Just When I Think I Like the Pope, He Pulls this Shit

[BigT]

@ParallelLines

So we disagree on moral responsibility. You feel very strongly about this, and claiming the moral authority to dictate said moral responsibility to people who OBVIOUSLY don’t share yours. So, yeah, going to stick with you being a hypocrite of the worst sort. You fit the quote I provided to a T. You’re the worst sort of humblebraggart, the one who hides behind a curtain as they pass judgement on everyone around them based on a personal moral code that they are smugly self-righteous about. If you are certain that only you have the divine revelation about morality, then you should be off running your church - not here.

Or if you acknowledge that other people can and do make moral decisions without agreeing with yours, then you can just apologize. But since you decided that comparing moral responsibility is similar in any way to endorsing pedophilia, I’m going to just assume you’re a fucking troll - because that is what a troll would do. So once again, I find your continued support for the argument that some humans aren’t worth saving worthwhile, using you as a prime example of people not worth the risk of my life (but unlike you, I don’t disregard the morals of someone else who might find you worth saving, see the difference?).

So, because his morals differ from yours, that means he is not worth saving? That he is worth less as a human being because of that?

This is exactly what happens when you act like morals are up to each person. You just have people saying what they feel is what is right. And that was his point with the reference to pedophilia and such. A child molester thinks that pedophilic acts are perfectly moral. Do we then act like their morals are just as valid? Of course not.

The idea that everyone’s morals are completely valid is clearly not true. Otherwise you guys wouldn’t be upset at the Pope, thinking he said something immoral. You clearly do not believe that everyone is entitled to their own morals.

I can see your argument that a pet is more defenseless. In some cases, I could see that meaning that saving your pet is more moral. I could even see an argument that saving a particularly evil person’s life might not be better than saving a pet. Those could, in some circumstances, tip morality in favor of saving a pet.

I also know that, in a crisis, we don’t always think the clearest. So I would not hate on someone who saved their pet. Your actions at that point are mostly instinct, anyways.

But I cannot see any valid argument for why a pet’s life is worth more than any other human’s life. I cannot see how you think any human who is dying would prefer you to save your pet instead of them. And, unless you are a vegan, you clearly don’t think that animal lives matter as much as human lives in general. Plus, if it were true, then it would be moral to kill a stranger to save your pet.

I don’t agree with Chessic Sense on much at all. And I don’t agree with his broader point. And he definitely could have made his point in a kinder way. But I have to agree with him that morality is not merely up to the individual. And I have to agree that, in general, your pet’s life, no matter how much you live him, is not worth more than some innocent person’s life.

And I must argue that it is extremely dangerous to start devaluing the lives of people who argue with you or are mean to you. He is right that those who argue such things cannot argue the moral high ground.

My interpretation of the above is that you are angry, and saying things that come off a lot worse than they should. I do not judge you. But I do argue you are wrong. Not merely that my morals disagree with yours–but that you are wrong.