what about the future baby's health? is it going to be born to an unwed young mother who cannot emotionally nor financially care for it? or be born with crack/alcohol/heroin in its system? or be abused n beaten by mom's boyfriend? or microwaved by it's mother? until this country decides to take care of the children already born, they should stay the hell out of a woman's uterus.
well shit, maybe we should have mandatory abortions for any baby not born into an ideal situation, or now with genetic testing we can eliminate all undesireable traits. I can see it now we have a checklist that says single mother? Age of mother? household income? steady boyfriend? Poss heart problem? Odds of downs sydnrome? i mean if all of those are risk factors for someone being abused or murdered o I think the gov't has a responsibility to those children to prevent bad things from potentially happening to them (by the way, my tongue is firmly in my cheek).
Maybe something else should stay out of womans vagina so nothing gets to the uterus. (please dont give me the rape line, I understand that issue perfectly and it does not apply to this post) Also, i agree that we should take care of the children already born and it's sad that we don't take care of them.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
well shit, maybe we should have mandatory abortions for any baby not born into an ideal situation, or now with genetic testing we can eliminate all undesireable traits. I can see it now we have a checklist that says single mother? Age of mother? household income? steady boyfriend? Poss heart problem? Odds of downs sydnrome? i mean if all of those are risk factors for someone being abused or murdered o I think the gov't has a responsibility to those children to prevent bad things from potentially happening to them (by the way, my tongue is firmly in my cheek).
Maybe something else should stay out of womans vagina so nothing gets to the uterus. (please dont give me the rape line, I understand that issue perfectly and it does not apply to this post) Also, i agree that we should take care of the children already born and it's sad that we don't take care of them.
Or how about giving a woman the choice to examine her own situation and decide whether or not it would be a good idea to bring a baby into it
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
As someone who often judges women who get abortions in a manner that the woman would likely not agree with, yes.
Not really, no. I couldn't care less how fast a woman makes that decision.
then you're not in the they. the they are people who are trying to pass laws and find a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" excuse to condemn all abortion and demand its illegality.
95% of humanity. so abortion is keeping a few of them out. sure, we might lose an einstein or two, but we've got enough of them anyhow. besides, one of them might be able to find definitive proof that evolution is right and creationism wrong, so you should be with me on this in either case. besides, liberals have more abortions, wouldn't you be happy there aren't as many coming into the world? you'll have have your theocricy in no time, with pope bush ruling the world and telling you what movies are too pornographic, what foods are too decadent, what skirts are too short for women, and so on. you'll never have to worry about the sins of the secular flesh again! we'll be just like iran!
this post pretty much sums it up....if only we'd realize we're no more special than a bird, cow or lizard. Too many humans...we need to abort as much as possible.
....if only we'd realize we're no more special than a bird, cow or lizard.
I am more special than a cow or a bird or a lizard. So are my family and friends. I think it is strange that you would value yourself or your parents no more highly than you'd value some random bird flying overhead.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Really? You're perfectly cool with someone catching you and eating you so long as some judge is convinced? What if the judge was the one hunting you?
then he'd no doubt be impeached and jailed. it happens to be against the law and i have faith some police would stop it. it is also the duty of the judge to uphold said laws. killing and eating a human is illegal. killing and eating an animal isn't (though it depends on the animal). this does not mean humans are in some sense more worthy of life or animals are less worthy of life. it just means we all have to eat and most people would rather eat cow than bob.
then he'd no doubt be impeached and jailed. it happens to be against the law and i have faith some police would stop it. it is also the duty of the judge to uphold said laws. killing and eating a human is illegal. killing and eating an animal isn't (though it depends on the animal). this does not mean humans are in some sense more worthy of life or animals are less worthy of life. it just means we all have to eat and most people would rather eat cow than bob.
Slow down hoss. I'm not asking you about laws enforced and judged by others. I'm asking you about your judgments about yourself and your own existence.
The previous poster indicated that a human being is no more special than any animal, to which you may or may not agree (you didn't really say). I'm wondering then, if humans are no more special than an animal, do you believe eating humans or, more aptly, being eaten by a human, has no moral implications? More succinctly, is there a moral difference between eating a cow and eating a man, and, if so, where does that moral difference come from?
Slow down hoss. I'm not asking you about laws enforced and judged by others. I'm asking you about your judgments about yourself and your own existence.
The previous poster indicated that a human being is no more special than any animal, to which you may or may not agree (you didn't really say). I'm wondering then, if humans are no more special than an animal, do you believe eating humans or, more aptly, being eaten by a human, has no moral implications? More succinctly, is there a moral difference between eating a cow and eating a man, and, if so, where does that moral difference come from?
no, there is no moral difference, nor does it have any moral implications. there is nothing immoral about it. there are some bad consequences, general social instability, some negative effects on health, plain old human guilt. but there's nothing immoral about eating another human as opposed to eating an animal. it's just not a very good idea. if cows could talk, we'd feel guilty about eating them too. if they could band together and fight back, or kill us in return for killing them, we might think twice as well. but lucky for us, they cant and dont. so we're safe to eat them. but in a moral sense, there's no difference between eating a human and eating a cow. in either one, you're taking another life for your own benefit.
no, there is no moral difference, nor does it have any moral implications. there is nothing immoral about it. there are some bad consequences, general social instability, some negative effects on health, plain old human guilt.
How is "general social instability" bad if there is "no moral difference" or no moral implications attached?
How is there "guilt" without any moral implications attached?
but there's nothing immoral about eating another human as opposed to eating an animal. it's just not a very good idea. if cows could talk, we'd feel guilty about eating them too.
How so?
if they could band together and fight back, or kill us in return for killing them, we might think twice as well. but lucky for us, they cant and dont. so we're safe to eat them. but in a moral sense, there's no difference between eating a human and eating a cow. in either one, you're taking another life for your own benefit.
How is "general social instability" bad if there is "no moral difference" or no moral implications attached?
How is there "guilt" without any moral implications attached?
How so?
Ok. When's the last time you ate somebody?
it's bad becos then you have anarchy. anarchy is bad becos it impedes progress and safety. humans are social creatures, we hve been since the dawn of human existence. thus, reliable social patterns are an integral part of our special make up. we need them to survive.
there is guilt becos human thought deems it selfish to kill others for our own benefit. that's why we dont kill humans. however, since animals can't talk to us and tell us how much it hurts their feelings to be killed willy nilly for food, it is easier to ignore that. the clear line drawn between human an animal life is clear evidence of this attempt at rationalization. why do we have laws against cruelty to dogs? becos there's an emotional connection to animals deemed "friends" including dogs, cats, and other humans. look at the way we treat dolphins vs. tuna. it's got nothing to do with morality, it's got to do with what we feel connected to. we dont have that emotional connection to cows, so we find it easier to kill them without guilt. if this were a universal rule, why do they eat dogs in china while we feel disgusted by that here? it's all arbitrary and based on nothing more than our rationalizations and emotions. thus, if cows could talk to us, we would quickly decide it was not ok to eat them becos it would make us feel guilty.
never. it's not worth going to jail over when i can eat a cow legally instead and without exposing myself to the danger to my person that eating another human would bring down upon me by being labeled a cannibal. look at what happened to jeffrey dahmer.
when was the last time you ate dog? why do dogs deserve different treatment from other animals?
it's bad becos then you have anarchy. anarchy is bad becos it impedes progress and safety. humans are social creatures, we hve been since the dawn of human existence. thus, reliable social patterns are an integral part of our special make up. we need them to survive.
Ok, but you're really not answering my question. I asked you to define how something is bad, and all you did is tell me what is good. Therefore:
How is progress good?
How is safety good?
How is human existence good?
Are these things good solely because they're part of our "special make up"? If so, is evolution, the modification of a special make up, bad?
there is guilt becos human thought deems it selfish to kill others for our own benefit.
I never feel guilty when I do things that benefit me. Furthermore, I feel absolutely wonderful when I kill a cow and eat it for my own benefit. Am I inhuman?
however, since animals can't talk to us and tell us how much it hurts their feelings to be killed willy nilly for food, it is easier to ignore that.
Last time I checked, a cow or a bird will certainly tell you that it doesn't want to be killed for food.
the clear line drawn between human an animal life is clear evidence of this attempt at rationalization.
What clear line? The post that started this discussion came from someone who said there was no line.
why do we have laws against cruelty to dogs? becos there's an emotional connection to animals deemed "friends" including dogs, cats, and other humans. look at the way we treat dolphins vs. tuna. it's got nothing to do with morality, it's got to do with what we feel connected to.
What's the difference? Is the golden rule not part of morality because it has something to do with connections between people?
never. it's not worth going to jail over when i can eat a cow legally instead and without exposing myself to the danger to my person that eating another human would bring down upon me by being labeled a cannibal. look at what happened to jeffrey dahmer.
Ok. So if there was absolutely no punishment for eating people, you'd snack up on the next human corpse you find?
Ok, but you're really not answering my question. I asked you to define how something is bad, and all you did is tell me what is good. Therefore:
How is progress good?
How is safety good?
How is human existence good?
Are these things good solely because they're part of our "special make up"? If so, is evolution, the modification of a special make up, bad?
I never feel guilty when I do things that benefit me. Furthermore, I feel absolutely wonderful when I kill a cow and eat it for my own benefit. Am I inhuman?
Last time I checked, a cow or a bird will certainly tell you that it doesn't want to be killed for food.
What clear line? The post that started this discussion came from someone who said there was no line.
What's the difference? Is the golden rule not part of morality because it has something to do with connections between people?
Ok. So if there was absolutely no punishment for eating people, you'd snack up on the next human corpse you find?
if they tasted good and were healthy and nobody else cared, yeah, i would. it's just another piece of meat.
have you seen the movie alive? were those people immoral for eating their dead counterparts?
it's easy to try to make my arguments seem unreasonable when you go through it and split it into small sentences while ignoring the bigger picture. id just once like to see you debate an entire point rather than just trying to pick at the little things it is easy to question. since they started it, why dont you tell me WHY it is immoral to eat humans? WHAT makes humans special or different from other animals? ive yet to see you make a point here. you havent. you simply ask questions. i dont think you believe anything, you just like to pick people apart to feed your ego or entertain yourself. it's why i try to avoid arguing with you. you never make points. you're as bad as a creationist. your entire tactic is to rebut others' points without ever making a case for your own side.
you took issue with their assertion. you tell me why humans are different and special and deserve higher moral treatment than other animals. then maybe ill try to counter it. but im not going to respond to your inane questions so you can split them up into individual sentences to get your rocks off without ever offering reasons for you own view in return. i dare you to do it. then ill show you how easy it is to split any view up sentence by sentence and make it look unreasonable and contradictory. get some new tactics. your gig is tired and you're no socrates.
if they tasted good and were healthy and nobody else cared, yeah, i would. it's just another piece of meat.
Cool.
have you seen the movie alive? were those people immoral for eating their dead counterparts?
Not necessarily, no. Did they murder them though?
it's easy to try to make my arguments seem unreasonable when you go through it and split it into small sentences while ignoring the bigger picture.
I do that because your "small sentences" are incorrect axioms upon which a very shaky "big picture" argument stands.
id just once like to see you debate an entire point rather than just trying to pick at the little things it is easy to question. since they started it, why dont you tell me WHY it is immoral to eat humans? WHAT makes humans special or different from other animals? ive yet to see you make a point here. you havent. you simply ask questions. i dont think you believe anything, you just like to pick people apart to feed your ego or entertain yourself. it's why i try to avoid arguing with you. you never make points. you're as bad as a creationist. your entire tactic is to rebut others' points without ever making a case for your own side.
Thanks for your critique on my style. However, you've contradicted yourself by successfully predicting where I'd stand and correctly identifying what I stand for numerous times here.
Anyway, it isn't immoral to eat humans. It's immoral to kill humans. Here's why:
It is the purpose, at base, of life to live it. Nearly every human has an innate desire to live and has the consciousness to recognize himself or herself as a living being separate from the living and non living objects around himself or herself. Morality, as a construct through which potential human choices are evaluated, stems from that consciousness. Morality is my (and your and anyone else's) belief in what actions are good and what actions are bad. Actions that are good are those consistent with my purpose while actions that are bad are those inconsistent with my purpose. The more universal the purpose, the more universal the morality. Since it is nearly everyone's base purpose to continue living, life is granted an inherent moral value while death is granted the opposite.
Now, an obvious question arises from this. What about the man whose purpose is both to continue living himself and to murder another? Enter the conflicted morality. A man who wishes to continue living, again, is a man who assigns a moral value to human life. Yet the man who wishes to murder is a man who assigns no moral value to life. For both moralities to be held by a single conscious man, a moral qualification is required:
My human life has an inherent value whereas your human life does not.
The question then arises, where does that value extend from? To the man who believes that all human life has a value, such value extends from human existence, a thing we all share. However, the man who holds the qualified morality above may only say that such a morality extends from his mind, or from his God, or from his State, which in turn begs the question:
If the value of life extends only from mind, God or State, how can any life have an "inherent" value?
The answer to that question is: it cannot. The murderer, when he murders, is therefore telling you that his life has no value greater than that in a mind or no value greater than the one dictated by his God or his State. So he is immediately putting his own life out for sacrifice, based on his own morality.
All of this is better known as the Golden Rule. Nearly every 8-year old learns it, and nearly every 15-year old forgets it the first time he grabs hold of a qualified morality. A while back on this board you asked me a simple question that amounted to:
Is it ok for a murderer to protest the death penalty?
I responded by saying somthing that amounted to "of course not", even though I am 100% against the death penalty. Why? The murderer's own actions and the morality he holds has told you that he has no right to protest the death penalty. The only people with such a right are those who believe that human life has a non-qualified value.
Now, let's extend this beyond humanity. A cow, a bird, a tree, as far as we know, are not conscious beings and, therefore, cannot hold a morality for themselves. Therefore, to kill a cow or a bird or a tree for food, one who holds a morality assigning inherent life to a conscious individual need not qualify that morality. However, the same cannot be said for that same person if he or she decided to kill a human being for food.
In short, the difference between a man and a cow is largely a measure of consciousness. And the difference between acting against a cow and acting against a man is a measure of contractual morality. To kill a man gives him and others permission to operate on an equal moral basis. To kill a cow does not. For this same reason, I would never eat a chimpanzee, nor, as a side note, do I believe they should be kept in zoos.
Really? Then I suppose I should be allowed to eat you for dinner then??
Some humans have/do eat other humans....so...yea but I am bit old..so you may want to go for a younger chap..little more tender. Course..I'm thinking humans (before all this religious crap was drudged up) didn't eat each other since there was better food to eat.
Some humans have/do eat other humans....so...yea but I am bit old..so you may want to go for a younger chap..little more tender. Course..I'm thinking humans (before all this religious crap was drudged up) didn't eat each other since there was better food to eat.
This really doesn't answer my question. It is ok, by your standards, if I killed you and ate you? I'm not asking you if other people eat humans, or which humans I might prefer to eat.
I have no problem with this...no more than any other creature.
Well, and no offense intended, why haven't you committed suicide? I mean, if you believe there are "too many humans" and that they should be prevented from living, why the hell are you still here?
A human fetus is little more than a maggot as far as consciousness goes. Isn't that the determining factor on ethics?
I mean, how many people remember being a fetus?
Probably none that's because the BRAIN isn't developed completely.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This really doesn't answer my question. It is ok, by your standards, if I killed you and ate you? I'm not asking you if other people eat humans, or which humans I might prefer to eat.?
Sorry...let me be a bit more clear for you.......yes it is okay....if you had nothing better to eat...and we were on an island....have at it..course you know there will be a fight...and I'll protect myself..so you'll probably go for the salad.
Well, and no offense intended, why haven't you committed suicide? I mean, if you believe there are "too many humans" and that they should be prevented from living, why the hell are you still here?
I enjoy life...enjoy sunsets...or sunrises even more. Just as I'm sure a lion feels when he starts on a fresh kill...or a dog rolled up next to its human partner. Also as an animal I have the natural instinct to survive...its ingrained....can't help it....plus remember.....Pearl Jam will again come to the South.
Sorry...let me be a bit more clear for you.......yes it is okay....if you had nothing better to eat...and we were on an island....have at it..course you know there will be a fight...and I'll protect myself..so you'll probably go for the salad.
On what basis will you protect yourself? I don't understand how you can be "ok" with something, but also resort to violence to prevent it from happening.
I enjoy life...enjoy sunsets...or sunrises even more. Just as I'm sure a lion feels when he starts on a fresh kill...or a dog rolled up next to its human partner. Also as an animal I have the natural instinct to survive...its ingrained....can't help it....plus remember.....Pearl Jam will again come to the South.
Cool. Good enough for me. Now, why are you willing to throw that all away with statements calling for mass slaughters?
Comments
How is someone imposing it on a woman simply by making a judgment?
Yes. That's why I'm against abortion law as opposed to abortion judgment.
I gotta say, I'm with you on this "Wow."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
cos they're not making a judgment. they're trying to enact laws about it.
Since I'm in the "they", you're incorrect. I have no interest in enacting a law around abortion.
are you in the they? i wasnt including you.
you think women dont give enough thought to abortions decisions and simultaneously want them to make them faster?
well shit, maybe we should have mandatory abortions for any baby not born into an ideal situation, or now with genetic testing we can eliminate all undesireable traits. I can see it now we have a checklist that says single mother? Age of mother? household income? steady boyfriend? Poss heart problem? Odds of downs sydnrome? i mean if all of those are risk factors for someone being abused or murdered o I think the gov't has a responsibility to those children to prevent bad things from potentially happening to them (by the way, my tongue is firmly in my cheek).
Maybe something else should stay out of womans vagina so nothing gets to the uterus. (please dont give me the rape line, I understand that issue perfectly and it does not apply to this post) Also, i agree that we should take care of the children already born and it's sad that we don't take care of them.
As someone who often judges women who get abortions in a manner that the woman would likely not agree with, yes.
Not really, no. I couldn't care less how fast a woman makes that decision.
Or how about giving a woman the choice to examine her own situation and decide whether or not it would be a good idea to bring a baby into it
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
after looking at my post, i realize i just need to stay out of this. This is not a discussion day on this issue right now.
then you're not in the they. the they are people who are trying to pass laws and find a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" excuse to condemn all abortion and demand its illegality.
Now that is a very novel idea!
this post pretty much sums it up....if only we'd realize we're no more special than a bird, cow or lizard. Too many humans...we need to abort as much as possible.
Really? Then I suppose I should be allowed to eat you for dinner then?
Do you apply this logic to your existence?
I am more special than a cow or a bird or a lizard. So are my family and friends. I think it is strange that you would value yourself or your parents no more highly than you'd value some random bird flying overhead.
if you can catch me, kill me, and convince the judge you were allowed to do so, sure.
Really? You're perfectly cool with someone catching you and eating you so long as some judge is convinced? What if the judge was the one hunting you?
then he'd no doubt be impeached and jailed. it happens to be against the law and i have faith some police would stop it. it is also the duty of the judge to uphold said laws. killing and eating a human is illegal. killing and eating an animal isn't (though it depends on the animal). this does not mean humans are in some sense more worthy of life or animals are less worthy of life. it just means we all have to eat and most people would rather eat cow than bob.
Slow down hoss. I'm not asking you about laws enforced and judged by others. I'm asking you about your judgments about yourself and your own existence.
The previous poster indicated that a human being is no more special than any animal, to which you may or may not agree (you didn't really say). I'm wondering then, if humans are no more special than an animal, do you believe eating humans or, more aptly, being eaten by a human, has no moral implications? More succinctly, is there a moral difference between eating a cow and eating a man, and, if so, where does that moral difference come from?
no, there is no moral difference, nor does it have any moral implications. there is nothing immoral about it. there are some bad consequences, general social instability, some negative effects on health, plain old human guilt. but there's nothing immoral about eating another human as opposed to eating an animal. it's just not a very good idea. if cows could talk, we'd feel guilty about eating them too. if they could band together and fight back, or kill us in return for killing them, we might think twice as well. but lucky for us, they cant and dont. so we're safe to eat them. but in a moral sense, there's no difference between eating a human and eating a cow. in either one, you're taking another life for your own benefit.
How is "general social instability" bad if there is "no moral difference" or no moral implications attached?
How is there "guilt" without any moral implications attached?
How so?
Ok. When's the last time you ate somebody?
it's bad becos then you have anarchy. anarchy is bad becos it impedes progress and safety. humans are social creatures, we hve been since the dawn of human existence. thus, reliable social patterns are an integral part of our special make up. we need them to survive.
there is guilt becos human thought deems it selfish to kill others for our own benefit. that's why we dont kill humans. however, since animals can't talk to us and tell us how much it hurts their feelings to be killed willy nilly for food, it is easier to ignore that. the clear line drawn between human an animal life is clear evidence of this attempt at rationalization. why do we have laws against cruelty to dogs? becos there's an emotional connection to animals deemed "friends" including dogs, cats, and other humans. look at the way we treat dolphins vs. tuna. it's got nothing to do with morality, it's got to do with what we feel connected to. we dont have that emotional connection to cows, so we find it easier to kill them without guilt. if this were a universal rule, why do they eat dogs in china while we feel disgusted by that here? it's all arbitrary and based on nothing more than our rationalizations and emotions. thus, if cows could talk to us, we would quickly decide it was not ok to eat them becos it would make us feel guilty.
never. it's not worth going to jail over when i can eat a cow legally instead and without exposing myself to the danger to my person that eating another human would bring down upon me by being labeled a cannibal. look at what happened to jeffrey dahmer.
when was the last time you ate dog? why do dogs deserve different treatment from other animals?
Sorry to jump in here, but I LOVE when anyone uses the words "willy nilly" in making a point.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, but you're really not answering my question. I asked you to define how something is bad, and all you did is tell me what is good. Therefore:
How is progress good?
How is safety good?
How is human existence good?
Are these things good solely because they're part of our "special make up"? If so, is evolution, the modification of a special make up, bad?
I never feel guilty when I do things that benefit me. Furthermore, I feel absolutely wonderful when I kill a cow and eat it for my own benefit. Am I inhuman?
Last time I checked, a cow or a bird will certainly tell you that it doesn't want to be killed for food.
What clear line? The post that started this discussion came from someone who said there was no line.
What's the difference? Is the golden rule not part of morality because it has something to do with connections between people?
Ok. So if there was absolutely no punishment for eating people, you'd snack up on the next human corpse you find?
if they tasted good and were healthy and nobody else cared, yeah, i would. it's just another piece of meat.
have you seen the movie alive? were those people immoral for eating their dead counterparts?
it's easy to try to make my arguments seem unreasonable when you go through it and split it into small sentences while ignoring the bigger picture. id just once like to see you debate an entire point rather than just trying to pick at the little things it is easy to question. since they started it, why dont you tell me WHY it is immoral to eat humans? WHAT makes humans special or different from other animals? ive yet to see you make a point here. you havent. you simply ask questions. i dont think you believe anything, you just like to pick people apart to feed your ego or entertain yourself. it's why i try to avoid arguing with you. you never make points. you're as bad as a creationist. your entire tactic is to rebut others' points without ever making a case for your own side.
you took issue with their assertion. you tell me why humans are different and special and deserve higher moral treatment than other animals. then maybe ill try to counter it. but im not going to respond to your inane questions so you can split them up into individual sentences to get your rocks off without ever offering reasons for you own view in return. i dare you to do it. then ill show you how easy it is to split any view up sentence by sentence and make it look unreasonable and contradictory. get some new tactics. your gig is tired and you're no socrates.
Cool.
Not necessarily, no. Did they murder them though?
I do that because your "small sentences" are incorrect axioms upon which a very shaky "big picture" argument stands.
Thanks for your critique on my style. However, you've contradicted yourself by successfully predicting where I'd stand and correctly identifying what I stand for numerous times here.
Anyway, it isn't immoral to eat humans. It's immoral to kill humans. Here's why:
It is the purpose, at base, of life to live it. Nearly every human has an innate desire to live and has the consciousness to recognize himself or herself as a living being separate from the living and non living objects around himself or herself. Morality, as a construct through which potential human choices are evaluated, stems from that consciousness. Morality is my (and your and anyone else's) belief in what actions are good and what actions are bad. Actions that are good are those consistent with my purpose while actions that are bad are those inconsistent with my purpose. The more universal the purpose, the more universal the morality. Since it is nearly everyone's base purpose to continue living, life is granted an inherent moral value while death is granted the opposite.
Now, an obvious question arises from this. What about the man whose purpose is both to continue living himself and to murder another? Enter the conflicted morality. A man who wishes to continue living, again, is a man who assigns a moral value to human life. Yet the man who wishes to murder is a man who assigns no moral value to life. For both moralities to be held by a single conscious man, a moral qualification is required:
My human life has an inherent value whereas your human life does not.
The question then arises, where does that value extend from? To the man who believes that all human life has a value, such value extends from human existence, a thing we all share. However, the man who holds the qualified morality above may only say that such a morality extends from his mind, or from his God, or from his State, which in turn begs the question:
If the value of life extends only from mind, God or State, how can any life have an "inherent" value?
The answer to that question is: it cannot. The murderer, when he murders, is therefore telling you that his life has no value greater than that in a mind or no value greater than the one dictated by his God or his State. So he is immediately putting his own life out for sacrifice, based on his own morality.
All of this is better known as the Golden Rule. Nearly every 8-year old learns it, and nearly every 15-year old forgets it the first time he grabs hold of a qualified morality. A while back on this board you asked me a simple question that amounted to:
Is it ok for a murderer to protest the death penalty?
I responded by saying somthing that amounted to "of course not", even though I am 100% against the death penalty. Why? The murderer's own actions and the morality he holds has told you that he has no right to protest the death penalty. The only people with such a right are those who believe that human life has a non-qualified value.
Now, let's extend this beyond humanity. A cow, a bird, a tree, as far as we know, are not conscious beings and, therefore, cannot hold a morality for themselves. Therefore, to kill a cow or a bird or a tree for food, one who holds a morality assigning inherent life to a conscious individual need not qualify that morality. However, the same cannot be said for that same person if he or she decided to kill a human being for food.
In short, the difference between a man and a cow is largely a measure of consciousness. And the difference between acting against a cow and acting against a man is a measure of contractual morality. To kill a man gives him and others permission to operate on an equal moral basis. To kill a cow does not. For this same reason, I would never eat a chimpanzee, nor, as a side note, do I believe they should be kept in zoos.
God I hope you were smiling when you said this.
Some humans have/do eat other humans....so...yea but I am bit old..so you may want to go for a younger chap..little more tender. Course..I'm thinking humans (before all this religious crap was drudged up) didn't eat each other since there was better food to eat.
I have no problem with this...no more than any other creature.
This really doesn't answer my question. It is ok, by your standards, if I killed you and ate you? I'm not asking you if other people eat humans, or which humans I might prefer to eat.
Well, and no offense intended, why haven't you committed suicide? I mean, if you believe there are "too many humans" and that they should be prevented from living, why the hell are you still here?
A human fetus is little more than a maggot as far as consciousness goes. Isn't that the determining factor on ethics?
I mean, how many people remember being a fetus?
Probably none that's because the BRAIN isn't developed completely.
I enjoy life...enjoy sunsets...or sunrises even more. Just as I'm sure a lion feels when he starts on a fresh kill...or a dog rolled up next to its human partner. Also as an animal I have the natural instinct to survive...its ingrained....can't help it....plus remember.....Pearl Jam will again come to the South.
On what basis will you protect yourself? I don't understand how you can be "ok" with something, but also resort to violence to prevent it from happening.
Cool. Good enough for me. Now, why are you willing to throw that all away with statements calling for mass slaughters?