Total Members Voted: 25
The two are mutually explicit because for something to be a human right it must be morally inconsequential.If it were morally upright, then it would be a duty, and if it were morally illicit, it would be unacceptable in society, and therefore not a right.
Quote from: Kirlia on December 22, 2015, 09:01:11 PMThe two are mutually explicit because for something to be a human right it must be morally inconsequential.If it were morally upright, then it would be a duty, and if it were morally illicit, it would be unacceptable in society, and therefore not a right.This is a better explanation.So what constitutes a "right"? Because eating animals appears to be a right, yet it is clearly a moral atrocity.
Eating animals isn't a right.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 22, 2015, 09:08:17 PMEating animals isn't a right.Define "right", then.
Quote from: Ganon on December 22, 2015, 09:06:45 PMQuote from: Kirlia on December 22, 2015, 09:01:11 PMThe two are mutually explicit because for something to be a human right it must be morally inconsequential.If it were morally upright, then it would be a duty, and if it were morally illicit, it would be unacceptable in society, and therefore not a right.This is a better explanation.So what constitutes a "right"? Because eating animals appears to be a right, yet it is clearly a moral atrocity.Eating animals isn't a right.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 22, 2015, 09:08:17 PMQuote from: Ganon on December 22, 2015, 09:06:45 PMQuote from: Kirlia on December 22, 2015, 09:01:11 PMThe two are mutually explicit because for something to be a human right it must be morally inconsequential.If it were morally upright, then it would be a duty, and if it were morally illicit, it would be unacceptable in society, and therefore not a right.This is a better explanation.So what constitutes a "right"? Because eating animals appears to be a right, yet it is clearly a moral atrocity.Eating animals isn't a right.Well, its more of a commodity, but since nothing either bars you from or compels you to do so, the ability is considered a right.
Well, it's more of a commodity, but since nothing either bars you from or compels you to do so, the ability is considered a right.
Quote from: Kirlia on December 22, 2015, 09:14:11 PMQuote from: SecondClass on December 22, 2015, 09:08:17 PMQuote from: Ganon on December 22, 2015, 09:06:45 PMQuote from: Kirlia on December 22, 2015, 09:01:11 PMThe two are mutually explicit because for something to be a human right it must be morally inconsequential.If it were morally upright, then it would be a duty, and if it were morally illicit, it would be unacceptable in society, and therefore not a right.This is a better explanation.So what constitutes a "right"? Because eating animals appears to be a right, yet it is clearly a moral atrocity.Eating animals isn't a right.Well, its more of a commodity, but since nothing either bars you from or compels you to do so, the ability is considered a right.I would disagree. Killing animals isn't a right, being able to get nutrients into your body is.
And I don't want to argue whether or not eating animals is indeed morally wrong, so for the sake of the argument, can you just pretend that it is?
Oh, okay. So I'm right again.Suicide can be both immoral and a right. Gotcha.
I don't use the word "right" unless I'm talking about an unalienable right. Your definition isn't what I'm talking about, because it's so pedantic. You're talking about permissions, I'm talking about human rights.
Solonoid is talking about permissions, not unalienable human rights. So, no.
Eating animals is a need.
And I don't want to argue whether or not eating animals is indeed morally wrong.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 22, 2015, 09:23:06 PMI don't use the word "right" unless I'm talking about an unalienable right. Your definition isn't what I'm talking about, because it's so pedantic. You're talking about permissions, I'm talking about human rights.So now the question becomes, "What are your unalienable rights?"Depending on your answer, we can find out if there are indeed unalienable rights that can be considered immoral when exercised.
You would only be right if eating animals was wrong.
Quote from: Batch on December 22, 2015, 09:24:31 PMEating animals is a need.Quote from: Ganon on December 22, 2015, 09:17:43 PMAnd I don't want to argue whether or not eating animals is indeed morally wrong.
If you're only affecting yourself (physically, not emotionally), then what you're doing can't be moral or immoral.
Quote from: Kirlia on December 22, 2015, 09:27:42 PMYou would only be right if eating animals was wrong.It is wrong, and if you could exercise a little reading comprehension, you'd acknowledge that I'm not interested in the ethics of animal consumption at this moment in time. If you're not one already, you'll never be one. You're a nihilist -- any argument I make is going to go through one ear and out the other.
Quote from: Ganon on December 22, 2015, 09:28:11 PMQuote from: Batch on December 22, 2015, 09:24:31 PMEating animals is a need.Quote from: Ganon on December 22, 2015, 09:17:43 PMAnd I don't want to argue whether or not eating animals is indeed morally wrong.Its not, its about survival. Think a lion gives a fuck we it tears into your flesh carcass. I'd much rather eat animals then all this processed shit that gets thrown at us nowadays.
Find another example if you don't want to support the one you've made, because if you can't defend your argument you're admitting that you're wrong.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 22, 2015, 09:29:13 PMIf you're only affecting yourself (physically, not emotionally), then what you're doing can't be moral or immoral.Ahh, I see. All of the effects of suicide are emotional, but if you don't care about those, then there's nothing I can do for you. Would you not concede that there are times where exercising your freedom of speech/opinion, while maybe not immoral, could be considered unethical or just a 'dick move'?Like, if I was to verbally abuse my daughter every day, would that not be immoral?
Poll
Should I Ban SecondClass?