Moral Argument for God's Existence

[genkaus]

That's because there isn't.
You could come up with a moral position for the pig, because you acknowledge that it suffers when hurt, like a human being.

OR... the carrot, will you leave it to rot, or eat it while it's ripe?

And why wouldn't that be a moral position?

[pocaracas]

That's because there isn't.
You could come up with a moral position for the pig, because you acknowledge that it suffers when hurt, like a human being.

OR... the carrot, will you leave it to rot, or eat it while it's ripe?

And why wouldn't that be a moral position?

Why would it be?
Are you wanting to declare that every single action and decision a person makes is a moral action or decision?
Don't you think this is stretching the definition of moral a bit?

[genkaus]

Why would it be?
Are you wanting to declare that every single action and decision a person makes is a moral action or decision?
Don't you think this is stretching the definition of moral a bit?

Not in the least.
Depending on which morality one is talking about, it is quite possible for every single action and decision a person makes to have a moral dimension.

[pocaracas]

Why would it be?
Are you wanting to declare that every single action and decision a person makes is a moral action or decision?
Don't you think this is stretching the definition of moral a bit?

Not in the least.
Depending on which morality one is talking about, it is quite possible for every single action and decision a person makes to have a moral dimension.

"Which morality"? How many moralities are there?

[genkaus]

"Which morality"? How many moralities are there?

Too many. I've listed a few on the last page.

[pocaracas]

"Which morality"? How many moralities are there?

Too many. I've listed a few on the last page.

Philosophical babble... By this standard, no discussion would go anywhere, ever... each damn word would have too many possible meanings.

[genkaus]

Philosophical babble... By this standard, no discussion would go anywhere, ever... each damn word would have too many possible meanings.

You don't say? Giving a philosophical explanation.... Of morality.... in a philosophy forum. How could I do something like that?

[max-greece]

Well if we don't like the pig example you're gonna hate this one.

Our sad lonely guy on his island goes and invents himself a God - who he prays to. His God makes demands of him with a moral perspective so he, for example, goes barefoot on every 9th day or forgoes freshwater during the period that sunlight illuminates his cave, or.......

Now he has a morality of his very own - and we can't argue that it is with another sentient creature as this is an entirely imaginary god.

[Angrboda]

Plus its hard to come up with a moral position for a carrot.

The Federal Constitution has three forms of protection for plants: the protection of biodiversity, species protection, and the duty to take the dignity of living beings into consideration when handling plants. The constitutional term "living beings" encompasses animals, plants and other organisms. At legislative level, the Gene Technology Act limits the scope of the term to animals and plants. Previous discussion within constitutional law relates the term Würde der Kreatur ("dignity of living beings") to the value of the individual organism for its own sake. Since its establishment by the Federal Council in April 1998, the ECNH has been expected to make proposals from an ethical perspective to concretise the constitutional term dignity of living beings with regard to plants. Although previous discussion of Würde der Kreatur was marked by the context of the legal interpretation of the constitution an ethical discussion should be carried out independently of this.

---

Although the authority of intuition in ethical discourse is contested, it was hoped in the initial phase of the discussion at least, to draw on concrete, typical examples to agree on general criteria for dealing with plants.

It became clear, however, that for plants – unlike animals – it was almost impossible to refer to moral intuition. There is no social consensus on how to deal with plants. Even within the ECNH, the intuitions relating to the extent and justification of moral responsibilities towards plants were highly heterogeneous. Some members were of the opinion that plants are not part of the moral community, because they do not satisfy the conditions for belonging to this community. Others argued that plants should not belong to it, because otherwise human life would be morally over-regulated. A further group felt that there were particular situations in which people should refrain from something for the sake of a plant, unless there are sufficient grounds to the contrary. This opinion was justified either by arguing that plants strive after something, which should not be blocked without good reason, or that recent findings in natural science, such as the many commonalities between plants, animals and humans at molecular and cellular level, remove the reasons for excluding plants in principle from the moral community. The only criterion on which all the members could agree, despite their very differing intuitions, was that we should not harm or destroy plants arbitrarily. Whether concrete ways of acting could be derived from this prohibition on the arbitrary handling of plants, and what they might be, remained unclear.

The Dignity of Living Beings With Regard To Plants:

[pocaracas]

Philosophical babble... By this standard, no discussion would go anywhere, ever... each damn word would have too many possible meanings.

You don't say? Giving a philosophical explanation.... Of morality.... in a philosophy forum. How could I do something like that?

Philosophy forum? missed that detail... ooops... enjoy your philoso-babble.
I'm out!