I agree. It is the fight against the knife, or the fear of facing destruction, that is the foundation of our morality as well as the fodder of our dream of immortality.
You fell for it. In case you need a reminder, it is illegal to eat a "boy" but that cow... yum, yum!. Is this where your a-theist moral relativity fits in?
Oh contraire my Gnostic muse. It supports the fact that morality is local and not transcendent in absolutely the most stark way possible. If you think otherwise, then God better get a memo out concerning the preservation of His creation. Has God instructed you into Buddhism?
Your gonna have to explain yourself. You want to eat boys but you don't want to go to prison so you don't. Is that your moral relativity kicking in?
No, I do not want to be eaten so I don't want human consumption of humans to be part of our lexicon of accepted human activity. That right there is where our morality originates. We did not have to work too hard to find the pain points. We experienced lawlessness and a lack of capacity to thrive under such conditions, so we introduced what God could not, a sense of justice, peace, and law that created the underlay of civilization. We experienced how animal we become when our survival was threatened, and we didn't like it, so we created strategies to keep that fear of personal destruction at bay. That's it. There is no transcendent supernatural to it. How do I know? Simple. History is the canvass that shows us that we figured this out on our own. God has nothing to do with any of it. If you disagree, show me where in the arc of human history where God made this clear outside our own experience.
God, as I stated above, isn't even concerned with souls as so many are shoved off the cliff without ever realizing his presence in a world we are forging on our own. Does God want a world where pigs are not to be eaten? Well, the next move is His then.
That was actually a very good, articulate response. Kudos, my friend! Damn you if you convert me to be an atheist. (just kidding, you still got a long ways to go!)
Your not addressing the actual OP. There is no mention of eating anyone or anything. It addresses the idea that each creature values it's own life and strives for survival.
I agree. But what are the implications of this? Does it mean we have to treat them all as equal?
Does each value their life?
I agree totally, except for the last sentence.
Ingrid Newkirk is a barking loon.
This doesn't follow.
How do you know that? How are you defining morality?
Do you have any examples of these irrational people?
Relevant to whom?
on the contrary. We are human. Any morality not based on humanity is not worthy of consideration. All morality is arbitrary and, if not bigoted, at the least subject to bias.
I would agree. I just don't think these people exist.