Equality?

[Confused]

Why is it okay to kill a cow but not a human?

One could make the argument that we use the meat from the cow to sustain life. It makes the death of the cow necessary for survival. Well, why cant we put man in the same context? We have elaborate, and expensive, ceremonies before we lower a corpse into the ground. Why can we not use the dead human corpse for sustenance as well?

Why is it right to use cows for food but not humans?

[JoeyKnothead]

You can have my bacon when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

[Defender of Truth]

Why is it okay to kill a cow but not a human?

One could make the argument that we use the meat from the cow to sustain life. It makes the death of the cow necessary for survival. Well, why cant we put man in the same context? We have elaborate, and expensive, ceremonies before we lower a corpse into the ground. Why can we not use the dead human corpse for sustenance as well?

Why is it right to use cows for food but not humans?

The last statement, "Why is it right to use cows for food but not humans?" Is a question of morality. When someone says it's wrong to eat humans they're saying there is some standard of morality to which we must adapt. This can only be true if there is an objective standard of morality. If there is a subjective standard of morality, then it's not "wrong" to do anything, including murder, rape, and yes, to cannibalize as well.

If someone says that it's wrong to murder, they're not telling you about murder, they're telling you about themselves. According to moral relativists and moral subjectivists, murder is not wrong! Neither is cannibalism.

So do you believe it's wrong to eat humans? If so, why? If not, I'm outta here.

[TXatheist]

Why can we not use the dead human corpse for sustenance as well?

Soylent Green is people!!!!!



Sorry, couldn't resist...

[McCulloch]

The last statement, "Why is it right to use cows for food but not humans?" Is a question of morality. When someone says it's wrong to eat humans they're saying there is some standard of morality to which we must adapt. This can only be true if there is an objective standard of morality. If there is a subjective standard of morality, then it's not "wrong" to do anything, including murder, rape, and yes, to cannibalize as well.

Why is it that you believe that relative morality is the same as no morality? Has Einsteinian concepts of relativity of time and space removed the concept of time and space? Humanist morality, for example, is based on the concept of our common humanity.

If someone says that it's wrong to murder, they're not telling you about murder, they're telling you about themselves. According to moral relativists and moral subjectivists, murder is not wrong! Neither is cannibalism.

So do you believe it's wrong to eat humans? If so, why? If not, I'm outta here.

Please cite a few examples of moral relativists or moral subjectivists who are on record as saying that murder is not wrong.

[Defender of Truth]

Please cite a few examples of moral relativists or moral subjectivists who are on record as saying that murder is not wrong.

Ideas are connected, Mr. McCulloch. They don't have to say it out loud in order for it to be true. Please listen to me earnestly, McCulloch, and you'll see what I mean.

Here's an example. Let's pretend I say that everyone that believes in the ghosts is a kook! And I believe this dearly. You may say to me, "You're saying I'm a kook". Then I say, "Please cite an example of me on record saying that you're a kook".

Do you see? If you say one thing, you must accept another thing, as well as reject another thing. In this case, if I'm to stick with what I said earlier, I must believe you're a kook if you believe in ghosts. It's the idea of concept relationship. If you believe that moral is subjective, you have to accept that there are no morals. I will explain why.

Before I explain, however, I would like to answer you're question.

Why is it that you believe that relative morality is the same as no morality?

I stated this earlier in a different thread.

Let's imagine, for purposes of argument, that morality really were a strictly subjective commodity. What would follow from this? Well, first of all, this would mean that the moral statements we all make would be exactly like our judgements about the way things taste. There would be no question of their being right or wrong. Their truth, or shall we say correctness, would depend strictly upon the attitude, opinion or belief of the person making them. He or she is the individual subject.

We already agreed that a person could never be called wrong for uttering the words 'Spinach is bad.' That is because the truth or falsity of that statement depends entirely upon the attitude or opinion of the person making it. We call that person the speaking subject. If he doesn't like it, to him it is bad. I cannot call his statement wrong even if I like it-which I do!
Now here is the point, for our purposes. If morality is subjective, then moral statements will be just like all the things we say about the way things taste. That will mean, of course, that your and my moral judgements could conflict and still both be correct.
But there's more. If morality were entirely subjective, then our moral judgements about certain actions or things would not really be saying anything about those actions or things at all. Rather, they would only be saying something about us, the speakers. When I say, 'Liver is awful,' I'm not really saying anything about liver at all, am I? I'm saying something about myself. I am telling you that I don't like it. In the same way, assuming morality is subjective, if I were to say a particular action is wrong, all I would really be saying is 'I don't like that action' or 'That action offends me.' My attitude toward that action would be revealed, but that's all. You see, that's what we mean by calling a statement subjective. Its truth or falsity hinges upon the speaking subject.

Perhaps an illustration would help. We hear of murder going a lot in the streets these days. Some of us think that the murderers are wrong. But you see, if morality is entirely subjective, then murder is not really wrong. I mean that it is not wrong in any objective sense that would be obligatory or binding on anyone else. It may offend your personal moral taste, but you'll have to recognize that others may have different moral tastes that are just as right as yours—that is, if morality is subjective.
If morality is subjective, we can't condemn anyone for any moral action more than “I don't like it.� And that includes murder.

[Defender of Truth]

Please cite a few examples of moral relativists or moral subjectivists who are on record as saying that murder is not wrong.

Ideas are connected, Mr. McCulloch. They don't have to say it out loud in order for it to be true. Please listen to me earnestly, McCulloch, and you'll see what I mean.

Here's an example. Let's pretend I say that everyone that believes in the ghosts is a kook! And I believe this dearly. You may say to me, "You're saying I'm a kook". Then I say, "Please cite an example of me on record saying that you're a kook".

Do you see? If you say one thing, you must accept another thing, as well as reject another thing. In this case, if I'm to stick with what I said earlier, I must believe you're a kook if you believe in ghosts. It's the idea of concept relationship. If you believe that morality is subjective, you have to accept that there are no morals. I will explain why.

Before I explain, however, I would like to answer you're question.

As to your point against me, yes. I can't say that it is 'wrong' for you to rob me, though I personally do not find it to be a wonderful thing. Murder is also not wrong

This quote was found in "Morality: Does it have an Objective Standard?"

Why is it that you believe that relative morality is the same as no morality?

I stated this earlier in a different thread.

Let's imagine, for purposes of argument, that morality really were a strictly subjective commodity. What would follow from this? Well, first of all, this would mean that the moral statements we all make would be exactly like our judgements about the way things taste. There would be no question of their being right or wrong. Their truth, or shall we say correctness, would depend strictly upon the attitude, opinion or belief of the person making them. He or she is the individual subject.

We already agreed that a person could never be called wrong for uttering the words 'Spinach is bad.' That is because the truth or falsity of that statement depends entirely upon the attitude or opinion of the person making it. We call that person the speaking subject. If he doesn't like it, to him it is bad. I cannot call his statement wrong even if I like it-which I do!
Now here is the point, for our purposes. If morality is subjective, then moral statements will be just like all the things we say about the way things taste. That will mean, of course, that your and my moral judgements could conflict and still both be correct.
But there's more. If morality were entirely subjective, then our moral judgements about certain actions or things would not really be saying anything about those actions or things at all. Rather, they would only be saying something about us, the speakers. When I say, 'Liver is awful,' I'm not really saying anything about liver at all, am I? I'm saying something about myself. I am telling you that I don't like it. In the same way, assuming morality is subjective, if I were to say a particular action is wrong, all I would really be saying is 'I don't like that action' or 'That action offends me.' My attitude toward that action would be revealed, but that's all. You see, that's what we mean by calling a statement subjective. Its truth or falsity hinges upon the speaking subject.

Perhaps an illustration would help. We hear of murder going a lot in the streets these days. Some of us think that the murderers are wrong. But you see, if morality is entirely subjective, then murder is not really wrong. I mean that it is not wrong in any objective sense that would be obligatory or binding on anyone else. It may offend your personal moral taste, but you'll have to recognize that others may have different moral tastes that are just as right as yours—that is, if morality is subjective.
If morality is subjective, we can't condemn anyone for any moral action more than “I don't like it.� And that includes murder.

[McCulloch]

Please cite a few examples of moral relativists or moral subjectivists who are on record as saying that murder is not wrong.

Ideas are connected, Mr. McCulloch. They don't have to say it out loud in order for it to be true. Please listen to me earnestly, McCulloch, and you'll see what I mean.

Here's an example. Let's pretend I say that everyone that believes in the ghosts is a kook! And I believe this dearly. You may say to me, "You're saying I'm a kook". Then I say, "Please cite an example of me on record saying that you're a kook".

I get the point. If you cannot cite an example of a moral relativist who is on record as saying that murder is not wrong, then demonstrate that moral relativism is equivalent to no morality at all.

If you believe that morality is subjective, you have to accept that there are no morals. I will explain why.

I can't wait!

Before I explain, however, I would like to answer you're question.

You're gonna make me wait, aren't you?

As to your point against me, yes. I can't say that it is 'wrong' for you to rob me, though I personally do not find it to be a wonderful thing. Murder is also not wrong

This quote was found in "Morality: Does it have an Objective Standard?"

It appears as if TheMessage disagrees that murder or theft are wrong.

Why is it that you believe that relative morality is the same as no morality?

I stated this earlier in a different thread.

Let's imagine, for purposes of argument, that morality really were a strictly subjective commodity. What would follow from this? Well, first of all, this would mean that the moral statements we all make would be exactly like our judgments about the way things taste. There would be no question of their being right or wrong. Their truth, or shall we say correctness, would depend strictly upon the attitude, opinion or belief of the person making them. He or she is the individual subject.

I disagree. Loud is subjective. Yet someone is not wrong for saying that this is too loud. Morality is subjective, but the boundaries of what is morally acceptable is defined by human society and refined by a process somewhat akin to evolution. We are morally bound by the standards of the society we live in. Absolute moral statements with no context have no meaning, but within the context of human society, they still have meaning.

If morality is subjective, then moral statements will be just like all the things we say about the way things taste. That will mean, of course, that your and my moral judgements could conflict and still both be correct.
But there's more. If morality were entirely subjective, then our moral judgements about certain actions or things would not really be saying anything about those actions or things at all. Rather, they would only be saying something about us, the speakers. When I say, 'Liver is awful,' I'm not really saying anything about liver at all, am I? I'm saying something about myself. I am telling you that I don't like it. In the same way, assuming morality is subjective, if I were to say a particular action is wrong, all I would really be saying is 'I don't like that action' or 'That action offends me.' My attitude toward that action would be revealed, but that's all. You see, that's what we mean by calling a statement subjective. Its truth or falsity hinges upon the speaking subject.

So, when we collectively say, murder is wrong, or theft is wrong, it applies to all who live in the collective we call society. These morals have evolved over time. Those moral values which do not serve society well have been discarded.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Please cite a few examples of moral relativists or moral subjectivists who are on record as saying that murder is not wrong.

As a moral relativist, I do not believe that murder is not wrong. All of the different moral codes out there are not invalid. The fact that no one system of morality is superior to any other makes them equally valid, not invalid. I would not say that murder is not wrong, but that whether or not murder is wrong is a matter of perspective. Depending on how you look at it, and the circumstances of each murder, murder can be wrong or right, or both, or neither.