More claims of objective morality with no basis

It’s a big irk of mine when someone tries to claim an objective basis for morality while going outside the supposed source of objectivity. The religious have a habit of it. I don’t get it; it’s so simple. If a person claims something is objectively moral without being able to directly source said claim, then there is no objectivity. The claim may still be moral, but subjectively so.

Of course, religidiots don’t always get it.

You are aware by now that a 12,000 pound killer whale at SeaWorld Orlando killed his trainer Dawn Brancheau yesterday by pulling her into a pool and dragging her around until she drowned, in front of a crowd of stunned guests.

Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture…

If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone’s misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.

Says the ancient civil code of Israel, “When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable.” (Exodus 21:28)

So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death. You have no moral culpability in the death, because you didn’t know the animal was going to go postal on somebody.

So, your animal kills somebody…? Animal? The Bible does not support a case for stoning animals in the given passage. It explicitly states ox or bull (depending on which of the varied, inconsistent Bibles one chooses). It goes on further to state other specific animals and the ‘morality’ surrounding them and particular situations. The conclusion here is that the website advocating for the immoral death of a captive whale has no basis for making its supposed objective claim. Instead, it relies on extrapolating something explicitly specific from a book written by very simple men who had no notable training in philosophy and certainly no understanding of how their already ugly words would be made even uglier. And it’s all subjective.

About these ads

9 Responses

  1. I am not sure what the original article had to do with objective morality, or why you felt the need to go on about it – but the principle in Exodus seems to be that the owners of an animal (ox was a typical stand in for a potentially deadly animal – one was unlikely to be killed by a goat or a sheep) aren’t cupable in the death of the first human the animal kills, but would be culpable if the animal kills again.

    It’s pretty sound legally and morally – if I have a dog who kills a child, and I keep that dog around, and it kills again, my legal liability would grow. That would be the same for an ox, a whale, or whatever. This all seems fairly clear.

  2. Except you’re drawing from your own ideas of morality and going beyond the text. Read the next view lines. It’s specific about its animals and the arbitrary laws concerning them.

    You know. Because it was written by Jew farmers for Jew farmers. Male Jew farmers.

  3. Except you’re drawing from your own ideas of morality and going beyond the text. Read the next view lines. It’s specific about its animals and the arbitrary laws concerning them.

    You know. Because it was written by Jew farmers for Jew farmers. Male Jew farmers

    Well beside the fact there isn’t any significant evidence that ancient ‘male Jewish farmers’ were sitting around writing out books full of civil and moral code for Israelite society, the reality is that drawing a principle from the law was the job of the judges of Israel, who were appointed to review the law and apply to particular circumstances (thus, the book of Judges). And there is a fine Rabbinic tradition of drawing prinicple from code (indeed, Jesus often did this).

    There are certainly dangers to doing this as well, and the Scribes and Pharisees of the NT were wont to take it too far. But taken as a whole that section of law makes it pretty clear that humans are responsible for controlling their lovestock, and one can be held liable for obvious negligence. I would think this would apply to any animal, and even apart from Mosaic law, it’s a pretty sound principle.

  4. They should have put that poor creature out of it’s misery as soon as they knew they couldn’t release it back to the wild. Your ridiculous apologist stretches in order to show that your interpretation of passages from a book written by goatherders proves anything, is noted.

  5. They should have put that poor creature out of it’s misery as soon as they knew they couldn’t release it back to the wild. Your ridiculous apologist stretches in order to show that your interpretation of passages from a book written by goatherders proves anything, is noted.

    So basically you agree with the goatherders on this count, you just don’t don’t like the fact that they are right?

  6. So basically you agree with the goatherders on this count, you just don’t don’t like the fact that they are right?

    This is your problem, perfectly illustrated. Because the outcome of both our opinions is the same, thus I must agree with their mangled, imbecilic methods for coming to that conclusion.

    Lemme break it down for you, Corrigan. I do not approve of this animal ever being put into the aquarium at all. If it could not survive in the wild, it should have been euthanized. The fact that it dragged someone around in the tank is irrelevant to me, as we’re talking about an animal that hasn’t had the opportunity to learn good morals from the bible, as yet anyway, and the people using this animal for profit, knowing that the confines of the tank were detrimental to the animal’s mental fitness, should be charged with as many offenses as legally possible.

    And I can opine thus even though I believe that your bible is a ridiculous operating manual for misogynists and fascists. I not only do not need your god to guide me morally, I think that people who need scripture to help them decide what is moral to be weak and afraid, scared to let go of Daddy’s* hand, and walk on their own.

    *-Daddy, of course, is a crazy mass murderer and despot, but admitting that you’d much rather hold Mommy’s hand would make you a Liberal!!! and we sure can’t have that.

  7. So, just to be clear, aside from all the dissembling, you agree with the Bible on this count?

  8. You’re about a stupid fuck.

  9. Have a great day trog.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers

%d bloggers like this: