(August 24, 2010 at 8:43 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I'm not, our society does, and I am a part of that. Killing humans is wrong because we as a society came to the agreement it is wrong, hence there is no death penalty here for the protection of the innocent. Other societies do support the death penalty. We do support euthanasia and abortion because it sometimes is the best option, some others don't. One is only more moral than the other from a personal standpoint, not a societal one.
In any case that is not relevant to a personal dietary choice.
Moral relativism, in my view, is not a tenable position. If half of society agrees with something and the other half doesn't, is it right or wrong? Besides, why is it at all logical to hold what society believes as true?
Quote:Why is that clear and logical?
It is logical from a utilitarian viewpoint, as I explained.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
