Atheism and vegetarianism

[leo-rcc]

I'm not delving any further in the other questions as they have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and to me these political/philosophical discussions are boring as fuck. Sorry, I know some people do, but I just don't like them.

However:

Their mental differences are what's relevant. As I said, if they can plan for the future, they have greater moral status than those who can't.

I just don't see that.

If you deny that mental differences make a difference, on what basis do you not kill humans?

Because I am speciest. I am part of the human species and I have a strong preference to them alive over dead. I want to talk with them, have sex with them, eat with them, live with them, work with them. Killing them, or eating them, not so much. Unless there is a very good reason for it. I don't have that with any other animal, specially the sex part.

[The Omnissiunt One]

I'm not delving any further in the other questions as they have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and to me these political/philosophical discussions are boring as fuck. Sorry, I know some people do, but I just don't like them.

Fair enough.

I just don't see that.

From a utilitarian point of view, to kill a being who makes future plans is to violate his or her interests, hence it's wrong. You can choose not to accept utilitarianism, but from a consequentialist stand point it makes sense.

Because I am speciest. I am part of the human species and I have a strong preference to them alive over dead. I want to talk with them, have sex with them, eat with them, live with them, work with them. Killing them, or eating them, not so much. Unless there is a very good reason for it. I don't have that with any other animal, specially the sex part.

Of course. But what interest do you have in the life of a human, say, on Death Row, whom you'd never talk to, eat with, live with, work with or shag? You couldn't persuade anyone that your position on capital punishment was the right one if you just said, 'Ah, I don't like it.' You're entitled to be a moral nihilist if you want. But very few people are prepared to see the implications of that position through to the end. As everything would just be a subjective opinion, you'd have no basis to condemn anything.

[Edwardo Piet]

If you're a moral nihilist, do you need a basis to condemn anything?

[The Omnissiunt One]

If you're a moral nihilist, do you need a basis to condemn anything?

No, but I'm sure there's something they'd like to condemn. If someone, say, beat up their granny, they'd be a bit pissed off if the culprit got off scot-free. But they couldn't say, 'That's not fair!' because fairness is a moral concept. Of course, they could take the law into their own hands, but they'd still feel a sense of entitlement to do so, no doubt.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, but I'm sure there's something they'd like to condemn. If someone, say, beat up their granny, they'd be a bit pissed off if the culprit got off scot-free. But they couldn't say, 'That's not fair!' because fairness is a moral concept.

They could say it. They would just have no basis for it. It indeed, wouldn't stop them saying it, and feeling it. Morality doesn't have to be absolute. They can be a moral nihilist and still personally dislike things, easily.

Of course, they could take the law into their own hands, but they'd still feel a sense of entitlement to do so, no doubt.

Yes, and they can feel things ought to be or not be done without believing in any absolute morality. They can give moral orders and have feelings on the matter of morality, without it having any real basis for it whatsoever.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Of course. But then there's no reason why anyone should listen to them. Also, why are you talking about absolute morality? Utilitarianism isn't absolute, as of course you know.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, yes, what am I thinking, of course it's not. For some reason I thought you said it first.

Moral nihilists have no objective standard is perhaps a better way to say it.

And yes I agree there's no reason anyone should listen to them but there's no reason anyone shouldn't either.

You keep saying that moral nihilists couldn't condemn or say no to things morally speaking. But they can. They just don't believe in any objective morality.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Well, yes, what am I thinking, of course it's not. For some reason I thought you said it first.

Nope. You been drinking? Unless I have, and just can't remember saying it...

And yes I agree there's no reason anyone should listen to them but there's no reason anyone shouldn't either.

If it's just their opinion, then it counts for nothing, as your name suggests.

You keep saying that moral nihilists couldn't condemn or say no to things morally speaking. But they can. They just don't believe in any objective morality.

Yes, true. I meant that they couldn't do anything more than stamp their foot and say, 'No, I don't like that!' In other words, they can't rationally condemn it.

[lrh9]

Isn't moral nihilism an amoral view? That essentially there is no morality in reality.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes that's exactly what it is.

If it's just their opinion, then it counts for nothing, as your name suggests.

But they can still voice it and effect others. And the majority opinion (based on nothing or not) can have a lot of effect on people and society. Look at democracy.