- Mickey1980
- |
- Noble Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Enlightened Ones. Join.
e^ix = cos(x) + isin(x)
Such that e is Euler's number, and i^2 = -1.
If you want help with homework: tell me what math class it is for, the name of the chapter you are on, and what specifically is difficult for you. Remember, I'm always glad to help :).
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
No, just no.
My argument is that it's wrong to eat meat. People have told me that it's ok to eat meat, because we do it for our health and survival. Because you totally don't get significant protein, B12, and others from eating meat.
Not that even if meat had no benefits, it would be morally wrong. Because there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with eating meat. On top of the fact that in our ecosystem animals tend to eat other animals, us eating certain animals is justified in the sense that they have less value because not only do they have less intelligence, they have a lower level of intelligence (i.e. they have no metacognitive abilities), which I believe is an accurate measure for the value of life. This makes the consumption of meat completely consistent with an Objectivist's ethics, because since animals are at such a lower level of value than humans are, making the health and convenience gained by eating meat ethically justified. Now, you may be thinking, ''What does an Objectivist's ethical system have to do with it? How do I know this is a good set of ethics to live by?'' I believe the ideal set of ethics would be that of the Objectivist philosophy because it not only gives a rational, objective way to decide the answer to an ethical question, but it gives this answer not based on factors that may or may not matter, but on a rational and moderate amount of self-interest that is very important to every human being on the planet, and logically not important to animals that are not capable of metacognition.