f0d0 Wrote:You have to know every possible angle to justifiably take life. If you didn't know every possibility, how could you possibly arrive at a conclusive decision? Secular morals are changeable, yes. This isn't the subject tho'. We're talking about what we can judge to be always immoral.
You do not need to know everything to justly take life... and your knowledge does not even have to be accurate in any way to do so. We can never be proven to know every possibility of anything... yet we make conclusive decisions all the time. All morals are changeable. I know of nothing I can judge to always be immoral... even things that are commonly viewed as such might on occasion not be immoral, though for some (ie: rape) I know not what such an occasion might be.
Quote:so you would promote the extinction of a species because of the inconvenience. Not a very good model for survival is it? Wealth here is human terms vs nature's terms.
A few less births would hardly extinct our species. In fact: a lot fewer births would hardly extinct this species. Overpopulation is not a good model for survival of a species... all the more so when much of that population lives either in poverty or without a fairly large surplus of money.
I might even on some occasions promote extermination of a species if it inconveniences us far more than it gains us.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
