Killing is OK?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Only an idiot would say...

I'm sorry, I know we should stay on topic, but I mean come on. This is supposed to be a rational discussion board. Statements like the above should be left for the biblers to throw at each other. What you're using here, Kyu, is listed under Every schoolboy knows in this fabulous work.

What a real idiot would say is that he won't listen to other arguments than the one he currently accepts. Surely that's not what we stand for here?

Normally I'd say that only someone with an agenda would take my remark out of context, it certainly is in context when considered with the paragraph before it, so I will simply ask you to look at Messenger's previous posts and perhaps gain some understanding of why just about everything he posts is biased or just plain stupid and also to consider the fact that (based on personal experience of people just like Messenger) I confidently predict he will not be able to "refute evolution very easily".

Kyu

[chuff]

Only an idiot would say...

I'm sorry, I know we should stay on topic, but I mean come on. This is supposed to be a rational discussion board. Statements like the above should be left for the biblers to throw at each other. What you're using here, Kyu, is listed under Every schoolboy knows in this fabulous work.

What a real idiot would say is that he won't listen to other arguments than the one he currently accepts. Surely that's not what we stand for here?

Normally I'd say that only someone with an agenda would take my remark out of context, it certainly is in context when considered with the paragraph before it, so I will simply ask you to look at Messenger's previous posts and perhaps gain some understanding of why just about everything he posts is biased or just plain stupid and also to consider the fact that (based on personal experience of people just like Messenger) I confidently predict he will not be able to "refute evolution very easily".

Kyu

That sounds fair.

[BadPoison]

This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

[oldschooldoc]

This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

Agreed. I was very hesitant to answer due to the question being so blatantly retarded.

[Kyuuketsuki]

This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

I know others think more highly of Titan here than I do but Messenger is simply raising the same argument Titan did but in a more offensive (or in my terms, "Ewwwww!") fashion ... Titan basically claimed that the atheist had no need of moral restrictions and that, in essence, is what Messenger is doing.

It's a dumb question because it proceeds from the assumption that morality must stem from an ultimate arbiter unless it can be demonstrated otherwise when in fact, if that ultimate arbiter cannot be demonstrated and no other explanation requests or requires that ultimate arbiter the positing of the ultimate arbiter (and anything claimed to derive from it) is the extraordinary claim.

Kyu

[Squid]

Messenger should have taken more care with his question. Can we eat other species? Yes. Should we? That would now be a moral question.  "Including humans"? Well, relating to the original poll question, humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) would not fall under the category of "other species".  But ignoring this problem, "can we eat humans"? Yes, we can - people have demonstrated this in extreme survival situations and just because they wanted to.  Should we eat humans? Now, that's a moral question.  And here I thought Messenger was presenting himself as a master logician of sorts.  That one little word makes all the difference.

[BadPoison]

This poll is stupid. Is the question supposed to be "Is it ethical to eat humans?" or is it a biological "Can we gain nutrients from eating humans?"

What a stupid, missleading way to try to push your views.

I know others think more highly of Titan here than I do but Messenger is simply raising the same argument Titan did but in a more offensive (or in my terms, "Ewwwww!") fashion ... Titan basically claimed that the atheist had no need of moral restrictions and that, in essence, is what Messenger is doing.

It's a dumb question because it proceeds from the assumption that morality must stem from an ultimate arbiter unless it can be demon started otherwise when in fact, if that ultimate arbiter cannot be demonstrated and no other explanation requests or requires that ultimate arbiter the positing of the ultimate arbiter (and anything claimed to derive from it) is the extraordinary claim.

Kyu

Because clearly religious philosophies are the only philosphies when it comes to morals, ethics, and how we should live our lifes...Right...That idea is so arrogant an assumption it gives me a headache. Thanks god for bayer

[Wechtlein Uns]

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone, atheist or otherwise, wants to eat their own kind. I'm a big fan of meat however, and I love me my hamburgers. lamb is pretty good, too.

I think however, that there is something about messenger's claim that atheists have no morals. It's obvious that atheists have morals. I'm an atheist, and I have morals. But even so, It seems to me that there is no real reason why we do have morals in the first place. I don't really think that there is a god dictating morals, and if you add to that fact that human societies have different morals and their morals often change, then you're stuck wondering if morals really do matter. I'm not saying that there are no consequences for our actions. If you kill someone, you'll go to jail, perhaps get the death penalty, if you live in texas. But even if you do kill someone, who is it that is supposed to care? The family members of that person will all die in their turn. The human race will eventually die out. I find that the fundamental need for morals, and what this universe fundamentally lacks, is a universal witness.

Such a being could be a god, though not in the christian sense. But, what's so disturbing is that even though we have the ability to bear witness, there doesn't seem to be a universal conciousness upon which everything matters. And the only question that concerns us, then, is if it is possible to eventually create one?

[chuff]

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone, atheist or otherwise, wants to eat their own kind. I'm a big fan of meat however, and I love me my hamburgers. lamb is pretty good, too.

I think however, that there is something about messenger's claim that atheists have no morals. It's obvious that atheists have morals. I'm an atheist, and I have morals. But even so, It seems to me that there is no real reason why we do have morals in the first place. I don't really think that there is a god dictating morals, and if you add to that fact that human societies have different morals and their morals often change, then you're stuck wondering if morals really do matter. I'm not saying that there are no consequences for our actions. If you kill someone, you'll go to jail, perhaps get the death penalty, if you live in texas. But even if you do kill someone, who is it that is supposed to care? The family members of that person will all die in their turn. The human race will eventually die out. I find that the fundamental need for morals, and what this universe fundamentally lacks, is a universal witness.

Such a being could be a god, though not in the christian sense. But, what's so disturbing is that even though we have the ability to bear witness, there doesn't seem to be a universal conciousness upon which everything matters. And the only question that concerns us, then, is if it is possible to eventually create one?

Well "atheists have morals" isn't inherently true, but I see what you're saying.

You present a very interesting point, WE!
Do you mean an outside force that's always watching but not intervening, such as the Deists believed in? If so, what is the use/purpose of such a witness, if it isn't going to "get you" someday for all the immoral things you did or moral things you didn't do?

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

I got a chance to read a book called Universally Preferable Behavior (link opens a pdf), which is free online, and it's written by Stefan Molyneux.. It was a "Rational Defense of Secular Ethics," as he calls it. See what you think of it, if you like. I might have read it too fast to understand it fully. I should re-read it.

So I guess the reason I mentioned that book is that Molyneux says (if I remember right) that there are objective moral values out there, and that they are able to be discovered and applied. Wow, my description is exciting me, I should definitely read it again, haha!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well "atheists have morals" isn't inherently true, but I see what you're saying.

Morality is a social thing not individual so I think it would be more correct that no person has morality but an individual's behaviour can be judged as moral or immoral against a given social moral climate. Individuals (except I assume in rare medical circumstances) have consciences and it is these that they use to decide whether they act morally or otherwise.

Kyu

[Wechtlein Uns]

I suppose without anything to ultimately care about immoral actions, all immoral people get off scott free. If I were to kill somebody, and I recieved the death penalty, the same thing would happen to me that would happen to the dalai lama. Thing is, the consequence of death is what might repel me from killing someone. (hypothetically speaking, here) But it seems to me that the consequence of death is an individual thing. and that, in the large scheme of the universe, it doesn't matter.

In that sense, we could go around murdering people and raping and stealing, and the only consequence that would result from it would be the rapid eradication of the human race. But isn't it true that the universe still wouldn't care?

I'm not talking about punishment and just deserts. I'm just thinking that if there was a transcendent being which was a witness to everything, and was able to be offended or appalled or overjoyed by our actions, would that then mean something? It wouldn't have to punish us. Just the idea of knowing that your actions, you, will be remembered forever...

It's clear to me that there is no universal witness. But I'm not sure that we could never make one. It might be possible to create a type of cosmic computer that is self-perpetuating, and that has the sentience required to be a universal witness. It might be unethical to create on though. As it might resent us for doing so. I would be resentful too if all I could do was watch, but never interact.

[wazzz]

it's not and it will never will be ?
why mmm let me see u see if u are agree that u make Action X to another person
if u accept the action X to b applied to u then it's comfortably to do it on ur own self .
that's the rule of morale  

[Sophus]

Killing is not "Okay." It is neutral. So in some cases killing is acceptable, in others it is not (as far as the human moral perception goes). Precisely the reason why a commandment that says though shalt not kill is invalid.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Killing is not "Okay." It is neutral. So in some cases killing is acceptable, in others it is not (as far as the human moral perception goes). Precisely the reason why a commandment that says though shalt not kill is invalid.

Indeed.

Kyu

[Messenger]

it's not and it will never will be ?
why mmm let me see u see if u are agree that u make Action X to another person
if u accept the action X to b applied to u then it's comfortably to do it on ur own self .
that's the rule of morale  

but you are violating this rule yourself
You eat chicken, cows and even trees
Some day (in dreams) some those can evolve into bumans (something intelligent like humans) and start eating us
Are you eating them because you are stronger and they are helpless?
I don't see why Hitler was wrong