

TLD
Regulars-
Content Count
352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
TLD last won the day on March 26 2016
TLD had the most liked content!
About TLD
-
Rank
Member
Previous Fields
-
Country
United States
-
State (US/Canadian)
California
-
Relationship status
Married
-
Sexual orientation
No Answer
-
Copyright
Copyrighted
Contact Methods
-
Website URL
http://
-
ICQ
0
Profile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
Interests
Philosophy, writing, tennis, finance, piano
Recent Profile Visitors
1646 profile views
-
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
-
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 "thef