Originally posted by RobtardLol, innocent pigs.
Don't try and turn every thread into an "abortion is bad, it's bad" thread, okay. Think of the innocent pigs here.
Originally posted by RobtardGiven the choice, I'd weigh up the pros and cons of each outcome. A rapist/murderer has the potential to be rehabilitated and could possibly end world hunger (even though it should have already ended by now), however, the worst things I can think of that would result in 3 million pigs is damaging environmental effects, hindered pig evolution and a bunch of humans weeping (all of which are potentially bad effects).
Who would you rather have put to death?A) 3 million innocent pigs
B) A man who is a rapist and murderer
I really hate to take ADSJ's side, but yeah, killing a human is worse that killing an animal.
Humans have consciousness, language, and fantastic tool capabilities. Pigs just shit everywhere and sometimes look cute.
"sin" and "crime" are to describe immoral behaviour, and morality is also a human concept, so I don't understand how humans are bad because some of them don't do what others think they should.
Just because humans disagree doesn't mean pigs are necessarily better, either.
"pigs do what pigs do" how informative. They shit everywhere and their only redeeming qualities are cuteness and food.
Get real.
At the moment, the best animals are humans as we're the closest to fully understanding our environment, and the goal of life has always seemed to be adapting to and consuming the environment.
I guess I'm one of those people that doesn't give a shit how a diseased pig spends the last few minutes of its life.
Originally posted by lord xyz
"sin" and "crime" are to describe immoral behaviour, and morality is also a human concept, so I don't understand how humans are bad because some of them don't do what others think they should
You don't see how a murderer is bad? Or you don't see how human's in general are bad?
To be honest...I laughed at the part where the woman was weeping over the kids...I mean pigs. It was more of a "roll eyes at this obvious propaganda" laugh. Not laughing because she was hurt by it.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
It's okay. Jesus died for the pigs. They're in Heaven now. No problem. No wait, they're unclean. Must be in Hell. Pig Hell. lol
馃槅 馃槅 馃槅
Oh shit! 馃槅
Well, based on Christianity, they'd be innocent and saved by Jesus' grace and atonement, even if they are unclean. Unclean was just to avoid disease, not sin, so they are not eternally unclean. It was a sin because it was an commandment from Moses/God. It was a commandment because they were not the best of food to eat back in the day.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't see how humans in general are "immoral" since we're the ones who came up with what "immoral" is, and change it every second.I wonder if swinicide is immoral...
I think you are phrasing this wrong
what you are saying is A) "people can create moral categories but I don't see how others can be categorized within them", when I think you mean B) "Because all moral categories are made by man I don't understand why they apply to others"
In a situation, lets say people come up with an axiom that says "don't murder", in A), it would seem that you don't know what a person would do to be put in that category, as in, you are questioning how you can define something as murder, or any specific category people can come up with, whereas in B) you are questioning whether or not that category is applicable to someone who doesn't believe in it.
A) is very easily reconcilable, in that as soon as we define what is or isn't immoral, it is easy to put people into either camp, as they either did or did not do the thing that is classified as immoral. B) is essentially the moral relativist argument, which suggests that it is the moral axioms themselves that are impossible to justify without either appealing to anthropic principles or some unfalsifiable absolute moral system.
The folly of B) is that all knowledge is victim to that type of deconstruction. The colour "blue" is only defined through anthropic means, as there is no universal justification for why we call that specific wavelength of light "blue" and there is no clear demarcation between where blue becomes green or violet, unless we look to anthropic definitions (for instance, the ability of our colour receptors in the eye to be sensitive to different wavelengths plays a major role in why we classify colours in the way we do).
So, if the argument is that we cannot come up with moral principles where we can say certain actions are immoral, you are essentially saying we cannot come up with principles of colour, species, or really, any other scientific concept. The position (I think) you are asserting is one that is the antithesis of reductionism and the entire scientific method.
In science, the term is "operational definition", which means a concept as it is defined for a specific theory. Essentially, society is able to operationally define morality. Not that this always leads to beneficial outcomes, as moral systems (equivalent to theories in this use) can have some vastly different operational definitions and especially different attitudes toward what violates that moral system, but I don't think it is accurate to suggest that because we can't point to some absolute justification for our moral system that we have to say no moral systems can ever by produced, or to suggest that enforcing a moral system on someone is any more problematic than forcing them to use the standard definition of "blue" if they want to participate in social interactions.
Originally posted by inimalistThose things are tangible, though. Morality isn't.
So, if the argument is that we cannot come up with moral principles where we can say certain actions are immoral, you are essentially saying we cannot come up with principles of colour, species, or really, any other scientific concept.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Lol, innocent pigs.Given the choice, I'd weigh up the pros and cons of each outcome. A rapist/murderer has the potential to be rehabilitated and could possibly end world hunger (even though it should have already ended by now), however, the worst things I can think of that would result in 3 million pigs is damaging environmental effects, hindered pig evolution and a bunch of humans weeping (all of which are potentially bad effects).
I really hate to take ADSJ's side, but yeah, killing a human is worse that killing an animal.
Humans have consciousness, language, and fantastic tool capabilities. Pigs just shit everywhere and sometimes look cute.
Can you name me one crime where they're not innocent of?
That's cos you're a silly asshat and one of this "don't kill murderers; but abortion is fantastic" libtards.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think you are phrasing this wrongwhat you are saying is A) "people can create moral categories but I don't see how others can be categorized within them", when I think you mean B) "Because all moral categories are made by man I don't understand why they apply to others"
In a situation, lets say people come up with an axiom that says "don't murder", in A), it would seem that you don't know what a person would do to be put in that category, as in, you are questioning how you can define something as murder, or any specific category people can come up with, whereas in B) you are questioning whether or not that category is applicable to someone who doesn't believe in it.
A) is very easily reconcilable, in that as soon as we define what is or isn't immoral, it is easy to put people into either camp, as they either did or did not do the thing that is classified as immoral. B) is essentially the moral relativist argument, which suggests that it is the moral axioms themselves that are impossible to justify without either appealing to anthropic principles or some unfalsifiable absolute moral system.
The folly of B) is that all knowledge is victim to that type of deconstruction. The colour "blue" is only defined through anthropic means, as there is no universal justification for why we call that specific wavelength of light "blue" and there is no clear demarcation between where blue becomes green or violet, unless we look to anthropic definitions (for instance, the ability of our colour receptors in the eye to be sensitive to different wavelengths plays a major role in why we classify colours in the way we do).
So, if the argument is that we cannot come up with moral principles where we can say certain actions are immoral, you are essentially saying we cannot come up with principles of colour, species, or really, any other scientific concept. The position (I think) you are asserting is one that is the antithesis of reductionism and the entire scientific method.
In science, the term is "operational definition", which means a concept as it is defined for a specific theory. Essentially, society is able to operationally define morality. Not that this always leads to beneficial outcomes, as moral systems (equivalent to theories in this use) can have some vastly different operational definitions and especially different attitudes toward what violates that moral system, but I don't think it is accurate to suggest that because we can't point to some absolute justification for our moral system that we have to say no moral systems can ever by produced, or to suggest that enforcing a moral system on someone is any more problematic than forcing them to use the standard definition of "blue" if they want to participate in social interactions.
This is similar to an argument in another thread. Basically, everything can be reduced to silly human constructs.
Some argue that things such as "math" are not objective universal truths, either. We created it and the symbols that represent it. We find such similarity in other things because the system we created. Of course, that has quite logical counters, but it still stands the same: even math is anthropic and the parallels we find from it (laws) are only due to creating a system that works for our universe rather than the universe working by that system.
And it is a deep hole: everything is reduced to nothing or nonsense.
In fact, did not you and I argue this? I argued that everything can be boiled down to being "anthropic" and it is a spiral to a deep hole? This happened when we were arguing about something...what was it...
Regardless, I still agree with XYZ. You must first define "why" and then support why it is closer to objective than arbitrary.
You COULD argue that killing them that way was bad because it does more harm than good. But that is not true. So where is the objective answer to XYZ's criticism?
Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, did not you and I argue this? I argued that everything can be boiled down to being "anthropic" and it is a spiral to a deep hole? This happened when we were arguing about something...what was it...
I can't imagine we did... I haven't believed in anything close to moral relativism since highschool... It might have been in my earliest days of KMC GDF? or maybe I was trolling....
unless it was about some absolute sense of things, where we can't actually know anything.... ? idk
Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless, I still agree with XYZ. You must first define "why" and then support why it is closer to objective than arbitrary.
sure. I imagine you've seen one of the multiple threads where I've defended my stance on objective morality, which is specifically about identifying objective standards for what it moral.
my point was that XYZ wasn't actually making that point, what he said actually was closer to "I don't know what murder is" rather than "I don't feel we can apply murder to others"
Originally posted by dadudemon
You COULD argue that killing them that way was bad because it does more harm than good. But that is not true. So where is the objective answer to XYZ's criticism?
afaik, I agree with XYZ about the morality of killing animals vs the morality of killing humans
I admited in this thread that it is a very difficult position to defend from a logical or pragmatic standpoint (ignoring the specific things in this scenario, as Robtard's question was just about killing lots of animals vs one evil human), but morally, I don't think killing pigs is evil, but I do think killing humans is, and I don't think quantity changes this.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Some people argue that math isn't universal? We didn't create the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4. We just gave each piece in the puzzle a name.
but if you deconstruct far enough, it can be argued that the concept of discrete quantities itself is anthropic
its not something I would argue in favor of, but I imagine that is where the position comes from
How is killing a rapist or murder evil? No **** them, they deserve to die. Saying they will do rehab and be great at it to the point where they are doing great deeds its 100% speculation. Once the society finds out they will never have a good job again and will be flagged.
A sick animal needs to die anyways but its how they do it is the problem. A choice between a healthy animal and a very bad criminal, I will pick the animal every time.
Originally posted by The Nuul
How is killing a rapist or murder evil? No **** them, they deserve to die. Saying they will do rehab and be great at it to the point where they are doing great deeds its 100% speculation. Once the society finds out they will never have a good job again and will be flagged.
if you think taking another person's life is immoral, how do their actions change that?