User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-30 at 3:38 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 4 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 5:08 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 5:52 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 7:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well again, I point you to Kant who made a purely rational, axiomatic system of morality. No external evidence required. You might disagree with him, but if you grant his premises it's pretty hard to reject his conclusions, and his premises don't really require any more of a leap of faith than those we routinely grant in empirical sciences (e.g. universalism, some way to handwave the problem of induction, etc). No deities involved.
Kant believed that humans are a "special" creature of the universe that are more important than all other creatures due to some existential force. I reject this conclusion as it is unprovable, and less likely and reasonable than my conclusion that things simply are, and there is no way to know if they ought to be anything.
He thinks that there is a higher force, but what is his evidence that humans are not as animalistic and are inherently more important than anything else? My logical reasoning leades me to conclude that his premises are more faulty than mine.
Therfor, I do reject his premises as they are less reason based and more mystical based. This would be acceptable, except for the lack of hard, witnessable evidence provided (which is what, exactly?). -
2018-09-30 at 8:50 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 8:56 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 9:35 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 9:36 PM UTC
-
2018-09-30 at 9:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Kant believed that humans are a "special" creature of the universe that are more important than all other creatures due to some existential force. I reject this conclusion as it is unprovable, and less likely and reasonable than my conclusion that things simply are, and there is no way to know if they ought to be anything.
He thinks that there is a higher force, but what is his evidence that humans are not as animalistic and are inherently more important than anything else? My logical reasoning leades me to conclude that his premises are more faulty than mine.
Therfor, I do reject his premises as they are less reason based and more mystical based. This would be acceptable, except for the lack of hard, witnessable evidence provided (which is what, exactly?).
You don't need to believe in a higher power to agree with Kant's essential point. His ethics are an incredible framework for egoist social contract theory. You can replace the coocoo parts with far more rational ideas, but keep the meat, the framework, the exact same.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-30 at 10:15 PM UTC
-
2018-10-01 at 1:47 AM UTC*posting in a multi-ban Zanick-tier thread*
-
2018-10-01 at 4:18 AM UTCKeep it up, bucko. Quit the animal holocaust or you're next.
-
2018-10-01 at 4:22 AM UTCDon't bring the Holocaust into this. Animals don't deserve that kind of treatment.
-
2018-10-01 at 8:07 AM UTC
-
2018-10-01 at 10:46 AM UTC
-
2018-10-01 at 1:22 PM UTC
-
2018-10-01 at 1:30 PM UTCFuck everybody who posted in this thread more than five times, I hope you all die of malaria or ISIS beheading
-
2018-10-01 at 4:10 PM UTC
-
2018-10-01 at 4:56 PM UTCFirst and last post - I draw the line at dismemberment to engage in cannibalism
Good bye
Uhg why is the submit button not working WTF
