
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

i thought a moral was a guideline or belief and therefore people can have their own set according to them. if that moral means that they can't eat a baby animal but they can eat it once it's over 2 years old, for example, then fine for them.
it doesn't mean they aren't idiotic. but it's their own belief.
all meat sucks and tastes disgusting. this is the only moral anyone needs.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:15, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

It's defined by human behaviour and beliefs, not the actions of an individual. And, yes, your age one is fine (if odd) because it's making a distinction that could be seen as morally valuable (allowing baby animals more time to live). There's no morality in distinguishing between two species simply on the basis you think one is cuter. It'd be a bit like saying it's OK to exploit Chinese people but not anyone else.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:18, Reply)

but if it's something you believe in intensely and you live by it, why can that not be a "moral", if a "moral" is a belief? does it have to apply to a wider group than an individual? that seems Wrong, as just because other people are as dumb as you are doesn't make it moralistic. it just means more of you are Wrong.
or right on better examples than eating one animal but not another, like not fingering babies or something.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:24, Reply)

otherwise being gay would be immoral, as would being black.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:25, Reply)

Just think about what you're saying. You can't "choose" a set of morals. They are property of our species, pretty much, not individuals.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

Except for when his brother is selling Olympics tickets.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

albeit i forcefed him neon orange aftershock. i don't think he's ever been quite the same.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:34, Reply)

is a moral stance
"not eating some animals purely because you think they are cute"
is hypocritical.
Forgetting law, morality would stay that rape is wrong. Morality doesn't say rape is wrong, unless they are ugly, at which point it's OK. Does it?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

can you define that for yourself?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:33, Reply)

is not whether eating animals per se is moral or immoral. It's that it's selective, which would be moral hypocrisy.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:15, Reply)

because you wouldn't be able to get it up
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:35, Reply)

How else do we get cheap electronics?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:25, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread