/lit/ - Literature

>>15763725
That's a tricky one because there's no strong relation between morality and torturing birds. Morality really just consists of the traffic rules for a social or eusocial animal, the natural taboos you must have to live effectively together. The taboo against murder reappears as a crime in every civilization, tribe and gang that has ever existed, because a group which murders each other cannot function. "Don't kill within the group;" that is the ancient taboo of murder. You can tell that morality consists of traffic rules by seeing that morality appears in much less intelligent animals, in very similar forms, and that certain critical morals are always the same, but other "fashion" morals can be very different even if they're viewed as just as important. People mistake the pull of instinct as the indication of the divine, but it's nothing more than adaptation. You instinctively cringe away from murder because if you didn't, your people wouldn't have made it this far.

Torturing birds is only an icky moral issue. The instinct of the kindness-oriented eusocial Westerner is that torturing birds is wrong, and the emotional charge of the word "torture" should make you feel what I mean. It is both our instinct and our custom to cringe away from the act of inflicting pain on other creatures, and doubly so if there's no apparent benefit to inflicting pain. We'll cringe away from torturing Muslim terrorists who want us all dead, of course we'll cringe when we see children ripping apart birds just to feel the flesh between their fingers. Our cringe on this issue is a result of thousands of years of adaptation to living in densely packed agrarian areas where everything belongs to someone and the desire to destroy randomly is disadvantageous. It's a bad desire to have in the traffic of civilization. But for the American Indians, it's not really that bad. Enjoying the death of small animals has, at worst, no impact on their likelihood of making it. And at best, a willingness to inflict death on innocent things for your own benefit prepares them for a life of hunting.

Rationalizing on this will just lead to madness. The logical arguments go all ways, and pursued to their ends the foundations rest on thin air. But that doesn't really matter to you, does it? You still don't like it. If you could, you would make them stop. And it's only due to your competing interest in Live and Let Live (another eusocial Westerner instinct) that you even feel compelled to debate over whether it's right to make them stop. A mere few centuries ago, your ancestors would've just beaten it out of them, with no qualms. They hadn't yet developed a Prime Directive custom.

>>13960758
>this book has historical value, therefore its content must be true

>>13317578

>>13183987
they can't

>>13148808
>unable to argue why human life should be seen as sacred
>reeeeeeee fucking retard

>>13048130
>"Gird up now they loins like a man, for I will ask thee, and answer thou me"
I wish God would speak to me like that bros

>>12831271
there is only one true god and its the catholic god all other christian sekts are meme tier anglo bullshit

>>12654427
>>12654374

he isn't baptised
heretics get out

>>12652325
You keep telling yourself that

>>12506360
If you say so anon.

Why is all religious philosphy so shit-tier?

It seem like every religious scripture I read be it Islamic or christian, it all just boils down to hope and blindful faith, it's kinda tacky and cringry to be honest, everytime I see religious people, especially teens they think their ideology to be perfection and all holy why dissmising their ignorance and hypocritism.
Just pray anon, just pray....