uhhh_i_forgot said:
lol, no. I think we are born neutral, then gradually we develop a "compass" to point us in the direction our lives will lead, regardless there are some universal laws which we know are right. Through choices we could "alter", for lack of a better word, the way we see these laws....kinda like trying to use a compass near a iron rich mountain. The compass gets screwy, and the person gets lost
I happen to entertain similar thoughts, and I've often used the metaphor that there are "rules etched into the fabric of the universe". But I guess now the hard questions are, what are those universal laws, and how could we know what those universal laws are in the first place?
Sometimes, to circumvent those questions, I like to ask people how they feel about various moral issues, then see if they answer consistently. I do this because at the very least, the rules etched in the universe must be consistent themselves, so a person willing themselves to be morally consistent will approximate the rules of the universe to a greater extent than otherwise. (Its actually quite similar to the way scientists make closer and closer approximations to the laws of nature by trial and error.)
I was just hoping that you stay away from the proverbial iron mines...and that you dont go on homicidal killing sprees.
Don't worry, I will never go on a homicidal killing spree. I happen to have good reasons why killing people is wrong, but my answers don't often match what other people say. But the question "why is it wrong to take human lives" is still interesting because I notice so many people take that question for granted without explanation.
Its a really important question, but you'd be surprised to learn that 99.9% of all people you'll never meet have ever thought about it, and more surprisingly you'll find that when people try to answer the question they often contradict themselves by their treatment of non-human animals.
Almost always, I find that people are very strongly anthropocentric, as if the rules etched in the universe specify an elevated status of human beings above all other animals. Probably, most people find my morality very strongly unintuitive because I reject anthropocentricism outright. The universe does not care about human beings, so I reject anthropocentricism as not only an obviously man-made rule, but as superstitious. I find the belief that everything revolves around humans is a remant of an ancient superstition that everything revolves around the earth, neither of which describe facts about the universe.
The reasons for why its wrong to kill human beings must apply to all creatures who are relevantly similar to human beings, which includes many non-human animals. Many non-human animals have equivalent mental and feeling capacities to human infants, so consistency demands that we give them equal moral consideration (they are moral equals so-to-speak). Because as a utilitarian I feel its best to minimize the harm that we do to human infants, and that it would be wrong to cut up human infants to serve the needs of the rest of us rational humans, I naturally feel that we should treat animals in the same way. Rather than lower infants down to the status of animals, the principle that we should minimize the harm that we cause demands that we should raise the status of animals to the level of infants.
I'm simply against the wasteful killing of animals. The system we have isnt perfect for using animals as food or clothing, it needs to be reformed, but not, i dont think, abolished. Lets say a person kills a cow to make a leather jacket, but lets the body go to waste. Then he's hungry and goes out and kills another cow and only gets the meat, the second cow could have lived (at least, a little while longer) if the person would have used everything he could.
I'm not exactly sure why your rule applies to animals, but not to humans. Perhaps this is your moral compass being too close to iron ore?
I've never understood how people can draw moral lines along the species boundary, because being a member of a certain species is no more morally relevant than being a member of a certain race or sex. Certainly, species-based moral lines are no more rational than race- and sex-based moral lines; the moral rules that use must be applied to all species, races, and sexes equally.
However, I noticed you seem to think there is some value in letting a cow live a little longer rather than just killing them nonchalantly. If a cow living just a little while longer is a good thing to you, than have you considered that it would be an even greater good if we could let both cows live out the rest of their natural lives by not eating or cutting up the cows for food and clothing? If the man could live reasonably well by wearing cotton clothes and being a vegetarian, do you think he should do that?
I knew dat.
