Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[ForEverAfter]

What RM posted wasn't an absolutist approach any more than anybody having an opinion about anything can be described as absolutism... It wasn't absolutely anti-absolutist.

It's okay to be an absolutist, but it's not okay to be an absolutist if...

An absolute anti-absolutist (say that five times fast) stance wouldn't include a clause. An absolute anti-absolutist stance would be: It's not okay to be an absolutist, full stop... in which case the reaction might be warranted.

...

How's that for nit-picking?

 

[Ninae]

It wasn't directed at him but the general outlook that in other words says "There is no right or wrong - everything is relative", etc. I don't agree that it is and a lot of the time it seems to be used to escape any accountability or criticism.

And I don't think it's so much that he doesn't understand those parables as that he finds them annoying. As most will find it extremely annoying to be hit over the head with a parable from the bible when they've done something wrong (especially if it's right)

 

[swilow]

What RM posted wasn't an absolutist approach any more than anybody having an opinion about anything can be described as absolutism... It wasn't absolutely anti-absolutist.



An absolute anti-absolutist (say that five times fast) stance wouldn't include a clause. An absolute anti-absolutist stance would be: It's not okay to be an absolutist, full stop, in which case the reaction might be warranted.

Absolutely.

Look, I'm just pleased I got to use the word "tautological". I even edited the word contradictory out in favour of it. That is lexical devotion for you.

Sadly, I appear to have misread Ninae's words or their meaning's have changed.



I could be tripping my friends. If only I had a top hat, I would doff it gracelessly...

 

[Ninae]

What many who distance themselves from absolutes mean, though, is there doesn't have to be any absolutes when it suits them. And if everyone were like that there would be no absolutes. Of course no on literally believes there are no absolutes, so that wasn't really the issue.

 

[RichardMooner]

LOL. I think you made an easy get-out. Examening an "anti-absolutism" in a critical way is no worse than taking a critical view of absolutism (as far as I can see). In that case you might as well say these two outlooks have no substantial difference and aren't even worth mentioning.

But those parables seem pretty straightforward?

I was referencing the first statement. Being critical of absolutism as it exists within institutionalized systems of ethics, and being critical of anti-absolutism are very different criticisms. I am not anti-absolutist. I was saying that absolutists who do not put acts of "immorality" in context are treading on shaky ground.

For analogy, in the 1793 when the U.S passed the Fugitive Slave Act, slaves who ran away from plantations had committed the crime of "self-theft" because they were considered to be the private property of another human being, whom they were depriving of by not offering the labor they were legally obligated to offer.

If you look at it from a theological paradigm, in which it is unethical to own slaves, are runaway slaves still committing the crime of theft?

 

[RichardMooner]

What RM posted wasn't an absolutist approach any more than anybody having an opinion about anything can be described as absolutism... It wasn't absolutely anti-absolutist.



An absolute anti-absolutist (say that five times fast) stance wouldn't include a clause. An absolute anti-absolutist stance would be: It's not okay to be an absolutist, full stop... in which case the reaction might be warranted.

...

How's that for nit-picking?

Best I've seen all night.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Nina,
Aren't you absolutely convinced of the psychic/divine powers of various "channelers"?
I mean: how are you any different?

if everyone were like that there would be no absolutes

Everybody, including you, is like that... at least some of the time.
You seem to repeatedly attempt to elevate yourself above /separate yourself from other people.

 

[Ninae]

I believe in absolutes. I believe things can be either good or bad. I can make excuses and justifications to myself but I can't lie or hide the truth for myself (I don't see it as constructive).

The validity of psychics, or not, is not something that can be proven or disproven objectively and has nothing to do with absolutes as far as I can see.

And I don't try to elevate myself, I'm harder than myself than most. However, I do like to share my spiritual experiences and don't see why we shouldn't. Of course we won't all have had the same experiences to talk about but that's what makes it interesting. Some have met God, some are clairvoyant, but who's to say only the part of it you have experienced is valid? I don't look at it that way - I strive to experience more and acknowledge I can have things to learn from many.

 

[RichardMooner]

I didn't understand your reaction to what you quoted, either.
Or, at least, I don't think it warranted that sort of reaction.
What RM said made perfect sense to me.



While I'm not sure that this is meant to be interpreted literally, it functions literally... so, it doesn't really matter either way.
What is literally described in that passage is intentional (and undeniable) theft, isn't it?
You can't let your cattle graze in a paddock that doesn't belong to you, without asking.
It's a serious issue and it (still) happens all the time.
There should be payment / consequences.



This passage doesn't even pertain to what we're talking about and - again - I don't disagree with it, if it is interpreted literally. Possession may be nine tenths of the law, but the right thing to do when you find someone else's property is to take care of it and return it to them.

Yes, it pertains to undeniable theft because the verse sates that the pasture definitively belongs to another man. However, the verse does not give reason to the private ownership of the pasture, more broadly, "what makes property private?".

The Native Americans originally inhabited the Americas, and then colonialism took over, seized all of the land, and kicked them out. Even though there was no exchange of services or payment in most cases, the tribes never regained all of the land they had inhabited in the past, and that land now belongs to somebody else. So how do you determine who's land it really is? The Tribe's because they were there first? The colonists because they had forced the previous inhabitants out?

As for the second verse, it also gives definitive ownership of the livestock, but not reason for that ownership.

 

[Ninae]

But I don't think it was meant to pertain to cases like that where ownership is in question...more to helping yourself to the field of a known neighbour farmer...so that's one example where it doesn't really apply.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm not really following you, RM.
Do you own anything?

In the first passage, it is a neighbor's property... and the person who allows their cattle onto it knows that it is their neighbor's property... In the second passage, it would (probably) be pretty clear whether or not the animal was wild or domesticated... The quotations you've provided aren't particularly ambiguous, unless I'm missing something.

...

Here's a contemporary real world translation.

1. It's wrong to enter your neighbor's house and eat from their vegetable garden, when they're not there.
2. It's wrong to find a wallet with cash in it and not do your best to track down the owner.

How can you argue with either of those statements?

 

[Ninae]

I think you have slightly misunderstood how this concept can be used and that is one of the problems with it.

 

[RichardMooner]

I'm not really following you, RM.
Do you own anything?

In the first passage, it is a neighbor's property... and the person who allows their cattle onto it knows that it is their neighbor's property... In the second passage, it would (probably) be pretty clear whether or not the animal was wild or domesticated... The quotations you've provided aren't particularly ambiguous, unless I'm missing something.

...

Here's a contemporary real world translation.

1. It's wrong to enter your neighbor's house and eat from their vegetable garden, when they're not there.
2. It's wrong to find a wallet with cash in it and not do your best to track down the owner.

How can you argue with either of those statements?

Sorry, I've been up for over 24 hours due to a depletion of my ambien prescription, so I'm having a bit of trouble articulating myself.

In the verse from Exodus, we know that the pasture is definitively private property.

The question is "Why is it private property?". Does this make any sense?

Maybe I've been up for too long. Haha

 

[ForEverAfter]

It makes as much sense as questioning why anything you own (or anybody owns) is their property.
I assume that you're not happy with random people living in your backyard, right? If not, why?

The validity of psychics, or not, is not something that can be proven or disproven objectively and has nothing to do with absolutes as far as I can see.

Nothing can be proven objectively, can it?

 

[RichardMooner]

But I don't think it was meant to pertain to cases like that where ownership is in question...more to helping yourself to the field of a known neighbour farmer...so that's one example where it doesn't really apply.

That's irrelevant. I'm not questioning the moral conviction behind letting your livestock graze in someone else's field.

The moral conviction is absolute. It is wrong to allow your livestock to graze in someone else's pasture without asking. That is the absolute.

The question, is by what terms do we define the ownership of the pasture?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Do you own anything? Do you think it would be right to allow your (hypothetical) pet goat to squeeze through a gap in your (hypothetical) suburban fence, and graze in your (hypothetical) neighbor's yard? How do you define the ownership of your home? If you buy a house, do you consider it public or private property? If you rent a house, do you allow homeless people to live in it? Do you lock the doors? If so, why?

 

[Ninae]

Nothing can be proven objectively, can it?

I meant to me an absolute is whether something is wrong or not or a principle that we can agree on. While whether something has happened or not is a truth only those who have seen it happen can know. If a psychic tells you your lifestory or everything that happened to you last year he might have proven himself to you but not to anyone else, so that is particularly subjective.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I see... You're talking about moral absolutism, not absolutism.

What are the objective moral absolutes of the universe?

 

[RichardMooner]

Do you own anything? Do you think it would be right to allow your (hypothetical) pet goat to squeeze through a gap in your (hypothetical) suburban fence, and graze in your (hypothetical) neighbor's yard? How do you define the ownership of your home? If you buy a house, do you consider it public or private property? If you rent a house, do you allow homeless people to live in it? Do you lock the doors? If so, why?

Are you asking from a Biblical perspective, or from my perspective?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'm asking you, not the Bible...
But, honestly, I don't see the difference.

You said:

In the Christian paradigm, stealing is a sin, concretely, but how exactly do you define stealing?

How is this a religious issue?
I mean: in society, stealing is a sin (just as concretely)... isn't it?
Stealing is defined through logical processes, as it always has been.
It's no different today.