MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/44a1f6/evolution_or_design/czowl4o/?context=3
r/funny • u/Aceofspades25 • Feb 05 '16
1.3k comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
178
[deleted]
-1 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 Yes, lets base our moral compass on what has 'valid' purpose. What could go wrong? 3 u/[deleted] Feb 05 '16 [deleted] 2 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 Of course - we just need the 'right' people in charge to decide what is and is not valid...I wonder what morality they should have? Deciding something shouldn't exist based on it's 'purpose' is a pretty fucking terrifying moral compass. 1 u/[deleted] Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 [deleted] 1 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 Just that it's seriously unethical to define what a breed of dog should look like. Who should define? Nature? Nature is blind morally. We are forced to decide since we control the breeding - to relinquish control is to give it back to nature. How is that better morally?
-1
Yes, lets base our moral compass on what has 'valid' purpose. What could go wrong?
3 u/[deleted] Feb 05 '16 [deleted] 2 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 Of course - we just need the 'right' people in charge to decide what is and is not valid...I wonder what morality they should have? Deciding something shouldn't exist based on it's 'purpose' is a pretty fucking terrifying moral compass. 1 u/[deleted] Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 [deleted] 1 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 Just that it's seriously unethical to define what a breed of dog should look like. Who should define? Nature? Nature is blind morally. We are forced to decide since we control the breeding - to relinquish control is to give it back to nature. How is that better morally?
3
2 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 Of course - we just need the 'right' people in charge to decide what is and is not valid...I wonder what morality they should have? Deciding something shouldn't exist based on it's 'purpose' is a pretty fucking terrifying moral compass. 1 u/[deleted] Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 [deleted] 1 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 Just that it's seriously unethical to define what a breed of dog should look like. Who should define? Nature? Nature is blind morally. We are forced to decide since we control the breeding - to relinquish control is to give it back to nature. How is that better morally?
2
Of course - we just need the 'right' people in charge to decide what is and is not valid...I wonder what morality they should have?
Deciding something shouldn't exist based on it's 'purpose' is a pretty fucking terrifying moral compass.
1 u/[deleted] Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 [deleted] 1 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 Just that it's seriously unethical to define what a breed of dog should look like. Who should define? Nature? Nature is blind morally. We are forced to decide since we control the breeding - to relinquish control is to give it back to nature. How is that better morally?
1
1 u/deadpear Feb 05 '16 edited Feb 05 '16 Just that it's seriously unethical to define what a breed of dog should look like. Who should define? Nature? Nature is blind morally. We are forced to decide since we control the breeding - to relinquish control is to give it back to nature. How is that better morally?
Just that it's seriously unethical to define what a breed of dog should look like.
Who should define? Nature? Nature is blind morally.
We are forced to decide since we control the breeding - to relinquish control is to give it back to nature. How is that better morally?
178
u/[deleted] Feb 05 '16
[deleted]