Quotes About Morality

Baz? hayvanlar? sevip onlara ailemizin birer üyesi gibi muamele ederken, onlara hissetme yetilerinden, duygusal kapasitelerinden, kendilerinin fark?nda olan birer ki?i olduklar?ndan asla ?üphe duymazken, onlardan hiç de farkl? olmayan ba?ka hayvanlar?n ölü bedenlerine çatal b?çaklar?m?z? saplamam?za neden olan ahlaki ?izofrenimize son vermemiz gerekir!

In short, humans possess no characteristic unique to themselves that can justify differential treatment solely on the basis of species.

Whatever characteristic we identify as possessed only by humans will not be possessed by all humans. Some humans will have the exact same deficiency that we attribute to animals, and although we may not allow such humans to drive cars or attend universities, most of us would shut out the prospect of enslaving such humans, using them as unconsenting subjects in biomedical research, or otherwise using them exclusively as a means to an ends.

The ability to communicate may be relevant to whether we make you the host of a talk show, or give you a job teaching in a university, but it is not relevant to whether we should kill you and remove your organs for transplant into another human, or whether we should enslave you so that you may labor for those without your particular disability.

We would finally have to confront our moral schizophrenia about animals, which leads us to love some animals, treat them as members of our family, and never once doubt their sentience, emotional capacity, self-awareness, or personhood, but at the same time we stick dinner forks into other animals who are indistinguishable in any relevant sense from our animal companions.

If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on animals based on what is "natural" or "traditional", it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.

Old habits die hard, but that does not mean they are morally justified. It is precisely in situations where both moral issues and strong personal preference is coming to play that we should be most careful to think clearly. As the case of meat-eating shows, however, sometimes our brute preferences determine a moral thinking rather than the other way around. Many people have said to me "Yes I know it's morally wrong to eat meat, but I just love hamburgers.

Our conduct merely demonstrates that despite what we say about the moral significance of animal interests, we are willing to ignore those interests whenever we benefit from doing so - even when the benefit is nothing more than our pleasure or convenience.

If we take morality seriously, then we must confront what it dictates: if it is wrong for Simon to torture dogs for pleasure, then it is morally wrong for us to eat meat.

if you remove the cross from Christianity, all that remains is some wise moral teaching not terribly different from any other religion.

There is nothing morally superior about wanting to live on a farm, in a city apartment, or in a house in the suburbs.

but if someone's character has no foundation, there's nothing to build on.

It wasn't easy. In junior high, I was voted "most polite," and it took some time for me to realize that being perceived as a "nice guy" and being a faithful Christian don't always go hand in hand.

Sin never seems quite as shocking when it is known only to us; when we see how it looks or sounds to another, it is magnified ten times over.

I don't believe in the concept of hell, but if I did I would think of it as filled with people who were cruel to animals.

There is no doubt that Christianity teaches pluralism, but a very special kind of pluralism: plural institutions under God's single comprehensive law system. It does not teach a pluralism of law structures, or a pluralism of moralities, for this sort of hypothetical legal pluralism (as distinguished from institutional pluralism) is always either polytheistic or humanistic...

In a case like this, most Christians won't even bother to ask what Jesus would do. That's because the answer wouldn't match their feelings. As we've indicated before, the answer would always be the same — he'd forgive.

H]e cannot be drunken or dirty; the slightest dubiousness is quick to exile him to the police force, journalism, the oyster boats or some other Siberia of the broken.

History is full of examples of people who clamp down after they began to enjoy too much freedom. Freedom can lead to instability, anarchy, and confusion. So there can be a moral counter-revolution.

And our conservationist-environmentalist-moral outrage is often (in its frustration) aimed at the logger or the rancher, when the real power is in the hands of people who make unimaginably larger sums of money, people impeccably groomed, excellently educated at the best universities - male and female alike - eating fine foods and reading classy literature, while orchestrating the investment and legislation that ruin the world.

All sentient beings should have at least one right—the right not to be treated as property

Ethical veganism represents a commitment to nonviolence.

We proclaim human intelligence to be morally valuable per se because we are human. If we were birds, we would proclaim the ability to fly as morally valuable per se. If we were fish, we would proclaim the ability to live underwater as morally valuable per se. But apart from our obviously self-interested proclamations, there is nothing morally valuable per se about human intelligence.

We cannot justify treating any sentient nonhuman as our property, as a resource, as a thing that we an use and kill for our purposes.