- Reaction score
- 1,733
If only Dolphins can speak a language we Humans also can, then it would be nice to consider a "non-human person" perspective.
That's my only point.
That's my only point.
I agree 100%yea but since we speak.... and understand each other. We can give a yes or no answer, where as animals can't.
Ethics are subjective and can't be proven. You can't prove something is morally wrong. You can prove most people think something is wrong. You can prove that dolphins are nearly as smart as humans, and perhaps people should take into consideration of treating them as well as other humans. But they can't prove that we are equal. There is no proof humans are equal. That's something made up by us.
Ethics are subjective and can't be proven. You can't prove something is morally wrong. You can prove most people think something is wrong. You can prove that dolphins are nearly as smart as humans, and perhaps people should take into consideration of treating them as well as other humans. But they can't prove that we are equal. There is no proof humans are equal. That's something made up by us.
completely agreed...What is considered morally or ethically wrong is based on human thoughts. There is no other kind of thought process involved in the decision.
Yes, society needs rules to work.
But murder isn't against the law because it's 'bad'. It's because if everybody just murders each other you can't survive as a society.
Of course ethic rules and law often are the same.
But if they are not the same you get stupid results.
Like this article.
Ethics are based on some assumptions that don't make sense to me. Why is life 'sacred' (not in religious sense)? Why is it 'good' that people don't suffer?
It seems to me like they know some ulterior motive I'm just not aware of.
Ethical relativism isn't that different in cultures?ethical relativism is complete
Ethics are currently subjective; yes. If you read anything I posted in this thread you will become aware that ethics CAN be objective and more than likely WILL be in the future. Unless you argue that one's intention in this world is anything but to live the good life as opposed to the bad life, then this argument may prove invalid, but so will any ethical argument. As I said, once neuroscience matures, it will be able to figure out new things about the mind never before known. We will know how different events affect the brain and which ones, objectively, cause more harm than good.
I want to see you argue that female genital mutilation, which is practiced in many African cultures, is positive towards human psychological and physical well being (and following the good life). If you can't properly argue this, then clearly objective moral truths do exist and ethical relativism is complete BS.
I don't know if anyone has said it and I hate to just budge into a discussion like this, but ethics has the be objective to work or else there is no need to having them at all.ethics CAN be objective and more than likely WILL be in the future.
Source? Everything you're saying is that we can track down the things that you think is ethically correct in peoples minds, and then see what is ethically correct ("We will know how different events affect the brain and which ones, objectively, cause more harm than good."). Just because something causes more harm than good doesn't mean it's wrong. We could shoot you and take your organs to save others - that would lead to the most people surviving. But most people would still argue it's wrong.
Source for what? You're misinterpreting what I mean by more harm than good. Good - leads to one living the good life. Harm - leads to one leading the bad life. Ethics, even those based on science as I'm talking about here agree that taking a human life is wrong. So your argument is not really valid... it would require killing someone in the first place which clearly isn't leading the deceased to the good life; it's taking away their life.
edit:
even without a scientific view on morality, I do believe there is already at least one objective moral truth. Don't kill without reason. A society would be non-existent if random killings went unpunished and were approved of.
... physics and chemistry can only be subjective too?