Quote:


Depends on who the "others" were, and why they were being killed, I suppose.

In the absence of some absolute moral authority as the arbiter of right and wrong, anything can be justified.  

Quote:



Fundamental ethical question, in fact.

I'm not sure what it's got to do with giraffes though.

If you are conflicted about the morality or ethics of trophy hunting vs. killing animals for food, I get that. It's a dilemma a lot of people struggle with I think. But your question was about killing humans.

Quote:


Giraffes are not human beings. Neither are the animals that humans have used for food for millenia. And of course the non-human inhabitants of the planet kill and eat one another also.

I guess I just don't see the connection between your question and the debate over whether it was or was not OK for the lady to shoot the giraffe.

Quote:


Yes.

Killing to defend one's own life is an absolute right, IMO.
Killing to defend someone else's life may or may not be morally justified but the right to do that is not absolute.
Killing animals for food(survival) is also an absolute right. Humans evolved to be omnivores. We eat the flesh of other animals , as well as he other foods that we are capable of eating to sustain life.
Killing animals for sport or trophys is another issue entirely and is open to debate. Hence the social  media sh*tstorm over this specific animal and similar ones in the recent past.

I can tell you what I think, but unless you and I agree on where the moral authority for determining whether such an activity is right or wrong comes from, all that really amounts to is what I THINK.

Regardless of whatever argument those on either side of the issue try to claim justify their point of view, there will never be an answer that satisfies everyone.

Unless of course the fundamental question is answered first.

Is there some absolute moral authority for what we do.?   And if so, where, or from whom, or from what, does it come?.

Killing to defend one's own life is an absolute right, IMO.
Killing to defend someone else's life may or may not be morally justified but the right to do that is not absolute.
Killing animals for food(survival) is also an absolute right. Humans evolved to be omnivores. We eat the flesh of other animals , as well as he other foods that we are capable of eating to sustain life.
Killing animals for sport or trophys is another issue entirely and is open to debate. Hence the social  media sh*tstorm over this specific animal and similar ones in the recent past.

I can tell you what I think, but unless you and I agree on where the moral authority for determining whether such an activity is right or wrong comes from, all that really amounts to is what I THINK.

Regardless of whatever argument those on either side of the issue try to claim justify their point of view, there will never be an answer that satisfies everyone.

Unless of course the fundamental question is answered first.

Is there some absolute moral authority for what we do.?   And if so, where, or from whom, or from what, does it come?.



[/quote] It is interesting that no matter which side we are on we place an Intrinsic value on humans above all the other life on earth. We claim to have inalienable rights. We feel we should be treated Justly just because we are humans.

So what is it that gives us this Intrinsic vale? If we are just an accident which rose from chance, time, matter. Why do we have any more value than ants?

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/02/18 at 07:08:48:



Yeah, I did too....

So, can we investigate moral authority?

From where does it derive?

Lets back off a wee bit, first, while I try and exhibit the fallacy of man, believing he has the capacity to assign authority, to anything....

I suspect his motivation is tainted, toward his desired results.

If you recall, I have shared  this quote: We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves. (Eric Hoffer)

I read that in my teens, I have often used it to self scrutiny, even when I didn't want to  

So, if we default (our) actions, to a threshold based on moral authority, as just cause, for societal behavior, how is that universally acceptable when folks claim there is NO societal (beliefs) absolutes.....

Using a argument based with a absolute?    

How can we say we believe in free speech, yet put restrictions, AND punishment, societal retaliations, upon that speak we don't like?

Its not free then, is it?

Just another feel good about self, justifications, to enforce MY wants, needs, beliefs....

Is that honesty, or deception based on manipulation, of others?

Look at the Eric Hoffer quote again.....
Within its understanding is freedom, yes?

Can any of you grant me freedom of truth, if I myself, do not embrace it, first?

Anybody wanna field these questions?

society you find yourself in determines truth.

That is trouble awaiting implementation, is it not?

Is honesty and truth linked?

in my view on the giraffe  for example is as long as it's not an endangered species or there is some compelling reason otherwise, I don't have a problem with it. But then I've hunted things before, it doesn't bother me or freak me out like others. I'm not gonna pull a jimmy Kimmel and start crying.