Did you just put evil in quotation marks when referring to human slavery?
When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing.
What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?
"How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery."
"When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point"
"...but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing."
"What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?"
It's like you worked out that the intuitive emotional response that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out, googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought.
You're not going to learn anything, nor teach anyone anything, by asking a bunch of silly comparison questions in a tech forum. Any response short enough for anybody to bother writing is going to need to take a whole bunch of premises as givens and rely on definitions for words you don't agree with. It'll just keep leading to chains of posts like this where you just keep asking stupid comparison questions like you're some form of internet Socrates, and being pleased when people don't reply adequately/at all because you're the one with the negative claim and consider anything other than a full argument from them as a default win for yourself.
It might turn out that such a line of reasoning leads to the useless conclusion of "nothing is wrong" but it's certainly worth trying nonetheless. What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners. We just don't know because everyone agrees with us.
He's not thinking, he's typing. What he's typing is not a stream of consciousness nor shared with only himself, so he's obviously looking for some form of discussion (whether that's primarily because he wants to influence others is hard to say). However he's doing it while being combative and insulting. If that's what he wants then I'm here to provide.
>We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without having to continuously show that we agree with contemporary morals.
I agree completely however taking up this cause in the comment section of a tech forum, without putting any substantial argument down first, and then resorting to calling people brainwashed is a poor way to go about it. In fact by doing so that seems to be him saying he not only doesn't agree with contemporary morals but looks down on those that do.
>What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners.
I acknowledged in the post you're replying to that the conventional source of morality is intuitive emotion not well thought out concepts.
Way ahead of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaus...
Several writers, including Jewish Nobel Prize laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, and animal rights groups have drawn a comparison between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust