Reported Post by Skyline GTR

[Skyline GTR]

Skyline GTR has reported a post.

Reason:

we didn't need to see that little girl...

Post: What Do You Think About The U.S Marine Throwing The Cute Puppy Off The Cliff
Forum: General Discussion / Off Topic
Assigned Moderators: Nathan', Billyy

Posted by: Shredderbeam
Original Content:

In other words, you do not attribute specific moral or immoral value to certain events?

Right. Some things simply are, devoid of any morality. You might as well ask: Is a rock moral?

For someone who was just arguing moral rights in the anti Rape device thread, I wouldn't have expected that.

I was arguing moral rights for humans, as rational beings deserve rights.

That is actually inhuman. I really cannot fathom how, in good conscience, someone could actually throw a dog off a cliff. I am not a animal rights activists, but I still have firm beliefs in innocent animals being treated fairly, and not mistreated. I'm pretty sure that is mistreatment.

I cannot fathom how anybody would get upset over it. It's a puppy. It's not a person with a family, it didn't have hopes or dreams, it couldn't even comprehend the notion of rights.

rofl but how would you like it if that was your puppy being thrown over that cliff?

I'd be upset, of course, as anybody would if their property was thrown off a cliff.

Ok. So, under Kant's categorical imperitive, any action that we can rationally and sincerely will for any person to do in a situation would be considered moral. If we cannot rationally and sincerely will for someone to do that action, that action is immoral.

If you accept Kant's argument, then yes, that is correct.

So, can we rationally and sincerely will for someone, regardless of whether he is a marine or not, to demonstrate cruelty to animals by chucking a puppy off the side of a ship?

We can rationally and sincerely will for somebody to treat a dog as property, yes.

The answer... would be no. First of all, all living beings have a basic set of rights, one of which is the right to be alive.

Unjustified assumption. You need to demonstrate why they have these rights.

Furthermore.. how can we claim an act of senseless violence against an innocent animal as rational?

What is rational is that he has the right to treat property in any way that he wishes.

We can't, once again. The animal has limited ways to defend itself. The marine is vastly overpowered in comparison. How is it rational to harm something that has done you little to no harm and has very little potential to do so? The act cannot be rational, so under Kant, it cannot be moral.

Let me copy that paragraph, but replace "animal" with "sofa":

"We can't, once again. The sofa has limited ways to defend itself. The marine is vastly overpowered in comparison. How is it rational to harm something that has done you little to no harm and has very little potential to do so? The act cannot be rational, so under Kant, it cannot be moral."

You're presuming that the puppy actually has a right to life. This is the underlying flaw in your argument.

weird. stop arguing about moral issues.

No.

Like a similar thread comes up EVERY week, its wrong, we all are aware of that.

It's not wrong.

i think its fake truthfully

It's real.

I hope that guy dies a horrible painful death...that is the worst thing I have EVER seen...

If that's the worst thing that you have ever seen, then you must not have seen a lot:

But no, I'm sure that the poor, sad little puppy is worth fretting about.

Unfortunately, yes. People do not try to understand WHY it is immoral, they just know it is. Ask them why and they won't know the answer.

I'm speaking of objective morality, not what most people think morality is.