LogFAQs > #889849291

DistantMemory posted...

My option was for those that viewed in entirely on the basis of legality, as implied by "I base my moral code simply on the law". Granted, I could have included many more poll options to more adequately cover possible views on the topic, but that would be frivolous and people will always be dissatisfied with the poll options, you being a prime example because I've certainly seen you whining about it several times, and not just in my topics.

The problem with that argument is that most people base their morality on society which is effectively the same as basing it around the law. There are relatively few things we accept as moral absolutes and not even all societies have accepted those as absolutes. Granted, there are plenty of immoral laws -- many of which involve taxation, executions, deprivation of property, etc -- but this isn't a matter of laws permitting it so much as it is laws not banning it (although there are countless restrictions)

DistantMemory posted...

I would say that taking a life for no purpose other than pride and/or fun is inherently immoral, though I grant that's subjective. But then so is all morality, so you could apply your "nothing inherently immoral" shlock onto anything.

But you're not protesting "all life." You're specifically protesting elephants. Likewise, eating meat is also a matter of enjoyment. After all, there are plenty of non-meat options available. Or are you only being immoral if you enjoy eating meat? If you don't enjoy the meat, are you being moral?

However, despite your pretense to the contrary, there's no great argument suggesting that sport hunting is immoral on the absolute level as murder, theft, etc.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash