right and wrong

[Cavernio]

Ledwix: Really? It's like you read the intial post, then took my most recent post and just added paragraphs at breaking points in my argument, while reading none of the discussion inbetween, even though I suspect you didn't.

"If all 7 billion people thought the earth was flat, would that make it an objective truth about the universe? It is possible for biological organisms to be deluded. Agreement does not necessarily equal fact."
is not really relevant to my intended statement. If I say 'the sky is blue', it is completely mired in individual experience, such that if every human being thought the sky is blue, then so be it. And the number of people who think the sky is blue changes whether or not the sky is actually blue. To have the capacity to see blue is subjective, and yet there is an objective truth that extends from that subjectivity, namely that the sky is blue.

"you either eat, or starve. Both scenarios include suffering, which renders the whole objective morality stance bogus. It would mean that BOTH actions, eating and starving, would be immoral. And so nothing is moral."
...
Hence a reason why I defined moral as the opposite of immoral, and moral is minimizing immoralness. Furthermore, the fact that I do eat meat despite not having to do so means that I am being immoral when I eat it. I also specifically said that what people do is not necessarily moral and that what drives people doesn't have to be moral.

Using your meat example even more, to show how my ideas of morality can still be objective, regardless of whether or not I carefully weigh and consider what is moral or not when I eat, the fact remains that an animal dies when I eat it, and the animal probably does not want that. That is why in the vegan thread I was so against people who are like 'Being vegan's a choice, don't get pissy at me when I support torturing animals, its my choice, and it's a perfectly moral one.' But that animal is still tortured, whether or not I or you really care if it is, whether or not you think you are justified in eating it. Now...if you're too dumb to know that you are eating what once was an animal, that is different.

ddrxero: We evolved a brain and the ability to be logical. Seeing as our brains create factual, objective things like science and numbers, I don't know why something like morality should be any different. It's just a hell of a lot harder to be moral, and way more things to know and think of. Also, Examples of how people fail at being moral don't show anything. Examples of how people think they are moral even though, given more information, we find they are not, still does not counter anything I've said.


Aside: Also in regards to eating meat, if an animal is given a happy existence so that people can eat it, I don't see it as immoral. Rather, we have the control over whether it exists at all, and existence is better than no existence. Of course, if there were to be woods in that farmland instead, it might be more moral to not raise animals.