 |
Re: [RC] Reality bites - Sisu West Ranch"...But the problem arises is that we by separating cannibalism from the eating of any species are imparting a our theocratic bias ..." There are well documented health effects, specifically death from prion brain disease, that argue against cannibalism. Because of this I firmly hold that cannibalism is fundamentally different than the normal religious distinctions of what is right and wrong to eat. The decisions of various small groups of stranded people to consume their dead for survival, would be a great topic for a philosophy discussion group, especially if some of the participants were drawn from differing religions and included some secular philosophers. I'll bet that the discussion would go on for days, and not reach a consensus. Again this discussion has very little, if any, relavence to my original gedanken (thought) experiment, where I was asking people to carefully consider that if their children were starving, they would most likely decide that eating the family pets was a regretable necessity. Now to address the other argument that "the majority must rule..." unfortunately it is possible for a majority in a society to oppress a minority. That still does not make it right. I do operate my life on what I consider to be a moral high ground, but I do not necessarily think that everything that the majority (or even myself) considers to be immoral should be outlawed, even if they do have the votes to do it. We did tremendous damage to our society in an ill-advised criminalization of ethanol, even though a majority, who were good Christian people, voted in the 18th amendment. At one time the USA considered itself to be a "Christian" country. Almost all people, who professed a religious view identified themselves as Christian. The few who did not (Native Americans, and African slaves) were oppressed and/or forcibly converted. At the present time, we have significant populations of people who adhere to all of the major, and some minor world religions. Some of their beliefs are incompatible with each other and with the teachings of Christianity. If we want to continue to have a peaceful society, where all these people are accepted, we must be very careful not to make things illegal just to satisfy our own personal Religious code. Of course, one can argue that all the basic laws (do not commit murder, do not steal etc.) express a moral judgment. The difference is two fold. 1. Most of them are universal moral truths that no organized religion or philosophy will deny. 2. Not having these laws would do real and verifiable damage to society. By the way there are many laws in our country that I feel are not founded upon universal moral truths, and/or do not prevent real damage to society. Bring some of them up and I will argue that they should be repealed. Our representative democracy is a poor form of government, but on the other hand I think it is far superior to any other form of government I have ever read about. Ed Ed & Wendy Hauser 2994 Mittower Road Victor, MT 59875 (406) 642-9640 ranch(at)sisuwest(dot)us =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|