You’re making it, even if it’s as something you think, that doesn’t change the fact that the logical structure of that reasoning is a false equivallence — killing and cannibalizing someone can’t never compare to just get someone else after you lost someone before — and if you say that it’s for some kind of respect, that seems really creepy, if I died tomorrow, I wouldn’t want my couple to be sentenced to be alone (in a romantic and sexual way) the rest of their life, even if they promised that to me.
I never said killing someone. I said eating a dead human. Like eating the body of a dead human, getting into a relationship with another person after having been married is a thing that doesn’t physically harm anyone in any way but that I find to be completely wrong and morally repugnant.
That’s not a false equivalence, it’s just an actual equivalence that you don’t like hearing.
It’s still not comparable. Only what causes any kind of verifiable harm (physical, reputational, economic, psychological, psychiatric, etc.) can be considered bad, immoral, and unethical.
Anything that does not is simply amoral.
Thus it is a false equivalence.
You’re making it, even if it’s as something you think, that doesn’t change the fact that the logical structure of that reasoning is a false equivallence — killing and cannibalizing someone can’t never compare to just get someone else after you lost someone before — and if you say that it’s for some kind of respect, that seems really creepy, if I died tomorrow, I wouldn’t want my couple to be sentenced to be alone (in a romantic and sexual way) the rest of their life, even if they promised that to me.
I never said killing someone. I said eating a dead human. Like eating the body of a dead human, getting into a relationship with another person after having been married is a thing that doesn’t physically harm anyone in any way but that I find to be completely wrong and morally repugnant.
That’s not a false equivalence, it’s just an actual equivalence that you don’t like hearing.
It’s still not comparable. Only what causes any kind of verifiable harm (physical, reputational, economic, psychological, psychiatric, etc.) can be considered bad, immoral, and unethical. Anything that does not is simply amoral. Thus it is a false equivalence.
No. You’re preaching a philosophical ideology as if it were a factual reality everyone agreed upon.
Not ideology, but ethical system. And it’s because is really better than other systems that involve unverifiable or unfalsable propositions.