User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-11-19 at 12:58 AM UTCIf the requirement for moral consideration is that something can feel pain, then the killing of the bebes that have nerve cells is moral wrongness in your moral system ???
-
2018-11-19 at 1:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano If the requirement for moral consideration is that something can feel pain, then the killing of the bebes that have nerve cells is moral wrongness in your moral system ???
So is all medicine. If something is ill, it should be injected with a lethal dosage of opioids and killed.
Even if it will get better by itself. Our sole prerogative should be minimising pain.
Got a flu? It's euthanasia for you, bucko.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-19 at 1:44 AM UTCgod gave us the animals to eat
-
2018-11-19 at 2:09 AM UTCPermission to eat animals was only given after the waters of the Great Flood subsided, because there was no green vegetation to eat. The entire planet had been scrubbed clean. Before that, humans did not eat animals at all, as it was forbidden by God.
-
2018-11-19 at 5:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service Our sole prerogative should be minimising pain.
Why?
And yeah, I don't like the practice of abortion, but I'm not necessarily against it. It's killing a human for sure, at least after a few weeks but that doesn't mean I want to stop it's practice per se.
I was referring to how Lanny and Zanick have a moral obligation to condone abortion if their basis of dervesing moral consideration is the ability to feel pain. -
2018-11-19 at 7:33 AM UTCI have a strong utilitarian position on abortion: the further along a fetus is, the more pleasure I derive from its painful termination. The grief of would-be mothers and angels weeping in Heaven cannot compare to my enjoyment of late-term abortions, so reason demands that we encourage them.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-11-19 at 8:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Permission to eat animals was only given after the waters of the Great Flood subsided, because there was no green vegetation to eat. The entire planet had been scrubbed clean. Before that, humans did not eat animals at all, as it was forbidden by God.
dont lie.
theres plenty of sea weed strewrn around. -
2018-11-19 at 8:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I have a strong utilitarian position on abortion: the further along a fetus is, the more pleasure I derive from its painful termination. The grief of would-be mothers and angels weeping in Heaven cannot compare to my enjoyment of late-term abortions, so reason demands that we encourage them.
their lots of post partum fetuses in bars and concerts.
do your best to abort them. -
2018-11-19 at 9:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano If the requirement for moral consideration is that something can feel pain, then the killing of the bebes that have nerve cells is moral wrongness in your moral system ???
Typically utilitarians, myself included, will argue that being able to feel pain does imply moral considerably. I think the question "can a fetus feel pain" is biologically more complex than asking "does the fetus have nerve cells". It seems pretty easy to imagine biological systems with nerve cells without the ability to feel pain, e.g. those in which the central nervous system is not functional or sufficiently developed.
Also utilitarians are committed to the maximization of utility, meaning minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure in hedonic utilitarianism. That doesn't mean everything which causes pain is wrong, in the abortion scenario we can imagine that the disutility experienced by an unwanted pregnancy may well be greater than the amount of suffering implied by abortion and justified on those grounds. It does lead to the conclusion that there are some scenarios where abortion can't be justified but, unlike many utilitarians I've talked to, that's never really bothered me. -
2018-11-19 at 10:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Typically utilitarians, myself included, will argue that being able to feel pain does imply moral considerably. I think the question "can a fetus feel pain" is biologically more complex than asking "does the fetus have nerve cells". It seems pretty easy to imagine biological systems with nerve cells without the ability to feel pain, e.g. those in which the central nervous system is not functional or sufficiently developed.
Also utilitarians are committed to the maximization of utility, meaning minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure in hedonic utilitarianism. That doesn't mean everything which causes pain is wrong, in the abortion scenario we can imagine that the disutility experienced by an unwanted pregnancy may well be greater than the amount of suffering implied by abortion and justified on those grounds. It does lead to the conclusion that there are some scenarios where abortion can't be justified but, unlike many utilitarians I've talked to, that's never really bothered me.
there are pills that you can take to abort fetuses. -
2018-11-19 at 1:05 PM UTC
-
2018-11-19 at 4:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Typically utilitarians, myself included, will argue that being able to feel pain does imply moral considerably. I think the question "can a fetus feel pain" is biologically more complex than asking "does the fetus have nerve cells". It seems pretty easy to imagine biological systems with nerve cells without the ability to feel pain, e.g. those in which the central nervous system is not functional or sufficiently developed.
Also utilitarians are committed to the maximization of utility, meaning minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure in hedonic utilitarianism. That doesn't mean everything which causes pain is wrong, in the abortion scenario we can imagine that the disutility experienced by an unwanted pregnancy may well be greater than the amount of suffering implied by abortion and justified on those grounds. It does lead to the conclusion that there are some scenarios where abortion can't be justified but, unlike many utilitarians I've talked to, that's never really bothered me.
Do you think Malice was right about antinatalism? -
2018-11-19 at 4:31 PM UTC
-
2018-11-19 at 7:08 PM UTC
-
2018-11-19 at 7:14 PM UTC
-
2018-11-19 at 7:17 PM UTC
-
2018-11-19 at 7:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny fetuses arent babies until they went thru a birth canal and checked out at vagina.
that's just stupid. a new human is made upon conception. nothing material transpires at birth to trigger 'now a human' status. if there is some psychological metric for determining whether or not something is a human yet, it'd be some test like knowing your own name, which won't happen till what, a year in? in which case, it'd be perfectly ok to kill a 6 month old baby, because it's not human yet.
at least lets be rationally consistent while appeasing moloch -
2018-11-19 at 7:39 PM UTC
-
2018-11-19 at 7:53 PM UTC
-
2018-11-19 at 8:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib that's just stupid. a new human is made upon conception. nothing material transpires at birth to trigger 'now a human' status. if there is some psychological metric for determining whether or not something is a human yet, it'd be some test like knowing your own name, which won't happen till what, a year in? in which case, it'd be perfectly ok to kill a 6 month old baby, because it's not human yet.
at least lets be rationally consistent while appeasing moloch
so do you call an inseminated chicken egg an egg, or a chicken ?
or a cock perhaps ?
