| |
> If you don't eat people, but do eat cows merely because that's what your
> parents did, I think that's a shame. Why not explore the reasoning
> behind it, and come up with a rational explanation for your actions, or
> change them if you can not?
There are too many things in the world to derive all of them from first
principals. I accept all sorts of things that I was taught without
reasoning through them fully, I suspect you do as well. If there are some
issues that we each feel the need to investigate then once again the line
that defines those issues is up to us to define.
Changing your actions simply because you cannot explain them is stupid.
What do you change your actions to? The first step is to find a new action
that makes more sense to you and then change to that. The important steep
is not changing from an old "bad" action but moving on to a new "better"
action.
I first ate cows because that is what my parents put in front of me. No I
realize that I quite like cows, they taste good. Looking at my teeth I see
that I am perfectly suited for eating cows, it has no ill effects on me (not
so for the cow however).
If I had grown up in a society that practiced cannibalism then I suspect I
would feel the same way about eating people.
"but what about the cows/peoples feelings? isn't it bad for them?"
Possibly, I guess my answer to that is simple, In questions of morality
there is no absolute truth. We may have grown up in a society with rules so
strict (such as not eating people) that the seem like absolutes but I assure
you they are not, Morals are defined purely by the society we live in, they
differ, they change and evolve.
The society I grew up in accepts that eating cows is Ok (on the whole) so
that is what my moral tends towards.
My only regret is that I probably won't ever find out what human flesh
tastes like.
Tim
wow that was longer than it needed to be.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) I'll let you regret that. I'll just choose to not mind. :) You could always taste your own, though. You could probably cut off enough to fry up a thin steakums-type thing without doing too much permanent damage - especially if you take it from (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Frog
|
| Tim McSweeney wrote in message ... (...) so (...) assure (...) Well, I think a lot of people disagree with that on religious grounds, but since I don't want to get into that I'll disagree with it on logical/philosophical grounds: I think all (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) Right. Mostly because we don't have time to question everything. (...) Thinking about them and trying to explain them is not. (...) I agree. But, you won't ever come up with something better without questioning the status quo. To improve you (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Frog
|
| (...) This is obviously the case, not just a maybe. What I mean is that for each person there is (presumably) a line of the sort described. It does change over a lifetime, it has for me. It is different from culture to culture. Etc. You suggest that (...) (26 years ago, 8-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
