By that argument slavery and murder are not absolutely wrong either. It is only subjective to consider them extremes. Or at least they or only defined extremes based on majority opinion. If a culture with a greater population than (ours? yours?) existed where slavery and murder were accepted then it would become an extreme position to believe slavery and murder were wrong. Indeed an appeal to a majority (extreme or not extreme) does not validate something.
I don't have any problem saying those practices are subjective. Of course it is also an absolute itself to say that other people should not view things in absolute terms.
Animal cruelty
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
Seeing as you like extremes as arguments:Claudius wrote:By that argument slavery and murder are not absolutely wrong either. It is only subjective to consider them extremes. Or at least they or only defined extremes based on majority opinion. If a culture with a greater population than (ours? yours?) existed where slavery and murder were accepted then it would become an extreme position to believe slavery and murder were wrong. Indeed an appeal to a majority (extreme or not extreme) does not validate something.
I don't have any problem saying those practices are subjective. Of course it is also an absolute itself to say that other people should not view things in absolute terms.
Suppose for a second a small hypothetical situation, that the western world view Islam or Buddhism belief and praxis as immoral and unethical.
Does it then automatically mean they are correct?
Do notice the point of my argument:
I'm not saying there can't exists a sort of "global" ethic or universal "moral compass" (for some things).
I'm simply saying that just because *you* and others say *something* (in this case, eating cats) is not acceptable - does not by default make it unacceptable. You could in this very case be wrong.
And I'm not saying people shouldn't view things in an absolute term - I'm just saying you can't have it both way. And then it simply becomes a matter of who's allowed to dictate what is moral and what is not and nobody else has a say. And we should all know how well that have gone down in history.
Who's the ones that are allowed to decide what is moral and ethical and who's the one that doesn't have a say?
Insert signature here.
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
I just skimmed through the conversation and when taken as a whole the discussion is pretty absurd, so I'll try to summarize in my own words for everyone's entertainment. 
PG: Meat is tasty, therefore eating animals is ethical.
C: Tastiness does not constitute ethicality; for example, cats, or your spouse, could be tasty
X: Cats are eaten in certain countries, therefore we can not know for certain whether eating cats is unethical.
V: Nor can we deduce that eating cats is ethical; your point is moot
X: I am uncertain whether eating cats is ethical or not, which is my point
Samuel Beckett has nothing on SYM.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees the humor in this
PG: Meat is tasty, therefore eating animals is ethical.
C: Tastiness does not constitute ethicality; for example, cats, or your spouse, could be tasty
X: Cats are eaten in certain countries, therefore we can not know for certain whether eating cats is unethical.
V: Nor can we deduce that eating cats is ethical; your point is moot
X: I am uncertain whether eating cats is ethical or not, which is my point
Samuel Beckett has nothing on SYM.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees the humor in this
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
So you don't think I should be interested in what other people do? I think you assumed I felt that I was absolutely right.
I actually realize that its only my opinion that people should not slaughter animals. Or murder people. Or refrain from corporal punishment to their children.
So the question is should I be trying to have my own opinion influence others? The answer to that is also simply a matter of opinion. Personally on the issue of eating meat not only do I eat meat but I also regret eating meat. And I don't wish to harm meat eaters I only would like to encourage them to think about what they are actually doing rather than remaining unconscious.
As far as Buddhism goes it holds that all views are wrong. Liberation from attachment to a viewpoint is the same at liberation from ignorance. Which doesn't at all prevent a buddhist from taking action. Either advising others to refrain from certain practices or himself. But the ideal is to let go of all views. Including the view that you should be letting go of views. And its a long road and I don't claim to be very far in that endeavor. And of course the purpose of letting go of views is to liberate yourself from suffering that attachment to views produces.
Also you seem to think there is a universal compass for some things but not for others. I don't agree.
I actually realize that its only my opinion that people should not slaughter animals. Or murder people. Or refrain from corporal punishment to their children.
So the question is should I be trying to have my own opinion influence others? The answer to that is also simply a matter of opinion. Personally on the issue of eating meat not only do I eat meat but I also regret eating meat. And I don't wish to harm meat eaters I only would like to encourage them to think about what they are actually doing rather than remaining unconscious.
As far as Buddhism goes it holds that all views are wrong. Liberation from attachment to a viewpoint is the same at liberation from ignorance. Which doesn't at all prevent a buddhist from taking action. Either advising others to refrain from certain practices or himself. But the ideal is to let go of all views. Including the view that you should be letting go of views. And its a long road and I don't claim to be very far in that endeavor. And of course the purpose of letting go of views is to liberate yourself from suffering that attachment to views produces.
Also you seem to think there is a universal compass for some things but not for others. I don't agree.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
At some risk of seeing this debate degenerate even further, there is one more point to consider. Most livestock has had the intelligence and survival instinct bred out of them to the point where they could not possibly survive outside of a barnyard. how else could you explain how cattle will stand politely in line waiting for their turn to be made into hamburger?
Therefore the way out of this ethical conundrum for me at least is that an ethical use for animals is in what they are bred for. In north america cats and dogs are house pets. In places in asia they are food. Could you use a feed cat in asia as a pet, or would it not have the personality we see in our own cats?
As for the rest, as much as I love my own cat and consider her a member of my family, I cannot stand behind animals having "exactly" the same rights as humans. Call me a xenophobe, but animals are not humans, so the same set of ethics do not apply. I say reduce unnecessary abuse as much as possible, but continue to use them as they have been for thousands of years.
Down the path of granting animals equal rights to no "suffering " as humans is granting the same regard for plants. Just what do we eat then?
All of the above is written with the profound impact cats and dogs have had in human development as farmers and hunters respectively kept close in mind.
Therefore the way out of this ethical conundrum for me at least is that an ethical use for animals is in what they are bred for. In north america cats and dogs are house pets. In places in asia they are food. Could you use a feed cat in asia as a pet, or would it not have the personality we see in our own cats?
As for the rest, as much as I love my own cat and consider her a member of my family, I cannot stand behind animals having "exactly" the same rights as humans. Call me a xenophobe, but animals are not humans, so the same set of ethics do not apply. I say reduce unnecessary abuse as much as possible, but continue to use them as they have been for thousands of years.
Down the path of granting animals equal rights to no "suffering " as humans is granting the same regard for plants. Just what do we eat then?
All of the above is written with the profound impact cats and dogs have had in human development as farmers and hunters respectively kept close in mind.
jklinders,
It is my personal belief that we are trapped in a world where we have to harm other beings to survive. Eating meat is an example. Animals have the capacity to suffer and I do not want to harm them. But I must. Plants I do not believe have the capacity to suffer because they do not have consciousness. But the insects which are killed by pesticides do. Anything with an idea of "ME" has the capacity to suffer as its livelyhood is threatened. My mind is my whole world. An animal's mind is its whole world. An insect's mind is its whole world. From that standpoint if I lose life it is no greater than an insect losing life. Our minds are the same size. Everything.
Nonetheless I have to survive. And I don't want to live in a world where animals suffer. I have my own personal beliefs and my own plan. I believe that if I stop creating negative karma I am more likely to come into a world where harming others (to survive or otherwise) is less ubiquitous. I can also create positive karma by saying prayers for the animals who are killed. Or if I am eating meat now I can wish in my heart for a world where that wasn't necessary.
I am probably quite hung up on the meat thing. And perhaps I do more harm than good by pointing out the harm people are doing to innocent (and not so innocent) animals.
It is my personal belief that we are trapped in a world where we have to harm other beings to survive. Eating meat is an example. Animals have the capacity to suffer and I do not want to harm them. But I must. Plants I do not believe have the capacity to suffer because they do not have consciousness. But the insects which are killed by pesticides do. Anything with an idea of "ME" has the capacity to suffer as its livelyhood is threatened. My mind is my whole world. An animal's mind is its whole world. An insect's mind is its whole world. From that standpoint if I lose life it is no greater than an insect losing life. Our minds are the same size. Everything.
Nonetheless I have to survive. And I don't want to live in a world where animals suffer. I have my own personal beliefs and my own plan. I believe that if I stop creating negative karma I am more likely to come into a world where harming others (to survive or otherwise) is less ubiquitous. I can also create positive karma by saying prayers for the animals who are killed. Or if I am eating meat now I can wish in my heart for a world where that wasn't necessary.
I am probably quite hung up on the meat thing. And perhaps I do more harm than good by pointing out the harm people are doing to innocent (and not so innocent) animals.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
I would rather not get into a discussion about what constitutes conciousness as no one can come out on top of that one. But maybe it would help you if my apparent indifference is my own way of recognizing that no living thing can continue to live without murdering other things. It is not in my nature to waste energy fretting over the unavoidable. That is in my opinion a way to direct poor karma at myself for no real good reason.
If this makes me a bad person so be it, but I cannot apply human ethics to creatures on Earth other than humans simply because there is no other possible way I can reconcile the way more than 3/4 of the people on this planet live their lives. At the end of the day ethics are determined by what a majority of people decide on, coupled with necessity. You can't have society with wholesale murder in the streets. So it is illegal. Some anthropologists have come to the conclusion that human brain development happened because more meat was introduced in the diet. Eating other creature in that context is in part responsible for our even being able to talk about this.
I n any event my concsious is clear and so is yours claudius, this is what matters.
If this makes me a bad person so be it, but I cannot apply human ethics to creatures on Earth other than humans simply because there is no other possible way I can reconcile the way more than 3/4 of the people on this planet live their lives. At the end of the day ethics are determined by what a majority of people decide on, coupled with necessity. You can't have society with wholesale murder in the streets. So it is illegal. Some anthropologists have come to the conclusion that human brain development happened because more meat was introduced in the diet. Eating other creature in that context is in part responsible for our even being able to talk about this.
I n any event my concsious is clear and so is yours claudius, this is what matters.
As I see it, there are basically three lines of arguments that are useful when discussing the this topic:
1) Arguments based on religion, tradition and "habits".
2) Arguments based on individual rights and individual suffering
3) Arguments based on collective rights and collective suffering
well four, but I am not going to elaborate on the 4th now:
4) Arguments based on individual health benefits for the eater
Examples of 1 would be to argue that according to christianity, humans have a soul that a god put there whereas animals have not, therefore humans have certain rights that animals do not have. Or, all living creatures belong to the same universal spirit and thus, a human should not kill an ant.
Examples of 2 would be the typical militant animal rightist who thinks humans should not eat animals because animals should not be exploited by humans.
An example of 3 would be considerations of how the entire eco system is affected and thus may come to the conclusion that it's better to eat a locally produced cow than soy products which have been transported from the other side of the earth.
Finally, 4 could be anything from "humans needs to eat certains nutritions otherwise they die" to only eating raw vegetables because you think it's healthier for you.
Personally, I think all lines of arguments are valid except one. I'm an atheist so I don't think religious beliefs are a valid argument for anything. 2-4 however can all be valid arguments, but often they aren't due to misinformation.
Over to consciousness and point 2 & 3 which I think are the points worth to discuss:
Consciousness is a very broad term that includes everything from not being in a coma to complex self-awareness. Consciousness also include the ability to perceive things, to percept sensory information like light, temperature or pain, and respond to it. The question of consciousness is crucial to point 2, because consciousness is closely tied to the idea that anything may have an integrity and that it may suffer. Very few people would argue that a piece of mineral suffers. Very few people would argue that plants suffer when we kill them and eat them. We view consciousness and something that increases with the complexity of the organism. A pig has a higher degree of consciousness than an amoeba. Thus, a pig suffer more from bad living conditions and being killed than an amoeba. Personally, I think the potential suffering is an important question and I would rather eat insects and worms instead of a cow, providing it was produced and accessible.
However, in my opinion it's not enough to consider only individual suffering and individual rights. As I wrote above, the locally produced cow may have a higher level of consciousness than a tree and may thus be granted more rights and have more ability to suffer from maltreatment and death, but all life on earth may suffer more from the pollution from transports and from the clearance of forest that food plant cultivation requires.
In my view, the main problem with PETA and other militant activist groups, is not that "nobody should tell me what to eat". The problem is that they tell other people what to eat based on totally incorrect information. I think a lot of people would be prepared to change their eating habits somewhat if there was really fact-based, reliable, accessible information around. By why should anyone change anything based on what a group of misinformed lunatics think? On the contrary, desinformation just makes it more difficult for people to make informed choices and the nuttiness of these people alienates rational people and gives a negative loading to the entire issue.
Another line of arguments that annoys me is the "cuteness" hierachy rather than an environmental or even an individual suffering-potential. What we eat is an important question since the effects are not limited to ourselves but to the entire planet and its future. And I do believe that a majority of people in the rich world would actually be willing to change their eating habits a bit if there really was sufficent correct information around.
If your eating habits are solely based on religion you will probably not change because your religious beliefs does not change. But if your eating habits include any kind of considerations for point 2 and point 3 in my post, you need information in order to ensure that your personal choices result in the effect you wish. Considering that the concept of consciousness and the question of our planet's environmental future is two of the most difficult questions humanity are trying to find answers to, it may not be easy to make an informed choice. But I really think people should try to think a little bit further than "animals are cute" or "meat tastes good" when they make their choices. And in order to impose your opinions on others, they should be even more well funded.
1) Arguments based on religion, tradition and "habits".
2) Arguments based on individual rights and individual suffering
3) Arguments based on collective rights and collective suffering
well four, but I am not going to elaborate on the 4th now:
4) Arguments based on individual health benefits for the eater
Examples of 1 would be to argue that according to christianity, humans have a soul that a god put there whereas animals have not, therefore humans have certain rights that animals do not have. Or, all living creatures belong to the same universal spirit and thus, a human should not kill an ant.
Examples of 2 would be the typical militant animal rightist who thinks humans should not eat animals because animals should not be exploited by humans.
An example of 3 would be considerations of how the entire eco system is affected and thus may come to the conclusion that it's better to eat a locally produced cow than soy products which have been transported from the other side of the earth.
Finally, 4 could be anything from "humans needs to eat certains nutritions otherwise they die" to only eating raw vegetables because you think it's healthier for you.
Personally, I think all lines of arguments are valid except one. I'm an atheist so I don't think religious beliefs are a valid argument for anything. 2-4 however can all be valid arguments, but often they aren't due to misinformation.
Over to consciousness and point 2 & 3 which I think are the points worth to discuss:
Consciousness is a very broad term that includes everything from not being in a coma to complex self-awareness. Consciousness also include the ability to perceive things, to percept sensory information like light, temperature or pain, and respond to it. The question of consciousness is crucial to point 2, because consciousness is closely tied to the idea that anything may have an integrity and that it may suffer. Very few people would argue that a piece of mineral suffers. Very few people would argue that plants suffer when we kill them and eat them. We view consciousness and something that increases with the complexity of the organism. A pig has a higher degree of consciousness than an amoeba. Thus, a pig suffer more from bad living conditions and being killed than an amoeba. Personally, I think the potential suffering is an important question and I would rather eat insects and worms instead of a cow, providing it was produced and accessible.
However, in my opinion it's not enough to consider only individual suffering and individual rights. As I wrote above, the locally produced cow may have a higher level of consciousness than a tree and may thus be granted more rights and have more ability to suffer from maltreatment and death, but all life on earth may suffer more from the pollution from transports and from the clearance of forest that food plant cultivation requires.
In my view, the main problem with PETA and other militant activist groups, is not that "nobody should tell me what to eat". The problem is that they tell other people what to eat based on totally incorrect information. I think a lot of people would be prepared to change their eating habits somewhat if there was really fact-based, reliable, accessible information around. By why should anyone change anything based on what a group of misinformed lunatics think? On the contrary, desinformation just makes it more difficult for people to make informed choices and the nuttiness of these people alienates rational people and gives a negative loading to the entire issue.
Another line of arguments that annoys me is the "cuteness" hierachy rather than an environmental or even an individual suffering-potential. What we eat is an important question since the effects are not limited to ourselves but to the entire planet and its future. And I do believe that a majority of people in the rich world would actually be willing to change their eating habits a bit if there really was sufficent correct information around.
If your eating habits are solely based on religion you will probably not change because your religious beliefs does not change. But if your eating habits include any kind of considerations for point 2 and point 3 in my post, you need information in order to ensure that your personal choices result in the effect you wish. Considering that the concept of consciousness and the question of our planet's environmental future is two of the most difficult questions humanity are trying to find answers to, it may not be easy to make an informed choice. But I really think people should try to think a little bit further than "animals are cute" or "meat tastes good" when they make their choices. And in order to impose your opinions on others, they should be even more well funded.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I see humour in the fact that you can't see the point.Vicsun wrote:I just skimmed through the conversation and when taken as a whole the discussion is pretty absurd, so I'll try to summarize in my own words for everyone's entertainment.
PG: Meat is tasty, therefore eating animals is ethical.
C: Tastiness does not constitute ethicality; for example, cats, or your spouse, could be tasty
X: Cats are eaten in certain countries, therefore we can not know for certain whether eating cats is unethical.
V: Nor can we deduce that eating cats is ethical; your point is moot
X: I am uncertain whether eating cats is ethical or not, which is my point
Samuel Beckett has nothing on SYM.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees the humor in this
My point is that because you say something is unethical - doesn't by default make it is unethical.
I also see the humoristic aspect in comparing eating cats to slavery.
Insert signature here.
This paragraph needs some explanation.Claudius wrote:I
Also animals suffer when they are killed just as much as people aside from the intelligence factor. I apologize for mentioning it but keep in mind that I am serious. If it is against decorum to compare animal slaughter to Buchenwald then I think THAT is what is wrong. Personally. Some of the same root motivations for killing the animals and the holocaust: greed (wanting more), ignorance. Probably anger is more involved with the holocaust. I don't think most people are actually angry at animals.
1) Can you explain how you define "suffering"? If you believe animals, all animals, suffer as much as humans? Do you have any idea about the difference between the nervous system of an insect and the nervous system of a primate, like a human? Do you for instance realise that in order to feel physical pain as pain, that nervous system must have certain types of protein configurations called receptors, to transmit pain signals to a sensory unit that can interpret the signal as "pain"? Do you also realise that the intensity of the pain is related to the density of such receptors? For instance, try cutting out a piece of skin that is 1x1 inch from the back of your calf and remove it. Then try to cut out a 1x1 inch of skin from the gland of your penis and remove it. Furthermore, there is not only physical pain but emotional pain. The killing of a living being may cause suffereing not only to the being that was killed but also to other individuals. Do you think that a worm suffers the same way a human does from having its offspring killed?
2) "aside from the intelligence factor" seems to ignore the fact that intelligence means ability to feel fear, anxiety and pain from antecipation and realising what is going to happen.
3) What is the analogue between intentionally killing groups of people with the sole aim of causing them harm and extinguish them as a group and humans having evolved to be omnivores? Do you realise that people who eat meat have the same intentions with eating the sheep as they have eating a carrot: they are hungry and need and want nutritions? You claim ignorance is a common cause for both the holocaust and meat eating: can you elaborate on this? Ignorance about what? And how is greed related? Poor people worldwide eat MUCH less meat than we in the rich world. So how do you eat meat because you are greedy, when meat is in fact very expensive food?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
With the risk of going off topic here, here you sound like a moral relativist who do not acknowledge the standpoint of objective realism, only absolutism?Claudius wrote: I actually realize that its only my opinion that people should not slaughter animals. Or murder people. Or refrain from corporal punishment to their children.
Religious belief is a belief. No answers outside of the subjective self can be found. Questions about suffering and about the environment of our planets can be answered not only by subjective beliefs, but objectively funded facts (ie the earth revolves around the sun).
Just out of curiosity: Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between founded and unfounded opinions? Ie the belief the moon is made of green cheese is equal (equally right, equally wrong and equally meaningsless or meaningful or valuable or invaluable) to the fact that antibiotics cure tuberculosis?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
This sort of reminds me of the Vegan commune in Holland who, back in 2001 had to be force-fed by the authorities because they had figured out that plants had souls, and were starving to death. One of their kids died, and the autopsy showed that they had actually tried to subsist on gravel!jklinders wrote:Actually C Elegens I was referring to whether plants had conciousness or not.
Honestly, I would have saved the kids and let the parents croak. That's Darwinism for you, right there...:mischief:I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
C Elegans...I don't like the way you talk to people. It doesn't work for me. Sorry I won't answer. You might be interested in madhyamaka logic as discussed by nagarjuna http://www.akshin.net/philosophy/budphilnagarjuna.htm if you want an interesting view on morality. How it can be non-absolute but still not fall apart. Anger is when you want to hurt someone or otherwise obliterate it (or something). Greed is when you want to possess something. Ignorance is when you do not know something. Yes I believe an animal suffers. One way to view food is a delicious treat to give you a good feeling. Another way to view food is as a medicine to stave off the ills of starvation.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
Depends on who gets to decide what that universal compass contains/hold.Claudius wrote:<snip>
Also you seem to think there is a universal compass for some things but not for others. I don't agree.
For example, I can state that wearing red is immoral or practicing religion is or ... well, <insert any ridiculous argument here>.
That, however, doesn't make it universal accepted along the same line as you stating eating cats is unacceptable or immoral doesn't make it so either by default.
The problem is - as I've tried to point out numerous times - comes down to the fact - who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Because right now it seems as if your opinion is what decides it (as per the the cat-eating incident).
Insert signature here.
Xandax it is my opinion that each individual decides what is right and wrong. Nonetheless I may try to influence other people. Personally most often I just try and make people think about what THEY believe in.
But in the case of murder and slavery I would try and find a consensus with others in my society to outlaw that practice.
An example of something that I think should be outlawed is corporal punishment of children. But there isn't enough consensus.
An example of something I disagree with but think should be safe and legal is abortion and eating meat.
But in the case of murder and slavery I would try and find a consensus with others in my society to outlaw that practice.
An example of something that I think should be outlawed is corporal punishment of children. But there isn't enough consensus.
An example of something I disagree with but think should be safe and legal is abortion and eating meat.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
I guess I should have realized i was not speaking of a theoretical future with my suggestion...sigh. So just how far out of our own survival must we fall to limit the suffering of other things. Maybe we should just stick to gluttony as a deadly sin and leave it at that. This commune is a perfect example of why stupid people should not dabble in philosophyMoonbiter wrote:This sort of reminds me of the Vegan commune in Holland who, back in 2001 had to be force-fed by the authorities because they had figured out that plants had souls, and were starving to death. One of their kids died, and the autopsy showed that they had actually tried to subsist on gravel!
Doesn't that conflict with your statement about the existence of a universal compass?Claudius wrote:Xandax it is my opinion that each individual decides what is right and wrong. Nonetheless I may try to influence other people. Personally most often I just try and make people think about what THEY believe in.
<snip>
If a universal compass has to exists, each individual can't decide what is right and wrong. Because then the universal compass doesn't exists.
I find your argumentation extremely contradicting now when reviewing some of your points in this thread in light of this last statement.
Insert signature here.
Hmmm...I wonder what I said? No I don't believe a universal compass exists. but thats just my opinion.
I think where you may be at odds with me is that I believe that simply based on my opinion I can work for social change. In other words I need not have solid proof that eating animals is wrong before I urge people to question that practice.
No I don't believe a universal compass exists. but thats just my opinion.I think where you may be at odds with me is that I believe that simply based on my opinion I can work for social change. In other words I need not have solid proof that eating animals is wrong before I urge people to question that practice.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
That is what extremist religious organizations also believe. They often feel they have the right to influence peoples' opinions with little justification and even less basis in fact. They are so convinced of the absolute moral rightness of their views that they don't care how correct they might be...Claudius wrote: I think where you may be at odds with me is that I believe that simply based on my opinion I can work for social change. In other words I need not have solid proof that eating animals is wrong before I urge people to question that practice.
It's a very dangerous path...
Don't misinterpret me, I'm not criticizing religion, what I am criticizing, however, is absolute acceptance without substantive evidence. As I said, it is a slippery slope..
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12