TLD
Regulars-
Posts
352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
TLD last won the day on March 26 2016
TLD had the most liked content!
Profile Information
-
Interests
Philosophy, writing, tennis, finance, piano
-
Gender
Male
Contact Methods
-
ICQ
0
-
Website URL
http://
Previous Fields
-
Sexual orientation
No Answer
-
Relationship status
Married
-
State (US/Canadian)
California
-
Country
United States
-
Copyright
Copyrighted
Recent Profile Visitors
2076 profile views
TLD's Achievements
Member (4/7)
-7
Reputation
-
Harrison Danneskjold reacted to a post in a topic: Animal rights
-
William O reacted to a post in a topic: Animal rights
-
You're talking in non-essentials. Rights can only apply to humans since morality is only needed for humans to survive. Humans have to think to make choices in life to survive; animals act on instinct. So you cannot talk in terms of animals "deserving" to exist. Furthermore, it would be impractical to protect them and for no one to eat them; the ramifications would be enormous. E.g. we would be overrun with them, disease would spread, etc.
-
To DA earlier: you tend toward altruism: you would give up your life to avoid doing something that would be immoral in a rational situation. You mix moral situations with immoral ones - fallacy of false comparison. I don't appreciate your assumption that I may choose to avoid such discussion because it is "too difficult." Eioul answered that comment. In your last post, you started by softening your argument: of course morality is a guide to action.... But you are ignoring the fact that the "lifeboat" situation does not contain of choice of action - there can be no guide! Further, you then change the scenario to talk about killing someone of high value to you; that has never been the issue. It is this changing and rehashing of issues and ignoring many times what has been said to demonstrate the difference in our views that makes me bow out of this absurd path of conversation. Good luck Eioul.
-
DA, you did not answer Eiuol - and you can't because you are ignoring the principle here. Applying morality to an amoral situation simply creates a conflict noted by him. You just have to accept that there are some potential situations - generally never occurring in our lifetime - where there is no rational choice to be made if you are to live after such a situation occurs.
-
I certainly would not mis-define such terms. Some in this blog have confused "emergency" with "lifeboat" situations; i.e. emergencies where choices are still available and others where one's life depends on acting irrationally according to obj. principles. And we need to distinguish between - in the latter case - situations one has put himself into via wrong choices and not. When in a situation without choice and providing no choice, a rational person may need to steal from another while not liking to do so. He would be aware of doing so and would not need to evade or re-define "theft."