Atheist only discussion of morality.

[Paul the Human]

That's what I mean. It isn't a matter of morality at all... it is a matter of empathy. Some of us have less empathy for the animals we eat than others.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

That's what I mean. It isn't a matter of morality at all... it is a matter of empathy. Some of us have less empathy for the animals we eat than others.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's a matter of having some bonus organ. Yes, it can make you think and that's certainly a valueable trait among humans, but the natural order makes no such distinction. Of course, a primate brain is a delicacy in some places, as one of the Indy Jones movies has so decidedly pointed out.

I, of course, will try anything once assuming I'm certain it's safe to eat.

[theVOID]

The only Atheist i'm really familiar with pimping this Objective Morality is Sam Harris - And like usual he's wrong.

[The Omnissiunt One]

This is the extension of atheism and vegetarianism thread. Someone said that since some organisms feel pain it is wrong to kill and eat them.

It's as simple as that.

No, I never said that. Short of any significant reasons to inflict pain on those organisms, however, yes, it would be wrong, in my view, because our current systems of meat production do inflict pain. That is, whatever promotes the greatest fulfilment of individuals' interests, whether they're human or any other species, is the right thing to do. My views on painless killing are much more complex, and I probably wouldn't be against the painless killing of chickens, say.

As for morality, I probably subscribe to some form of moral non-cognitivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism
Nonetheless, I feel that moral discourse is necessary and, to some extent, rational, because we need some way of deciding between conflicting interests, both moral and non-moral.

[lrh9]

They have presented what they think to be evidence, but the 'evidence' has invariably been some version of a non sequitur. Most often, it has been a variant of the naturalist fallacy.

But the conclusion that natural is moral should not be exempt from the necessary proofs of valid evidence and reasoning.

[The Omnissiunt One]

They have presented what they think to be evidence, but the 'evidence' has invariably been some version of a non sequitur. Most often, it has been a variant of the naturalist fallacy.

But the conclusion that natural is moral should not be exempt from the necessary proofs of valid evidence and reasoning.

Are you saying that I committed the naturalistic fallacy? Or that I need to provide evidence? Because, as I say, I don't believe there are objective moral values, as a feature of the universe. I believe that they're a necessary part of human discourse and society.

[parrotpirate]

...
As one guy on futurama said, we'd probably eat people too if they didn't taste lousy. (Though in futurama they do drink soylent cola, so I suppose humans are better in soylent and/or cola form.)
...

Slight derail, but the stuff they drink on Futurama is Slurm. I seem to remember it being bug crap of some sort.

[lrh9]

Because, as I say, I don't believe there are objective moral values, as a feature of the universe. I believe that they're a necessary part of human discourse and society.

Morality is artificial.

[Tiberius]

I'd like to take a moment to say: Mmmm...animals.

Thank you.

[leo-rcc]