Interesting Links for 06-01-2015
- How to make Piñata cookies!
(tags: food awesome ) - Tips from experts on how to fall asleep at night
(tags: sleep funny ) - Which Medieval English Cathedral are you?
(tags: funny quiz history religion UK ) - This is what happens when people starting taking ethics too literally.
(tags: morality logic ) - Devon farmer who owns Britain's only Nazi cows ( Read more... )
I think this might be the issue :->
Some people feel that eating animals is as bad as eating people. To them, offsetting would be wrong. To other people, eating animals isn't at all a moral issue, so they wouldn't need to offset at all.
I think there's a bunch of stuff where people put things in different buckets. The difference between "That's a bit icky" and "EWWWWW!" is theoretically one of degree, but the degree is so large that you've ended up in two separate categories.
Eating people, for instance, would tend to be in the latter category - utterly unthinkable. Unless you were adrift in a boat with nothing to eat and were going to starve to death. In which case it's only a really horrible thing to do, because your perspective is now comparing it to something even worse, rather than to "eating cows".
When you get down to it, all morality is about how it makes people feel. We divide things up and try to sort out our reasons for feeling things, balance the various feelings we have ("I like being able to speak my mind" vs "Inciting racist mobs has effects I don't like"), and justify the various rules we choose. But there's no "there" at the root of things to build it on top of. The only base for morality is your own feelings, everything is built on that - and your feelings aren't logically coherent.
Well, I assume so. Mine certainly aren't :-)
Reply
Leave a comment