(October 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I've never felt that one was necessary. It's my view that we (in the developed world, where food is abundant) only take it under consideration because we are successful enough that we can afford to.
This is essentially a genetic fallacy. "You're arguments are only the result of your cultural background and economical standing therefore you're wrong."
Quote:Can we apply the same standards of morality to say, the people of Somalia?
I'm not sure. Perhaps you could say that killing an animal is ok to prevent from starving but this raises the whole other issue of whether human life is superior to lower animal life. This thinking assumes that it is better for a human to live than a lower animal, say a cow, to live. But why is that so?
Quote:I believe the question is necessarily subjective.
But whether rape or murder is wrong or not isn't subjective?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
