Beginner

Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: AZ
Posts: 109
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
|
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
Never stated that was my opinion, asked a question of others' opinions.
|
I define moral obligation as something one must do in order to be moral, objectively.
|
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
|
I don't believe that a person's overall morality is defined by only one choice.
|
Agree. I think it adds to one being a moral person, but this aspect alone doesn't define them as moral.
For example, if someone proclaims they're a vegan, that doesn't make them a moral person, because, you don't know anything else about them. They could be a raging lunatic. |
No one choice can make you "a bad person." I'm not even sure how to determine whether or not someone is good or bad overall, but I suppose someone who generally acts in a way that is kind and compassionate could be said to be "a good person." Veganism is certainly a kind and compassionate choice, but it is still only one choice among many.
|
I really dislike the term "obligation", as if it is something I don't want to do but have to. Yet I have a hard time with "choice", since the choice to eat meat involves the suffering of another being that didn't get to have that choice, as well as environmental destruction and a whole cascade of other events. Maybe I fall somewhere in between. Abstaining from meat is a responsibility I feel happy to live up to, not only for myself, but for causes such as world hunger, environment, animals, anti violence. I feel that it is imperative that as many people as possible take this responsibility as our population continues to expand and our resources become ever more limited. Someday it will not be a choice.
|
I really dislike the term "obligation", as if it is something I don't want to do but have to. Yet I have a hard time with "choice", since the choice to eat meat involves the suffering of another being that didn't get to have that choice, as well as environmental destruction and a whole cascade of other events. Maybe I fall somewhere in between. Abstaining from meat is a responsibility I feel happy to live up to, not only for myself, but for causes such as world hunger, environment, animals, anti violence. I feel that it is imperative that as many people as possible take this responsibility as our population continues to expand and our resources become ever more limited. Someday it will not be a choice.
|
You can't really begin to answer the question without looking at context of actions and choice as a consequence of privilege. Unfortunately we are really bad at including those factors (by 'we' I mean humans generally). This pops up across a variety of discussions - lying, self defense, etc ...)
It isn't really any more difficult for meat eating than anything else, but it is beneficial to some powerful interests to pretend like it is. It's always a difficult question. The way "choice" is portrayed in the original question makes me think we're also probing relativism here. I don't think relativism is necessary to question whether veganism is a moral baseline. It's not. We only become relativists when we discount context. Ecofeminist theory provides a much more satisfying resolution than the "big two" ethical theories (Utilitarianism and deontology). It promotes "contextual vegetarianism". For most ecofeminist theorists and their audiences this works out to veganism. Perhaps we have a hard time answering the question because we're using frameworks that aren't up to the task. |
I don't believe that a person's overall morality is defined by only one choice.
|
I have no idea what you mean by context,
|
I don't understand what you mean by "do you practice it?" and I don't think I'm qualified to judge whether someone is a good or a bad person. What I can say is that donating money to help the homeless, volunteering at a nursing home, and treating people kindly are all acts of compassion whereas clubbing baby seals is not. Do you think you're qualified to make a judgment of a person's overall character? How would you even go about doing that? If you believe that one immoral choice (in this instance, clubbing baby seals) makes a person "bad," then shouldn't one moral choice (donating to the homeless) make a person "good"? I have certainly made the wrong choice from time to time, as have you, I'm sure. Does that make us bad people?
|
don't tell me you don't judge anyone to be bad overall. Even if it is one deed, In sure you would judge a rapist to be a bad person overall whatever other good he did.
I'll tell my way of judging whether someone is bad or not. When someone does a wrong deed over and over again for their personal gain without thinking of the effect on others he's bad overall. |
Thread Tools | |
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
Posting Rules | |