Quote:
|
Ok Joey heres what I mean. I draw the line where I want. And frankly, I wouldn't be adverse to eating a human being if nothing else was available, certainly. But because of my excellent skill with SR (Only joking) that situation should never occur.
|
Does this mean there is no line, or does it mean you draw the line where you want? It seems you are saying both at the same time. If there is no line, why not kill a human being even if something else was available? If the line is where you want, where is that line?
Quote:
Civilians are permitted to kill chickens (humanely) and grapefruit, while only the government gives itself permission to kill humans. Different societies have different views on this. In some "primitive" societies of the past a male was not a man until he had killed someone (I'm not sure where any good links about this are, it's simply what I was taught in anthropology class).
Plenty of societies eat dog (to ancient taoists it's the only domesticated animal worth eating), and monkey is bush meat. The main potential health reason I could see for not eating human or monkey would be the increased chance of disease transmission. It's likely for a similar reason that pigs have to be cooked so much before eating (they're quite similar to humans, in taste and otherwise).
|
Openeyes -- I think you are right to say that the government in many ways dictates right and wrong. But of course this is ephemeral since each government then has different views of right and wrong as you pointed out (e.g. the Chinese think eating dog is fine, whereas we don't).
But, I have never been convinced that governments are capable of handling this responsibility -- after all, governments have committed the most horrendous crimes against morality. So, aren't we each responsible for determining a code of ethics within societal laws that we deem to be good and just? And if so, shouldn't we be able to articulate it?
Best,
Joey