Perhaps not, but they're also not factually less important than humans. That said, I don't like PETA, and I think most of their ad campaigns are just idiotic.
Yet, you just told us what we should do to prevent something that you think is bad:
Again, I was stating my opinion. I used to add "I think," "I believe," or "in my opinion" in front of just about everything I said. I thought that I wouldn't have to do that any longer, but apparently I will have to start again. I just thought that since I previously stated that I don't believe in absolute morals, it would be obvious that I was just stating my opinion. I guess not.
He asked why, and no, “cause I said so” isn’t a valid reason.
It is when we're talking purely about opinions. I merely don't like to see things needlessly die, that's all.
You claim that you don’t believe in right and wrong, but you expressed a moral absolute: “Suffering or not, pointless deaths should be prevented”. Now justify it.
Let me rephrase: I believe that they should be prevented. I thought that was obvious, but I suppose it is my fault.
What makes your opinion any more valid than that of a person who thinks that causing lots of pointless death and needless suffering is the perfect way to spend a sunny Saturday afternoon?
It doesn't, as I've been stating all along (or at the very least, trying to).
All you said is "why." I don't see how that answers my question. Considering I never talked to you about religion, I don't know what your reply is referencing.
You are the only one who seems to have a problem with basic logic, here.
No, you're saying that if such a god does exist, then his version of right and wrong is correct. I'm saying that I don't believe that such a god can exist.
Yes, because you’ve defined them in such a way that they don’t exist
They don't. How could they?
The only useful definition of “right” and “wrong” is inherently defined by what a consciousness with all of the attributes of god (infinitely wise, knowing, powerful, loving, etc.) would determine them to be.
Again, not really.
infinitely wise
It seems like if they were infinitely wise, they'd be able to utilize basic logic.
loving
That's funny. Most gods that people speak of seem to be tyrannical idiots.
If the decision made by a being with limitless knowledge and intelligence isn’t going to be called “right”, what do you want to call it?
I don't believe in a god whose opinions are somehow fact while everyone else's isn't. That seems highly illogical to me in the first place.
An opinion is what a person has based on limited knowledge and intellect.
Yes, but not of something that consists only and entirely of opinions. There is no absolute rights or wrongs.
If you go to court and tell the judge that running stop signs is perfectly okay, and if he thinks it’s not okay, well, that’s just, like, his opinion, man... he’ll pretty quickly inform you whose opinion matters. And that’s a fact.
I don't know why you even added this to your post. I wasn't arguing that you can argue "that's your opinion" and get away with whatever you want. I was arguing that even if society believes something, that doesn't make it right. By all means, be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, but what you do isn't necessarily 'right' or 'wrong'.
No, it's still only opinion about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. It might be fact that it works 'best' for them, but the act of liking or disliking a certain behavior isn't.
It would be nice if you could explain what you're talking about so that I wouldn't have to continually ask what it is you're talking about (but apparently that's being defensive). So, I'll just ask: how is my opinion inconsistent?
I asked a question and you got defensive
You're confusing getting defensive with asking a few questions.
most slashdotters who express your type of opinion reject my belief system and fail to replace it with one that gives any logically consistent reason as to why I should care about the suffering of others
My type of opinion? I could care less what you believe. Care or don't, but I'm going to continue believing what I believe. There are no absolute morals.
His views would still only be an opinion, and not only that, but he sounds like a tyrant. Most religions seem to describe their god as some sort of evil tyrant who will make you suffer for all of eternity if you don't believe what he wants you to. Not a god worth worshiping, in my opinion.
And while we're talking about eating meat, I think that anyone who wants to eat meat should have to participate in the slaughtering, dressing, cooking, and eating of an animal in sequence, or take a full tour of a feedlot and slaughterhouse, in order to get a license to be permitted to eat meat.
I think that we should just use our supposedly intelligent minds (at this point, I'm doubting that though) to perfect in vitro meat so that no animals will have to suffer that way any longer to get meat.
What exactly is wrong with an animal having a caring owner, someone to trust to, a warm home, no need to be afraid of predators, and not having to get cold and sometimes go days without food?
I'm all for animal rights, but PETA is just insane. I don't see anything wrong with letting an animal live in your house and taking care of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Animals are not little people.
Perhaps not, but they're also not factually less important than humans. That said, I don't like PETA, and I think most of their ad campaigns are just idiotic.
I suppose so considering all anyone has been posting is mere opinions.
Yet, you just told us what we should do to prevent something that you think is bad:
Again, I was stating my opinion. I used to add "I think," "I believe," or "in my opinion" in front of just about everything I said. I thought that I wouldn't have to do that any longer, but apparently I will have to start again. I just thought that since I previously stated that I don't believe in absolute morals, it would be obvious that I was just stating my opinion. I guess not.
He asked why, and no, “cause I said so” isn’t a valid reason.
It is when we're talking purely about opinions. I merely don't like to see things needlessly die, that's all.
You claim that you don’t believe in right and wrong, but you expressed a moral absolute: “Suffering or not, pointless deaths should be prevented”. Now justify it.
Let me rephrase: I believe that they should be prevented. I thought that was obvious, but I suppose it is my fault.
What makes your opinion any more valid than that of a person who thinks that causing lots of pointless death and needless suffering is the perfect way to spend a sunny Saturday afternoon?
It doesn't, as I've been stating all along (or at the very least, trying to).
All you said is "why." I don't see how that answers my question. Considering I never talked to you about religion, I don't know what your reply is referencing.
You are the only one who seems to have a problem with basic logic, here.
No, you're saying that if such a god does exist, then his version of right and wrong is correct. I'm saying that I don't believe that such a god can exist.
useless, non-existent concepts
They kind of are.
It's our right to know that potentially harmful or embarassing information can so easily pass out into the public domain.
No, it's not. The government should be able to do whatever they want, and everyone knows the government has absolutely nothing to do with the people!
Yes, because you’ve defined them in such a way that they don’t exist
They don't. How could they?
The only useful definition of “right” and “wrong” is inherently defined by what a consciousness with all of the attributes of god (infinitely wise, knowing, powerful, loving, etc.) would determine them to be.
Again, not really.
infinitely wise
It seems like if they were infinitely wise, they'd be able to utilize basic logic.
loving
That's funny. Most gods that people speak of seem to be tyrannical idiots.
If the decision made by a being with limitless knowledge and intelligence isn’t going to be called “right”, what do you want to call it?
I don't believe in a god whose opinions are somehow fact while everyone else's isn't. That seems highly illogical to me in the first place.
I just don't find a jumping piece of meat that unique. It's basically just a rehashed platformer with a few new graphics.
An opinion is what a person has based on limited knowledge and intellect.
Yes, but not of something that consists only and entirely of opinions. There is no absolute rights or wrongs.
If you go to court and tell the judge that running stop signs is perfectly okay, and if he thinks it’s not okay, well, that’s just, like, his opinion, man... he’ll pretty quickly inform you whose opinion matters. And that’s a fact.
I don't know why you even added this to your post. I wasn't arguing that you can argue "that's your opinion" and get away with whatever you want. I was arguing that even if society believes something, that doesn't make it right. By all means, be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, but what you do isn't necessarily 'right' or 'wrong'.
No, it's still only opinion about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. It might be fact that it works 'best' for them, but the act of liking or disliking a certain behavior isn't.
his opinion on right, wrong, or anything else is the ultimate reality by definition.
But, something that is entirely based on opinion can't be 'right' or 'wrong'. It's just illogical.
The entity with the power to enforce the rules gets to decide how they are interpreted.
Yes, but that's ultimately only their opinion, not fact.
No, if there is a god, his views on what is “right” and “wrong” are fact
How so? This confuses me. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', just opinions on the subject.
It's inconsistent.
It would be nice if you could explain what you're talking about so that I wouldn't have to continually ask what it is you're talking about (but apparently that's being defensive). So, I'll just ask: how is my opinion inconsistent?
I asked a question and you got defensive
You're confusing getting defensive with asking a few questions.
Why? It's because I think they should. How about you? Why not? Is my opinion really so hard to grasp?
What? What does this have to do with moral absolutes?
couldn't care less*
That's annoying enough when I see other people saying that, let alone myself.
Why should I care?
Did I say that you should?
most slashdotters who express your type of opinion reject my belief system and fail to replace it with one that gives any logically consistent reason as to why I should care about the suffering of others
My type of opinion? I could care less what you believe. Care or don't, but I'm going to continue believing what I believe. There are no absolute morals.
His views would still only be an opinion, and not only that, but he sounds like a tyrant. Most religions seem to describe their god as some sort of evil tyrant who will make you suffer for all of eternity if you don't believe what he wants you to. Not a god worth worshiping, in my opinion.
Well, they (or at least fewer of them) would have to die if we perfected in vitro meat. Suffering or not, pointless deaths should be prevented.
and so the ethical situation is different.
Just because they don't know it's happening doesn't mean it isn't wrong (or right). I'm in favor of thinning out much of the human population as well.
I was actually thinking the same thing about humans. Instead of wasting land space and burying them, why not put their bodies to better use?
And while we're talking about eating meat, I think that anyone who wants to eat meat should have to participate in the slaughtering, dressing, cooking, and eating of an animal in sequence, or take a full tour of a feedlot and slaughterhouse, in order to get a license to be permitted to eat meat.
I think that we should just use our supposedly intelligent minds (at this point, I'm doubting that though) to perfect in vitro meat so that no animals will have to suffer that way any longer to get meat.
Unless there is some sort of god above, I don't think there is any innate law of the universe that determines what is wrong and what is right
Actually, even if there was a god, his views on what is 'right' or 'wrong' would only be his opinion, not fact.
What exactly is wrong with an animal having a caring owner, someone to trust to, a warm home, no need to be afraid of predators, and not having to get cold and sometimes go days without food?
I'm all for animal rights, but PETA is just insane. I don't see anything wrong with letting an animal live in your house and taking care of it.