User Controls

We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat

  1. Lanny Bird of Courage
    Originally posted by Obbe Those things are objective measurements, but not objective measurements of goodness or badness.

    Well the case hasn't been made yet that those things are or aren't a measure of goodness or badness, in the same way that the case for the reading of a voltmeter being a measurement of voltage hasn't been made yet. But if we could connect these objective measurements to morality then we'd have a case for there being an objective measurement of morality, wouldn't we?
  2. Lanny Bird of Courage
    Originally posted by DietPiano That is full of holes. Why is it good? Who is it good for?

    There is no hole. You asked what I think "morality" is, I told you. Specifically it's a statement of fact with a truth value (remember back to what that term means) rather than a mere opinion. I've said myself, I haven't given you a reason why particular actions are moral and others aren't. Or even why any moral statement is true. I've been talking about the terminological issue, what is meant when moral realists talk about the term "morality". We have to mutually understand what "morality" even means before I can give you any meaningful justification for the morality of particular claims.
  3. GGG victim of incest [my veinlike two-fold aepyornidae]
    Philosophy is a synonym for regurgitation
  4. Lanny Bird of Courage
    Originally posted by GGG Philosophy is a synonym for regurgitation

    feeble troll attempts not welcome ITT
  5. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Lanny Well the case hasn't been maid yet that those things are or aren't a measure of goodness or badness, in the same way that the case for the reading of a voltmeter being a measurement of voltage hasn't been made yet. But if we could connect these objective measurements to morality then we'd have a case for there being an objective measurement of morality, wouldn't we?

    I thought that's what you have been attempting to do. If you are admitting we have no reason to treat those things as objective measurements of goodness and badness, I think my case is closed.
  6. Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Speedy Parker
  7. Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Lanny There is no hole. You asked what I think "morality" is, I told you. Specifically it's a statement of fact with a truth value (remember back to what that term means) rather than a mere opinion. I've said myself, I haven't given you a reason why particular actions are moral and others aren't. Or even why any moral statement is true. I've been talking about the terminological issue, what is meant when moral realists talk about the term "morality". We have to mutually understand what "morality" even means before I can give you any meaningful justification for the morality of particular claims.

    That's why you have struggled in this thread. Morality is not based on fact it is based on opinion.
  8. Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Lanny feeble troll attempts not welcome ITT

    Fuck this thread.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  9. Originally posted by infinityshock tore off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny, made him say 'spank me daddy' and gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his cock jockey 'moral obligation' is nothing more than another in a long line of newspeak terms that the mentally deficient are trying to force onto the language and thought patterns of the sane people.

    merry c­hristmas

    no. just wait for my article.
  10. Originally posted by infinityshock tore off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny, made him say 'spank me daddy' and gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his cock jockey no.

    you dont have a choice.
  11. lanny, did you saw something like this and suddenly came to the conclusion that meats are bad ?

  12. Lanny Bird of Courage
    No, I appreciate why the undercover footage stuff is important but I never found it particularly compelling. I think Singer's writing is in better taste than trying to game people for sympathy.
  13. Originally posted by Lanny No, I appreciate why the undercover footage stuff is important but I never found it particularly compelling. I think Singer's writing is in better taste than trying to game people for sympathy.

    dont know who that is.

    the only singer i know are sewing machines.
  14. Lanny Bird of Courage
    lmgtfy.com/?q=singer+animal+rights
  15. Originally posted by Lanny lmgtfy.com/?q=singer+animal+rights

    yea, but his writtings dont reveal the extent of suffering that these animals went thru.
  16. Lanny Bird of Courage
    I don't get it?
  17. Originally posted by Lanny I don't get it?

    i mean words and articles dont reveal how much animals are suffering under the current meat industrial complex.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  18. Lanny Bird of Courage
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i mean words and articles dont reveal how much animals are suffering under the current meat industrial complex.

    interesting...
  19. Originally posted by infinityshock tore off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny, made him say 'spankkk me daddy' and gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his cock jockey

    the butchers here hang pigs from their eye sockets.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  20. Originally posted by Lanny Which things? Actions? Actions are either good or bad, their status as such is not a matter of opinion. That doesn't mean something like "injecting a person with insulin" is either always good or always bad, obviously that's dependent on the circumstance, but acts like "injecting Fred with insulin yesterday shortly after lunch" have a definite status as morally permissible or not, contingent on whether Fred needed it and your authority to administer the drug and other circumstantial facts.

    Good for whom?

    Perhaps it is good for fred, but not good for someone with less money in the case of an insulin shortage. Which is a true threat given how expensive it is.

    So you're saying an action is either good or bad, but for whom? Everyone, or less than everyone(depending on the circumstances)?

    The former would imply that actions are universally good or bad, and the latter would imply that actions may be only referentially good or bad (but not necessarily in every case).
Jump to Top