User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-02-02 at 3:19 AM UTC
-
2019-02-02 at 5:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny "counterevidence" would imply you presented any evidence to start with, and "I haven't seen anything" isn't.
Without evidence, there is no reason to assume anything exists; but there is reason to assume that it doesn't: Because it's not there, as far as we can tell.
I don't believe the earth is round if I don't have any evidence of it being round. Once I have evidence supporting that it is round, I have something to go off of. Likewise, I don't believe Mongolians live on the moon, bevause I don't have any evudence of it. Therfor, I assume there aren't any. Same with morality.
Things are presumed to not be there until there is evidence that they are. Not the other way around. -
2019-02-02 at 4:40 PM UTCReality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
-
2019-02-02 at 5:53 PM UTCIf all the vegans out there really loved animals they would stop eating all their food.
-
2019-02-02 at 6:14 PM UTC
-
2019-02-02 at 6:56 PM UTCSo, my glass of wine, beer, or cola are not real and, therefore, can never be half full or empty?
-
2019-02-03 at 1:20 AM UTCWRONG
The cloud didn't alert in the header bar. -
2019-02-03 at 1:27 AM UTCThere's a domain close to that that may be for sale by owner that might work fairly well. j/s
-
2019-02-03 at 9:01 AM UTC
-
2019-02-03 at 9:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Without evidence, there is no reason to assume anything exists; but there is reason to assume that it doesn't: Because it's not there, as far as we can tell.
I don't believe the earth is round if I don't have any evidence of it being round. Once I have evidence supporting that it is round, I have something to go off of. Likewise, I don't believe Mongolians live on the moon, bevause I don't have any evudence of it. Therfor, I assume there aren't any. Same with morality.
Things are presumed to not be there until there is evidence that they are. Not the other way around.
I'm not sure about that but fine, let's pretend like we should believe negative propositions in absence of evidence for the positive (spot the problem here) and that somehow all positive evidence is "conterevidence" to the negative default.
You still replied to the part of my post that I immediately followed with "putting that aside" and nothing else. -
2019-02-03 at 9:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by CASPER This is probably just a high idea- but Lanny…say someone were able to engineer chickens to grow to essentially what they are now, only they wouldnt have brains, and theyd be immobile. Basically a mammalian sea sponge with feathers. Would you feel morally justified in killing and eating it then? Does your understanding hinge on the experience of pain, or the end of life or….? idk.
Consider this my retarded contribution for the sake of discussion.
It's all about pain.
It's funny people say 'pain is gain' until they're painfully bludgeoned to death.
Which has nothing to do with anything. And that's my contribution for the night. Goodnight. -
2019-02-03 at 5:57 PM UTC
-
2019-02-04 at 7:23 PM UTC
-
2019-02-05 at 10:58 AM UTC
-
2019-02-05 at 1:46 PM UTCY'all niggas posting in a meat thread
-
2019-02-06 at 4:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jackrabbitpsych There is no "moral guidebook" each person has their own version of what is morally correct and incorrect
Morality doesn't belong to the individual, it's a purely social phenomenon. An "individual morality" seems like a useless concept. I don't believe in universal standards, but different communities will have differing standards, the individuals interpretation of them should take the backseat. -
2019-02-07 at 1:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Nil Morality doesn't belong to the individual, it's a purely social phenomenon. An "individual morality" seems like a useless concept. I don't believe in universal standards, but different communities will have differing standards, the individuals interpretation of them should take the backseat.
-
2019-02-07 at 6:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.[lol]
Yes I see the latter part of section 1, just pointing out that your chart isn't the definitive take on the words.
Now what I was saying and wouldn't mind seeing what you think. What I said reiterated! Hypothetically if there was one person residing on a an island alone would there be any question of "morality" personal or otherwise? It's this relational aspect that is significant and so leads away from the individual. -
2019-02-07 at 11:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Nil Yes I see the latter part of section 1, just pointing out that your chart isn't the definitive take on the words.
Now what I was saying and wouldn't mind seeing what you think. What I said reiterated! Hypothetically if there was one person residing on a an island alone would there be any question of "morality" personal or otherwise? It's this relational aspect that is significant and so leads away from the individual.
If you want to seem like the idiot you are use morals in place of ethics -
2019-02-11 at 8:15 AM UTCfuck this thread
