debate

I’m not modding I’m just commenting lol OP should mod or someone else

ok, thanks az id like mio to address the morality of past instances of social contract if social contract is the baseline of your morals then why is it wrong? and if im still not phrasing this right, please tell me and this debate isnt about making someone take an "L" its about reaching a middle ground the goal isnt to prove you wrong so to speak, but just to reach a middle ground of understanding

alright, if mio is bowing out ill do my make my final closing statement to this conversation, and hes free to do the same to appeal that social contract is the baseline of morality is basically appealing to popularity and law in nazi germany the social contract was that jews were bad in slavery times the social contract was that slavery was good in tribal cultures the social contract is what pedophilic acts are good to think that social contract is the baseline of morality is to say that laws and the majority opinion makes something morally righteous, that would include the above things just because there is a law does not mean this law is morally justified just because the popular opinion is one thing doesnt mean its morally justified if youd like to defend social contract, ill debate you on morality from an empathy stand point

Well there was that one Chinese scientists who advocated for gene editing against only diseases to help families but a bunch a scientist said no and some other things then just a little bit later no one was talking about it. So like if a bunch of people agree to axe your project then oh well

i mean, we just dont know enough about gene editing and theres no evidence the guy actually edited any genes, and he never got the parents consent id say its the next step in evolution to take our genetics into our own hands, but only after perfected it to a T or having parents willing to agree because their children has a horrific congenital condition

Or another one would be like if a bunch of people in your family decided it was okay to end a Doggos suffering but you advocate as a child to not end the dogs life but those in power which is like parents and grandparents says the dog has to go away. Then again that’s an “okay” example but it puts the point across I guess

tea, im debating veganism from the stance of ethics, so it absolutely has everything to do with this social contract is an awful thing to base your morals on because social contracts have led to some horrific things because of appealing to social contract mio himself had to agree raping a retarded person to death or a child with water on the brain was perfectly fine that slaughtering indigenous people was perfectly alright this is what happens when you debate from that standpoint lol why do i have to choose between animals and humans? i dont really understand there, because animal aggreculture has actually killed billions of humans thanks to infections such as swine flu. heart disease is the number one killer of americans and thats thanks to the massive amounts of meat we intake. plus global warming, and the fact that with the amount of water we have to give cows and amount of soy we feed them, the amount of meat that comes from that is a net loss of resources speaking from the end of practicality, animal farming in general is a net loss and iv been saying social contract, that the majority agree to something and make it law when did i say milking a cow or milk is intrinsically bad? iv actually stated that if the cow gets to keep her calf, is mated with naturally, and isnt hooked up to a machine, its perfectly fine same with chickens, my boyfriends sister has chickens as pets and i would cook with the eggs the problem is the vast majority of the milk you drink has been gathered through unethical means (aka factory farming) 95% of all meat is factory farmed iv actually stated before that i value human life above animals humans have a higher level of sentients and therefore should be given higher moral consideration but along those lines, animals are still sentient and still deserve moral consideration i believe a roach is lower then a dog for those reasons, but i would not step on a roach for no reason empathy should be the baseline of all moral constructs without empathy as a baseline torturing an animal is fine, or by the same vein torturing a retarded person is fine theres something called "name the trait" basically you have to name a trait that a human has that an animal lacks have you tried a vegan diet? its really not such a pain as people try and say it is. just eat more carbs, vegetables, fruits, and beans. all of these things are healthy for you, and you get to eat more as well (im a bit of a glutton so this works well for me xD) now when it comes to buying products that have not been animal tested, this gets trickier, but the foundation of veganism is doing as little harm and suffering as reasonably possible. should you forgo your dental health if you cant find a vegan toothpasta? thats not reasonable, so no

No the gene editing thing was just to show an example of a person having a bunch of people displeased with 1 person for what ever they were doing Not actually talking bout gene editing itself

well i believe that everything is a moral neutral to start with its the variables attached that decide if its wrong or right like incest incest in and of itself isnt wrong, but its when you add the variables of genetic deformities and power dynamics that it becomes wrong