Shitty soup

If I reject your moral imperatives against, I don't need to find moral imperatives for, I just need to be happy that it's ethically neutral.....

No. Once a moral imperative is established, an opposing moral imperative is required to 'reject' it. This could result in either a dilemma or an outcome in which either imperative would prevail (in your moral judgement, by the way--we're not talking about Platonic forms of ideal moral facts; moral agents are self-governing/morally autonomous). Neither dilemmas nor the other outcome would be morally neutral.

like your standing up/sitting down example, which needs context Ollie, in order to be convincing ;^)

Actually, no--I'm only giving the example in this reduced form. Supplying more context would create a more specific example, which would quite conceivably have a different moral evaluation. (I do take note of the smiley, of course.)

Save the planet Oliver- you eating Clive's Lymph soup rather than something produced from farming means that you have, in a small way reduced your footprint on the world.

I'm shocked that you fail to see that by your own lights you are practically compelled to attend Clive's buttock draining with a portable gas burner, pan and spoon.

I take it that your irony indicates I've answered your 'quite genuine' question above?

No. Once a moral imperative is established, an opposing moral imperative is required to 'reject' it.

Who says your moral imperative was established? Only you, which seems rather circular as arguments go.

'Mulligatawny' - surely someone can get a pun out of that?

From soup to Tupperware™ to salad and and now we are going on about Clive's buttock lymph soup™.
This thread is getting better by the day.
It is no good without pictures though.

Who says your moral imperative was established? Only you, which seems rather circular as arguments go.

I didn't. I responded to your hypothetical question in which you assumed that I had moral imperatives:

If I reject your moral imperatives against, I don't need to find moral imperatives for, I just need to be happy that it's ethically neutral.....like your standing up/sitting down example, which needs context Ollie, in order to be convincing ;^)

You're also equivocating between the meaning of 'established' as merely held and unquestioned. I never meant the latter--that could only be the outcome of universal moral agreement. This is never going to happen--even the categorical imperative will continue to be questioned.

The question is still: How would you reject a moral imperative unless it were by another, perhaps more powerful, moral imperative?

I take it that your irony indicates I've answered your 'quite genuine' question above?

Let me restate it then- I say that there can be nothing morally objectionable about consuming Clives' lymph when he has willingly donated it.

To take it further if Clive is willing to donate it for your consumption I would say that the onus falls on you to consume it as otherwise it would be destroyed and its nutritional value squandered.

I didn't. I responded to your hypothetical question in which you assumed that I had moral imperatives:

The question is still: How would you reject a moral imperative unless it were by another, perhaps more powerful, moral imperative?

I agree my wording was poor - I should have said that I don't accept that this hypothetical occurence has any moral imperative - i.e. that it is as neutral as your standing up/sitting down example. To follow your line, all you have to do is get in there first and say "this is unethical" - anyone who then disagrees can't just say it's ethically neutral, they have to say that it's positively ethical. Like an intellectual version of getting the first punch in.

Speaking of which, if you carry on with this nonsense, I'm going to hit you and argue about the ethics of that later :0

before we move on to punching and ethics thereafter, has anyone actually thought what lymph fluid is? and what it's potential benefits are? or indeed, more likely, risks?

before we move on to punching and ethics thereafter, has anyone actually thought what lymph fluid is? and what it's potential benefits are? or indeed, more likely, risks?

Shhhh, we're testing it on Ollie

right. well. this won't conform to medical testing ethical guidelines. and it certainly can't be used as a data point in assessing the effectiveness of lymph fluid in bulking up a vegan.
we need a double blind study for that. how many more vegans do we have on the forum?
we'd need them, plus the most meat eating persons, plus some "normals". then randomize. then see.

otherwise this is just an exercise in beating someone up and making them drink the shit from another man's swollen buttock.
(video rights might be valuable for this, cliveo i'd look into this if i were you)

otherwise this is just an exercise in beating someone up and making them drink the shit from another man's swollen buttock.
(video rights might be valuable for this, cliveo i'd look into this if i were you)

I think Pickle has some useful info on this.

Oliver has a particularly rigid view of cliveo's arse ;^)

fxed

You don't allow for neutrality

He's German. Remember plucky little Belgium

Can we get back to the soup now please???? I'm going to make some tonight - maybe potato and bacon... freeze the sucker and bring it in tomorrow with a crusty roll? Recipes?

There is a soup recipe thread in Misc and Meaningless with many tasty suggestions, UTS and have a read through.

My favourite was the Chorizo, however I feel you should invent a new one and call it Lymph of Clive and contribute to the thread.

Can we get back to the soup now please???? I'm going to make some tonight - maybe potato and bacon... freeze the sucker and bring it in tomorrow with a crusty roll? Recipes?

It'll end in tears.