Comments:

sexyatheist - 2006-02-07 16:11:14
i agree completely that eating meat is not immoral. as far as i'm concerned, it's turning a biological issue into an ethical one. not to mention, my main argument is that why is it immoral to kill an animal but not a plant? both are living organisms. however, i disgaree that morality is relative. regardless of whether or not we know what the right answer is, there still is a right answer. people in different societies may disagree but only one is truly correct. i of course feel that there is no way for us to even know which society or culture is correct, but it doesn't change the fact that only one is moral. jes will explain it much better.
-------------------------------
Jeff - 2006-02-08 09:59:57
If there IS a right answer, who determines what it is? Since you are an athiest as am I, we cannot delegate the responsibilty of deciding what is right and wrong to a higher power, which leaves that disicion to us. And people tend to have very different ideas as to what is right and wrong. So how then do you decide who's opinion is the correct one?
-------------------------------
sexyatheist - 2006-02-09 20:43:24
there is no way to know whose opinion is correct. it's the same with god. either god exists or it doesn't. but we can't say what the right answer is. either being a cannibal is morally right or it isn't. it isn't both right and not right. perhaps the lack of an available answer makes it easier to ascribe to the moral relativist view. but i don't feel it's the correct view even though it's easier.
-------------------------------
Jeff - 2006-02-10 09:33:05
Nothing like that is black and white. So you're saying cannibalism is either right, or its wrong. So if you were starving in the Andes and had no other source of food save your dead traveling companions and you ate them in order to survive, did you break a moral law? If cannibalism is wrong, then you just did a terrible, terrible thing- something you should be punished for even though you did it in order to survive. And just to point this out, I find it interesting that athiests who proclaim to believe in the absence of a higher power, are so willing to believe in the presence of some universal moral code- despite the fact that there isn't any more evidence of its existance than there is of a god.
-------------------------------
jes - 2006-02-10 18:25:20
Jeff: you seem to suggest that BECAUSE we disagree, there must be no truth of the matter. This is false. Consider this. People disagree about the form and shape of the universe. Scientits may even tailor their research based on their (VERY educated) guesses about the universe. There is absoultly NO way to prove the size/shape/origon of the universe. STILL, there is a truth of the matter. There can be only one answer. We must use the information we have to figure out what is right based on the best explination. Additionally, think of moral behavior is a broader sense of the word. For example, consider an Eskimo family starving on the icy tundra. The family consists of ma, pa, 5 little ones, grandma and grandpa. Pa sends out grandma and grandpa to die because he needs food to feed his family of 5 little ones. For the sake of argument, lets say we can accept this as morally right. NOW consider a person who, instead of using his extra cash to purchase his grandmother her much needed medication, he buys 4,000 doughnuts, eats 3 and burns the rest (I think its prety clear this is morally wrong). In both cases, grandma dies. However, in one case, she dies protecting her family. The other, he death seems pointless and avoidable. How can we reconcile this differene if they both have the same outcome. Perhaps it is this: we have a basic moral principle that says its ok to let your grandmother die if the lives of your children are at stake. Keep in mind cultural difference may be due to NON MORAL factual interpertations of how to maintain the same basic moral principles. Which accounts for most, if not ALL of the differences you mentioned. If you need more information, I'm happy to provide. -jes
-------------------------------
jes - 2006-02-10 18:30:16
"are so willing to believe in the presence of some universal moral code- despite the fact that there isn't any more evidence of its existance than there is of a god"

But there is evidence of such a code. Specifically the remarkable similarities in basic moral principles (keep in mind my point about non moral facts) across not only the globe, but many societies of the past. People (in general) do seem to know what is morally right and what is morally wrong. PLUS, an aspect I havent' gotten into (to spare you... I know you aren't a philosopher, so you aren't equiped to answer these problems) the problems with your position. the discussion, thus far, has largely been an attack on my position. I have yet to make you REALLY answer yours. Which I can get into... if you want me to.
-------------------------------
Jeff - 2006-02-13 06:59:41
I guess what you and I consider similarities in basic moral principles differ greatly. Consider this: Over the half the worlds population live in societies in which, by our standards, there is a huge amount of government control over people's every day lives. India still more or less functions under a caste system. They obviously don't share our high regard for civil liberties and freedoms, and they out number us, so I guess that makes us wrong. And if you'd like to start attacking my argument, go right ahead.
-------------------------------

add your comment:

your name:
your email:
your url:

back to the entry - Diaryland