This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Alyosha · 36-40, M
Depends on what you mean by morals. Skipping that, I'd say they're equally infected by irrationality. The Christians believe in immaterial minds. The atheists are sometimes right and sometimes far wrong in regards to their pictures of reality, minus the God issue, based on trying to synthesize conflicting data. The hard problem of consciousness poses a problem for physicalists, and there are those who are willing to sit with that and then there are those who are not. Not to mention the Marxists and deconstructionists. Marx believed in reason but his system does not seem to function well in practice. That is a mark against it, but then there are the analyses themselves, and if you follow the money, you get a grim picture. But atheism is, as the foregoing should suggest, divisible into various camps, who hold to atheism for different reasons. So many of them these days accept unreason as a structural or governing principle, not realizing the evil this is liable to generate, and inevitable, given time.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Alyosha Let's not 'skip that'
Let's define our terms and then see where that takes us.
Moral behaviour is maintaining, improving, or protecting, the well-being of animals that would otherwise suffer
Discuss
Let's define our terms and then see where that takes us.
Moral behaviour is maintaining, improving, or protecting, the well-being of animals that would otherwise suffer
Discuss
Alyosha · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Animals can only be in the care of moral agents (rational beings), not full-fledged moral partners.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Alyosha · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 I mean how humans treat animals is a subject of debate, whereas animals cannot have us in their care. Not on the level of moral responsibility.



