All living things have a moral olbligation to not initiate force or fraud against other members of their species; When a lion kills a cub and rapes a lioness, that is wrong.
Wow. That’s more disconnected from reality than I think I’ve seen but on very rare occasion.
All living things have a moral olbligation to not initiate force or fraud against other members of their species; When a lion kills a cub and rapes a lioness, that is wrong.
Wow. That’s more disconnected from reality than I think I’ve seen but on very rare occasion.
Animals and their moral obligations ... uh huh.
Byron
Salt Creek - 17 November 2008 06:55 PM
...you’re purely or dominantly pro-human-life, evidently because you assume or assert something precious about human life. We have to kill in order to eat, and you’re not proposing any alternatives to that. It really doesn’t take a doctoral degree for a person to have a sense of self-preservation, but to radiate that to the entire human race, uncritically, especially and emphasizing the part of it that is not born yet, is - to say the least - a kind of religion. You’re quite evangelical about it, really.
Before you make the leap to according special status to human beings simply because of your own sense of self-preservation, or because of a sneaking suspicion that almost all other people find you tedious and trivial, try to get a second opinion.
However, you cannot, as I say, even put two coherent sentences together about what makes the human race “special”. I suspect you’ve inherited this zeal from previous religious indoctrination. Let me recommend a Twelve-Step Program for you, sir. You’re simply intoxicated by your own blithering idiocy.
When you think I suggest humans are morally special, I’m scolded. When I say that, morally, humans are NOT special, I’m scolded.
When you think I suggest humans are morally special, I’m scolded. When I say that, morally, humans are NOT special, I’m scolded.
Salt Creek and I are two different and entirely separate entities, and I didn’t see anything in that quoted material that indicated he chastised you for positing humans are morally special as compared to lower animals. I’m not sure he wouldn’t, but I suspest he recognizes we’re substantially different in cognitive terms. His point appeared to be that we mostly only emphasize our differences from lower animals as being “special” because they’re our differences, and that this isn’t some sort of universal or objective measure.
But that’s just a guess based upon the material quoted in that post.
You don’t want me to treat us special. You can’t hve your cake and eat it too.
Go ahead and make an argument for treating humans as special that you didn’t learn from somebody with blatantly religious or even just quasi-religious leanings, or that doesn’t really begin with a sense of personal self-love and a desire not to piss off the rest of the universe so much that your physical integrity is threatened.
Make a simple, unobfuscated case that the universe would not simply go on unperturbed if human beings were to become quite utterly extinct tomorrow.
‘Make a simple, unobfuscated case that the universe would not simply go on unperturbed if human beings were to become quite utterly extinct tomorrow’
And another great point. Like if this primate with language and consciousness were to go extinct, the universe would be affected. Now our earth may well be affected….for the better possibly. I wonder how bacteria would feel about us leaving? It really is their planet anyway.
This planet does not belong to anyone. If anything, we belong to it.
Humans are NOT special. If a shark killed a fetus, I’d be sad, but that would not be morally wrong. It only seems to you that I consider humans as special because we are humans, and, like all species, we have a moral obligation towards those of our own.
like all species, we have a moral obligation towards those of our own.
Like sheep, for example. I love the way they try to outrun each other to get away from the wolf. Or take cockroaches. But “towards” could mean virtually anything. Especially to a cockroach.
Said one cockroach to the other: “Hey! Don’t bogart that turd.”
All living things have a moral olbligation to not initiate force or fraud against other members of their species; When a lion kills a cub and rapes a lioness, that is wrong.
Intra-species morality? You are confusing morality with survival.
Intra-species fraud? Here you are confusing fraud with cunning.
Lion killing a cub? Lion raping a lioness? How did you determine this from the lion’s point of view without injecting your own assumptions into it?
You are making your posts up as you go, and are an example of Machiavelli’s “unarmed prophet” doomed to fall as you cry “Immoral!” at the first swing of the barbarian’s axe.
No, you’re purely or dominantly pro-human-life, evidently because you assume or assert something precious about human life. We have to kill in order to eat, and you’re not proposing any alternatives to that.
We do not have to kill in order to eat, or better yet, we don’t have to kill sentient life in order to eat. Unless by “killing” you mean cultivating, harvesting and eating plant-based foods.
