If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong

[AngelThMan]

You're also not really answering the original lion question, which was not about culpability. Did the lion do anything wrong?

You tell me

That's evasive. You clearly have only one brain cell. You lose. Can't answer. At least that brain cell realizes it's trapped, which is why you can't answer. Goodbye, moron 

[The Architect Of Fate]

He evaded nothing, answered everything, and completely destroyed you, making you the only moron here lacking braincells. You lose infinitely....  

[The Architect Of Fate]

A visual representation of this thread and  AngelThMan is the lion

[Sheldon]

You're also not really answering the original lion question, which was not about culpability. Did the lion do anything wrong?

You tell me, you're one the claiming there are objective moral absolutes, if so why wouldn't they apply to other conscious animals? I already explained I am a moral subjectivist, and a moral relativist. As I explained I think having less choice means you are less culpable, and thus a deity with limitless choice would be maximally culpable. 

FWIW your question "Did the lion do anything wrong?" is absolutely about culpability?

Culpability 
moral or legal responsibility, guilt, or blameworthiness for a wrongful act, crime, or failure..
Merriam Webster

That's evasive. You clearly have only one brain cell. You lose. Can't answer. At least that brain cell realizes it's trapped, which is why you can't answer. Goodbye, moron 

I did answer, more than once, and here again by logical inference, as anyone can see. Well, almost anyone perhaps...

For everyone else the posts covering the entire exchange are there for all to be seen, including this latest lie that I haven't answered when in fact I have done so twice for anyone to see, and of course that he has yet again failed to even acknowledge my question, and then the comedy ironic gold of him suggesting I am the one being evasive

Lions are not held to human moral standards, it is humans who decide not to do this obviously, that was a particularly stupid question even by this posters standards, and obviously the question as to why, which I had already answered, and which the op refused to address, we can all see why he evaded this one again, as it demonstrates that moral culpability is linked to how much choice or autonomy is involved, thus again a deity believed to have limitless choice would be maximally culpable, and anyone can read the bible and see it falls well short of even the morality of humans.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I  can't as I clearly have only one brain cell.

Nevertheless I think you can still learn, try moving your finger over the screen more slowly maybe?

For everyone else the posts covering the entire exchange are there for all to be seen, including this latest lie that I haven't answered when in fact I have done so twice for anyone to see, and of course that he has yet again failed to even acknowledge my question, and then the comedy ironic gold of him suggesting I am the one being evasive

Lions are not held to human moral standards, it is humans who decide not to do this obviously, that was a particularly stupid question even by this posters standards, and obviously the question as to why, which I had already answered, and which the op refused to address, we can all see why he evaded this one again, as it demonstrates that moral culpability is linked to how much choice or autonomy is involved, thus again a deity believed to have limitless choice would be maximally culpable, and anyone can read the bible and see it falls well short of even the morality of humans.

No, you see, he only learns when the AI tells him something. Right or wrong. 

[emjay]

If animals were judged on moral behavior, then killer whales and pelicans would be in serious trouble.

That just opens up another rabbit hole to fall into... if god doesn't consider animals subject to morality, why on earth make them suffer... which they obviously do if you believe they have consciousness. Why on earth, if you're a god, build an entire world of suffering animals... that's totally reliant on animals hunting and eating each other, in an endless cycle, if they are not subject to morality, or any escape from that suffering? Building a world that is reliant on beings eating each other, in an endless cycle, suggests nothing but a sadistic god, if it exists... which it obviously doesn't... but why anyone else would admire that as as a source of absolute moral good, is beyond me.

Physical nature alone ultimately explains it well... that ultimately life, wherever it is found, comes down to sustainng chemical reactions, which sadly, animals eating other animals is a prime example of... but if you try and plug a god into it as an explanation, then you have explain why a god would choose to create needless suffering in animals, and a cyclic world nature that relied on it, and offer them no moral or otherwise release from that suffering.

Why anyone would trust such a sadistic god, if it existed, is again completely beyond me... one that created not only suffering animals, but a system where people are condemned to hell just for being born, for the 'original sins', and the only promised escape from that is to believe in bollocks, and be an asshole for the rest of your life. He's paying his price well in this case , but it would be nice if a Christian once in a while, took a step back and looked at the bigger picture, but sadly that rarely seems to happen.

[Sheldon]

Nevertheless I think you can still learn, try moving your finger over the screen more slowly maybe?

For everyone else the posts covering the entire exchange are there for all to be seen, including this latest lie that I haven't answered when in fact I have done so twice for anyone to see, and of course that he has yet again failed to even acknowledge my question, and then the comedy ironic gold of him suggesting I am the one being evasive

Lions are not held to human moral standards, it is humans who decide not to do this obviously, that was a particularly stupid question even by this posters standards, and obviously the question as to why, which I had already answered, and which the op refused to address, we can all see why he evaded this one again, as it demonstrates that moral culpability is linked to how much choice or autonomy is involved, thus again a deity believed to have limitless choice would be maximally culpable, and anyone can read the bible and see it falls well short of even the morality of humans.

No, you see, he only learns when the AI tells him something. Right or wrong. 

I edited that, as I don't want to stoop to his level, but he has no interest in debate, and is only here to troll.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems pretty clear to me that we’re not talking about the same thing when we use these terms. The issue of judging things is not a meta ethical one. Every type of meta ethical position comes with its own ideas about moral dessert and moral warrant. There are different ideas about that even with a single meta ethical subset.

That moral dessert can only apply to moral agents is implicit to the claim of moral dessert. Logically speaking…only things that can morally do things can be cogently claimed to morally deserve things. Now, Idk that a lion is a moral agent. I tend to think that they’re not. Let’s suppose they are, though. If they are, their agency is significantly less than our own, and thus whatever moral dessert comes with their moral agency would be likewise reduced.

Cats are fucking psychotic. If cats were people we’d have to commit them. It’s not their fault, just a matter of public safety. Anyone with a cat knows this.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It seems pretty clear to me that we’re not talking about the same thing when we use these terms.  The issue of judging things is not a meta ethical one.  Every type of meta ethical position comes with its own ideas about moral dessert and moral warrant.  There are different ideas about that even with a single meta ethical subset.  

That moral dessert can only apply to moral agents is implicit to the claim of moral dessert.  Logically speaking…only things that can morally do things can be cogently claimed to morally deserve things.  Now, Idk that a lion is a moral agent.  I tend to think that they’re not.  Let’s suppose they are, though.  If they are, their agency is significantly less than our own, and thus whatever moral dessert comes with their moral agency would be likewise reduced.

Cats are fucking psychotic.  If cats were people we’d have to commit them.  Anyone with a cat knows this.

It’s true that no other animal has engaged in more acts of genocide and sadism then Cats 

[The Grand Nudger]

At the risk of igniting a blood feud, If I had to pick an animal that understands any of the types of moral systems we’ve been discussing it would be a dog. They’re extremely attuned to pack rules. To meta ethically relativistic cause and effect sequences.