stevevw
inquisitive
But when you condemn and tell the other person they are wrong you are saying that their subjective moral position is wrong. By doing that you are taking an objective position. What you should be doing is not condemning them and just saying they have a different position to yours as people do with tastes of food.If you steal my property, your act is against me, and I will judge you based on that act
They have a right to their moral position to take your stuff as much as you have a right to your moral position that says people should not take other people's stuff. These are just different positions on a spectrum of views where none are ultimately good or bad.
Why what is so special about the person. they may never see them again. Why are humans so special if we are just the end result of biological processes.Because the person is the one they have to answer to
But who said your position is ultimately right over the other person. What objective support do you have for showing your position is more right than theirs. If morals change with environments then who says that taking other people's stuff is a good way to survive if they haven't got enough stuff.That’s where the discussion comes in and one person convinces the other who is wrong
That's, why I think trying to pretend there are no objective morals, can be a problem. That is why society tends to take one position and tells everyone they must conform so that all the arguing about individual opinions is stopped.A lot of that going around in the real world ya know!
Fair enough. Always existed as in on earth, since the universe or before the universe.Why would you assume life ever came about? How do you know live hasn’t always existed?
Ok fair enough, I would have to know what your views are about how life got here and as you have alluded to not having any particular belief from religious belief or science I cannot know to be sure about how to answer you.If you asked me whose life is more valuable; yours (a person I’ve never met) or my brother whom I’ve known my entire life and has built an emotional relationship with, even though I may SAY all humans are equal if my brother died, my reaction of my brothers death compared to my reaction if you died would expose my claim as a lie, because it would be clear I find my brothers life more valuable than your own; even though I doubt your brother would agree.
If you asked me whose life is more valuable; a person I’ve never met, or a dog I’ve never met, because have an emotional connection to the human that I do not have with the dog, I will subjectively claim the human life is more valuable; even though I doubt my dog will agree.
But usually, many people believe in evolution so in that sense my question was why should humans be so special when they are just another species among many that just happen to be more advanced. But that should make them any more special otherwise that would be classed as speciesism. So in the greater scheme of things, humans making the survival of themselves so special that this is what created morals is being rather self-serving compared to other creatures.
Isn't that what species do, they put themselves in better positions to survive. So if humans need more land to survive such as to grow their crops then they will take land from other species and wipe them out. If they need more food to survive they will deplete the oceans of fish to have enough food etc. That is putting survival over the morality of treating the lives of other species as special. When it comes to survival morals go out the window.What does “survival of the fittest” have to do with humans?
Upvote
0