RE: The Truth about Leftists
I read your article. Animals commit rape, murder, theft, etc. all the time in nature by the definition that we human beings give to those words. This is pretty obvious, and considering that human beings are also part of nature, in a purely biological sense, we are animals. However, human beings are the only animals that are capable of empathy, which is why human beings are the only animals who are capable of rape, murder, theft, etc. Evil (intentionally causing suffering unnecessarily) is an offshoot of empathy, if I know what hurts me, I know what will hurt you. A lion may attack you, eat you while you're still alive, and kill you slowly, but you can't call this evil, the lion is just eating. If a human being was to do the same action, it is evil, because he or she knows what he or she is doing, the human being can imagine the suffering he or she is causing because he or she can imagine it being done to him or her.
Also, I noticed in your article that you included things like cheating as part of immoral acts. This is not really the case. In the case of cheating, it is a breach of a contract between partners, it is not immoral as it is unaesthetic. The only immoral acts are those committed against the self-ownership of another. If I were to punch myself in the face, it is not evil because no one has a higher claim to my body and life than me because no one can literally use my body and life but me. Someone can threaten me and force me to do something, but ultimately the only one that can control my body and life is me. The immoral act if someone was to threaten me to force me to do something, is the threat and the actions of the other person. He or she is attempting to control something through force that he or she has no claim to.
If two partners are in a relationship, they have a contract between them of what is expected out of the relationship. If one of the partners was to decide to cancel the contract, all that needs to be done is to cancel the contract (basically just saying I don’t agree to this deal anymore, we need to renegotiate or part ways). If one of the partners decides to breach the contract, it may be a shitty thing to do, but it is not immoral, there was no violation of the self-ownership of the other person, only a breach of contract.
"If one of the partners decides to breach the contract, it may be a shitty thing to do, but it is not immoral, there was no violation of the self-ownership of the other person, only a breach of contract."
I'd call that immoral, according to my moral code.
The fact that you disagree means that your moral code is different.
Because I've seen evidence that people often perpetually disagree on right/wrong, I'll say that neither of us is objective right.
Your moral code is made up by you, and mine is made up by me.
That's why you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you.
Nothing is wrong with this.
It just means that morality is subjective.
A human being eating/ killing a chicken is not the same as a human being eating/ killing another human being because of what makes us different from a chicken, empathy. Since human beings are the only animals capable of this, they are able to reciprocate morality for each other, treat someone the way you want to be treated or at least don't treat someone in a way that causes suffering. I may be able to do this for an animal, but an animal is incapable of reciprocating. Like it or not, in a purely objective sense, the lives of human beings are more valuable than the lives of other animals because human beings are capable of morality, other animals are not. You are arguing that morality is not universal, but the only morality is that which is universal. Like you said, some cultures may believe that eating other animals is wrong or even that eating certain plants is wrong (Jainism), however ALL of those cultures would agree that killing a human being is wrong, that makes this universal. I believe what you are calling your moral code are your values (not saying there is anything wrong with living according to your values), true morality is always universal.
People don't go to war, governments do. If 99 percent of people thought murder was OK, it would still be immoral. Are you saying what is right and wrong depends on how many people agree with you? I don't think a bird spends it's life dreaming of the slaughterhouse or of anything else, it isn't capable of it. It obviously experiences pain, if you think it's wrong to eat a chicken, don't eat the chicken, that's between you and the chicken, it has nothing to do with me or any other person.