What were you hoping to achieve with this? You sure showed them, not all natural activities are bad. Unfortunately, they didn’t say that. You’re arguing against nobody
Eh, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t at one point or that it can’t be part of our reproductive strategy in the future. I’d even say that murder and cannibalism are very normal aspects of our species.
You’re probably getting downvoted (I didn’t just fyi) because it wasn’t really relevant to the discussion. No one’s disputing if cannibalism is natural, I was just trying to point out that killing and eating children is natural and yet still morally wrong to do.
>inb4 some child left behind replies with “are you equating eating meat for sustenance with rape?”
Yes. You could eat something else for sustenance. The reason you choose meat is because it’s a more enjoyable experience for you, despite the inherent harm. That sounds similar to another topic I mentioned in this comment
Not really, some things are objectively bad and wrong and other things are merely subjective.
The problem we’re having here are people who hold their subjective beliefs very strongly are then adamant that it makes said beliefs objective, just because they believe them.
even things like killing being bad is not objective in my opinion, it just simply stems from our minds and societies’ process of growth through natural selection.
We believe that killing is bad only because we share the majority of their DNA and we are close genetically to what we’re killing. It was evolutionarily incentivised to not kill those that are genetically close, as they and we share common ancestors from which such thoughts evolved.
this is imo why we value humans more than other animals, animals more than vegetables and relatives over strangers. Friends being valued more than strangers make sense as well, as they share ideas in the place of the shared genome.
in a wider scope none of this matters anyway, our lives and deaths are irrelevant to the universe and our lives don’t actually matter outside what our minds tell us.
There are plenty of things that are ‘natural’ that are wrong to do, why is eating meat any different?
Homosexuality has been observed among a great many species, particularly birds and mammals.
What where we talking about again?
What were you hoping to achieve with this? You sure showed them, not all natural activities are bad. Unfortunately, they didn’t say that. You’re arguing against nobody
Killing and eating your children has been observed among a great many species, particularly reptiles and mammals.
What where we talking about again?
Eh, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t at one point or that it can’t be part of our reproductive strategy in the future. I’d even say that murder and cannibalism are very normal aspects of our species.
E: I guess I’m getting downvoted for seemingly pulling that out of my ass. But I recommend the book Dinner with a Cannibal: The Complete History of Mankind’s Oldest Taboo by Caroline A. Travis-Henikoff. It’s a serious look at how cannibalism shaped our cultures and evolution.
You’re probably getting downvoted (I didn’t just fyi) because it wasn’t really relevant to the discussion. No one’s disputing if cannibalism is natural, I was just trying to point out that killing and eating children is natural and yet still morally wrong to do.
That’s a personal choice that people are allowed to make for themselves.
See this is what I told people when they found out I had sex with my dog, and they said I was crazy and abusive! Like, it’s my own choice!
>inb4 some child left behind replies with “are you equating eating meat for sustenance with rape?”
Yes. You could eat something else for sustenance. The reason you choose meat is because it’s a more enjoyable experience for you, despite the inherent harm. That sounds similar to another topic I mentioned in this comment
Are the animals also allowed a choice in the matter?
That misses the question a bit, no? Everything that is wrong to do is a personal choice. It’s not relevant to whether or not it should be done
Not really, some things are objectively bad and wrong and other things are merely subjective.
The problem we’re having here are people who hold their subjective beliefs very strongly are then adamant that it makes said beliefs objective, just because they believe them.
What is the ‘objective’ source of your morality?
There is none. It’s just my view based on how people see things. You’re allowed to not agree, it doesn’t have to be combative.
Killing someone who’s done nothing to you and doesn’t want to die is pretty objectively bad.
Yes, killing other people is objectively bad. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Could you tell me how you measured that badness and how I can repeat the experiment?
even things like killing being bad is not objective in my opinion, it just simply stems from our minds and societies’ process of growth through natural selection.
We believe that killing is bad only because we share the majority of their DNA and we are close genetically to what we’re killing. It was evolutionarily incentivised to not kill those that are genetically close, as they and we share common ancestors from which such thoughts evolved.
this is imo why we value humans more than other animals, animals more than vegetables and relatives over strangers. Friends being valued more than strangers make sense as well, as they share ideas in the place of the shared genome.
in a wider scope none of this matters anyway, our lives and deaths are irrelevant to the universe and our lives don’t actually matter outside what our minds tell us.