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.
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.