Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmqsde wrote

Reply to comment by Ill_Department_2055 in Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing by phileconomicus

Again, that is my personal view of how a non-absolute morality could be derived, based on the concept of a 'common good' with expanding circles of commonality. I am sure there are alternative options, and am happy to consider them. What I'm not willing to consider is an imposed morality from 'above'.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmr96a wrote

Do you have any actual arguments to support your personal view? I agree that we needn't have a morality "from above," but when your critique of the article is that it doesn't support a moral assumption, I would assume you have something more solid and supported to counter it with.

2

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmrtpy wrote

What I said was:
> Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position.

Now I'm not saying there isn't a moral argument to be made, just that assuming it without question is not good philosophy.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmsd7m wrote

You already admitted that it is a moral issue. Just because you don't agree with the moral conclusion the author makes doesn't mean it's suddenly not a moral issue.

2

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmstiq wrote

Just because I think it's a moral issue doesn't mean that it can be assumed without question. Also, the paper treats it as a moral imperative, which is something else entirely.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmt30y wrote

I doubt you make that claim when an article makes the case against human trafficking.

2

AllanfromWales1 t1_itmtxry wrote

Doubt on.

1

Ill_Department_2055 t1_itmu33d wrote

So I guessed right.

Edit to add: You're setting a bar for this article that we obviously don't set for a multitude of other issues, simply because you disagree with it. That's bad faith right there.

2