• southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    See, there’s that religion creeping in again.

    Morals, that’s religion right there, and when a religion starts from the default of assuming it’s the only right answer, it’s a shit religion, no matter what other arguments are involved.

    • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      would you get mad if someone kicked a dog for fun? Would it upset you if someone punched you in the face or stole your stuff? If so gtfo with that religious attitude, morals are only related to religion and the rest of us enlightened atheists can do anything we want

      edit: to be clear, morals are important and good when they’re constructed rationally to protect sentient beings (human and non-human) from exploitation and abuse. Religious morals are deeply problematic because they’re not constructed rationally, and they try to restrict consenting adults from doing certain things together and they allow other horrific behaviors as totally fine. There’s a large, meaningful difference between animal rights and religious morals

    • Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.

      Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.