morality.
Just because a majority of people believe something is wrong doesn't mean it is objectively wrong. If there is a non-subjective element to morality would you please point to it? -
2018-06-26 at 1:11 PM UTC
-
2018-06-26 at 1:15 PM UTCMurder can be in ones self interest. How is that not relative?
-
2018-06-26 at 1:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Murder can be in ones self interest. How is that not relative?
Sure it can be. For example, I would definitely "murder" someone in self defence, a situation where murder is in my best interest, because someone might be attempting to violate my rights.
In my system, all of your rights are derived from your self granted biological "right" to life. You give yourself a personal right to life because you come to be by some biological impetus, and it is a tautological truth that you will allow yourself to do whatever you want by that impetus, and the first among these things which would be living, so you can exercise all the freedoms that existing and living grants you. Then you give some up to enter a state of society, for example you give up your right to kill someone in order to feel safe in expressing your right to live.
Therefore the right to life is the most important right, and unless you are willing to forfeit your right to life (i.e. you want to die) and all of the freedoms that come with it, it is unquestionably the most important right of your own to protect. It seems obvious that it is never in your best interest to murder, unless it is what is needed to continue your own right to life, or unless your best interest is to forfeit all your rights somehow. -
2018-06-26 at 2:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Sure it can be. For example, I would definitely "murder" someone in self defence, a situation where murder is in my best interest, because someone might be attempting to violate my rights.
In my system, all of your rights are derived from your self granted biological "right" to life. You give yourself a personal right to life because you come to be by some biological impetus, and it is a tautological truth that you will allow yourself to do whatever you want by that impetus, and the first among these things which would be living, so you can exercise all the freedoms that existing and living grants you. Then you give some up to enter a state of society, for example you give up your right to kill someone in order to feel safe in expressing your right to live.
Therefore the right to life is the most important right, and unless you are willing to forfeit your right to life (i.e. you want to die) and all of the freedoms that come with it, it is unquestionably the most important right of your own to protect. It seems obvious that it is never in your best interest to murder, unless it is what is needed to continue your own right to life, or unless your best interest is to forfeit all your rights somehow.
I don't see how any of that supports what Lanny is saying about morality being objective.
