Quote:
Originally Posted by nekokami
No, I was trying to offer some examples of how we might evaluate a lifestyle (any lifestyle) from a moral point of view. Evidently you object to anyone evaluating your choices from any point of view. If you want to clarify what parts of my reasoning you find fallacious, I would welcome that, but it seems you are satisfied with your assumption that "man is an omnivore and at the top of the food chain," so it would seem that no further discussion is possible.
I'm not a moral relativist. I don't claim to have some special access to moral truth, but I think questions of morality are important and have answers we can try to find by working together. If you don't believe that, there's really no point in us discussing this further, and I'll be happy to let it drop.
|
Pretty selective examples, which all pointed one way and none of which went a jot towards understanding how any life-style may be evaluated. Just because you
say that you are doing something with just an intellectual exercise in mind doesn't mean you can then have carte blanche to say anything you like.
I suppose you could say that 'man is an omnivore and at the top of the food chain' was an 'assumption', but only if 'assumption' were defined in the dictionary as 'See Fact'. I'd be fascinated to hear on what grounds anybody could possibly dispute that as a statement.
Having said all that - I fear that I, at least, am in danger of degenerating into argument rather than debate. As such, I guess it's best for me to accept that we disagree and leave it at that.