3 ms·
The thing in question being dead isn't a lasting consequence? Or did you mean besides that?
by rosser 9y ago
The thing in question being dead isn't a lasting consequence? Or did you mean besides that?
- goldenkey 9y agoHe is saying that torture is irrelevant if you plan to kill someone. Change the subject from lobster to person. And his argument becomes quite repulsive to most people. Some morals really can't be taught as much as they are obvious to anyone with a full range of emotion. I did respond to his argument anyhow above.
- Y_Y 9y agoMaybe it's because i don't have a "full range of emotion" but I don't believe there are any absolute moral truths, let alone obvious ones. I think it's very dangerous to assume others don't put the save care and effort into living their lives as well as they can, and if they have come up with a different way of doing that (popular or otherwise) that's it's because they're defective or stupid. I don't necessarily agree with the point your arguing against, but it's not wrong on its face.