• Kacarott@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Attaching a system of mortality to a diet is just religion

    … what? I’m sorry, but this simply doesn’t make sense at all. By this logic what is wrong with cannibalism? Attaching a system of morality to that diet would just be a religion right? And I’m sure eating human meat has all kinds of nutrients.

    • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Nothing is inherently wrong with cannibalism.

      I’m not a moral realist. So I don’t believe in moral facts I.e. that murder is ‘wrong’ or being charitable is ‘right’

      It’s kid stuff (IMO) to believe in mystical rights and wrongs of the universe. The universe does not care one iota that you cease to exist tomorrow or if all humans were to become extinct (IMO).

      If you disagree please point me to the source of your morals, how do you know what’s right and what’s wrong?

      • Kacarott@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Who here is claiming that there are moral facts? Of course morals are constructs of human culture, but that doesn’t make them less important. Morals are essentially what we have learned to be important rules for good, healthy societies. Humans who abide by the idea that it is “wrong” to kill another human are far more compatible in a community than ones who do not. These concepts have developed over a very long time, which is why we tend to “know” when things are wrong (eg feel bad, guilty conscious, etc). One of these “rules” is that needlessly inflicting pain on intelligent animals is wrong. Similarly, causing unnecessary damage to the environment is wrong. The context of climate change is quite new, but the principle is the same.

          • Kacarott@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Obviously the observer decides for themselves what they think is needed. I didn’t think it would be controversial to observe that people tend to dislike/have an aversion to hurting intelligent animals for no reason.

            Not everyone necessarily feels this, but many people do. Enough for us as a society to largely ban/shun things like dog fights, bull fights, circus animals, animal torture videos, etc