• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Eating animals that can display affection?

Bronzeage said:
untermensche said:
Moral codes exist for many reasons but these two statements contradict one another.

If problems are rare why are "codes" needed?

And is your reason you do not take your friends stuff because you adhere to some code? If we took away the code you would have no problem?
Click to expand...

No, you are quite wrong. Moral codes exist for the reason I gave. There is no other reason for them.
Click to expand...

Yes there are

Some "moral codes" are just a way some can rule over others.

Some "moral codes" are just expressions of ignorant prejudice and superstition.

Many reasons humans invented these arbitrary "codes".

The second rule is don't steal your friends stuff. Within the obvious limits, humans are the only animals who collect stuff for future use. This includes food and most importantly, tools. Once again, the problem is falling asleep. When everyone sees the value of keeping their hands off other people's stuff, everyone can sleep with the confidence of waking up alive, with all your stuff.
Click to expand...

People can see the clear value in taking the other person's stuff. There is a great benefit in doing so. That is why groups of humans continually went off and killed other people and took their stuff.

You give no reason why anybody should behave morally.
 
untermensche said:
Yes there are

Some "moral codes" are just a way some can rule over others.

Some "moral codes" are just expressions of ignorant prejudice and superstition.

Many reasons humans invented these arbitrary "codes".

The second rule is don't steal your friends stuff. Within the obvious limits, humans are the only animals who collect stuff for future use. This includes food and most importantly, tools. Once again, the problem is falling asleep. When everyone sees the value of keeping their hands off other people's stuff, everyone can sleep with the confidence of waking up alive, with all your stuff.
Click to expand...

People can see the clear value in taking the other person's stuff. There is a great benefit in doing so. That is why groups of humans continually went off and killed other people and took their stuff.

You give no reason why anybody should behave morally.
Click to expand...

You have a problem with reading comprehension and this is getting tedious. Let me make one thing clear: I don't care if you agree with me, or not. It is not my job to make you a better person, so whether you understand what I attempt to explain, does not matter to me.

Perhaps you did not finish reading all the way to the end. It is true that some people kill and steal other people's stuff. No moral code will prevent that. The moral code prescribes what other people will do when that happens. If the threat of being forced out into the wilderness, naked and alone, does not inspire you to proper behavior, there maybe some mental issues at work. The reason people behave morally is the threat of what will happen.
 
I am a better person than you already.

I have natural empathy and it guides my behavior.

You have some arbitrary code. Like the codes Christians use to claim homosexuals are immoral.
 
untermensche said:
I am a better person than you already.

I have natural empathy and it guides my behavior.

You have some arbitrary code. Like the codes Christians use to claim homosexuals are immoral.
Click to expand...

Call it anything you wish. It's of no consequence. As I said in an earlier post, the details are in the definitions. If homosexuals are seen as a threat to the group, then homosexuals will be seen as immoral. No great mystery there. Different groups developed different details of their moral code, depending upon their environment and the threats in it.

As I also said in an earlier post, the life of ease you enjoy is afforded by your membership in a very large group. This allows you to sleep soundly and wake up with all your stuff intact. Whether you appreciate this, or not, is also of no consequence to the group. Your idea that you possess natural empathy and are a better person than me, are very much the same.
 
We are not helpless ignorant animals.

We decide if we will be led by our natural empathy or by something artificial.

But being led by arbitrary and artificial "codes" can take you anywhere.

There is nothing inherently moral about any of them.
 
untermensche said:
We are not helpless ignorant animals.
Click to expand...
The evidence does not support this bizarre and hugely immodest claim.
We decide if we will be led by our natural empathy or by something artificial.
Click to expand...
You can't even distinguish between the two, much less decide between them.
But being led by arbitrary and artificial "codes" can take you anywhere.
Click to expand...
This is true, and unfortunate. But not something you (or anyone else) has the power to change.
There is nothing inherently moral about any of them.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And yet you prefer the one you use so much that you are prepared to believe that it is somehow the natural and fundamental reality of the universe, and that all others are 'artificial' abberent behaviours.

Just like almost everyone else in the entire history of the world.
 
I do not use a code.

I use natural empathy that is disturbed when other beings are harmed.

To not care about the pain of others is possible.

It is sick and it takes practice but it can exist.
 
untermensche said:
We are not helpless ignorant animals.

We decide if we will be led by our natural empathy or by something artificial.

But being led by arbitrary and artificial "codes" can take you anywhere.

There is nothing inherently moral about any of them.
Click to expand...

This is some kind of chicken and egg dilemma where you claim it's not an egg and there never was a chicken.

Just for my own perverse amusement, what is the source of your "natural empathy"? Is this something in your genetics, which predisposes you to be nice to other creatures?
 
untermensche said:
I do not use a code.
Click to expand...
Sure you do.

You just prefer to pretend that your code is some kind of natural empathy.
I use natural empathy that is disturbed when other beings are harmed.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. You don't (I am betting) give a shot if bacteria, mosquitoes or pathogenic nematodes are harmed.

You pick and choose which 'other beings' qualify for your empathy. And then (for reasons of your own) you kid yourself that you don't do that, and that your choices are somehow fundamental - and that people who choose differently are wrong and/or immoral.
To not care about the pain of others is possible.
Click to expand...
For certain definitions of 'others', it is essential to psychiatric health.

You prefer to pretend that you don't do it; But you do. And in order to survive, you must.
It is sick and it takes practice but it can exist.
Click to expand...

There's nothing sick about disdain for the lives of vermin. There may be some sickness in having an overly inclusive definition of 'vermin', but that's a whole other discussion.
 
Bronzeage said:
untermensche said:
We are not helpless ignorant animals.

We decide if we will be led by our natural empathy or by something artificial.

But being led by arbitrary and artificial "codes" can take you anywhere.

There is nothing inherently moral about any of them.
Click to expand...

This is some kind of chicken and egg dilemma where you claim it's not an egg and there never was a chicken.

Just for my own perverse amusement, what is the source of your "natural empathy"? Is this something in your genetics, which predisposes you to be nice to other creatures?
Click to expand...

Natural empathy is something you develop towards members of your group. Unless they are abusive.

People that have been abused have an excuse to have trouble with empathy.

It takes a moral person, a person who desires to be moral, to extend these feeling to all people, and to other animals.

What many people do instead is work to kill these feelings in themselves with practice.

- - - Updated - - -

bilby said:
Sure you do.

You just prefer to pretend that your code is some kind of natural empathy.
Click to expand...

Empathy is not a code of any kind.

Have you ever once been right?
 
untermensche said:
Natural empathy is something you develop towards members of your group. Unless they are abusive.

People that have been abused have an excuse to have trouble with empathy.

It takes a moral person, a person who desires to be moral, to extend these feeling to all people, and to other animals.

What many people do instead is work to kill these feelings in themselves with practice.

- - - Updated - - -

bilby said:
Sure you do.

You just prefer to pretend that your code is some kind of natural empathy.
Click to expand...

Empathy is not a code of any kind.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest for a second that it was.

Can you read English? You seem to struggle with comprehension of even the simplest texts.
Have you ever once been right?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
 
untermensche said:
bilby said:
I didn't suggest for a second that it was.

Can you read English? You seem to struggle with comprehension of even the simplest texts.
Have you ever once been right?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Click to expand...

I have no code and I pretend to have no code. Once again you are just spewing total nonsense.

I have natural empathy.

Like everybody.

All that matters is what one does with it. Nurture it or kill it.
Click to expand...

We can all see what you are pretending.

You have no excuse for believing your own bullshit in this regard though. Although you are far from alone. Most people resile from self examination and self awareness in the same way that you do.
 
You do not debate.

You do not make arguments.

You post meaningless links like a child.

For the adults:

It is possible to create a moral code. It is possible some may actually care about it.

But human morality is not a bunch of worthless codes.

Humans get along amazingly well because of their nature. They have a natural empathy and sociability.

Wars are almost always the result of a tiny tiny few driving or ordering the rest to war. A war culture is created and fostered in selected young men and sometimes woman. Young people are indoctrinated into becoming warlike.

It may be human nature to hunt and kill to eat.

But to kill another on the order of some unseen master takes careful indoctrination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom