| 
Sleepingwraith, good to speak and debate with you again. I'm heartened to learn that somewhere people are actually taking classes on ethics and humanities. There's hope in the world yet. And so we shall progress... "Progress... an interesting thing we humans seem to concentrate and focus our lifes toward." Progression, regression, destruction or stagnation are our only options in this framework. Choose (or not). Personally I can only see the one option. Not sure it's just we humans that aspire progress, it's just that we have a word for it. "Any law based on equality is moral." I'm not sure I agree with that broad statement on the basis that it assumes that the law of morality is based on equality. Any law based on equality is based on equality. Any law based on morality is based on morality, i.e. the rights and wrongs of human behaviour (I am loathe to say 'human', I think it applies to all higher thinkers, but until the old afore-mentioned aliens come, human behaviour will do). I am inclined to append the following with regard to the subject of morals, "Any law based on morality should be consistent rather than equal". "Any law that has acceptions is immoral." From here on in I'm going to assume you meant to type "Exceptions" because "Acceptions" is not really making sense? If you did indeed mean to say that "any law that has exceptions is immoral", then this is an adjunct of the previous statement which is, I think, flawed on the basis of the assumption of morality being based on equality. This may amaze you to hear me say this, but we are not all equal, obviously, therefore rules governing morality must take this into consideration and deal with it in a consistent way because it can't be dealt with in an equal way because all things are not equal. This further proves the inaccuracies of basing morals on equality, rather than consistency. "Why make a law for pigs being allowed to drive let alone a plant?" We wouldn't, because all things are not equal (pigs and artichokes can't drive nor feel aggrieved if they are not allowed to) therefore morality cannot be based upon the assumption that they are. I actually think we agree on this, but our conclusions on what this means differ, yes? "what we eat truly is based on preference, which is no longer a case of morality" Not true. Preference is certainly one of the minor basis for what we eat but what we eat/torture/abuse/exploit it is still a case of/for morality if we would expect the same from our superiors. Bear in mind, that the "Food Chain" that we all pat our backs and congratulate ourselves about being at the top of, is NOT, in fact, hierarchical, therefore we are not at the top of it governing the lower echelons, the food chain is CYCLICAL and we are but a part of it, we do not govern all of it, we influence part of it (a big part, yes) but our influence is not, on the whole, a positive one. Clearly our inherited opinions are in need of a rewire. "But there is a difference relative to "we" the humans: you do not eat other humans because it is not beneficial to your health." In the interests of being concise, we have referred to this moral dilemma of cannibalism in terms of consumption, but the big picture is not about purely that is it? We are also talking about how we treat our fellow beings, creatures and things on this planet that we share. You're right, on the most part we do not eat other humans, but we rape, steal, kill, abuse, maim, torture, exploit and abuse each other, en mass, every second of every day and night. Morality IS an issue. Unfortunately the people who supposedly are the ambassadors of morality are represented by those clueless meandering followers of each others tails - the religious establishment. Shit, we are more fucked than we realise. "I hope this is a good excuse for you to get that bacon sandwich..." Thanks for trying, really, I really want to eat one guilt free, you're the first to try and help me. Thanks, at least, for that. My mate JoelB said "I like bacon. I ate it today actually." Nice JoelB, er, thanks for that information. today I did a poo poo and a wee wee. My new friend Jacker_Jones said "for every animal a vegetarian saves i'm going to eat three" That's pretty funny JJ. Good job I'm not technically vegetarian, but in the same spirit, for every three animals you eat I'm going to rape six women? ho ho, what fun, your turn. MG
|