♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You wouldn't hurt them because you set the moral rule that it would be a bad thing based on your own emotions/experiences. You can do it even if you don't empathize with someone, based on logical transference of properties. That works whether you feel it or not. A serial killer can still think what they're doing is wrong, even when empathy pathways don't work the same as most people.
I am assuming that we both agree that inflicting suffering on humans is wrong. If we don't, then the conversation is a non-starter. But if we do agree, then your position on chickens makes no sense. It is not sufficient to say that you don't empathize with chicken. At least not if you're debating ethics with others who do not share your brain. If your morals are based on nothing but how you currently feel about things, then why would I care? Like I said, I'll note that moral arguments with you are pointless and move on. I agree with what you were saying about breasts. I'm not going to convince someone that breasts aren't attractive, because attraction is impulsive and utterly subjective. If that's how you view morality, then that's that.
I don't get to make up the rules based on what I want and what I feel. We do. If society changes its morality and I don't change with it then I become a bad person.