To be honest, and it's likely been mentioned on this thread before, all of our ethics are part consequentialism, part deontological, and part situationist. If you're religious, then virtue ethics are also going to play a part. Exceptions such as psychopathy excepted, there's really little to discuss.

... that's why there's little merit in discussing morality in itself. A part of the purpose of this thread is to discuss how others would act in a specific circumstance - and why they believe it's morally righteous to act in said way, which is presumably their objective.

 

I'd like to pose a question though - what if there were objective, absolute morality? Does that change anything at all?

... that's why there's little merit in discussing morality in itself. A part of the purpose of this thread is to discuss how others would act in a specific circumstance - and why they believe it's morally righteous to act in said way, which is presumably their objective.

 

I'd like to pose a question though - what if there were objective, absolute morality? Does that change anything at all?

 

The whole point of a moral code is the possibility of it being broken and the recommendations it has about what should be done when it is broken, theres no point including stuff about what to do when a rock is murdered if its not possible to murder a rock for example.

 

you'll need to define what you mean by objective and absolute before anyone can properly address what youre asking.

Moral absolutism is the position which holds that certain acts, e.g. stealing is always wrong regardless of context or circumstance.

 

Moral objectivism is the position which holds that whilst morality is independent of opinion/custom, it is not independent of context/circumstance.

 

I'd say moral absolutism, i.e. moral universalization is one of the worse positions, since it would mean that morality in itself becomes trivial (if morality has no bearing on real world consequences, then what is the point?)

As an ethnically Chinese individual, I'm often asked with slight prejudice about the Chinese consumption of dogs/cats.

 

It raises an important question - what's wrong with eating dogs/cats? On a purely ethical level, it would seem rather illogical to give dogs/cats any special or otherwise exclusive treatment in regards to their consumption or lack thereof.

 

Just to reiterate: what's wrong with eating dogs/cats?

Nothing, obviously (If you believe eating meat is alright)

It's puzzling as to why there's legislation against dog/cat consumption then - surely it's based on the ethical stance that dog/cat consumption is 'wrong'?

It's puzzling as to why there's legislation against dog/cat consumption then - surely it's based on the ethical stance that dog/cat consumption is 'wrong'?

 

Well, it's just some cultural thing. Dogs and Cats are usually pets in western society, so eating them would be frowned upon. It's not really different to table manners that differ from country to country etc.

As an ethnically Chinese individual, I'm often asked with slight prejudice about the Chinese consumption of dogs/cats.

 

It raises an important question - what's wrong with eating dogs/cats? On a purely ethical level, it would seem rather illogical to give dogs/cats any special or otherwise exclusive treatment in regards to their consumption or lack thereof.

 

Just to reiterate: what's wrong with eating dogs/cats?

For once, I think I actually agree with you. Either it's wrong to eat any animal, or it's fine to eat any animal. I think it's fine.

 

Not saying I'd do it myself, but I don't see anything objectionable about it.

It's puzzling as to why there's legislation against dog/cat consumption then - surely it's based on the ethical stance that dog/cat consumption is 'wrong'?

 

Well, it's just some cultural thing. Dogs and Cats are usually pets in western society, so eating them would be frowned upon. It's not really different to table manners that differ from country to country etc.

 

This is true, it's seemingly mainly a cultural thing; eating Cat or Dog is no different to eating any other meat really.

Well, it's just some cultural thing. Dogs and Cats are usually pets in western society, so eating them would be frowned upon. It's not really different to table manners that differ from country to country etc.

Yeah, I think it's mostly because most cats and dogs are domesticated as members of a human being's family. So it makes sense that eating a being that is considered part of your family is frowned upon.

 

So there's a certain amount of disdain when it comes to eating cats and dogs. Yet, aside from this case, I believe that there is no reason to exclude cats and dogs from human consumption (except maybe the fact that there exist other animals which provide much more sustenance than a cat/dog). Peter Singer's argument against animal brutality definitely sits well with me; the practical implication of this argument - becoming vegetarian - doesn't, though.