I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity."  Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."

A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of  "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?

Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.

Views: 8203

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In tribes where cannibalism is practiced there is a moral code, you don't eat anyone from your own tribe.

But on the other side of the world, a six foot freezer in the garage could facilitate a whole new kind of family dinner.

"Aw thanks, Ma, you shouldn't have! You're so sweet!"

@Jim Minion, Is this your suggestion of a more easily attainable moral code for our friends?

Well if you don't serve up friends as an entree it will be easier to keep those friends.

Thou shall not eat your friends unless your plane goes down in the Andes then all bets are off.

Except in those tribes where it's the respectful way to treat your beloved family members, in which case it's still moral.

@Jim - would that be the "Friends and Family" Plan --?

Heather, the fact that there is another problem, is not a reason to fail to work on this problem, until overpopulation is solved.  So, since overpopulation is a bigger problem, what are you doing to solve it?  I got fixed and have no kids.  I support women's rights to  birth control and abortion, education and equality.  I also support the abolition of slavery for the other animals.  There is no contradiction.

The fact that you have one solution is no reason to devote every third post you make on this site to suggesting that it is the ONLY solution.  I'm glad you aren't reproducing.

I'm glad you aren't reproducing. What an unkind comment!

You might see it as an unkind comment - but in the context of limiting population in order to reduce human suffering it is anything other than unkind.

A good way to ease suffering due to starvation is to examine what we eat. If the UN are concerned with the scale of meat consumption then that is reason enough to expect it to be raised as a topic of discussion. It seems a little rich to be criticising others with a well thought out ethical position when you don't have your own.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-fr...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full

You've read my statement of my ethical position and stated that you can't understand it.  Having no understanding of it, you just continue to push your line on starvation as though it somehow relates.  You know, even stupid people often realize their opinion isn't valid when they don't have a clue what is going on - so where does that leave you?

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service