How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

It's fine by me that you disagree with me. What is the basis for your disagreement with me?

I will share that when we get done with engaging the atheistic answer to the issue, as I’ve been saying.

Causing suffering and death to sentient beings is categorically different from one's taste in ice-cream flavours.

Why is it categorically different? Sure, it’s different in the same way music tastes are about music and ice cream tastes are about food and favorite teams are about sports. But why is it something so different that it’s worth getting upset about, when you (I hope) wouldn’t on these other kinds of tastes.

[The Tanager]

We're all aware the theist considers anything that doesn't comport to their religious beliefs to be "empty rhetoric".

As we note nothing in your comment here refutes my referenced statement, presented in light of your own previous statement regarding atheist beliefs in this matter.

I haven't offered anything for you to make that statement about, as I haven't shared why I think theism can provide an objective grounding for morality. It's more rational to wait until something is offered before trying to rebut it.

It would even be more rational (although still not reasonable) for you to claim that I'm just saying I'll get to it, but never plan on actually doing it. Only time will tell, since I'm taking this more focused approach.

As to considering all disagreements empty rhetoric, that's simply not true. I don't think Compassionist has been doing that.

[Compassionist]

It's fine by me that you disagree with me. What is the basis for your disagreement with me?

I will share that when we get done with engaging the atheistic answer to the issue, as I’ve been saying.

Causing suffering and death to sentient beings is categorically different from one's taste in ice-cream flavours.

Why is it categorically different? Sure, it’s different in the same way music tastes are about music and ice cream tastes are about food and favorite teams are about sports. But why is it something so different that it’s worth getting upset about, when you (I hope) wouldn’t on these other kinds of tastes.

The central issue here is that harm is taking place when living things suffer and die. No harm is taking place when one chooses between different flavours of vegan ice-creams or chooses between different music or chooses between different teams.

[The Tanager]

The central issue here is that harm is taking place when living things suffer and die. No harm is taking place when one chooses between different flavours of vegan ice-creams or chooses between different music or chooses between different teams.

Sure, but music tastes involve elements that the others don't have (tone, melody, etc.) as well. Yes, they are different in that way. This is true of all of them. That's why they are different subjects.

So, why get upset about difference of particular tastes in one subject (we should avoid harming others vs. we should not care about harming others) and not the difference of particular tastes in others (indie folk music versus classical music, etc.)?

[Compassionist]

The central issue here is that harm is taking place when living things suffer and die. No harm is taking place when one chooses between different flavours of vegan ice-creams or chooses between different music or chooses between different teams.

Sure, but music tastes involve elements that the others don't have (tone, melody, etc.) as well. Yes, they are different in that way. This is true of all of them. That's why they are different subjects.

So, why get upset about difference of particular tastes in one subject (we should avoid harming others vs. we should not care about harming others) and not the difference of particular tastes in others (indie folk music versus classical music, etc.)?

Being upset is an emotional response that I experience when I observe sentient organisms being harmed. I experience this because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do it. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a bacteria, I probably would not have gotten upset about anything.

[JoeyKnothead]

We're all aware the theist considers anything that doesn't comport to their religious beliefs to be "empty rhetoric".

As we note nothing in your comment here refutes my referenced statement, presented in light of your own previous statement regarding atheist beliefs in this matter.

I haven't offered anything for you to make that statement about, as I haven't shared why I think theism can provide an objective grounding for morality. It's more rational to wait until something is offered before trying to rebut it.

It would even be more rational (although still not reasonable) for you to claim that I'm just saying I'll get to it, but never plan on actually doing it. Only time will tell, since I'm taking this more focused approach.

As to considering all disagreements empty rhetoric, that's simply not true. I don't think Compassionist has been doing that.

If all you can do is fuss about my having commented, I'll mark you down as unable to refute that comment.

As to "empty rhetoric", I'll correct my previous comment to, "I don't doubt that you, a theist, consider a comment you've yet to refute to be 'empty rhetoric'."

[The Tanager]

Being upset is an emotional response that I experience when I observe sentient organisms being harmed. I experience this because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do it. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a bacteria, I probably would not have gotten upset about anything.

Yes, but we are rational beings as well, so we can analyze our emotional responses. What if I had a similar emotional response to you liking country music? Shouldn’t I, in an ideal world, be able to rise above that emotional response and realize you just have a different taste? Even if I continue to get upset at your choices, shouldn’t I be able to realize I’m not being rational in doing so?

[Compassionist]

Being upset is an emotional response that I experience when I observe sentient organisms being harmed. I experience this because my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me do it. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a bacteria, I probably would not have gotten upset about anything.

Yes, but we are rational beings as well, so we can analyze our emotional responses. What if I had a similar emotional response to you liking country music? Shouldn’t I, in an ideal world, be able to rise above that emotional response and realize you just have a different taste? Even if I continue to get upset at your choices, shouldn’t I be able to realize I’m not being rational in doing so?

Being able to analyse emotions is not the same as being able to switch off emotions. I can't switch off my emotions. I am upset about all the suffering, injustice, and deaths. Every day I cry about it. I suffer from PTSD, depression and chronic pain. I wish I could make all living things all-knowing and all-powerful so that we can all be forever happy.

[The Tanager]

Being able to analyse emotions is not the same as being able to switch off emotions. I can't switch off my emotions. I am upset about all the suffering, injustice, and deaths. Every day I cry about it. I suffer from PTSD, depression and chronic pain. I wish I could make all living things all-knowing and all-powerful so that we can all be forever happy.

I'm not saying those are the same thing or that you should switch off those emotions. If you'll remember from a previous thread, I even said I love how you get upset about injustice. I think one should get upset about injustice.

You started this discussion off on the analysis side of things and that is what I've been commenting on. I think one should not be okay (rationally okay, not emotionally okay) with getting upset if they believe atheism is true.

[Compassionist]

Being able to analyse emotions is not the same as being able to switch off emotions. I can't switch off my emotions. I am upset about all the suffering, injustice, and deaths. Every day I cry about it. I suffer from PTSD, depression and chronic pain. I wish I could make all living things all-knowing and all-powerful so that we can all be forever happy.

I'm not saying those are the same thing or that you should switch off those emotions. If you'll remember from a previous thread, I even said I love how you get upset about injustice. I think one should get upset about injustice.

You started this discussion off on the analysis side of things and that is what I've been commenting on. I think one should not be okay (rationally okay, not emotionally okay) with getting upset if they believe atheism is true.

I don't understand how you can be a non-vegan while you think that one should get upset about injustice. The exploitation and murder of sentient organisms are among the worst injustices in the universe.

We have different opinions about atheism and theism. I already said that both theism and atheism provide subjective morality. Religions can not and do not provide us with objective morality.