Philosophy Thread~ Human Vs. Animal

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see. You mean that there are some Buddist that act out of sinc with Buddist teachings. Yes?🙂
Give that man a seegar!😃

Yes – the original argument was Buddists are superior because they respect** all** life, and we would be better if we did the same – didn’t eat meat, for example.

My experience – which is fairly extensive in the Far East – is that Buddists are no more moral than the rest of us. Buddism is far more visible in sterile practices than in influencing actual morality. People will burn joss sticks, and then kick a beggar our of their way.
 
If you object to abortion because you consider life itself (i.e: that an organism is animate) to be sacred, then that should extend to all life, pigs, chickens, babies etc. or else your belief that life is sacred isn’t consistent.
No, no, no. You have completely misrepresented our position. We believe that HUMAN life is sacred and, in fact, we believe that HUMAN life is intrinsically superior to animal and vegitable life. Therefore, your point is moot. Did no you not read my previous, very long, posts on how humans are different, and even superior to aninmals?
 
It is a trickier question though when members of a religion then try to legislate their beliefs into law. Many Catholics are active in movements which aim to pressure legislators to overturn court decisions which legalised abortion and also to introduce laws which would make abortion illegal in all circumstances, and the Church has also threatened to excommunicate Catholic politicians who support abortion legislation. Since the civil law is binding on all citizens in democratic countries, regardless of religious affiliation or belief, this then introduces a tough problem in Catholic moral or religious beliefs being legislated into law and then made binding, including on non-Catholics. A number of good arguments have been made that this endangers the separation of state and church, though it should be noted conservative Protestants and Orthodox also have much the same positions on moral issues.

In terms of ethical virtue, it is very important we consider virtue and the Good very carefully and not neglect the Good for airy-headed relativism and simple indulgence in dissolute pleasure. But at the same time we need to keep our guard up against any attempt to make democracy theocracy, however well-intentioned the beliefs of religious people may be in wanting to reform society and its evils.
Isn’t this rather tricky? Why should someone be able to legislate there lack or morality or their immorality on the society that I live in–but I have to go around with my hands tied behind my back and can’t legislate for the type of society I want to live in? I think abortion is bad for our society and has long-term detrimental effects on it–why can’t I argue for this in the public square? How is that forcing my religion on someone? What about those who have foisted abortion on us? Are they not forcing me to live in a society based on their beliefs? I think no fault divorce has reeked more havoc…oh why bother. Suffice it to say–that all laws are forcing us to live under someones set of beliefs–why should we be prevented from arguing for ours?

Peace,
Mark in Oregon
 
Isn’t this rather tricky? Why should someone be able to legislate there lack or morality or their immorality on the society that I live in–but I have to go around with my hands tied behind my back and can’t legislate for the type of society I want to live in? I think abortion is bad for our society and has long-term detrimental effects on it–why can’t I argue for this in the public square? How is that forcing my religion on someone? What about those who have foisted abortion on us? Are they not forcing me to live in a society based on their beliefs? I think no fault divorce has reeked more havoc…oh why bother. Suffice it to say–that all laws are forcing us to live under someones set of beliefs–why should we be prevented from arguing for ours?

Peace,
Mark in Oregon
Without reference to any religious values at all, the unborn child is unarguably a living human being. And if every living human being does not have a right to life – as a condition of his humanity – then none of us have a right to life, only a privilige that can be revoked by the government at any time. And if there is no right to life, there can be no other rights.

Who denies the right to life of the unborn denies the fundamental underpinning of human rights en toto.
 
It’s not following Catholic principles to commit murder, either – but many a Mafia Don goes to Mass every Sunday.

Cambodians are Buddists – does the phrase “Killing Fields of Cambodia” ring a bell?
In my understanding, the Khmer Rouge (who were responsible for the massacres in Cambodia) were not Buddhists, but Maoist Marxists.
 
In my understanding, the Khmer Rouge (who were responsible for the massacres in Cambodia) were not Buddhists, but Maoist Marxists.
I love it!!

Whenever the group being held up as an example does wrong, the automatic reaction is, “But they weren’t real Buddists (or Marxists, or whatever).”

They are buddists – bred in the bone. They pray, carry amulets, and have all the earmarks. You couldn’t tell a Khmer Rouge from a non-Khmer by his religious practices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top