Nobody teaches this in church. Don't try saving the bacteria you step on though or you'll go crazy trying. Been there, done that. Tricky ethics... But I would agree. Gators need to eat though. Humans need to eat, but we can eat plants, but plants are conscious to an extent, so on practical matters this argument needs to be clarified and such clarification could be construed to preference. Simply, that's what all relative morality is, unless you've found (or thought you've found) an objective ethical framework, not to say I even have one... But do you? Perhaps then, objectivity doesn't entirely matter, but consistency and a working system does... And thus the problem is in teaching someone an ethical framework that goes against such consistency and working system. Any takers? This is a logically recursive problem of ethics that I have.
![Christine Korsgaard on the Moral Standing of Animals [AUDIO ONLY]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chnWsG8WZsI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Christine Korsgaard on the Moral Standing of Animals [AUDIO ONLY]](/img/tr.png)
Nobody teaches this in church.
Don't try saving the bacteria you step on though or you'll go crazy trying. Been there, done that.
Tricky ethics... But I would agree. Gators need to eat though. Humans need to eat, but we can eat plants, but plants are conscious to an extent, so on practical matters this argument needs to be clarified and such clarification could be construed to preference.
Simply, that's what all relative morality is, unless you've found (or thought you've found) an objective ethical framework, not to say I even have one... But do you?
Perhaps then, objectivity doesn't entirely matter, but consistency and a working system does... And thus the problem is in teaching someone an ethical framework that goes against such consistency and working system.
Any takers?
This is a logically recursive problem of ethics that I have.