Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

Wait a minute here, when I studied Moral Philosophy, I can't recall anything that argued that the QUOTE-UNQUOTE murder of non-sentient, non-emotional beings (like carrots and apples) brought with it a questionable morality. However, I'm sure there are some fanatics out there arguing just that...but things die, things should and must die, and things survive from said death...death is a natural occurence, morality is not.

In another thread, you ridiculed someone by asking them if they've read any Nietzsche, and now I'm asking the same of you. For in all my years studying Nietzsche from a heavily focused Nietzschian school of thought, I was always under the impression that morality was nothing more than a human construct. And human constructs are absurd and inane when in regards to the natural order of things. Sure, morals exist, but only in as much as we are sentient beings with a highly charged emotional context and the ability to reason with abstract thought.

Ergo, from your argument, I can easily argue the point that because humans are so grand, that because humans have transcended nature, we have every right to belittle nature and use it as we see fit. We are the masters of this world...it belongs to us. For after all, is that not a question of morals, and not a question of nature?

So if you want to argue our ignorance through some half minded philosophical principle pertaining to what is morally questionable, which again is just really understanding the full scope of human transcendence over nature...then I can just easily ridicule you for your ignorance, for obviously you yourself haven't fully grasped the 'nature' of human transcendence.