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.
Ross, the bias is against those who are childless because of overpopulation. Such choices are seen as self-righteous, just as veganism is. Those who have children feel angry at those who have chosen not to.
My point was to the personal bias in weighting the factors affecting the choice, not the judgement of others. I agree that social judgement bias exists too ( a form of attachment justifying one's choice), I don't know whether that judgement and anger is held by the majority? I certainly would never feel malice towards someone making that choice, whatever the reason. I think it's about time we start a new thread on overpopulation?
It may at first appear ironic and may at first appear to favor those who want to feed the hungry, that starving people are more fertile than people who are not food-deprived. It is just nature's way of making up for a higher death rate. Of course, there comes a death rate that even increased fertility can't keep up with, and if we can't get people to voluntarily stop having children, what's left but letting the situation get out of hand?
In a world where obesity soon affects more people than starvation (if not already), it is safe to say that the problem isn't production, but allocation.
Either way, a smaller population would solve many of our problems.
Heather, THIS post is about ethics. It is you who follow members to any place the word animal or vegan is mentioned. Then you jump in to discourage any compassion. You act as a troll acts.
Well, actually it was about where Atheists get their ethics - asked by someone who believes in a god. I didn't jump in on the vegan issue until you had posted over 2 pages worth of vegan diatribe. Just because it is about ethics, doesn't mean it needs to be hijacked by your evangelizing.
Your hostility is expected. This study amply demonstrated the overreaction of meat eaters to vegetarians, and the 'knee-jerk' reaction when faced by a minority moral view. It's interesting that slavery abolitionists were called zealots of mistaken compassion in their day.
Thinkers from Mahatma Gandhi to Schopenhauer to Mark Twain have observed that new ideas go through several phases: First they provoke laughter, then anger, and finally they are accepted as common sense.
And again you resort to appeal to authority - although this time you create a strawman by suggesting a balanced diet is akin to slavery. You are still avoiding the issue at hand - as an Atheist, what do you consider the basis of your morality?
Reporting on the observations is hardly an appeal to authority. I consider the basis of my morality to be the promtion of well being and the avoiding causing unnecessary harm and suffering.
You haven't explained why people starving is a moral issue for you? Is it because, as you said in another post, they will not feel secure?
I guess you missed my reply.