From: Richard Brodie (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 19 Jan 2006 - 18:48:45 GMT
<<I assume you'd be prepared to say that killing the guys with the "wrong"
morals/god is morally unacceptable. (So would I, needless to say.) So
you're not a hardline relativist/subjectivist about morals. In other words
you do believe that there is some sort of criterion against which we can
judge morality, even if that's not an absolute criterion like "God's
I'm reluctant to kill a bottle of Scotch, let alone people with different
dietary habits from mine. The term "morality" carries with it a lot of
black-and-white, right-and-wrong baggage and invites people to judge one
another, usually with woefully incomplete information. I'm pretty sure the
Bible warns against that, but people seem to do it anyway.
<<In which case, judged against whichever criterion you have chosen, you
will either agree or disagree with eating meat. Even if you say that eating
meat is a morally neutral action, this contradicts the vegetarian
Oh my goodness. It simply isn't a weighty enough issue for me to bother
agreeing or disagreeing. You may as well ask me if I agree with checking out
of the supermarket in line three or four.
<<That's really all I meant. I am open to the idea that it is me who's
wrong about vegetarianism. I just don't see how we can both be right.>>
You can't both be right. However, it is possible that neither of you is
Moral positions are not right or wrong unless you believe there is a Word of
God. They are just positions.
A more workable system, to me, is to be clear about my values, and the
values generally shared by humanity, and act accordingly. I value life and
justice so wanton killing is right out.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 19 Jan 2006 - 19:10:08 GMT